HomeMy WebLinkAboutM121100District No. 1 Commissioner: Dan Harpole
District No. 2 Commissioner: Glen Huntingford
District No. 3 Commissioner: Richard Wojt
County Administrator: Charles Saddler
Deputy County Administrator: David Goldsmith
Clerk of the Board: Lorna Delaney
MINUTES
Week of December 11, 2000
Chairman Richard Wojt called the meeting to order at the appointed time.
Commissioners Dan Harpole and Glen Huntingford were both present.
Approval of the Minutes: Commissioner Harpole moved to approve the Minutes of
November 13 and 20, 2000 as presented. Commissioner Huntingford seconded the motion which
carried by a unanimous vote.
The Board met in Executive Session from 9:01 a.m. to 9:30 a.m. with the Prosecuting
Attorney and the County Administrator regarding potential litigation.
PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD: The following comments were made: Jefferson County
is known for high taxes; the Board was urged to appeal the decision of the Western Washington Growth
Management Hearings Board (WWGMHB) to show support for economic development in the rural
areas of the County; a Weed Board member contacted the State Weed Board about the County Weed
Board's responsibilities; several internet sites are blocked by Information Services so that County
employees cannot use them and the County needs a policy that employees must justify whatever sites
they access through the Intemet; an organizational chart should be developed so that the public can
identify each employee, their job description, and their salary; and the need for the County to appeal the
decision of the WWGMHB because that decision goes far beyond the individual properties involved.
APPRO VAL AND ADOPTION OF THE CONSENT A GENDA: Commissioner
Harpole moved to adopt and approve all of the items on the Consent Agenda as submitted.
Commissioner Huntingford seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote.
1. HEARING NOTICE re: Proposed Resolution Setting the 2001 Ad Valorem Tax Levies;
Hearing set for December 18, 2000 at 1:30 p.m. in the Commissioners Chambers at the
Jefferson County Courthouse
Page 1
Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of December 11, 2000
o
4.
5.
6.
7.
AGREEMENT, Amendment re: Supported Employment Services for Individuals with
Developmental Disabilities; Increasing the Maximum Number of Program Participants from 14
to 16 and Extending the Term to December 31, 2000; Jefferson County Health and Human
Services; Skookum Corporation
AGREEMENT re: Solid Waste Recycling Services; Jefferson County Public Works; Skookum
Educational Programs, Inc.
AGREEMENT re: Emergency Management Services for 2001; Hamlin and Associates
Request To Use One (1) of Jefferson County's Allocated Days for McCurdy Pavilion for
Rotary's Annual Fund Raising Event; April 21,2001; Port Townsend Rotary Club
Notice of Board of County Commissioners Meeting Cancellation; Tuesday, December 26, 2000
Request for Pre-payment of 2001 Conference Expenses from 2000 Budget; Various Departments
Request for Financial Assistance; Jefferson County Housing Authority: Mark Gordon,
Chair of the Jefferson County Housing Authority, explained that their request is to borrow $59,000 from
the County to cover the costs of a temporary expansion of their staff for 6 months to deal with the audit
requirements of the Federal Department of Housing and Urban Development and the State Auditor.
Their administrative fees do not support these costs for an Executive Director, support staff, and other
administrative costs.
Commissioner Harpole asked about the interest on the loan if it is granted? Mark Gordon reported that
the County is required to recapture the interest that is lost on this amount of money.
David Goldsmith, Deputy County Administrator, asked about the current programs the Housing
Authority is handling. Mark Gordon advised that cash flow from current programs should allow
payback of the loan in March or April once these projects are on track. County Administrator Charles
Saddler reported that he has reviewed the work plan for the Housing Authority. He feels it meets the
requirements of HUD and that it is a good work plan. The Housing Authority must carry on day to day
business, as well as deal with the issues that have to be addressed from the audit. The on-going viability
of the Housing Authority must be addressed. There is another major HUD audit due in September 2001
that they must pass. It was suggested that a mock audit be conducted in July to assure that they are fully
prepared for the September audit. The repayment of the loan will take a period of time because of the
small amount they receive from their programs.
Commissioner Harpole moved to request that the County Administrator work with the Housing
Authority and bring back an interlocal agreement for the Board's consideration on December 18, 2000
for a loan in the amount of $59,000 as requested. Commissioner Huntingford seconded the motion
which carried by a unanimous vote.
Page 2
Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of December 11, 2000 ~'~,~
The Board met with the County Administrator regarding issues on the 2001 budget from
10:45 a.m. to Noon.
HEARING re: Confirming the Assessment Roll for the Country Ridge Road
Improvement District #4: Chairman Wojt called the meeting to order and introduced the staff. Will
Butterfeld, Right-of-Way Representative for the Public Works Department reviewed the list of exhibits
for the record:
1) A map of RID #4, showing the boundaries, the affected properties and the location of the
improvements.
2) Complete copy of the original petition along with the certification of the petition
signatures.
3) Certified copies of Resolution 89-96; 100-96; 82-97;101-97; and 89-00.
4) Minutes of the County Commissioners meetings for the actions on the resolutions listed
above.
5) Affidavits of Publication for the formation hearing notices, copies of the property owner
notification documents, Affidavit of Mailing and Publication for the final assessment
hearing notices.
6) Project summary and actual costs, and the amount to be assessed and the description of
the assessment methodology.
7) Preliminary and final assessment rolls.
8) Two (2) written objections to the final assessment from Mr. Strickland and John Foley
and Virginia Mclntyre.
He explained that this process started in1996. The County received a petition requesting the formation of
a county road improvement district. The Board declared its intent to form this district per Resolution No.
89-96 and a hearing was held on October 29, 1996. A second hearing was scheduled for December 17,
1996 that was postponed and rescheduled for August 12, 1997. At the August 12 hearing, the Board
moved to schedule a time on August 25,1997 for deliberation and decision. On August 25, the Board
adopted Resolution No. 101-97 establishing County Ridge RID #4 and setting forth the boundaries and
the assessment method. Resolution No. 89-00 was adopted setting the assessment role hearing. The
project construction consisted of improving approximately .8 miles of road. Two existing private gravel
roads were brought up to County standards to become part of the County road system. Survey and design
commenced in 1998. Right-of- way was acquired and construction began in the fall of 1999.
Construction was stopped because of wet conditions and began again in the spring of 2000. Construction
included drainage improvements, horizontal realignment of the roadway, a surface treatment to create an
18 foot wide roadway with 2 foot shoulders, proper signage, and striping. Country Ridge Drive and Blue
Mountain Road will be formally adopted to the County Road Log following the assessment roll hearing.
Page 3
Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of December 11, 2000
The assessment was based on the methodology outlined in Resolution No. 101-97. The estimate for the
project was $93,500.00. The donated land value of $14,069.00 was deducted from the cost, leaving
$78,431.00 to be charged against the remaining 18 parcels within the district, or approximately $4,357.00
per parcel. There were 19 parcels in the original petition, however, a boundary line adjustment was done
and the parcel number was reduced to 18. The total cost of the project was $167,012.00.
Two objections were filed. Tom Foley and Virginia Mclntyre have submitted an objection of the
assessment method. This objection has been very clear throughout the hearing process. They will need
to submit evidence for a value reduction. Mr. Strickland, Parcel 11, also submitted an objection and that
information is included in the record. He indicated he wasfft aware that the establishment resolution
called for equal shares for all parcels. There was no' one present representing the Stricklands.
The Chair opened the public hearing.
Tom Foley stated that at this point he is in an adversarial relationship with the County. He feels that
Will Butterfeld's assessment is wrong and he has reiterated this since the first public heating. He and
Virginia Mclntyre own Tracts 16 and 18. Tract 18 is developed, with access from a road outside the
RID. A boundary line adjustment was done on Tract 16 which also eliminated access from the RID.
They are the only lot owners with primary access outside the boundary of the RID. The assessment
method is simple: one lot is equal to one share. The County claims that property values have increased
because of this road improvement. They feel that they are not being assessed for access, they are being
assessed for value. They believe they are not receiving value from this project. What's been lacking in
the whole process is that they have a substantive problem and it is unfair to expect them to spend money
to prove their position. They hired a consultant to do a benefits analysis that will be presented at this
hearing. One key to understanding this problem is the rugged topography of the ridge. Every lot was
provided easy access from the top of the ridge so that lot owners could take advantage of the views.
There is a big gully between Tracts 11 and 16. The RID will never become a primary access for their
property.
Ralph Erickson, Consultants Northwest, Real Estate Appraiser, presented information on the benefits
analysis. He explained that he was contacted by Tom Foley to do a benefits analysis on this project and
they discussed the benefits for the entire community. Mr. Foley asked that he determine if there was
added value to Tract 18 from the road improvement project and if Tract 18 would share in any of the
physical benefits of the road improvement? Ralph Erickson reported that he researched the original sales
of the community from 1990 to 1992 and it was obvious which tracts were view tracts and where there
were topography problems. Tract 1 and Tract 12 had access to Eaglemount Road and the easement road
when they were originally purchased. There was no additional value to these lots because of access to a
paved road. He did comparisons in other areas where there were tracts with similar configurations. The
benefits of the RID are listed in the report and page 12 shows his final conclusions. The layout of the
home and garage on Tract 18 would make it totally impractical to put a road in from the newly improved
road from the RID. There is no practical benefit to Tract 18.
Page 4
Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of December 11, 2000
Will Butterfied pointed out that the RCW requires that the Board look at all properties that will benefit
from the RID. Tom Foley donated a right-of-way to the project; but he also has 600 feet of lot frontage
on the road. Future benefits are part of the fair market value. He asked Mr. Erickson if he did a before
and after analysis? Mr. Erickson answered that he looked at original sales because there were no
improvements on the lots at that time.
Commissioner Wojt asked Mr. Erickson to clarify his report regarding added value to the other lots.
Mr. Erickson advised that his research showed that, dollarwise, there was no added value to any of the
lots.
Frank Gilford, Public Works added that generally one of the principles of doing an RID is to bring the
road up to County standards and then the long term maintenance is taken over by the County. He feels
that this is a value.
Tom Foley responded that if the access to his property was from the RID, he would not be arguing the
point. He does see the benefits of the County maintaining the road.
Commissioner Huntingford asked if the property owners in this subdivision are currently paying a road
maintenance fee for Blue Mountain Road? Mr. Foley answered that they do not. Commissioner
Huntingford asked if they pay a road maintenance fee for Brothers Road? Mr. Foley answered that they
have not had to pay a maintenance fee to date.
Kit Thacker explained that there isn't a maintenance agreement. In order to build, she had to have a
document signed by the other lot owners. She asked if the property owners in the RID would be
reimbursed a portion of their money if a new property owner comes into the area?
Chairman Wojt asked if the property owners that donated land to the RID receive the same benefit? Will
Butterfield explained that the amount of the property owners donation of right-of-way was deducted
from the amount for the overall cost of the RID. Some of the right-of-way was donated property and
some was acquired. Everyone shared in the cost of the property acquisition.
An Unidentified Man asked if the Board has seen the property? The Board answered that they have not
been to the site. (Upon review of the minutes, Commissioner Huntingford noted that he had visited the
site of the RID.)
Commissioner Harpole questioned if any of the other 18 tracts have one of these roads as a secondary
access? Will Butterfield replied that Tract 1 has primary access off Eaglemount Road.
Chuck Sherrad, owner of Tract 6, stated that currently a boundary line adjustment has removed road
access from the RID for Tract 16. Could a future owner do another boundary line adjustment and get
access from Blue Mountain Road for Tract 16?
Page 5
Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of December 11, 2000 ~ ,;
Tom Foley said that this is a well engineered subdivision and everyone has access from Blue Mountain
Road at the top of the ridge.
Mr. Sherrad, asked if another boundary line adjustment is legally possible? Public Works Director
Gary Rowe answered that it is legally possible. Will Butterfield explained that the Foleys have gone to a
single assessment with their boundary line adjustment.
Gary Rowe added that if the Board chooses not to assess Tract 18, the Public Works Department does
not want to have the burden of the extra cost. He recommended that any extra cost be paid from the
General Fund or that it should be borne by the balance of the property owners.
Tom Foley replied that if a more substantive response to these issues had been addressed earlier in the
process, there wouldn't be the question of who pays if we don't. Their position hasn't changed
throughout the process.
Hearing no further public comment, Chairman Wojt closed the public testimony portion of the hearing.
Commissioner Huntingford said that he wants time to consider the testimony and suggested that the
hearing be continued. Commissioner Harpole asked what options there are to recover these costs if Tract
18 is not assessed? He asked that the Public Works Department provide information on this matter.
Will Butterfield stated that he believes the Board can determine the value of the assessment for this lot.
The assessment roll would be reissued, the public notice would be prepared and another hearing would
be held.
Commissioner Harpole moved to continue this hearing to 9:00 a.m. on December 18, 2000 in the
Commissioners Chambers. Commissioner Huntingford seconded the motion which carried by a
unanimous vote.
HEARING re: UnifiedDeveloprnent Code: Chairman Wojt opened the public hearing
on the proposed Unified Development Code (UDC.) Director of Community Development A1 Scalf
explained that this hearing will be continued tomorrow evening. Public comment letters will be accepted
until the close of the public hearing tomorrow. The Board is considering the November 16, 2000 draft of
the UDC. They are expecting a letter from CTED. Staff made a few revisions regarding binding site
plans, PUDs and a reference in Section 7.5.11. A Determination of Significance under SEPA was issued
by the Responsible Official. This was mitigated through the draft EIS and the final EIS of the
Comprehensive Plan adopted in August 1998. No additional environmental review is necessary.
Chairman Wojt opened the public testimony portion of the hearing.
Page 6
Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of December 11, 2000
Larry Crockett, Manager for the Port of Port Townsend, submitted a letter. (See microfilmed
document.) He commented that the Planning staff has done an excellent job addressing the Port's issues
regarding landuse at the airport. There is one small additional change that they are requesting in the
notice provision. The Interim Control Ordinance had listed a 55 DNL noise contour interval for
notification to the Port of any building permits in the area, but the draft UDC lists this at 65 DNL which
would only apply to the airport property. The Port is receiving FAA grant funding to revise their Master
Plan and they will be working closely with County staff to meet the criteria of the subarea plan. They
expect to have a document before the Board by fall, 2001.
The Port has talked to the Planning Commission on several occasions about economic development in
the County. Section 3 and Section 6 of the UDC do not accomplish the intent or the spirit of economic
development as outlined in the Comprehensive Plan. There are a number of businesses in the County
that would like to expand, but can't because of height and space restrictions. Putting a restriction of 150
feet on the distance a sandwich board can be from a business location does not work in a rural county.
The Port recommends that the Board not adopt Section 6 until these issues are addressed.
Rae Belkin, submitted and read a letter regarding Section 4.24, Mineral Extraction, Mining, Quarrying
and Reclamation. (See microfilmed document.)
Tom Jay, Chimacum, discussed the portions of the UDC that address riparian zones. He said that the
founding fathers emphasized the rights of private property over the rights of commons. For years private
property owners could do whatever they wanted. These activities have been detrimental to salmon and
the salmon runs have suffered. A good salmon habitat requires a healthy riparian zone where the fish are
nurseried and come back to spawn. He requested that the UDC be revised to require a 150 foot riparian
zone dedicated for salmon habitat. He suggested that landowners, who are willing to negotiate, could
also have the option of developing a plan based on Best Available Science (BAS.)
Al Boucher, stated that he finds it regrettable that the Board did not allow the Planning Commission to
complete their review of the staff-generated Unified Development Code. He urged the deletion of
Section 9 of the draft code pertaining to the Comprehensive Plan Amendments because the UDC deals
with Comprehensive Plan implementation, and should not have a role in planning. He focused his
attention on Section 1 of the UDC because it provides the setting for all that follows. Section 1 needs to
open with a Mission Statement covering UDC authority, purpose, scope and preferred outcome with
respect to the Comprehensive Plan implementation. Section 1.2.1 refers to the UDC as the principal tool
for implementing the goals and policies of the adopted Comprehensive Plan pursuant to the "mandated
provisions of the GMA." He pointed out that the GMA makes reference to 13 goals and 6 elements, and
the adopted Comprehensive Plan contains almost 100 goals and 12 elements. He asked that any
reference to the language "mandated provisions of the GMA" be deleted from the UDC. Section 1.5.1
states that the UDC shall "prevail over any conflicting provisions of the adopted Comprehensive Plan."
He asked if this is a case of the tail wagging the dog? The latest draft of the UDC has deletions
pertaining to the role and authority of the UDC Administrator. He recommended that two half column
Page 7
Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of December 11, 2000
inserts be added delineating the role, responsibility and authority of the both the UDC Administrator and
the Hearing Examiner. The 2 ½ pages regarding the Hearing Examiner could be added to Section 2 as
definitions or Section 8 dealing with permit application review.
Section 1 of the UDC could also be used by the Board to convey a sense of priority with respect to
Comprehensive Plan implementation. Section 1 needs to make reference to Policy 7.1 of the County
Wide Planning Policies whichs state that "the private sector is primarily responsible for the creation of
economic opportunity in Jefferson County. The responsibility of the public sector is to assure that these
activities are carried out consistent with defined community and environmental values." The
Comprehensive Plan failed to identify these values. This poses a problem for the UDC Administrator
who will have to deal with both conservator and developer advocates. What is the role of the County
Administrator regarding the implementation of the UDC? Does Ordinance No. 09-1002-00,
Establishing the Office of County Administrator, supercede Resolution NO. 54-97 which provides for
direct access to the Board for both the Planning Commission and Director of Community Development?
He added that he doesn't understand why Chairman Wojt insists on adopting the final UDC on
December 18, 2000 when a newly elected County Commissioner will be sworn in on December 29. The
new Commissioner will be responsible to the electorate for this document and it is common courtesy to
allow him to vote on the final UDC.
Wendy Wrinkle, representing the Shine Community Action Council (SCAC), stated that she is present
to respond to a letter she received on November 10 regarding the stipulated agreement which was a part
of the appeal by the City of Port Townsend and the SCAC on the saltwater intrusion section of the
Critical Areas Ordinance. This letter asked both the City and the SCAC to sign off on the intent and
spirit of the new language of the UDC draft as it pertains to the stipulated agreement. Representatives
from the City and the SCAC met with the County and they felt that they could not sign off on the draft
language without some changes. They would agree if the County inserted the language from the existing
Critical Areas Ordinance into the current draft UDC. This would allow time to work out the details of
how to do protections in the saltwater intrusion areas. She listed other areas outside of Port Townsend
that rely on ground water and stressed that if this water isn't managed properly and saltwater intrusion
does occur, it would be irreversible and there is no other option for acquiring water. They have language
they are working on and they will get it to the County as soon as it is available. She stated that the SCAC
is willing to work with the County. They are not interested in seeing any interim adoption of the UDC.
Although the draft UDC is imperfect, it needs to be adopted and recognized as an evolving document
that can be made workable.
John Heinzen, commented that politics are driving the adoption of this ordinance. There needs to be a
balancing of interests and it is the Board's job to address the balance. The UDC needs to be reviewed
properly and completely; the Board needs to make changes and then the UDC can be adopted. He asked
the Board to do it right the first time.
Page 8
Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of December 11, 2000
Bill Leavitt, speaking as a business person, feels that the draft UDC puts too many restrictions on land
development. The contracting industry is one of the biggest employers, revenue producers, and taxpayers
in the County. GMA addressed several elements: economic development, environmental protections,
timberland, agriculture, and the mineral lands. Gravel is necessary to build roads and septic fields and is
only located in certain areas. If a business is located in an ESA, it might as well close down. The County
needs to allow more flexibility for businesses to stay here, create jobs, and keep people here. Businesses
are closing in the County daily because they can't make it here. With more restrictions, it will only get
worse. Business owners should not be treated like criminals.
Scott Walker, stated that the County is developing the Unified Development Code to implement the
GMA. The County has to force people to live in more compact developments and not have such a large
effect on the environment. His concern with the UDC is the parking requirements in the commercial
areas that will lead to continued sparse commercial sprawl. If the parking requirements are cut in half,
more space can be utilized for business.
Bill Marlow, agrees with Scott Walker that less parking space would be better. The Richard Trottier
Study addressed the commercial development expectations in the County over the next ten years and
how many workers would be hired. The study indicated 35 employees per acre and 350 new jobs per
year. The County has already recognized and accepted these numbers; but the draft UDC puts
restrictions on building height and size that would make them impossible to accommodate. The 20,000
square foot building cap limits the type of business that can come here. A 20,000 square foot building,
two stories tall, wouldn't create more impervious surface than a one story building. Parking is an issue
because it requires more lot coverage and more impervious surface. Section 3 and Section 6 make it
very difficult for businesses to locate here or to expand. The best way to increase the tax base is to
recruit new businesses. He asked that the Board consider more than one building per parcel which
would create more intense development.
Paul Heinzinger, Marrowstone Island, submitted and read his comments. (See microfilmed document.)
James Fritz, 271 Crutcher Road, stated that the Planning Commission needs to be able to complete their
review of the UDC before the Board adopts the document. A mid-March date of adoption is much more
realistic. The Board can consider adopting an interim ordinance. This is a poor rural County and many
businesses are shutting down. There is already an underground economy and it will only get worse.
Currently there is a lack of trust and communication. There has to be a happy middle ground where there
are enough jobs for people to support their families and enough revenue so that if there is a recession,
employees won't be laid off. The citizens in the County need to be able to trust County government.
Ron Gregory_, representing the Homebuilder's Association, submitted and read their comments. (See
microfilmed document.)
Page 9
Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of December 11, 2000
Cliff Cadwell, said he lives in the Tri Area and wants to add his comments to A1 Boucher' s and James
Fritz's that there is no critical deadline of December 18 to adopt the UDC. There are a number of
Planning Commission Members that feel the Board did not give them the opportunity to finish the work
of reviewing the draft UDC as a part of the public process. The County is becoming a retirement
community and if the Board adopts the draft UDC this pattern will continue.
Conrad Pirner, Port Hadlock, submitted and read his comments. (See microfilmed document.) He
added that there is no need to rush to get the UDC adopted by December 18.
Jim Posey, Port Hadlock, stated that he read the Growth Management Act, and he didn't understand it.
He read the UDC and didn't understand portions of it. Why has it taken so long for Jefferson County to
get to the point of putting regulations in place and all of a sudden it has to be done on such a critical
timeline? This is an important document and the impact it will have on the County is huge. If the
County has to increase taxes to pay for the current employees, how will it afford to pay for the extra
employees who will be hired to enforce all of these new regulations? The Board needs to look closely at
the details of this ordinance and realize what the impacts are. This County doesn't have economic
vitality. It has Chambers of Commerce that don't promote commerce and an Economic Development
Council that doesn't promote economic development. Small, clean, manufacturing businesses generate a
good economy. There can be a balance between business and the environment.
Andy Davidson, Quilcene, said he doesn't have a lot of specific comments because the UDC is a
complicated document to the average citizen. There is no reason to push the adoption through before the
end of the year. He is concerned about the language in Section 10, regarding enforcement. Property
owners shouldn't be treated like criminals. Section 10 needs to say that if the County takes a property
owner to Court and the County loses, the County must reimburse all costs to the property owner,
including reimbursement of wages for time away from work. The County doesn't have the best track
record in Court and losing will only cost the County and the taxpayers more money. He reiterated that
the Board needs to take their time reviewing the UDC and get it right the first time.
Stan Kadesh, stated that he feels strongly that Section 3, page 49, Animal Shelters and Kennels, needs
to be revised to require these businesses to locate in light industrial areas and not in residential areas.
Ken Dressier, Quilcene, explained that there are several businesses in Quilcene and Brinnon that have
been forced to close down. The South County has economic potential and there are people who live there
who want to make it happen. The UDC does not encourage economic development. Specifically, Section
4, regarding Cottage Industry on page 10, states the hours of operation. He rents property from the Port
of Port Townsend at the Quilcene Boat Haven and owns a boat repair business. This is basically a 24
hour a day job if the need is there. Cottage Industries can't be rezoned or expanded and direct retail sales
aren't allowed. He sells boat supplies. There is a lot of boating activity on Hood Canal in the summer
and there is an existing need for a boat repair business and retail boating supplies. Would the Boat
Haven and the boat repair business be allowed even though the UDC states that only one cottage
Page 10
Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of December 11, 2000
industry shall be allowed in or on the same premises? He asked for answers to these questions before
December 18. As a business owner, he has some major improvements and investments he wants to make
and he wants to be able to move forward with confidence and encouragement from the County.
Dennis Pownall, Discovery Bay, said that the most important thing is the need to not rush. Both the
citizens of the County and the administrating body need to come to a better understanding of the UDC.
This document doesn't instill trust at all. He has a stream on his property that will be effected by the
ESA regulations. Yet no one, not even the experts, can say for sure that these regulations will increase
salmon population. He has a 100 foot buffer that is labeled a "no touch" zone and consumes over half of
his property. He is very conscious of the environment and he and his wife lead a very low impact
lifestyle. Property owners in rural areas need to be conscientious, a property owner in the city doesn't
have anything to lose if the UDC is adopted. There needs to be room for good common sense. This
consolidated version of regulations eliminates options.
Steve Sheehe, Attorney representing Bruce and Barbara Bailey, thanked staff for their hard work on this
document. He has submitted two comment letters and most of his concerns were addressed in a positive
manner. He has one main concern that is not specifically stated in the UDC, but is an interpretation
where he and DCD staff disagree. The question has to do with the section on PRRDs (Planned Rural
Residential Developments) as an incentive document to flexible and innovative planning techniques.
Specifically, if 65% of a subdivision is set aside for open space as an existing, permitted golf course, the
project should not be subject to new development standards. To address golf courses, the UDC language
adopts by reference the King County BMPs because Jefferson County doesn't have their own
development standards. Landuse standards in King County are, and should be, entirely different than
landuse standards in rural Jefferson County. He reiterated that the UDC does not provide an incentive for
property owners to set aside land for open space.
Ted Hunter, representing the Leland Neighborhood Council, said that the UDC has some major
problems, but there are other Federal and State mandated regulations that are worse that will cause the
County more grief if the UDC isn't put in place as soon as possible. What is lacking in the document is
that the communities in the County have not been able to voice their opinions. The subarea plans need to
be addressed by the people who live in those communities. He urged the Board to move ahead with
general stuff and allow for flexibility once the document is adopted. The Board needs to be willing to
amend this document and not look at it as a finished product.
Amanda Kingsley, thanked DCD staff and the Planning Commission for the changes that have been
made regarding the appropriate siting of asphalt batch plants.
Gene Seton, said that there is a problem with prosperity in this County. A property owner has been
trying to put a motel at Discovery Bay for four years and DCD stopped him. There are three highways
that converge at the location and it is the perfect place for a motel. People go to Sequim or Silverdale to
get a motel. At Prospect Avenue, the County approved the plat and the septic system and then denied the
Page 11
Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of December 11, 2000
building permits. There were three appeal hearings before the building permits were approved and it
took two years and $18,000. In Glen Cove, five people wanted to start a business or expand a business
over the past year and they were turned down because the property is now zoned residential instead of
light industrial. The Comprehensive Plan encourages clustering, but only if the property owner is willing
to give up 65% of the property for open space and then the County tums around and tells the property
owner how many houses can go on his land. The draft UDC hasn't gone through a complete public
process and the Board has not allowed the Planning Commission to do their job. There is no reason to
rush to adopt this document.
Craig Durgan, explained that he has two businesses in Chimacum that will be grossly affected by this
document. He submitted his testimony. (See microfilmed document.) He is concerned about the
environment, and that includes people. People need a place to live, they need clothes, food and jobs. If
the Board ignores the people there will be dire consequences. Where is the affordable housing in the
County? Commercial properties have been downzoned. There are so many restrictions on commercial
property that it is too expensive to develop. An industrial area needs to have buildings larger than 20,000
square feet. This County has only 300 acres of commercial and industrial zoned land. That is a fraction
of 1% of the land in the County. The GMA says to plan for growth, not stop growth. It doesn't make
sense to put a 7,500 square foot building on a five acre parcel. He asked the Board to go back and review
this. The Comprehensive Plan does not dictate any maximum building size and it doesn't need to be
regulated in the UDC. Why is the County so afraid of developing the tax base, recruiting businesses, and
allowing citizens to have good jobs?
Mark Volts, explained that he moved to Port Townsend a few months ago and wants to buy and develop
land in the County. This requires putting in a well and a septic system. He is a very strong
environmentalist and knows many cheaper alternatives to deal with water and waste and does not feel
that he should have to spend thousands of dollars to develop his property.
Dan Titterness, Port Townsend, acknowledged that almost everyone at this hearing has encouraged the
Board to adopt the UDC as an interim ordinance or to wait on its adoption. He urged the Board to adopt
the UDC as an interim ordinance for more flexibility and to allow more public input.
At the conclusion of the day's business the Board recessed the meeting. The meeting was
reconvened on Tuesday morning when all three Board member met with Sue Mauermann, State
Department of Ecology, for an update. At the conclusion of the update, the meeting was recessed. The
meeting was reconvened at 6:00 p.m. in the Superior Courtroom for the continuation of the hearing on
the proposed Unified Development Code (UDC.) All three Board members were present.
CONTINUATION OF THE HEARING re: Unified Development Code: Chairman
Wojt reopened the public hearing.
Page 12
Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of December 11, 2000
Collette Kostelec, Port Townsend, submitted and read her comments. (See microfilmed document.)
Dennis Schultz, Port Townsend, stated that the public is just becoming aware of the UDC and how it
will effect their lives. He said his concerns are about landuse in the rural residential 1 residence to5 acre
area where he lives. This area consists primarily of small farms and wood lots. There is no protection in
the UDC for landowners who want to farm and make a living on these smaller acreages. They need some
sort of"right to farm" or "right to forest" protection for property that is 5 acres or less.
James Fritz, Crutcher Road, reported that there is another State initiative that will be introduced soon
and promises to have more impact on government spending than the last three initiatives. It is important
to work together. There must be trust between the County Commissioners and the citizens in the
County. During every election, urban sprawl is mentioned. The people in the County don't want urban
sprawl anymore than the people in the City. They want the County to maintain a rural atmosphere and
they want jobs so they can feed their children. In Quilcene, several businesses are closing down. He
urged the Board to pass the UDC as an interim ordinance or sort out the problems first and wait until
after the New Year to pass it. Public relations are very fragile in Jefferson County and right now it looks
like the Board is trying to cram something down peoples' throats.
Russ Tillman, Nordland, submitted and read his comments. (See microfilmed document.)
Geoff Masci, Mayor of Port Townsend, explained that the County has received two letters from the City
outlining their comments on the adoption of the UDC. The City's position is to delay the adoption of the
document. As a private citizen, he encouraged the Board to delay the adoption and let the citizens have a
little more time for review. He suggested that a deadline of three months would be sufficient.
Larry. Dennison, submitted and read a letter from the Jefferson County Democratic Central Committee.
(See microfilmed document.) He added his personal comments. Jefferson County is the last county to
implement their Comprehensive Plan. Research from the Washington State Almanac (1990 - 1999)
shows that Jefferson County's total population is ranked 27 out of 39 counties; in total population
growth, the County is 2nd; in total migration, the County is 2nd; in taxable retail sales, the County is 26th;
and in terms of per capita, the County is ranked 18th. The County ranks 2nd in the State for registered
businesses perl,000 population. In his opinion, all the horror stories about not being able to locate a
business in the County aren't true. Specifically, he asked that Section 4.35, small scale recreation and
tourist related businesses, be set aside for further consideration. The UDC expands home businesses and
cottage industries already. He asked the Board to look closer at this section, and cautioned that no other
county in the State has adopted this landuse category. Another concern is stream buffers. He has been
involved in salmon enhancement activities for the past 15 years. The State uses a 250 foot stream buffer.
The Board just passed a Conservation Futures Tax that will help to compensate landowners for the loss
of the use of their property. He urged the Board to pass the UDC in its entirety. He added that them will
be plenty of opportunity to fine tune it.
Page 13
Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of December 11, 2000
Commissioner Huntingford interjected that he feels the problem with passing the current ordinance is
that it won't be revised in the future and the citizens in the County will be forced to deal with regulations
that are better suited for an urban area. This has happened several times before in the County.
Byron Rot, representing the Jamestown S'Klallam Tribe, explained that he sees problems on how the
UDC addresses ESA protections. He thinks the document does not meet the requirements and needs to
be adopted as an interim ordinance because it is more difficult to make changes if it is fully implemented
as an ordinance. He prefers to see a 300 foot band around ESAs with buffers within the band. There are
some loopholes for the Hearings Examiner to allow development within an ESA. It appears that clearing
land is okay, but a permit is needed only for grading. Clearing in geologically hazardous areas should
require a geotechnical report. Regarding floodplains, the ESA buffer needs to be measured from the
channel migration areas, not from the edge of the bank. (See microfilmed document.)
George Hill, said he has attended the Planning Commission meetings for the past six months. He thinks
the UDC needs to be adopted because an amendment process has been provided in the ordinance. It is
important to get on with the subarea plans. All the Planning Commission meetings have been public
meetings and DCD staff has been available to answer any questions or concerns. As a matter of process,
the Comprehensive Plan needs to be reviewed and evaluated by September, 2002.
Frieda Fenn, representing People for a Liveable Community, submitted and read their comments. (See
microfilmed document.)
Staeey Thompson, Chimacum, submitted and read his comments. (See microfilmed document.)
Mark Grant, representing the Port Hadlock/Tri Area Chamber of Commerce, submitted and read their
comments. (See microfilmed document.)
Julie Jaman, representing the Olympic Environmental Council, submitted and read their comments.
(See microfilmed document.)
Paul Heinzinger, Marrowstone Island, submitted and read his comments. (See microfilmed document.)
John Moltola, representing the North Quimper Homeowners' Association, urged the Board to adopt the
UDC as it stands and not as an interim ordinance.
Bill Leavitt, Port Hadlock, explained that the first issue that he wants to address is very personal. In
Section 7.5, page 19, #10 puts a time limit on Binding Site Plans stating that "The applicant or owner of
the property subject to a binding site plan shall obtain all permits for the development of the site within 5
years of its recording. If the applicant fails to obtain all permits within the 5 years, no permits shall be
issued until the applicant files a new application and obtains binding site plan approval in accordance
with this section." The extinguishment of binding site plans approved prior to UDC adoption is
Page 14
Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of December 11, 2000
discussed in #11. "The applicant or owner of a property subject to binding site plan approval prior to the
initial adoption date of this Unified Development Code shall obtain all permits for the development of
the site within two years of the initial adoption of this code. If the applicant fails to obtain all permits
within the two years, no site development permit shall be issued until the applicant files a new
application and obtains binding site plan approval in accordance with this section." He brought this issue
up at the September 27 Planning Commission meeting. At that time, DCD staff said that this would not
apply to his binding site plan.
He also has concems with restrictions on signage. Signs advertise businesses and businesses have to be
seen. A 15 square foot sign on a big building would be useless. In his business, regulated by the Utility
and Transportation Commission, he is required to have names and numbers on his trucks so why is it
necessary for the UDC to discuss this?
Section 6 discusses storage of soils, sand, salt and other erodible raw materials on permanent or
temporary sites. The UDC states that a pile of more than 5 cubic yards has to be covered to prevent
erosion. That means that when he delivers a load of soil to someone they have to cover it immediately
and take the cover off whenever they want to work with it. He has worked with erodible raw materials
his whole life and feels that this regulation is excessive.
Another section of the UDC deals with clearing in ESAs and states that no clearing can take place from
November 1 to April 1. His company is doing a lot of road building right now because its not raining
and the ground isn't soaked. This doesn't always happen in June. Ten or fifteen years ago, winters were
a lot wetter. They have been able to work year round. If this arbitrary time frame is used, he will have to
lay people off when they could be working.
Joy Baisch, stated that she has not had the time to completely review the November 16 draft of the
UDC. She agrees with Russ Tillman and Bill Leavitt, that Section 6 is in need of some serious revisions.
There isn't a need to wait until June, 2001 to adopt the UDC, but she asked the Board to make the
changes that are obvious now and move the timeline for adoption to February. She submitted and read
her comments regarding Section 4. (See microfilmed document.)
Kate Marsh, Brinnon, submitted and read her comments. (See microfilmed document.)
Andy Palmer, Cape George, said he approves of the protections in the UDC. It is important to maintain
the rural character in the County. There is no reason to delay the adoption. Things have changed in the
County with the population increase and the development, especially around the saltwater. The new
endangered species listing of salmon will require more restrictions. There are areas in the UDC that need
changing, but it needs to be adopted now. It can always be revised over the next few years.
Page 15
Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of December 11, 2000
Gene Seton, Four Comers, stated that the language on clustering is not clear. Why are parks and
campgrounds where individual lots are to be sold fee simple prohibited? From his experience, some of
the best maintained RV parks in the country are this type of park. Regarding mini-storage buildings, in
Section 4.32 it states that "all access, travel surface, loading areas and building aprons shall be paved."
In his opinion, crashed rock surfaces create less problems than a paved road because of the runoff.
Regarding a building height limitation of 18 feet on mini-storage units, what if the units are built on a
slope? Regarding the pile of erodible raw material, is the County going to the Mill and require them to
cover the pile of chips?
He submitted a copy of Table 6-1 and explained that the Glen Cove buffer is 30 feet and there is no need
for 100 feet on each side of Highway 20. A 100 foot buffer would take 33.66 acres of $20,000 per acre
property for a total assessed value of between $600,000 to $800,000. Can the County afford to pay the
property owners that money? The UDC is wrong. There wasn't proper public process. He asked the
Board to let the Planning Commission finish their review. The UDC is much more restrictive than the
Comprehensive Plan because items have been regulated that weren't even mentioned in the Plan.
Michelle Sandoval, stated that this is a complicated ordinance. Thousands of dollars have been spent
over the past eight years to deal with the Comprehensive Plan and the UDC. The County continues to
make decisions in a crisis mode rather than being proactive. The UDC is not perfect. Commissioner
Harpole set out to get this accomplished and it is important that it be adopted during his term in office.
She urged the Board to adopt the UDC and begin work on with the sub-area plans.
Ted Labbe, representing the Port Gamble Tribe, submitted and read his comments. (See microfilmed
document.)
Janet Welch, stated that this ordinance would make her a criminal and take her business down; but she
thinks this is a step in the right direction for the County. She doesn't particularly like the ordinance, but
it is important that it be adopted as soon as possible. If the Board doesn't adopt the UDC right now it
will be derailed and could takes years and more money would be spent to get it adopted. Would it be any
better? She endorses staff's recommendations, especially regarding the seawater intrusion language. One
of the most glaring problems with the ordinance is the tourist and recreational section. The County
doesn't need this because it will strip communities of commercial activities and allow these activities to
be located in the rural areas where they undermine the rural character. The discretionary conditional use
process currently states that a proposed tourist or recreational activity becomes a permitted use if
neighbors don't object. The applicant needs to prove that there won't be an impact to the neighborhood.
She said that the County needs to utilize Best Available Science in critical area designations. It concerns
her that there is no mention of perpetuity in the open space requirements for Planned Rural Residential
Developments. The Board promised that they would adopt the UDC and they need to keep that
commitment.
Page 16
Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of December 11, 2000
Jake Johnson, said that listening to the comments at this hearing, it seems that the UDC is not ready to
be adopted. He lives on Marrowstone Island and is concerned about seawater intrusion. The changes in
this part of the ordinance are entirely different and they weren't available until a few hours before the
hearing. The regulations for contractors dealing with erodible materials are way out of line. A farmer
that bred a rare type of sheep gave testimony and said he wasn't sure if he would be able to stay in
business. There have been comments, both pro and con. The UDC is not ready to be adopted. It needs to
be fine tuned. He asked the Board to listen to citizens, hear what people have to say, make the changes,
and adopt the UDC in three months, but not right now.
Ryan Tillman, stated that he has been a very vocal proponent of development regulations. He doesn't
feel that the UDC represents the goals and policies outlined in the Comprehensive Plan. The philosophy
of the document seems skewed. It needs changes here and there; but his objection to the UDC is the
content and tone and where it is headed. This is the Board's ordinance, not the Planning Commission's
or DCD staff's ordinance. The people in the County want certainty, reasonableness, and protections and
the ability for people to be able to develop and not kill every salmon that swims by the property. It is
wrong to think that the only protections that are reasonable are the ones that are extreme. This document
is written for somewhere else and not for Jefferson County. The County needs a simple, straightforward,
precise code that tells property owners what they can do. Jefferson County hasn't killed the salmon runs,
most of the people that live here are responsible and want to live in a nice place and take care of the
land.
Craig Durgan, Port Ludlow, urged the Board to put the adoption of the UDC off. It needs more than
just fine tuning. Basically, the Board needs to have more public meetings to get more input from people.
He asked the Board not to rush into this because people in the County need to be able to live with this
document. The path the Board is taking right now will lead to more problems. It's ridiculous that a five
acre site can only have a building covering 1/3 of that acreage. The Board needs to look the whole UDC
over.
Dennis Bates, stated that he has several concerns about the UDC. It's difficult to keep track of all the
changes that have been made in the drafts. His biggest concern is about the process. The UDC needs to
be right to begin with because it will cost more for the County to change it in the future. He doesn't see
what the hurry is. Even people that want to see it adopted admit that it isn't correct. He urged the Board
not to force the adoption before January 1.
Bill Leavitt, stated that tonight the Board has heard from all sides regarding the adoption of the UDC
and nobody thinks it is ready. It's been a long process. In his work, he travels around the County and
doesn't see a lot of people ruining the environment. There are a lot of young people that need to have an
opportunity to make a living wage. If the Board would look at the words on paper and see how they
effect the actual physical surroundings of the County, they would find that a lot of these regulations
aren't necessary. Common sense and experience are important.
Page 17
Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of December 11, 2000
Gene Seton, said that he knows the County has to have development regulations. He requested that the
Board have staff evaluate each new regulation in the UDC and decide if it is a taking of property.
Kate Marsh, stated that if the Board chooses to adopt the UDC now, there are too many discrepancies
that will require amendments. This will mean more work for County staff in the long run. There are too
many inconsistencies between the Comprehensive Plan and the UDC regulations. She urged the Board to
take a few more months for the Planning Commission to finish their review and then adopt the UDC.
Alan Frank, Port Townsend City Councilman, explained that the City Council voted unanimously to
send their comment letter to the County asking the Board to delay passage of the UDC for 45-90 days in
order to finish the Board's review.
Fred Hill, said that he hasn't had time to study the UDC. He went to DCD a few days ago to look at a
copy and they didn't have one available. He asked the Board to allow more time for people to review the
document before they adopt it.
Joy Baisch, reiterated that there are many inconsistencies between the goals and policies of the
Comprehensive Plan and the UDC regulations. She doesn't feel the UDC represents what is in the
Comprehensive Plan and there are many unnecessary restrictions. She suggested that the DCD staff go
through the UDC regulations and link the policy or goal that it pertains to in the Comprehensive Plan.
She asked the Board to take a few days or a few weeks to review the UDC in more detail before it is
adopted.
Martin Kithcart, explained that he is the owner of Landmark Excavating and Bulldozing. He thinks
there are too many flaws in the UDC document. The Board needs to slow down and take the time to
review it. He has lived in Jefferson County all his life and he doesn't want to have to leave and he'd like
to see his son take over his business.
Hearing no further comments, Chairman Wojt closed the public hearing.
The hearing was recessed at the close of the hearing and reconvened on Thursday at 2 p.m. for
deliberations on the adoption of the UDC. Chairman Wojt and Commissioner Huntingford were present.
Commissioner Harpole was absent.
Deliberations re: Unified Development Code: Director of Community Development A1
Scalf explained that these deliberations are based on the November 16, 2000 draft UDC. This draft was
advertised in The Leader and the County Commissioners held two public hearings to receive comments.
The Board has seen all the comments on the draft UDC since May, 2000, as well as the Planning
Commission's report and DCD's recommendations. He asked that the Board also consider changes to
the following:
Page 18
Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of December 11, 2000
1)
2)
3)
4)
5)
Section 7, Binding Site Plans, that the wording "preliminary" be included.
Section 6, Mineral Lands, the requirement to cover 5 cubic yards or more of soils, sand, salt and
other erodible raw materials.
Section 4, regarding RV Park requirements.
Table 6.1 regarding the 100 foot buffer on the SR20 corridor entering Port Townsend.
The Port of Port Townsend's information regarding the 55 DNL noise overlay at the Airport.
He explained that on the Board's agenda on Monday, they will be deciding whether to adopt the UDC as
a permanent control or as an interim control. He asked that the Board give stafftheir topics of concem
that still need to be addressed. Commissioner Harpole sent an email to staff regarding his concerns
about:
Section 3, regarding buffers in riparian zones and Best Available Science.
Section 3, regarding planned rural residential developments (PRRD).
Mineral Resource lands standards regarding saltwater intrusion.
The DNL requirement at the Airport.
Section 4, regarding the small scale tourist recreation designation.
Section 4, regarding cottage industries and home businesses.
Section 6, regarding parking standards.
Section 7, regarding Binding Site Plans and their approval and expiration
Section 8, regarding the conditional use process.
Regarding the consistency with the Comprehensive Plan and identifying the specific goals and
policies that led to the development of the UDC.
Commissioner Huntingford acknowledged that in Commissioner Harpole's email he states that he wants
to adopt the UDC as a permanent ordinance. Commissioner Huntingford's major concern is that if it is
adopted as a permanent ordinance, any changes would have to go through the Comprehensive Plan
Amendment process and would take at least 60 to 90 days. If adopted as an interim ordinance, all of the
inconsistencies that were discovered at the public hearings could be revised before the permanent
ordinance was adopted. He cautioned that there are many changes that have been identified, and it is best
to revise the document before final adoption.
Commissioner Huntingford listed his areas of concern.
Section 2 states that minimum lot size is 12,500 square feet. Are there any circumstances that
would allow development on a smaller lot?
Page 17, regarding the definition for Recreational Vehicle Parks. Why are all recreational
vehicles to be licensed by the State of Washington in this definition?
Section 3 regarding nuisances dealing with agriculture and forestry activities, hours of operation
are between 7 a.m. and 7 p.m. Does that mean that any activities outside of that time would be
considered a nuisance?
Section 3 under disclosure statements, page 6, seems to contradict the above statement regarding
hours of operation.
Page 19
Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of December 11, 2000
Section 3, regarding setbacks from commercial forestry designations.
Page 28, regarding averaging buffer widths. If an additional buffer width is needed, will this be
an administrative decision or will the County have to hire a consultant?
How was the information developed regarding the mitigation tables on page 29 and the
replacement ratios of 3 to 1 ?
Page 38, regarding the dwelling unit caps in cluster housing development.
How was the 600 foot lineal number between clusters arrived at?
Reserve tract requirements.
Why in an Ag/5 acre designation, is there a 35 foot development setback from the nearest line of
any reserve tract; but if you have 20 acres, a 75 foot setback is required.
Page 40, regarding density bonuses, what is required for a plan of"sufficient excellence?"
Page 56, Use Tables, regarding nurseries.
Section 4, page 25, regarding Recreational Vehicle Parks, there is no need for the County to
regulate many of the details that are addressed. There are several sections throughout the
ordinance where inconsequential requirements have been added that make the ordinance
cumbersome.
Section 4, can the resident manager of an RV park have a home on the site?
Most RV parks have a little store for necessities, will this be allowed?
When is a dump station required?
Regarding rural restaurants, has the County always regulated outdoor seating? If a restaurant
owner can demonstrate the need for more than 50 seats, would it be allowed?
Clarification regarding selling food at expresso stands or convenience stores.
Section 4.3 on page 26, regarding exemptions of other uses. Does the County need to tell people
when they don't need a permit?
Table 6.1, buffers on SR20.
Section 6.9 pedestrian circulation standards.
Section 6.15 signs on trucks.
Section 6.7 regarding maintenance in a concrete plant.
On page 22, engine repair and routine maintenance in a shop.
Best Management Practices on page 24. Why does the consultant who prepares the report have to
have at least three references from qualified parties familiar with the business practice?
Section 7.2, regarding boundary line adjustments. Do they follow State law?
Changing the timeframe for resubdivision.
Section 7.6, No. 9.
Using the titles "Administrator" and "Director" in different instances.
Section 8, the application timeframe and being sure that the applicant is aware of how long the
application process will take.
Section 10, how many employees will it take to enforce the UDC?
Section 7.6, No. 8.
Page 20
Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of December 11, 2000
Commissioner Huntingford reiterated his concerns about the timeline for making amendments to the
UDC if it is adopted as a permanent ordinance. The amendment process will take a lot of staff time.
People haven't felt the effects of the Comprehensive Plan yet, but with the adoption of the UDC, they
will.
Chairman Wojt listed the following concems:
Setbacks, disclosure and notice to title on land adjacent to forestlands.
Cottage industries. Why does the UDC limit the amount of space that can be used for business?
This seems like over regulation. The regulations need to address effects on adjacent property
owners.
If there isn't a size restriction on construction of a residence, why is there a limitation on the
number of rooms in a Bed & Breakfast?
The building height for storage units.
Bulk and dimensions and building caps in commercial and rural designations.
Can a commercial septic field be put on a residential lot?
Boundary line adjustments across different land use designations.
The small scale recreation and tourism designation.
Planning Manager Warren Hart stated that the areas of concern that the Board members have articulated
today will need to be addressed. The Board needs to identify whether staff will work with the Board or
the Planning Commission to resolve these issues. A work plan will be set up.
Commissioner Huntingford explained more concerns relating to comments received from the public.
Clarification about issues regarding the airport.
Clarification about issues regarding signage.
A reference to Rae Belkin's comments regarding mineral resource lands.
Al Boucher's comment to insert Policy 7.1 of the County Wide Planning Policies into the UDC
about encouraging economic development.
Changes in the seawater intrusion provisions. Warren Hart explained that the changes in the
UDC were based on legal advise as a result of the response by the Shine Community Action
Council and the City of Port Townsend regarding the conditions of the stipulated agreement.
Clarification of the bulk and dimension requirements in rural areas.
Will the Shoreline Master Program be added to the UDC? Warren Hart replied that when the new
regulations are approved, they will be added to the UDC according to the amendment process.
Jim Posey's comments -- there are too many minuscule restrictions that the County doesn't need
to address in the document.
Ken Dressler's concerns regarding limited working hours for a cottage industry. Warren Hart
explained that Dressler's business is considered a pre-existing non-conditional use and the UDC
will not impact it unless the business changes. There was a brief discussion about if the DCD
staff will respond to each individual comment.
Page 21
Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of December 11, 2000
Clarification regarding the 65% open space requirement on a cluster development. If there is a
cluster development and another cluster development is proposed on adjacent property, there are
restrictions on how close they can be.
What about affordable housing?
Clarification regarding the size limit on commercial buildings.
The issue about covering more than 5 cubic yards of erodible raw material.
Clarification on the inconsistencies regarding home businesses commented on by Kate Marsh
and Joy Baisch.
Clarification of septic issues related to subdivision approval. Is it correct that a building permit
is now required before a septic permit?
Clarification on Greg Durgan's concerns about the bulk and dimension requirements on 5 acres
and restricting use to 3% of the total acreage.
A1 Scalf asked if there were any changes that the Board members present could agree on at this time?
Warren Hart and Al Scalf explained the changes that have been recommended by staff:
Section 7.5.11, Binding Site Plans: Revised language regarding extinguishment of binding site
plans having preliminary approval prior to UDC adoption. "The applicant or owner of a property
subject to a binding site plan having preliminary approval prior to initial adoption of the UDC
shall obtain final approval for the development of the site within two years of the initial adoption
of the code." A1 Scalf reported that the only preliminary binding site plan that does not have final
approval for development is Kala Square. Warren Hart clarified that no actual construction is
necessary, but the final plan must be approved by DCD and recorded with the County.
Commissioner Huntingford moved to approve the new wording in Section 7.5.11.
Chairman Wojt seconded the motion which carried.
The revision in Section 6.17.1D. 1 only applies to mineral resource land designations in critical
aquifer recharge areas. Mark Personious, Consultant, quoted the revisions in the language
regarding Minimum Requirements. "The following BMPs, or equivalent measures, methods or
practices are required if you are to engage in storage or stockpiling of erodible material;
subparagraph i: Site and contain the stockpiles of raw material in such a manner so as to prevent
off-site impacts of surface water runoff, erosion, and sedimentation." subparagraph ii is deleted
because it is covered by the Stormwater Management Standards. Subparagraph iii regarding
Routine Maintenance would become subparagraph ii. Mark Personious explained that the BMPs
regarding routine maintenance are not typically enforced, they are listed to educate the public. He
added that the reference to 5 cubic yards of erodible material has been removed.
Commissioner Huntingford moved to approve the recommended changes and deletions in
subparagraph i and ii. Chairman Wojt seconded the motion which carried. Commissioner
Huntingford asked that staff find a different way to deal with the routine maintenance language in
subparagraph iii (now subparagraph ii) and said that he would prefer that routine maintenance
not be addressed in the ordinance.
Page 22
Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of December 11, 2000
The revision in Section 4.32, #3 regarding asphalt paving of (mini) storage units calls for an all
weather surface rather than paving. This is the current requirement and includes gravel.
Commissioner Huntingford moved to approve the language change. Chairman Wojt
seconded the motion which carried. There was a brief discussion about the deletion of the
height requirement for (mini) storage units that was made in the December 6 draft.
Commissioner Huntingford moved to approve the deletion regarding the height
requirement. Chairman Wojt seconded the motion which carried.
The recommendation for Section 4.35.6 is to strike out subparagraph 5 regarding the number and
type of structures or vehicles which may be in an RV space. Commissioner Huntingford
moved to approve the deletion. Chairman Wojt seconded the motion which carried.
Commissioner Huntingford asked about allowing a small store for necessities at an RV park.
Mark Personious explained that this is addressed in Section 4.35.3A.
Commissioner Huntingford asked if the UDC requires all RV parks to have septic hookups for
each site? Warren Hart clarified that the park can either have one dump station or individual
hook-ups at each site.
Commissioner Huntingford questioned why the UDC requires an RV park to be in a forested
area? Commissioner Huntingford moved to delete this requirement. Chairman Wojt
seconded the motion which carried.
Commissioner Huntingford asked for clarification about the minimum width for a property
developed as an RV Park, the layout and design specifications, and why the County is telling
people how many cars can be parked in a certain area. He commented that there are too many
unnecessary details in these regulations. Warren Hart replied that these regulations are designed
to meet minimum performance standards. They give the Administrator more flexibility to sign
off on projects in rural residential areas.
Table 6-1 regarding the Highway 20 Corridor policy to preserve the tree canopy. The current
regulations require a 30 foot setback from the right-of-way for a tree harvesting buffer and
buildings require an additional 20 foot setback from that buffer. The UDC proposed a 100 foot
setback and staff is recommending a change to 50 feet. Warren Hart added that this will not
protect the tree canopy, and there will have to be additional negotiations with the State
Department of Transportation and additional work on this area of UDC. Commissioner
Huntingford asked to see the difference on paper between the 30 foot setback and the 50 foot
setback. Commissioner Huntingford moved to revise the language in the UDC regarding the
Highway 20 Corridor to the current standards which are a 30 foot setback from the right-
of-way plus an additional 20 foot setback from the 30 foot setback for buildings. Chairman
Wojt seconded the motion which carried.
Page 23
Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of December 11, 2000
Randy Kline explained that the DNL level for buildings on airport property is 65 DNL. The Port
of Port Townsend has requested that they be notified when a building permit application is
received that is within the 55 DNL range which is a much wider area. The information would
also be noticed on a building permit. No notice to title is required. Prosecuting Attorney David
Alvarez recommended that the Board keep the 65 DNL in the UDC. Warren Hart added that this
and other issues will be addressed in the subarea planning process for the airport over the next
year.
Warren Hart explained that the definition of a buildable lot in Section 2 is taken from the Public
Health requirements on the types of soils for septic systems and potable water. Commissioner
Huntingford questioned the 12,500 square foot minimum. He added that the State doesn't
require a minium lot size and there is new technology to address septic issues on less land. Staff
agreed to discuss this issue more on Monday.
Regarding Commissioner Huntingford's concerns about plant nurseries being allowed in rural
areas but not in neighborhood visitor crossroads. Commissioner Huntingford moved to allow
nurseries as a permitted use in neighborhood visitor crossroads. Chairman Wojt seconded
the motion which carried.
Warren Hart explained that in order to address concerns about Bed & Breakfasts and Bed &
Breakfast Inns competing with local restaurants, the Planning Commission revised the language
in the UDC to read that meals may only be served to guests.
Section 4.6 regarding barking dogs is the recommendation of the Planning Commission that a
dog can be kept outside on the premises unattended between 7 a.m. and 10 p.m. After 10 p.m. a
dog must be accompanied by an attendant.
Regarding marine businesses, the current business in the Quilcene Boat Haven is grandfathered
and if a new business came in or the business was expanded, they would have to comply with the
UDC regulations. The restriction of working hours for home businesses and cottage industries
was brought forward from the Comprehensive Plan.
Warren Hart explained that Section 3.3.2c addresses the right to farm and the UDC says that
agricultural, forestry activities and lumber mills are allowed to operate from 7 a.m. to 7 p.m. and
these activities cannot be considered a nuisance between those hours. Commissioner
Huntingford commented that it is impossible to keep livestock farming activities within this time
frame. He pointed out an inconsistency in the next section regarding disclosure that references
"the operation of farm or forestry machinery during any 24 hour period." Commissioner
Huntingford moved to delete the 7 a.m. to 7 p.m. limitation for agricultural and forestry
activities in Section 3.3.2c. Chairman Wojt seconded the motion which carried.
Page 24
Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of December 11, 2000
The setback from Agricultural Resource, Forest Resource or Mineral Resource Lands is 100 to
250 feet. According to the Disclosure information in Section 3.3.2d, property adjacent to these
resource lands within 500 feet are required to have a disclosure statement on file rather than a
notice to title. This statement is meant to make people aware of the activities on the adjacent
property. Warren Hart explained that if the property owner enters into a mutual agreement with
the resource land owner to locate closer than the required buffer, it is allowed. If there are
topographical constraints, the Administrator could allow this without going to the resource land
owner and it would show as a disclosure statement on the building permit.
Warren Hart explained that the Comprehensive Plan states that there needs to be a maximum
square footage designated for cottage industries and home businesses. The reason was to prove
that the residence is the primary use.
Chairman Wojt asked why there is no limit on the size of a residence, but there is a limit on the
size of a Bed & Breakfast? Michelle Farfan stated that a Bed & Breakfast with more bedrooms
than allowed in the UDC would require a commercial water system. Warren Hart explained that
the UDC allows 50% of a home, or up tol,200 square feet, to be used as a home business.
Warren Hart explained that if the Board plans to adopt the UDC as an interim or final ordinance on
December 18, they need to get their specific changes to the Planning staff. All the motions that were
discussed and voted on today will be addressed in the UDC document and the other concerns will be
listed and addressed on Monday.
MEETING AD)~)URNED
SEAL: .,.
ATTEST: ".
~elaney, CMC
Clerk of the Board
JE"~FERSON CO~--"~Y ,/~
BO^RD
Richard Wojt, Chair
Dan Harpole, Member
Page 25
DEC-06.2~0 11:49 JEFF CO COMM DEUELOPMENT 360 399 4451 P.02
JEFFERSON COUNTY
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
621 Sheridan Street
Port Townsend, WA 98368
Al Scalf, Director
Jefferson County
Board of County Commissioners
Agend~
To:
l~rom:
Date:
Subject:
Board of County Commissioners
Charles C. Saddler, County Administrator
A1 5calf, Director of Community Development
Warren Hart, AICP, Planning Manager
December i1, 2000
In the Mat~er of Public Hearings for an Ordinance Adopting a Unified
Development Code (UDC); Final Staff Recommended Revisions to the
UDC for Review and Consideration; Transmittal of Public Comment Letters
Statement of Issue:
The Board of County Commissioners is to conduct two public
hearings for an ordinance adopting a U-;fled Development Code (see
attached Agenda Request from November 20, 2000).
1. Staff is to present a staff report.
2. Board is to open public hearing.
3. Board is to take public testimony.
4. Board is to close public hearing.
5. Board is to deliberate and take action as necessary (Deliberations
set for December 14, 2000. Date for consideration of adoption
set for December 18, 2000).
In addition, the Department of Community Development has
prepared for the Board's consideration, final staff recommended
revisions to the UDC. (see Attached Document)
Building Permits/Ins_oectjons
(360) 379-4450
Development Re,,yiew Division
Long Range Plannina
FAX: (360) 379-4451
JEFF CO COMM DEUELOPMENT 560 5?9 4451 P.83
DEC-06-20~0 11:49
Transmittal of Public Comment' Letters. (Attached are 15 public
comments lercers received by the Department of Community
Development)
Analysis:
These suggested revisions, highlighted in blue :ext, represent the final staff-
recommended revisions to :he UDC for review and consideration by the
Board of County Commissioners in their deliberation process. The
Department of Community Development (u 'tflizing project review staff not
necessarily involved in the preparation of the UDC) has evaluated the Draft
UDC by z~,-ning several "test cases" (i.e., project scenarios) l:~oug~ the new
proposed procedural and substantive requirements to "test" the UDC for
consistency and completeness. These recommended changes are based on
"housekeeping" revisions to the draft to correct or clarify the intent of
certain sections and to eliminate any remaLnlng inconsistencies based on
DCD staff review. Some of the revisions also address some of the remaining
public and Plazming Commission comments or concerns submitted to &re
on the draft UDC and also incorporate suggested revisions from the
Departments of PubLic Works and Environmental Health submitted after
preparation and publication of the November 16, 2000 Dr-aft UDC.
Although some new land uses are proposed for Table 3-1(at the request of
the Department of Public Works), the DCD does not consider any of the
recommended changes in blue to be substantially significant in terms of
altering the affect or intent of the LrDC.
Alternatives: The Board of Commissioners:
1. Can adopt the ordinance as written.
2. C~ modify the ordinance based upon public testimony and adopt.
3. Adopt as aa interim control ordinance.
4. Remand to staff for further work with a hst of items of concern.
Fiscal Impact:
The fiscal impact has been previously considered by adoption of the
contract for this project
Recommendation:
The Department of Community Development recommends that the
Board of County Commissioners deliberate and adopt the Unified
Development Code.
Reviewed by:
Charles C. Saddler, County Administrator
(or David Goldsmith, Deputy County Administrator)
TOTAL P.05
Consent Agenda
Dept. of Community Development
Page 1 of 3
Jefferson County
Board of County Commissioners
Agenda Request
To:
From:
Date:
Subject:
Board of County Commissioners
Charles C. Saddler, County Administrator
A1 Scalf, Director of Community Development
Warren Hart, AICP, Planning Manager
November 20, 2000
Setting a Public Hearing Date and Publishing a Hearing Notice on a Unified
Development Code (UDC)
Statement of Issue: Attached is a Public Hearing Notice for consideration of the
adoption of an Ordinance (Unified Development Code).
Two public hearings have been tentatively scheduled. The first on
December 11, 2000 at 3:00 p.m. and the second on December 12,
2000 at 6:00 p.m.
Analysis:
Recognizing the importance of adopting final development controls in a
timely manner to implement the policies of the Comprehensive Plan, on
February 28, 2000 the Board of County Commissioners (BoCC)
authorized release of a Request For Proposals (RFP), to solicit proposals
from qualified consultants to work in cooperation with the Planning
Commission, the Department of Community Development (DCD) and
other County Departments to prepare final development regulations for
Jefferson County.
The Board entered into a professional services agreement on May 22,
2000, with Earth Tech, a multi-disciplinary planning and engineering
consulting firm, to prepare final development controls in the form of a
UDC, along with the implementation of a public participation program, a
report to assess the administration of the UDC to effectively process
permits under the UDC, compliance with SEPA, and the preparation of
forms, applications and checklists to process development applications
upon adoption of the new UDC.
The BoCC entered into the professional services agreement pursuant to the
public interest of the Planning Enabling Act (36.70.650 RCW), which
Consent Agenda
Dept. of Community Development
Page 2 of 3
directs the adoption of final development controls as Board Initiated
Official Controls.
The public participation program providing for early and continuous
public participation included the following: The Planning Commission
held pubtic and properly noticed meetings on the UDC with the initial
meeting outlining the scope of the UDC on July 12, 2000; Review of the
draft UDC by the Planning Commission was conducted by section,
beginning on September 6, 2000 and was followed by UDC review
meetings that incorporated public comment periods on September 13th,
September 20th, September 27th, October 4th, October 11th, and October
18th of this year; Two properly no. ticed public hearings on the Draft UDC
were held on back to back nights in Port Hadlock and Brinnon on October
25th and 26th in order to take public comment on the UDC; Public
comment on the draft UDC was held open by the Planning Commission
until October 30th; A public open house to answer questions from the
public and take comment on the draft UDC was held by staff of the DCD
on November 4, 2000; Four Planning Commission deliberation meetings
were held on November 1 st, November 4th, November 8th, and November
9th; The BoCC received draft sections of the UDC as they were distributed
to the Planning Commission and formal review of the draft UDC by the
BoCC was conducted by section, beginning on October 9, 2000 and was
followed by UDC review meetings on Octoberl 6th, October 23rd, and
November 6th. On November 13th, the BoCC reviewed the "Suggested
Revisions for Board of County Commissioner Consideration, dated
November 10, 2000". Several changes were made to the November 10,
2000 draft of the UDC and staff of the Department of Community
Development was directed by motion of the Board to prepare the final
draft of the UDC, prepare the consent agenda for the setting of a public
hearing date and publishing a hearing notice on the UDC. In addition to
copies of the UDC provided to the public free of charge, the county's
website with information schedules and UDC textual language were
provided for increased access.
Attached to this consent agenda are two items: 1) Public Hearing Draft of
the Unified Development Code for Jefferson County, Washington,
November 16, 2000, and 2) Public Hearing Notice.
Alternatives:
Fiscal Impact:
The Board of Commissioners may choose to hold a public hearing
and publish the attached public hearing notice in the newspaper. The
BoCC may decide they want to change the information in the public
hearing notice or in the draft ordinance.
The fiscal impact has been previously considered by adoption of the
contract for this project.
Consent Agenda
Dept. of Community Development
Page 3 of 3
Recommendation: Staff recommends adoption of the consent agenda.
Reviewed by:
Charles C. Saddler, County Administrator
(or David Goldsmith, Deputy County Administrator)
'Publish one
(1) time:
Bill:
November 29, 2000
Jefferson County Department of Community Development
621 Sheridan St., Port Townsend, WA 98368
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARINGS
ON THE DRAFT JEFFERSON COUNTY
UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE
JEFFERSON COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Jefferson County Board of
Commissioners will hold two public hearings on the Draft Jefferson
County Unified Development Code. The first public hearing is
scheduled for Monday, December 11, 2000, beginning at 3:00 p.m. in the
Commissioners Chambers at the Jefferson County Courthouse, Port
Townsend, Wa. The second public hearing is scheduled for Tuesday,
Decer~ber 12, 2000, beginning at 6:00 p.m. in the Superior Courtroom at
the Jefferson County Courthouse, Port Townsend, Wa. The purpose of
the public hearings is to take public testimony on the Draft Jefferson
County Unified Development Code. The Unified Development Code is
available on the internet at www.co.jefferson.wa.us and copies are
available free of charge at the Department of Community Development.
Written comments will be accepted by the Board through December 12,
2000 and may be sent to the Department of Community Development, 621
Sheridan Street, Port Townsend, Wa 98368. For further information,
contact Randy Kline, Project Planner, at the Department of Community
Development, 379-4464 or rkline@co.jefferson.wa.us.
/
[[MMISSIONERS
UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE CF~APTER CONTENTS A/ND SUMMARY
TABLE OF CONTE1TTS
SECTION 1 INTRODUCTORY PROVISIONS
1.1
1.2
1.3
1.4
1.5
1.6
1.7
1.8
1.9
Title
Authority, Pu--~pose, and Scope
Hearing Examiner System Established
Establishment of Land Use Districts and Official Maps
Applicability
Minimum Standards
Tital and headings Not Law
Sever ability Clause
Waiver
SECTION 2 DEFINITIONS
2._
2.2
2.3
Scope
Interpretation
Definitions
SECTION 3 LA/qD USE DISTRICTS
3.1
3.2
3.3
3.4
3.5
3.6
3.6.1
3.6.2
3.6.3
3.6.4
3.6.5
3.66
3.67
3.68
3.69
3.6 !0
3.6 I1
3.6.12
3 .6.13
3.7
3.8
Table 3-1
Land-Use Districts
Land Use Reou!ations ~ '~ ~
~ A_.ow=o~_ and Prohibited Uses by Designation
Land Use Regulations - General Provisions
Master planned resorts - Special provisions
Rural and Resource Districts
Overlay Districts
Purpose
Maps
Mineral Resource Lands Diszric~
Environmen~ai!y Sensitive Areas District (ESA)
Critical Aquifer Recharge Areas
Frequently Flooded Areas
Geologically Hazardous Areas
Fish and Wildlife habitat Areas
Wetlands
Special Reports
Airport Essen~iai Public Facility District (A)
West End Planning Area
Planned Rural Residential Developments (PRRDs)
Subarea Plans [RESERVED]
Major Industrial development [RESERVED]
Allowable and Prohibited Uses
SECTION 3 - SLrMM~RY OF SIGNIFICA/Tr CHANGES FROM EXISTING ORDINANCES
Allowable and prohibited uses are classified for each of the land use districts
in Section 3. Land uses allowed under ~his Code are divided into four major
categories.
"Yes" uses allowed ounright subject to the provisions of this Code.
"D" Discretionary uses which apply to cernain named and all unnamed uses and is
a "classification" process only.
· "C" Conditional uses that must mee5 special approval criteria which require a .
public hearing as well as two subcategcries--C(a) uses which do not require a
public hearing and C(d) uses which may, at the discretion cf the Administrator,
require a public hearing based on project impacts or complexity; and Prohibited
"No" uses which are not allowed in the prescribed district.
· Modifications to the oe.~raitted use table (Table 3-i) have been made to
incorporate the following significant changes:
Identifies major uses by category (i.e., residential, commercial, industrial,
etc.) and introduces new uses allowed under the "small scale recreation and
tourist" uses category authorized by RCN 36.70A.070 and the Comprehensive Plan
Table 3-! redefines "mineral processing" (e.g., rock crushing or screening) and
"asphalt and concrete batch plants" as separate uses that reqfuire a conditional
use permit in the applicable district where allowed (including associated
public notice and hearing requirements) . New asphalt batch plants are
specifically prohibited in rural residential districts.
Allows duplexes in rural residential districts subject to underlying density
requirements; and allows duplexes and multi-family in Rural Village Centers.
· Allows residential care facilities and assisted living facilities in rural
residential districts subject to conditional use approval
Proposes a wide range cf new small scale recreation and tourist uses (along
with significant conditions and oerformance standards in Section 4) most of
which are classified as C(d) uses consistent with Comprehensive Plan guidance
on classifying these uses as conditional uses
Section 3 also contains provisions to increase nuisance protection for
agricultural and forestry activities in the Rural Residential 1:10, 1:20, Rural
Commercial and Rural Industrial designations.
Section 3 aisc removes the "notice to title" provisions in existing code for
deve!opment'adjacen5 to resourpe lands and replaces it with a '~disclosure
statement" common to al! permits issued within 500 feet of said lands.
Section 3 adopts overlay districts for existing designations such as the
airport essential public facility district, the environmentally sensitive areas
and mineral lands, and for new areas (directed by the Comprehensive Plan) such
as the West End Planning Area and Planned Rural Residential Developments (i.e.,
clustering provisions).
Section 3 establishes Reserved sections for resolution of the Potential Final
Urban Growth Area designation, for adoption of Subarea Plans, and for creation
of a process to allow Major Industrial Development consistent with RCW
36.70A.365.
Section 3 establishes Special Use permit process for siting Essential Public
Facilities consistent with Comprehensive Plan reqfuirements.
· Section 3' adopts process requirements for the future designation and adoption
of new Master Planned Resorts
Critical Areas (te~Tned ~'environmenta!!y sensitive areas") are designated as
overlay districts in Section 3. Revisions to the existing Critical .Areas
Ordinance (CAO) are made to implement the policies of the CP and meet the
minimum requirements of RCW 36.70A.060 (2~ for geologically hazardous areas,
frequently flooded areas, critical aquifer recharge areas, wetlands and fish
and wildlife habitat areas. Major changes tc existing CAO provisions proposed
in the UDC include:
Clearer provisions for regu!azed and exempt activities in environmentally
sensitive areas (e.g., lawn maintenance, access =rai!s, on-going
agricultural activities, etc. are exempT)
Crizica! Aquifer Recharge Area protection standards have been revised and
streamlined; and saltwater intrusion area provisions have been amended to
require on-size stormwater infiltration for properties on Marrowstone and
Indian islands or within 500 feet of any marine shoreline
Adoption of standard buffer widths for streams and wetlands based on best
available science and the elimination of the high/low intensity type land
use buffers previously adopted for wetlands and streams
Existing standard fish and wildlife habitat buffers (i.e., stream
buffers) range from 15 to !00 feet based on stream type. Based on best
available science in accordance with WAC 365-195-900, the b-DC proposes
buffers ranging from 50 to 150 feet.
Existing wetland buffers range from 25 to 150 feet based on land use
intensity. Based on best available science in accordance with WAC 365-
195-900, the UDC proposes establishing standard buffers for all uses,
regardless of intensity, ranging from 25 to 150 feet.
Increased buffer widths and new protection standards for activities in
fish and wildlife habitat areas {i.e., stream crossings, placement of
utilities, bank stabilization, eno.)
Require habitat management plans to justify stream buffer reductions when
sensitive species are present
Prescribes new. standards for wetland enhancement, mitigation and
compensation and establishes minimum setbacks to avoid having to do a
wenland delineation report
Planned Rural Residential Deve!oDment (PR.R/D) provisions in Section 3 implement
the Comprehensive Plan directive to provide clustering prcvlsions for ~ural
residential development and allow flexibility in applying densisy and
dimensional standards that support creative residential design opportunities in
---ural areas.
The PRRD (as described in the UDC) functions as an overlay district and will
typically accompany a subdivision or other permit application through the
approval process. !~ establishes m~nimum and maximum PRRD land areas for
different land use districts and establishes an upper limit on the total number
of units permitted in a PP3%D, including requirements for ooen space reserve
tracts ranging from 65 to 85 percent of The slue depending on land use
district.
The PRRD provisions of the 'o-DC provide a discretionary allowance for maximum
20% density bonus provisions for demonstrated public benefi~ purposes (e'.g.,
endangered species habitat prese~ation, affordable housing for !ow-income
residenzs, recreational access, etc.)
SECTION 4
4.1
4.2
4.3
4.4
4.5
4.6
4.7
4.8
4.9
4 .10
4 .I1
4.12
4.13
4 .14
PERFOR/~CE i%N'D USE SPECIFIC STA/FDlkRDS
General Provisions
Accessory Uses and Structures
Agricultural Activities, Best Management Practices for Water Quality
[RESERVED]
Airports [RESERVED]
Airfields and Airstrips [RESERVED]
Animal Kennels and Shelters
Asphalt and Concrete Batch Plants
Asse~ubly Facilities
Automotive Fuel, Se!-vice, and Repair Stations
Automobile Wrecking Yards and Junk (or Salvage) Yards
Cemeteries
College or Technical Schools
Commercial Communication Facilities and Sites
Commercial Uses - Standards for SiTe Developmenz
4.15
4.16
4 .17
4 .18
4 .20
4 .21
4 .22
4 .23
4 .24
4 .25
4 .26
4 .27
4.28
4.29
4.30
4.31
4.32
4.33
4 .34
4 .35
4 .36
4.37
4.38
4.39
4.40
4.41
4.42
Convenience Stores and Car Washes
conversions of Land tc Non-Forestry Use, other Class iV General Forest
Practices, and Conversion Option Had;est Plans (COHP)
Cottage !ndust~
Day Care and Residential Care Facilities
Golf Courses
Home Businesses
Hospitaiit¥ Establishmenzs
Industrial Uses - Standards for Site Development
Lumber Mills (Portable and Stationary)
Mineral Extraction, Mining, Quarrying and Reclamation
Manufactured/Mobile Home Parks
Nonconforming Legal Structures and Uses
Outdoor Commercial Amusement Facilities
Outdoor storage Yards
Recreational Developments
Recycling Collection Facilities and Recycling Centers
Residential Care Facilities and Nursing Homes
(Mini) Storage Facilities
Seasonal Agricultural Roadside Stands
Sewage Sludge and Septage
Small-Scale Recreation and Tourist Uses
Solid waste handling and Disposal Facilities
Tank Farm Facilities (Bulk Storage Facilities)
Temporary Outdoor Uses
Temporary Festivals
Utility Developments, Minor
UCi!ity Developments, Major
Veterinary Clinics or Hospitals
SECTION 4 - BUMPY OF S!GIN-IF!CAlqT CIiA/~GESFROM EXISTING ORDINANCES
The performance standards in Section 4 are designed to implement ~he
Comprehensive Plan directives to: "adopt c!ea~., understandable .... predictable ....
criteria...and srandards Thar conform to a prescribed se~ of regulations_ which
preserve and prorecr rural characten., uhar prohibir arbitra~y and
discriminauorv actions, and preserve reasonable uses for regulazed properties".
Section 4 of the ~JDC establishes performance standards for almost 40 different
rural land uses and activities. Typical uses subjecu to performance standards
include accessory uses, asphalt and concrete batch plants, commercial uses,
conversion of forest land to non-forestry use, cottage industries, home
occupations, residential care facilities, bed and breakfast establishments,
industrial uses, non-conforming uses and structures, recreational developments,
mineral extraction activities, small scale tourist and recreational uses,
temporary outdoor uses, and utilities.
Major areas of change in Section 4 of the UDC include:
· Flexibility ~o allow small scale recreational and ~ourist uses in
rural residential areas. Introduces more than 15 new uses for rural
residential lands and includes corresponding performance standards to
ensure compliance with RCW 36.70A.070 and the Comprehensive Plan.
· New standards for allowing home occupations (up to approx. 1200 sf)
and cottage industries (up to 3000 sf) that incorporate provisions
and standards to be in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan
· Increased size of Accessory Dwelling Units from 800 to 1250 square
feet to allow more affordable housing opportunities in the County
· Increases size of allowed seasonal roadside stands from 300 feet to
1000 square feet and includes standards to provide for adequate.
access, parking and. size design
Exempts State Licensed Home Day Care providers and "no impact" home
occupations from 5he local permitting process
Allowance for ~ransient rental of single family homes and accessory
dwelling units
Regulating the storage of inoperable or unlicensed vehicles for the
first time in rural residential areas. UDC proposes to allow up to 12
unlicensed and inoperable vehicles to be stored on a residential lot,
except that the first two such vehicles must be screened from view of
neighboring dwellings or public right of way if located on a lot one-
half acre or smaller in size. Storage of more than 12 such vehicles
would qualify as a junk yard under the UDC and be subjec~ to
applicable standards
SECTION 5 EXISTING SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM
Section 5 of the UDC is rese-~ved for the future integration of adopted
amendments to the County's existing Shoreline Master Program (SMP). Until that
time, the County's existing SMP shall remain in full effect.
SECTION 6 DEVELOPMENT STA/FDA-RDS
6.1
6.2
6.3
6.4
6.5
6.6
6.7
6.8
6.9
6.10
6.11
6.12
6.13
6.14
6.15
6.16
6.17
6.18
6.19
General Provisions
General Development Standards
Water Supplies
Sewage Disposal
Density, Dimension, and Open Space Standards
Grading and Excavation Standards
Stormwater Management Standards
Roads
Pedestrian Circulation
Parking
Off-Street Loading Space Requirements
Utility Service Lines and Facilities
Landscaping/Screening
Lighting
Signs
Archaeological and Hisuoric Resources
Mining, Quarrying and Aspha!u/Concrete Batch Plant Best Management
Practices in Criuica! Aquifer Recharge Areas
0n-Slue Sewage Disposal Best Management Practices in Critical Aquifer
Recharge Areas
Noise
SECTION 6 - SUMlqARY OF SIGNIFICANT CF. ANGES FROM EXISTING ORDINANCES
Ail uses allowed by this Code are subject to the development standards of
Section 6 which will apply to all land use districts in the County, except as
otherwise provided for in the b-DC.
The development standards outlined in section 6 of the UDC include provisions
for bulk, dimensional and density requirements, including setback, b~ilding
height and lot coverage ratios. Other standards include grading and
excavation, stormwater management, water and septic systems, roads, parking,
landscaping and screening, signs, lighting, uses in critical aquifer recharge
areas and noise standards.
· Major changes incorporated into Section 6 of the UDC include the following:
Adopts szo-'-mwater management standards consistent with the existing
stormwater management ordinance (and the Stormwater Management Manual
for the Puget Sound Basin) but creates new grading and excavation
standards for new development and requires a new stormwater
management "permi~" for certain clearing and ~rading activities
Maintains existing road setbacks for all land use districts, except
for increased setback proposed along SR 20 in ~he Glen Cove/Tri Area
(from 50 feet To !00 fee~) ~o satisfy ~he directive of ~he
Comprehensive Plan zo protect the foresz corridor
Establishes new impe~;ious surface coverage limitations. For rural
commercial and induszrial districts, the maximum coverage allowed
would increase from 45% of the lot to 60%; for rural residential
districts the allowable coverage would be reduced from 45% to 25%,
except for lots less Than 5 acres which would retain 45% allowable
impe~-vious surface coverage (Table 6-1)
incorporates the subdivision development standards into This chapter
and includes road standards and subdivision requirements revised by
The Departmen~ of Public Works
Adopts standard provisions for protection of archaeological and
historic resources and adopts existing SEPA noise standards and new
lighting standards To !imi~ ~lare
Clarifies and establishes standards for landscaping and screening,
where required, increases the screening required for commercial,
industrial, small scale recreational and Tourist uses and mulTifami!y
uses which !ocaze adjacent To a residential use or district from
minimum !0 feet to 15 feeT. Aisc includes flexibility provision
allowing existing vegetation, screening, Topography and location of
use ~o be ~aken into accounu in meeting landscaping/screening
requirements
Mosz of The ex!suing sign ordinance provisions remain intacu for
commercial and ~ndustrial disTricTs (i.e., 64 sq. ft. maximum sign),
except UDC. limits new sign size in ~ara! residential districts to 32
square feet, except for institutional uses (i.e., churches or
community signs} which would be allowed up To 64 sq. ft. signs in
~ural residential areas
SECTION 7 LA_ND DIVISIONS
7.1
7.2
7.3
7.4
7.5
7.6
General Provisions
Boundary Line Adjustments
Short Subdivision
Long Subdivision
Binding Site Plans
Subdivision Development Standards
SECTION 7 - SUM/~UURY OF SIGNIFICA~Vf CHA/~GES FROM EXISTING ORDINANCES
· The provisions in the Land Divisions chapter (Section 7) of the UDC constitute
the Subdivision Ordinance of the County and implemenz and supplement the State
Subdivision Statute (RCW 58.17). They promote the public health, safety and
general welfare by requiring thau The division of land proceed in accordance
with standards and procedures seu forth in uhis Code, and by facilitating the
appropriate development of land in accordance with the ability of the natural
resources of the county To accommodaze such development and in the public
interest.
· Section 7 includes new or amended provisions to provide criteria and procedures
for binding site plans, boundary line adjustments, short and long subdivisions.
SECTION 8 PERMIT APPLICATION AND RE¥IEW PROCEDURES/SEPA IM~PLE/~ENTATION
8.1
8.2
8.3
8.4
8.5
Types of Project Perm, its
Project Permiu Applications (Type i-IV}
Public Notice requiremenus
Project Review and Approval Process
Appeals
8.6
8.7
8.8
8.9
8.10
Unified Development Code interpretation
Sice Plan Approval Advance Dete_~mination
Conditional Uses
Variances (Minor and Major)
Stace Environmenza! Policy Act (SEPA) Imp!emendation
SECTION 8 - SUIH~4A-R¥ OF SIGNIFICANT CH3%NGES FROM EXISTING ORDINANCES
Section 8 of the UDC sets forth the requirements and procedures for
development applications, public notice, review, hearing, approval
and appeal. Procedures are specified for ~he efficient processing of
permits and o~her decisions necessa.~-y for allowed and conditional
uses regulated in this Code.
Section 8 of the UDC represents the County's SEPA implementing
provisions and establishes criteria for apprcva! of condizional uses,
specifies =ime!ines for dete-~mining compleceness of applications,
public notice requirements,, time!ines for public commen~s and notice
on project applications, and appeal procedures of decisions rendered
under this I/DC.
Section 8 of the UDC includes the following subs:anuial changes
current county procedures regarding these issues:
Section 8 imp!emenCs ~he Local Projec~ Review ACE (Chapter 36.70B
RCW), and that to the exuenu practicable, makes perform~ance and
development standards adopted to implement the Comprehensive Plan as
the primary basis for conditions of deve!opmen~ approval, ra~her than
conditions imposed under the authority of uhe State Environmental
Policy Act (Chapter 43.liC.RCW)
The types of !and use permit app!icazions are redefined from current
=yp. es and further differentiated as fo!lows:
o Tvoe ! - Usually administrative decisions without public
notice;
o True II - Administrative decisions with public ncuice;
o Tv-se IIi Hearing Examiner decisions following an open record
public hearing;
o Tvoe IV - BoCC minisueria! decisions to approve final long
plazs and final PRP~s; and
o Twoe V - BoCC legislative decisions {e.s., CP amendments
In order ~o improve the quality of application submittals and
expedite the application review process, the clrcums=ances in which
pre-application conferences are required are expanded. Such
conferences are now required prior to acceptance of all Tlzpe II and
III applications and some Type ! applications
The info~wnation required for applications to be considered complete
has been increased to ensure zha~ sufficient details of a project
proposal are provided to expedi~ious!y review i~ for consiscency with
the UDC and Co~mrehensive Plan. Though submittal requirements have
been increased, the administrator retains the authority and
flexibi!izy To waive application requiremenus deLermined tc be
unnecessary for review of a particular proposal
Consistent with RCW 36.70B, provisions have been added that clearly
delineate for permit decision-makers the scope of project revlew, and
the process for evaluating the consistency of a project permit
application with the U-DC and Comprehensive Plan
The appeal provisions have been modified as follows:
o Type I Decisions by the administrator are final and
appealable only nc superior court;
o T.vpe ii - Decisions by the adminisurator are appealable to the
hearing examiner for %n open record hearing, with further
appeal allowed to superior court; and
o Type iii - Decisions by the.hearing examiner are appealable to
the appellate hearing examiner for a closed record appeal
hearing, with further appeal allowed to superior court
Formal procedures for requesting UDC inte~pretations by the
administrator have been incorporated; such interpretations would be
appealable to the hearing examiner for an open record hearing, with
further appeal only to superior court
Includes a new "size plan approval advance determination" process to
allow property owners The opportunity to obtain site plan approval
for a proposed use in advance of obtaining actual development or
building permits. Intended to he!p faci!itate development financing
and relieve the county from issuing septic permits (with no
associated use) as a means for property owners to "vest" a use on a
particular piece of property
New conditional use_orocedures and decision ~-=~a have been
developed which include ~he following:
o Administrative CUPs - identified by a "C(a)" in Table 3-i,
these minor conditional uses would be processed as Ty"pe II
decisions by the administrator;
o Discretionary CUPs - identified by a "C(d)" in Table 3-1,
these conditional uses would at a minimum be processed as T.vpe
ii decisions, but the administrator wcu!d possess the
discretion tc refer such uses to the hearing examiner for
review usinc~ a TvDe~_ ~_=r7~ process;
o Full CUPs - Identified by a "C" in Table 3-1, these uses would
be processed as Type i-i decisions requiring an open record
pre-decision hearing before the examiner
SECTION 9
9.1
9.2
9.3
9.4
9.5
9.6
New variance procedures have been developed that distinguish between
"m;~,,-o~''_ and "major" variances.
Provisions implementing the S:ate Environmental Policy Act (SEPA)
(Chapter 43.2tC RCW) have been incorporated into the body of th~
administrative procedures chapter. Rather than simply restating the
many of the SEPA rules (Chapter 197-11 WAC), the new provisions
largely adopt and incorporate by reference ~he provisions of the
administrative code. Within this section the county also esuablishes
the thresholds for categorical exemptions and identifies the policies
under which it will exercise authority tc condition or deny projects
under WAC 197-11-660 (i.e., substantive authority). This section
proposes to adopt the existing minimum SEPA threshold exemptions
allowed under WAC 197-11-800, except for raising the local SEPA
exempt threshold for grading and excavation activity from I00 cubic
yards to 500 cubic yards, as allowed by WAC !97-11-800.
CO~PRFJ{ENSIV~ PLA_N ~ G~A IMIOLAqqF2~TING REGULATIONS ~J~END~fFJ~T PROCESS
Amendments - Pu-~pose and Introduction
Annual Amendments - Consideration of Cumulative Effects
Exceptions to A~nnua! Amendmenu Process
Applications for Comprehensive Plan Amendment
Compilation of Preliminary Dockeu
Review of Preliminary Docket AdopTion of Final Docket
8.6
8.7
8.8
8.9
8.10
Unified Development Code interpretation
SiZe Plan Approval Advance Dete_'-mination
Conditional Uses
Variances (Minor and Major)
State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) imp!emendation
SECTION 8 - SUMi~ARY OF SIGNIFICANT CHJkNGES FROM EXISTING ORDINANCES
Section 8 of the UDC sets forth the requirements and procedures for
development applications, public notice, review, hearing, approval
and appeal. Procedures are specified for the efficient processing of
permits and other decisions necessary for allowed and conditional
uses regulated in this Code.
Section 8 of the UDC represents the County's SEPA implementing
provisions and establishes criteria for approval of conditional uses,
specifies time!ines for determining completeness of applications,
public notice requirements, timelines for public comments and notice
on project applications, and appeal procedures of decisions rendered
under this I/DC.
Section 8 of the UDC includes the following substantial changes to
current county procedures regarding these issues:
Section 8 implements the Local Project Review Act (Chapter 36.70B
RCW), and that to the extent practicable, makes perform~ance and
development standards adooted to implement the Comprehensive Plan as
the primary basis for conditions cf development approval, rather than
conditions imposed under mhe authority of ~he State Environmental
Policy Act (Chapter 43.21C.RCW)
The tlp. es of land use pe-~mit app!icauions are redefined from current
types and further differentiated as fo!lows:
o T-~oe I Usually administrative decisions without public
notice;
o Tvoe II - Administrative decisions with public notice;
o Tv-De iii Hearing Examiner decisions following an open record
public hearing;
o Tv-oe IV - BoCC ministerial decisions to approve final long
plats and final PRP~S; and
o Tv-De V - BoCC legislative decisions (e.g., CP amendments)
o
In order to improve the quality of application submittals and
expedite the application review process, the circumstances in which
pre-application conferences are required are expanded. Such
conferences are now required prior to acceptance of all Type II and
III applications and some Type ! applications
The information required for applications to be considered complete
has been increased to ensure that sufficient details of a project
proposal are provided to expeditiously review it for consistency with
the UDC and Comprehensive Plan. Though submittal requirements have
been increased, the administrator retains the authority and
flexibility to waive application requirements determined to be
unnecessary for review of a particular proposal
Consistent with RCW 36.70B, provisions have been added that clearly
delineate for permit decision-makers the scope of project revlew, and
the process for evaluating the consistency of a project permit
application with the UDC and Comprehensive Plan
· The appeal provisions have been modified as follows:
Binding Site Plans, Approved (not recorded)
1. BSP86-00001, Kala Square Binding Site Plan; Applicant, Kala Square Partnership
Application received August 7, 1986
The commercial development will be constructed in several phases on the six-acre site. Phase I
consists of a 2,400 square foot building housing 3 separate business; a real estate business, a
contracting service, and an architectural business. Future phases of development would include
other commercial uses not yet identified. Examples of such uses provided by the applicant
include a convenience store, a small cafe, and a home furnishing store, etcetera.
BOCC approved the Kala Square development on February 3, 1987 as a planned commercial
development.
Binding Site Plans, (recorded)
1. SUB94-00021, Olympic Greens BSP; recorded 8/8/97
2. Rain Crow Industrial Center BSP; recorded 9/8/91
3. Evergreen Coho Escapee Resort RV Park, recorded 9/9/90.
4. BSP94-00001, Port Hadlock Heights Mobile Home Park, recorded 4/15/98
5. ZON96-00036, Pleasant Harbor Marina Expansion BSP, recorded August' 18, 1998.
6. ZON98~0024, Pacific Environmental Services BSP, recorded 9/15/00
7. Brinnon Beach RV Park BSP, recorded 7/6/87
8. One Hawkeye Park (Mobile Home), recorded 12/26/90
10. TEC Commercial Center Short Plat, recorded 8/17/87
11. Kala Terrace, recorded 3/22/91
12. Beckett Point Planned Community, recorded 7/1/39
13. Port Ludlow RV Park Phase II, recorded 8/24/89
14. R & R Enterprises RV Park, recorded 7/25/89
15. · Sun Rock Mobile Home Park, recorded 11/26/84
16. W.R. Shold (Tri-Area Commercial Center), recorded 9/4/87
17. Brown Mobile Home (aka Olympic Mobile Village), recorded 4/16/79
landus¢.app 1
18.
19.
20.
Moores Mobile Manor, recorded 7/6/81
B & R Mobile Home Park, recorded 10/22/75
B & R Mobile Home Park Division II, recorded 9/13/78
PUD's
1.
3.
PUD's
1.
(recorded)
BSP90-00099, Applicant William Leavitt
Allowed uses include, service and repair businesses, light manufacturing employing less than 20
persons and having no significant impacts on air quality, noise levels, ground water pollution, or
other types of physical degradation of the environment; Contracting business, both general and
specialty; Storage units; Office space; retail sales incidental to any of the preceding.
Contract recorded February 18, 1994
Kala Heights PUD Phase A, recorded 7/16/87
KaN Heights PUD Phase B, recorded 5/8/89
Approved (not recorded)
SUB94-00102, Mats View Meadow PUD; Applicant, Harold Moe
19 lots, .53 acres minimum lot size
Application received November 27, 1994
Approved application July 15, 1996
Commercial Subdivision (approved, not recorded)
SUB95-00056, Frederickson Plat, Applicant Erik Frederickson
4 lots, .85 acres minimum lot size
Application received June 6, 1995
Approved application March 19, 1999
CUP's
1.
(approved, not recorded)
ZON98-00007, Linda Tudor
Application received February 27, 1998
Construction cfa 5,000 square foot building for a 2,500 square foot real estate office and 2,500
square foot crafts/gift store.
Approved September 25, 1998
landuse.app
IZ94-00017 & ZON96-00024, Teal Lake Commercial Center; Applicant Dean Reynolds.
Applications received March 3, 1994 & June 17, 1996.
Construction of a 45,000 square foot building for convenience store (4300 square feet); self
operated car wash (1125 square feet); espresso stand (300 square feet); and traveler's service
retail building of 38,650 square feet.
Approved February 23, 1998
SPECIAL USE PERMITS (approved, not recorded)
1. ZON96-00020, HJ Carroll Park Binding Site Plan, Applicant, Jefferson County Public Works
Application received April 29, 1996
Develop a community park with restrooms & concession area, interpretative center, picnic
shelter, and maintenance/caretaker facility.
Approval granted February 3, 1997.
landuse,app 3
P.O~
l~lov- ~2- O0 05:05P
Dan/el I-Em-pole, D/atxict !
1820 Jefferson Street
PO Box 1220
Port Townsend, WA 98368
Glen Huntin~ford, District 2 R/chant Wojt, Di~Ixict 3
August 14, 1998
Joseph F. ~"aeeler
81 Kalatagoon Court
Port Townsend, WA 98368
Dear Mr. Wheeler,
tn reference to your letter of July 8~ to A1 Scalf. it is our understanding that your request is a
clarification of the designation for the property known as Kala Square. In response to your
inquiry, the Coun~ has reviewed the file for Kala Square. This letter wiI1 state the position of
the Board of County Commissioners regarding your inquiry.
Our files indicate that in February, 1987, the Board of County Commissioners approved a
binding site plan for the real property. The Prosecuting Attorney and the Planning Director both
advise that the land subject to the binding site plan is a commercially vested binding site plan
despite its current designation as rural residential in the comprehensive plan.
Therefore, the Board of County Commissioners f'mds that the land subject to the binding site
plan is a legally existing, commercial binding site plan as of February, 1987, on which you may
build consistent with the binding site plan. Any construction will be subject to all applicable
county and state building regulations at the time of development. For purposes of the
comprehensive plan which will be adopted this year, this area will continue to be shown as
"residential". However, we are directing the planning department to recommend this lot be
changed to a commercial designation at the first revision of the comprehensive plan.
We appreciate your willingness to work with the Board of County Commissioners on this issue
and throughout our OMA planning process,
Phone (.360)385-9 lO0 / 1.-800-83 I.-2678
Fax (360J.385-9382 jeffbocc~co.jefferson, wa.us
Nov-ZZ-O0 05:,05P
P. 03
l:hlnJel Harpole, D/s~J'/ct ].
1820 Jefferson Street
PO Box 1220
Port Town. nd, WA 983 8
Glen Huntingford, Die-/ct 2 Richard Wojt, D/~ic~ 3
August 12, 1998
William H. Lindeman,
President, Kala Point Company
260 Kala Point Drive
Port Townsend, WA. 98368
Dear Mr. Lindeman,
In reference to your letter of July 30a' to Al Scalf, it is our understanding that your request is to
have Lot 21, Kala Point Terrace identified as a commercial tot in the comprehensive plan. In
response to your inquiry, representatives from the County met with you on August 4th to discuss
your concerns. This letter will state the position of the Board of County Commissioners
regarding your request.
The land records for Lot 21 indicate that the Board of County Commissioners approved a PUD
Plat for Lot 21 and that the plat was recorded on March 2 I, 1991, in the Auditor's Office as
document # 33899 l. The Prosecuting Attorney and the Planning Director both advise that Lot
21 is a commercially vested PUD despite its current designation as rural residential in the
comprehensive plan.
Therefore, the Board of County Commissioners f'mds that Lot 2I, Kala Point Terrace is a legally
existing commercial PUD as of March 21,1991, on which you may build either a commercial,
general or professional building or buildings, subject to all county and state building codes and
regulations applicable at the time you apply for a permit. For purposes of the comprehensive
plan which will be adopted this year, Lot 21 will continue to be shown as "residential", however,
we are directing the planning department to recommend this lot be changed to a commercial
PUD designation at the th'st revision of the comprehensive plan.
We appreciate your willingness to work with the Board of County Commissioners on thh issue
and throughout our OMA planning process.
G ' g , er Dan Harpole,' M6mber
Phone (360}385-9100 / 1-800-831-2678 Fax (360)385-9382 jeffbocc~:co.jefferson.wa, us
Nov-30-00 12:12P P-01
To:
From:
Date:
Juelan ne Dalzell
JEFFERSON COUNTY PROSECUTING ATTORNEY
Cour(bouse -- P.O. Box 1220
Purl l'ownsend, Wnshingtua 98368
T~lcpllone (,360) 3B~91R0 FAX (360) $85-0073
Jill Landen, Deputy l'rosecutor
Michael Haas, Deputy Prosecutor
Theodore M. Cropley, Depuly Pr.oseculor.
David W. AIvare't, Deputy Pru
Michelle Farfan
David Alvarez
Thursday, November 30, 2000
JEFFERSON COUNTY
DEPT. OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
This l:ax consists of four (4) pages including this cover.
I don't think anyone in this otTtce can pcrfin'm an efficient search unless wc have
the name ora file or a proposed development where fi)m'~er Pros. Attorney David
Skeen may have %ut a deal". I don't think that such letters would have bccn filed
in "general planning" or "miscellaneous planning" files. So, in an ideal world, you
,and Al would rack your collective and institutional memories tbr the names of more
files you would want us to search tbr letters where David Skecn "cut a deal.'
Thanks.
David Alvarez
Nov-30-O0 12:12P
P.02
r~-02
\ I
Ray and Liann Vines
331 Fhyshore Drive
Port Ludlow, WA. 951.365
18:20 Jefferson Street
P.O. Box 1220
Port Townsenc WA 98368
Oie~s HuntL~rd. Dtutr~. 2 Richat~ WoJt, I~trlct 3
October 26, 1998
RE: Lot ! Melwood Terrace
Dear Mr. & Mrs. Vines:
At the request ory~tr counsel, thc Jefferson County Board of County Commissioners has
r~vicwed thc Comprehensiv~ Plan designation for Lot 1 in Mdwood Terrace to dcmrminc if
there was a clearly erroneous mapping error based on inaccurate information or technical error.
After consultation with the Prosecuting Attorney and the Director of'Community
Dcvclopmcm, thc ,Board revokes thc understanding in a letter dated August 12, [99B, signed by'
your attorney and A! $;alf, and tind.,s ther~ was a clearly erroneous mapping m-mr based on
inaccurate information which affected the designation of Lot t.
As you know, Lot 1 was plat'lcd as a commercial 1ol but nono of the othor lots in
Melwood Terrace were giv=n that designation. Th; County r~cognizcd that designation as late
a.s the Imerim Growth Strategies Ordinances. In lhe 1997 proceeding before the Hearing
Examiner wherein you requested a variance ii'om the Interim Growth Strat~gi¢.s Ordinance, the
County took a position that Lot I was a commercial lot and that position was confirmed by the
llcaxing Examiner in his decision. Finally, the Jefferson County Sul~rior Court in case #96-2-
00017-4 fbund that Lot I was a commercial Io[ and, importantly, thai no traffic consequences
would result from that designation. (See Findhig ttg, Findings of Fact and Conelu.~ion.~ of Law)
Thc County will change thc designation of Lot I from/ts existing residential designation
m Rural Village Center Commercial, which is consi.slent with all other commercially d~signated
property in Port Hadlock. This change in dcsig~ation will bc to the Land Use map ~nd will not
involve amending the Comprehensive Plan. The chznge in d,-sigr~ation will not require waking
until the mm(mi amendment for the comprehensive plan. '1'1~ County does roquh'e that you
complete the enclosed form and return it to Al .',;calf, Director of Community l)~v¢lopment at
your earliest convenience.
Sincmly,
Dan Ha~0te~em~r
cc: Dennis Reynolds, At'tomey at Law
A! Scalf, Director of Community Development
Phonc {360)355-91 O0 / 1-800-831-2678 Fax (360}38,5--938~
Willimns, Kasmcr&GLtixs PLI£
L.&W FJRI4
August 12, 1998
('2O6) 2~$-Z024
T~o Union Squ4n:
601 Unica ~ SQilc 4100
Sealtlc. W~.shiag*on 98101-2380
~O. ~ 21~
~tde, W~i~ ~111-~
Tdc~c (2~) ~
F~ ~ ~11
89,670.100
VIA_ .FACSIMILE
Mr. David Skeen
Jefferson County Prosecuting Attorney
Jefferson County Ccurthouse
P.O. Box 1220
Port Townsend, WA 98368
Re: Ray Vines Development
Dear Mr. Skeen:
We have expected a letter from Jefferson County memorializing the
agreements and understandings reached at the meeting held on
August 4, 1998. Since we have. not heard back from Jefferson
County, without appearing to be.presumptuous, I am taking the
liberty to place in writing Mr. Vines' understanding.
Jefferson County Planning has agreed:
1. To receive and expeditiously process an amended
building permit application to site and constxn/¢t on lot i of the
plat of Melwood Terrace a commercial office structure. The..
amended application will be deeme~ "counter check" under the
local Project Permit Review.Act upon receipt and ve~t the
proposed'development against anticipated changeg to zoning
established consistent with the requirements of the Growth
Management Act ("GMA").
2. The Plarhning Department will agree to an administrative
waiver to allow a drainfield to be established on lot 2 of the
plat to service the commercial building str~ctttre. In thi~
regard, if necessary, Mr. Vines will facilitate the
administrative determination by filing a lot line adjustment.
This adjustment will likely reduce the amount of 10t 2, such that
it will be non-conforming and undevelopable. Mr. Vi~es is
willing to do so if it helps site hi~ proposed commercial
structure.
$Z-5~3524.1
£O'd
Taeoms
EXHIBIT
dZI :ZI OO-OE-^ON
Nov-30-O0 12:12P P.04
Mr. David Skeen
August 12,r1998
PagQ 2
3. Lot 3 will be dedicated as a landscape buffer between
the commercial and residential uses.
4. If any side lot ~etbacks are necessary, The Planning
Department will process and approve the same. It will take some
time and money to provide Planning with the revised site plan,
plu~ building plans for the proposed co~ercial ~tructure.
F~r. Vines req~lests that Jefferson County officials be aware of
this additional expense. Mr. Vines is wil!ing to engage in this
additional expense as long as it is clearly ~nder~tood that the
amended building permit application will be handled in the
fashion specified above. We request that the Director of
Community Development sign and return a copy of thi~ letter so
that all sides are clear and have a common understanding as to
how this matter will proceed.
Thank you for your attention to this request. It is understood
that the Vines will continue to maintain their position of record
that lots i and 2 of the plat of Melwood Terrace should be
included in a commercial zoning designation. However, from a
practical standpoint, if the Vines are allowed to proceed with
their proposed commercial office structure, denominated as a pre-
existing permitted use, the ultimate exact zoning designation may
not be of' importancQ.
Very truly yours,
DDR:wpc
cc: Ray Vines
I HAVE~EIVED THE ABOVE-REFERENCED POINTS,
I~' \1
· tot of (uammu~tty Developmen~
Jefferson county
AND AGREE WITH TH~M.
Ommel Haz~p~le, District
Northwest Aggregate Corporation
5975 East Marginal Way South
Seattle. WA. 981.~4-_414
Mark McPherson, Attorney at Law
500 Galland Building,
1221 Second Avenue
Seattle, WA 98101-2925
1820 Jefferson 8trot
P.O. Boz 1220
Port Townsend, WA 98368
Glen Huntin~ford, Dismct 2
Richard Wojt, District 3
October 29. [ 998
.'F'"ERSON COUNTY
t. w,, .,,, ,G ~.;~PARTI~ENT
NOV 0 5 1998
Re: Designation of Lone-Star Property
Dear Gentlemen:
The Board of County. Commissioners has reviewed the Application flied by Lonestar Aggregate
to investigate and correct possible mapping errors, and has considered the staff' report prepared
by the Long Range Planning Department.
It is the County's position that lands designated as Mineral Lands of Commercial Significance,
pursuant to section 6.20.2 of our current Mineral Lands Ordinance, "... shall revert to the land
use and zoning designations that were in effect prior to it being designated mineral resource
/and." Upon the removal of your property from a mineral lands designation, the subject property,
will revert to the zoning designation, and density, existing in 1995 when the Mats-Mats Bay
quarry ,,vas designated as a "Mineral Land of Long-term Commercial Significance. Under the
then-existing zoning code, the Interim Growth Strategies Ordinance, the designation for that
property' would be Residential. with an underlying density one unit per five acres. In addition,
the County lafld use map will now reflect this change.
Thank you for .,,'our continuing willingness to work with Jefferson County in this matter.
Sincerely.
~ ~ n Dan H er
Phone {360)385-91.00 / !-8OO-831-2678
Fax (360)385-9382 jeffbocc~co.jefferaon.wa, us
Nov-29-00 05:17P P-01
JEFFERSON COUN
...........
Jefferson County Courthou,
(360) 385-9123 F
Co./Dept. Co.
Fax # Fax # --
November 16, 1998
Mr. Robert and Gudne Smyth
P.O. Box 945
LaPine, OR 97739
Dear Mr. and Mrs. Smyth:
This letter is written in response tO your October 29, 1998 inquiry regarding lots #3 and #4 in the
Lopeman Short Plat (Parcels 901111016 and 90t 111017).
In answer to your questions:
#1.
#2.
You are grandfathered to continue in business as long as your business complied
with applicable regulations at the time it was created.
Pursuant to Land Use Policies 8.6, 8.7, and 8.8 of the Comprehensive Plan; a
legal existing nonconforming use may change to a use allowed within the zone
classification in which the use is located. In addition, a legal existing
nonconforr~,ing use may change to a different nonconforming use of equal or
lesser intensity in accordance with a public hearing process to ensure notification
of adjacent property owners.
Pursuant to Land Use Policy 8. !; legal existing uses may be sold without
jeopardizing the continuation of the use or activity. However, grandfathered
status does not run with the land. An individual purchasing your property may
continue the current use but if you relocate your business to a different parcel, the
land itself has no grandfathered status.
I would encourage you to refer to Goal 8.0 on page 3-79 of the Jefferson County Comprehensive
Plan (enclosed) regarding legal existing uses and the policies that govern their continuation and
expansion. For further review, the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan can be accessed on the
Interact at www.otympus:net, ieffco, l have enclosed the card of one of our planners, Randy Kline,
please feel free to contact him if you have any questions.
r of Community Development
rk:as
Encl: Pages 3-79 through 3-82 of the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan.
cc:
Board of County Commissioners
Barry Berezowsky. Associate Planner
David Skeen, Prosecuting Attorney
Nov-29-O0 05:18P P.02
JEFFERSON COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT
Long-Range Planning and Growth Management
......... nO, .....
(360) 385-9123 FAX: (360) 385-9357 1-800-831-2678
November 20, 1998
Mr. Craig A. Ritchie
Ritchie & Stromeyer
212 East Fifth Street
Port Angeles, Washington 98362
Re: Appeal of Jefferson County Case No. ZON97-0013 and Case No. ZON97-0014
Dear Mr. Ritchie:
We have received the appeals you filed for Case No. ZON97-0013 and Case No. ZON97-001'4. However,
there appears to be. some confusion. Jefferson County's Land Use Application Procedures Ordinance (No.
04-0828-98) indicates the correct process for filing an appeal of a Type C decision (legislative action).
This process is also addressed in Section 6.20.2 of the Forest Lands Ordinance (No. 01-0121-97). In order
to clarify. I would make two points:
No decision has been made by the Board of County Commissioners regarding these two
cases. As you are aware, only the Board can address legislative issues such as requests
for site-specific rezones. The Heating Examiner has ruade a recommendation to the
Board. The Board has the option of adopting, adopting with conditions, or reversing the
recommendation of the Hearing Examiner. The recommendations made by the Hearing
Examiner for these two cases will be addressed by the Board on Monday, December 7,
1998.
When a decision has been made by the Board, if you still wish to pursue an appeal, the
proper body to address that appeal is Washington State Superior Court.
I would encourage you to refer to our Land Use Application Procedures Ordinance; it is available at the
Jefferson County Permit Center. 621 Sheridan Avenue, Port Townsend Washington, (360) 379-4450. The
$432.00 fee you submitted to the Permit Center will be refunded.
Please feel free to contact Randy Kline, the Project Planner, if you have any questions.
~,..ommunity Development
rk:as
CCi
Board of County Commissioners
Barry Berezowsky, Associate Planner
Randy Kline, Planning Technician
Paul Mcllrath. Deputy Prosecuting Attorney
Jori Potter, NW Planning & Development Services
Citifor, Incorporated
J. Frank Schmidt & Son, Profit Sharing Trust
.Nov-29-00 05:18P P.03
JEFFERSON COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT
.......... _L2n_g7 _R_ an g__e_P la n n in g__~a_nd G r______~o_wt__h__M_ an agemen~t
Jefferson County Courthouse P.O. Box 1220 Port Townsend, WA 98368
(360) 385-9123 FAX: (360) 385-9357 1-800-831-2678
November 16. 1998
Mr. Michael Rodrigues
P.O. Box 148 [
Kailua-Kona, Hawaii 96745
Dear Mr. Rodrigues:
This letter is written in response to your November 6, 1998 inquiry regarding properZy at 50 Old
Hadleck Road, the Hadlock Apartments (Parcel 901024003).
Pursuant to RCW 36.70A, the Washington State Growth Management,,lct, Jefferson County
adopted a Comprehensive Plan on August 28, 1998. This Comprehensive Plan revisited
commercial and residential zoning throughout the County, Under the Comprehensive Plan your
property has been designated as Rural Residential 1 dwelling unit per 5 acres. This designation
does not affect the current use of your property but it does restrict your ability to subdivide the
parcel and the uses which are permitted on your property. It is true that your parcel no longer
falls within the Port Hadlock commercial area (refer to enclosed map). However, please be
advised of the lbilowing:
· The Port Hadlock commercial area is an interi/n designation. This boundary may
be expanded or contracted based upon the results of an economic study that is
currently being conducted.
· The current use of your property, the Hadlock Apartments, is a legal existing use
that can continue in perpetuity within the Rural Residential t:5 designation.
The Comprehensive Plan will be revisited for an annual amendment and you will
have an opportunity to apply for a redesignation of your property if that is your
wish.
The Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan can be accessed on the lnternet at
www.otvrnpus.net.ieffco. ! have enclosed the card of one of our planners, Randy Kline, please feel
free to contact him if you have any questions.
~c~r~o~ff Community Development
rk:as
Encl: Port Hadlock Rural Commercial Center Map
CC:
Board of County Commissioners
Bar~ Berezowsky, Associate Planner
David Skeen, ?rosecuting Attorney
UDC
COMMENT
LETTERS
NOVEMBER 27, 2000
THROUGH
DECEMBER 6, 2000
12/6/00
; :? ;' ~-' 'J OTTO STREET STORAGE
Douglas D. Bramhall
P.O. Box 1881
Port Townsend, WA 98368
(360) 385-5636
November 17, 2000
Richard Woit, Dan Harpole, Glen Huntingford
Jefferson County Board of Commissioners
Jefferson County Courthouse
P.O. Box 1220
Port Townsend, WA 98368
(360) -385-9100
Dear Commissioners,
This notice is to advise that I am opposed to the proposed rezoning of the Glen Cove
Industrial Park which would allow auto and truck recycling or wrecking. I am speaking
specificly about the activity going on in the Glen Cove Industrial Park area located approximate
to the Bayview and Julian Street intersection.
Allowing junk yard type businesses into our limited light industrial area will not be beneficial in
attracting the other types of businesses we do need and want to locate in our Glen Cove
Industrial Park. We need businesses that will propogate and support the creation of additional
industries and businesses and which will provide the additional employment base needed in
our community.
This proposed rezone will not only have a negitive impacat on attracting new businesses but
will also devalue the surrounding properties making it less desireable for present property
owners to improve or attract newcomers to the area.
And as if this isn't cause enough, the attitude history of the individual promoting this wrecking
business has been shown to be a risk to the preservation of our environment. With the
counties permit process unable to intervein I have watched as this individual has stripped a
large parcel of land of it's vegetation and top soil and then proceded to intrude upon and
damage other surrounding property owners land. I am surprised that with all of our
environmental, planning and use codes our county has allowed this operation to continue in
this fashion. All of this activity will also have profound impacts to the ground water and surface
runoff in the area.
Sincerely,
Douglas D. Bramhall
City of Port Townsend
Office of the Mayor
Waterman & Katz Building
181 Quincy Street, Suite 201, Port Townsend, WA 98368
(360) 379-5047 FAX (360) 385-4290
November 22, 2000
Charles Saddler, County Administrator
Jefferson County Commissioners
Jefferson County
P.O. Box 1220
Port Townsend, WA 98368
JEFFERSON COUNTY
DEPT. OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
Dear County Administrator Saddler and County Commissioners:
Re: County Proposed Adoption of Unified Development Code
The Port Townsend City Council unanimously approved a motion at its November 20, 2000
meeting that the County Commissioners delay passage of the Unified Development Code until
the City Council has had an adequate opportunity to review the proposed code with City staff
and make recommendations on any suggested changes. The proposed code's significant changes
require that its impacts be thoroughly reviewed and understood by the public and City officials
before its adoption. However, the proposed timetable for adoption by December 18, 2000 does
not allow this. The County's timetable comes while the City is in the midst of budget planning,
including the assessment of impacts of 1-722 on our budget and utility finances. In addition, the
holidays limit the number of workdays, and staff resources available in the next several weeks.
Given the above, the City Council does not have the time to give the document the thorough
review the document requires and to assess its impacts on the City and its citizens or whether the
document is consistent with either the City or the County's Comprehensive Plan. As a City and
partner with the County in the Joint Growth Management Steering Committee, we need to have
adequate time to review the proposed code.
Indicative of the haste with which the County is proceeding, the County Commissioners wrote
City Manager Timmons on November 7, 2000 concerning the UDC's proposed changes to a
1995 County ordinance that provides wellhead ~rotections and salt-water intrusion monitoring,
. . ~ ~. .,.:" - . '7 ..... . ' , ', . ' . 5-,:; ~:'--~ . ' '
· ,:',-¥. -:. .: ---: -'~ - -:-:...~-..-.-.: . - , v :: ':'-' "~' :-.',;~;'~- :' . '-s,, - .... ~ ~--~t~'~.,":'' ~':.:"=' '~.:' .. :g~,;,~
A NATIONAL MAIN STREET COMMUNITY WASHINGTON'S HISTORIC VICTORIAN SEAPORT
and asked for written response by December 1, 2000. The 1995 ordinance resulted from
settlement of a complex and involved legal action between the City, County and Shine
Community Action Council. The draft changes in the UDC concern potentially critical impacts
to the City's Tri-Area water system. With the holidays and City budget activity, three weeks to
respond in writing on this critical issue and the proposed substantial changes is unrealistic.
(Based on comments from County .staff, following a meeting on November 14, 2000 between
City and County officials on this matter, that County-.staff will be reconm~ending no change in
existing provisions of County ordinance 6n wellhead protection and salt-water intrusion, the
impossibility of responding by December 1 on this issi~e appears moot. However, the point that
the timeframe for response in the first place was too short remains the same.)
There is no critical need to pass the code so quickly and in a manner that denies sufficient public
comment. The code can be adopted piecemeal as parts are reviewed and become ready for
action. We request that the County defer action to allow City officials the opportunity for
adequate review and comment period to the proposed regulations that will have far-reaching
impact to all citizens of the County, including the citizens of Port Townsend.
Thank you for your attention to this letter and expected cooperation.
Since~\
CC:
David Timmons, City Manager
John Watts, City Attorney
Jeff Randall, BCD Director
City Council
-~2 ~j'-"~-- ~'- JOHNN!E R. HYNSO~,,.~, ATTORNEY AT ~W
P.O, Box 247 (360) 37%7382 (M.s~g,s)
718 Wa~r S~eet, Suite F (360) 385-5136 (Office)
~ ~ jrhj,~on~,a.~oo, cc~m
Port Towmend WA. 8068
Re:
Civil Deputy DEC - 4
Prosecuting Attorney's 0ffic~
~ , -~"'~:,~. i. '~'1 '
~o~t Townsend WA 98368 ' ' ........... '
Draft ~ C~e~ts ~d Conce~s
As I mentioned to you on the phone yesterday, I have been
retained by a consortium of concerned Jefferson County citizens
to ensure that tho Administrative. Procedures Act is followed
during the approval process of Jefferson County's UDC. You
wanted to know what their concerns were. In short they have three
(1) The first is the bizarre results achieved by the code as it
is currently..~,.T~**~.., (2) the second is that t~e~. proper
procedures and as required by due process are not being followed,
amd ~na~y ~3~ a~ ~-a]~y no one has seen the ,.m~= ~e~., ~
in one spot, i.e. everything is being done piecemeal.
When I set in the meetings and~,~,.~ T ~,,~ ~ ~~~~
trying to build a record to cover the APA but they were sorely
~~ ~,~ ~ e~ ~e~e ,~~ ~e says eh~e e~ ~ing to
review it is only a few days before the target date. Also, no
=--~ the
~..~rts ~.. ~..=~y ~~="m~=~t=~ ..~-~=,,~ ~,~. m~ called. Additionally,
EDC ~..~4~ ~~~e~ has ~~=*=e~ e~=e~.~ they ~ done i~.. January or
v~m~,,~,, ~ ~e e~ do eh~ job they ~.,~+~ to do m~ ~,,~ eo
seems to be is to try to make Co~. Harpo!e's move date to Idaho.
Also, I read with interest the recent article about you
~-~,.,-,~-t-~,.,,-~ po~t~o~ of the UDC As ! am ~u~ ~ aware the
APA requires that the latest version, with your most recent
chanqes ~ .... ~ in it, ~,,~ com~,ent in
_ ~ ..... ~ ...... still requires ~
~ ~ ~ ~ be a~r~v~d according to law.
made o~me ~4~,,n changes to t~y ~ ~e=~ ~ dea
have these changes been given the full required due process
impression is things are being documen~_d in .~ v~ry serious and
in the audience was for the draft that was presented~ However~
everyone setting behind was the table was for that version.
Da~,id Alverez, =~
~ ~¢,.~,=-.. o 2000
Page 2
My first step in ap~roachinq this ~m~ is to perform
audit of what has been done so f.ar against the requirements of
the APA A preliminary review Of the process has revealed Ehe
· CONSTIT~TIg~A~IGHTS ARE AT JEOPARDY
Tho"definition section is so v .........
infinity the powers of the government to search any
property in Jefferson county. This is important and
se ..... because many of the long time residents of
Jefferson County have conditions that may, or may not,
put them in jeopardy, according to how the vague terms
=~ defined It *,~ns t~ !~w into = ~ee~,, what ~
of ~m equipment, pile o~ ~e or ~ ..... ~e~ ehae
has existed for 20 years cost you a small fortune. In a
highly political county such as Jefferson, the power to
~eo~e become As
...... ~ can the power to destroy, a criminal
defense lawyer tee e~=~ ~ =~,~= in te~ UnC as ~e
.. poten ..................
~s ,.~ee~ is = ~em~ ~=~ting eo ~=pp~
· STRANGE THINGS ARE ALLOWED UNDER THE UDC - LIBRARIES ARE
MORE DANGEROUS THAN GRgVEL PITS?
~w could ~ be ~gi~a~ ~y re~son=h~ (~ ~e~ ~=~"~ ~
it be ~' +~ put a gravel pit next ~ a ~=+~ couple's
new house, but not okay to put a library there. This
could bc=¢~'~^~ in thc dcfinitions ¢o^~e4~~,,, but will it
be? And shouldn't the public see the new definitions?
~.~NUFn~u~ER~
· STRANGE THINGS ARE ALLOWED UNDER THE UDC - '~ ~'~ S
CANNOT USE THE OUTSIDE OF THEIR BUILDINGS?
Anyone with the most rudimentary and remote idea of
~=~,,~=~e,,~ knows t~at they need ~ "~ the ....
outside of their building. For ex~mp!e, storage, loading,
trailers, power stations, etc. There are limits in the
~r .... t ~sion on this The size of ca= ........ ~ ....
~ ~=~,,~+'~ is also illogical.
Housing clusters - land can't be left for appearance for
any other logical reason. For example, why shouldn't the
deve!op~ h~ able to set aside mot~ ~q~q~,,ne land to
under the current code.
David Alverez, Esq.
,~]~.~- ~ ~ 20nn
Page 3
· RUSH TO JUDGEMENT
The public now ~;~
e ~ trying
· ATTENTION IS STILL ON ELECTION POLITICS
mh~ pub!i~ ~ h~= the ~~ ~ ahat the UDC is ran
~ ..... ~ while people's =*a~*~ ~s elsewhere Now
Co~missioner m~~ ~ ~ ~ t~ ~ ~ new
co~issioner, the perception is that the rush must be
doubly ~u~h~d so that it can be ~mp~o~=~ by the
...... ~ ....................... good f~r Jefferson ~ ....
!s_~e~ =~v~_~ good po!itics~.
· IF DONE IMPROPERLY THE COST IN DOLLARS COULD BE STAGGERING
It the APA is not followed there will be a lawsuit to
nullify~.~ Why ..~ avoid this ~~_~~=~~ ~ in county
funds for all
· WHERE IS THE EMERGENCY?
Trying to pass as an = =~ ~,, wh=e is eh= =~=~=~,~
The appearance is that the emergency provision is used in
this instance to b}~ass our right to due process of law.
Harpole leaving is hardly an emergency. APA definition of
RCW '34.05.350 EMERGENCY RULES AND D~ENDMENTS.
,'~) ~ an agency z ..... ~ ~=,~= finds:
(a) That immediate adoptign~ amendment,
~ ~ ~ rule is ne ...... ~ ~
~~=eiQn 0~ ~h~ ~¼~ ~=~]~
sa~ty, or w~ne~l we~f~=e, .... that
observing the time requirements of notice
~ ~ ~~ ~u~ would ~ contrary to
the pub!~ ~ ~ * ~
~ ~n~ere~t; or..
Please let me know exactly what you think the emergency
............... t .... ( ~ TS a ....
4s° is general ~,~¢,~¢ ~¢ ~¢ 4~ !). ~ ~!ay ~¢
funding under subsection (b)'- under RCW 34.05.380
upon your response we may appeal directly to the governor
· Da$,~.nOV ~Ow 're' iLT_mTM~m
what form the UDC takes? _Again, why rush now during a
lame-duck com~ission to do somethin~ ~h=~ ~h~ ~
consensus ~ +m~ ~,,~=~ is aca4~=t.
David Alverez,
November
Page 4
What i propose ~ ~ ~ eh=e ~h~ UDC be enacted in legal
compliant manner for the good of all of the citizens of Jefferson
County
(~) A ~,~ ~~ ~;~ should be scheduled ~ mid m~_~h,
(2) m~,,eo=~,o~-~'"~' be commented ~,~ one at a time; a**~
(3)
The definitions sections put forth for comment last,
sincc it is the most ~4~4~ and
The delay will allow the county com~r, ission that will enforce
~ hand ~ ~ form as ~h~
the UDC to h~.~ a in its drafting its ~in=~
citizens of Jefferson County will have to live with. The delay
will also let the citizens of Jefferson know that it is not being
rammed through for the wrong reason.
The bottom line is that I feel that everyone involved wants
the same thing. For the UDC to be enacted in a fair and legal
manner, and the interest of Jefferson County be served. I will do
anything I do to help this process.
Please consider using e-mail to reach me. I will be able to
respond immediately. It is my desire to resolve this matter as
quickly as possible. Please feel free to call if you have any
questions.
Sincerely Y~u~,
Johnnie R. Hynson
WSBA No. 23995
December 1, 2000
Janet Welch
Box 1221
Hadlock, WA 98339
Board of County Commissioners
Box 1220
Port Townsend, WA 98368
Dear Sirs
-
The good news last week of OEC's third successful appeal to the Hearings Board was tempered by
news that you are considering an appeal to the ruling. I am very disappointed that instead of embracing
your comprehensive Plan and utilizing the options contained within it for economic development, you
are willing to commit more time and money in search of the answer you want to hear.
It should have come as no surprise that the ruling affirms that population growth is to be directed to
UGA's; that concept is a cornerstone of GMA. Population growth. This isn't saying that existing
rural communities cannot continue to have viable cormnercial zones. Yet Mr. Alvarez is quoted in the
Leader as saying that this issue "really concerns the commissioners". Where was your concern for
Quilcene and Bfinnon last summer when Petitioners attempted to avoid a Heatings Board ruling? I
quote fi.om our appeal mediation offer of July 23, (an offer which received no consideration fi-om the
county...)
"As you note, a broad ruling by the Hearings Board against the county on L~
boundaries could potentially hamper economic growth in rural areas of the county/,fthe ruling
included references to both Rural Centers and Commercial Crossroads. That would not be in
the interest of the county, nor is it the desire of the Petitioners."
Additionally, in my oral presentation to the Heatings Board I specifically stated my hope that options
for commercial zoning in Brinnon which address floodplain constraints would not be hampered by their
ruling. I don't think it was coincidence that the Hearings Board ruling was relatively narrow and
completely silent about commercial options in Brinnon and other Rural Centers. Yet, one would
surmise that the Hearings Board had forsworn anything but UGA's, given your posturing over the
need for a Superior Court Appeal to their ruling.
Look to your Comprehensive Plan not the courts for the answers to your quandary. Reporters have
accurately conveyed to the lay public what you and your spokesmen don't acknowledge: commercial
boundaries may change 1) as a result of decisions made at the completion of the "special study", and 2)
at other times if.justified by Growth Management Indicators: You (not the Heatings Board) have
decided that Hadlock will be a UGA, but if you chose to, you could put all of your 280 commercial
acres in Brinnon instead! And ifBrinnon becomes the commercial hub of the Western Hemisphere,
you could cite actual statistics that would meet the Comprehensive Plan requirements for plan
amendments for commercial area expansion. Your posturing infers that you cannot distinguish
between the ruling's condemnation of courtesy rezones for unhappy property owners and the options
available to our communities through proper planning.
Many (most?) informed people, including members of your staff, expected that GMA would link
piecemeal commercial expansion to sprawl. Did you listen to them before you approved the rezones or
committed our financial resources to defending those decisions? Are you listening to them now, or
perhaps consulting your Comprehensive Plan, as you consider sending your prosecutor into yet another
round of futile battle?
Sincerely
Janet Welch
To the Jefferson County Commisioners,
This letter is in regards to the possible land use changes being considered in Glen Cove. I am a
properly owner whos property connects with a parcel that is currently being used as a vehicle recycling
center. Though the current zomg doesn't allow this type of business, it is preceding without any county
intervention and without any permits. I have heard that you are considering changing the land use to allow
this. From my understanding, the only resaon you're considering this change is due to a couple of letters you
recieved in favor of this business.
I personally am not in favor of this. I recently purchased another parcel beside my existing one. The
county, at that time, informed me that this business was not permitted and would not be allowed to proceed.
IfI knew you would consider chang/ng your position on this, I would not have done this puchase. Also, I
have done some research on the property owner who is doing this business, Russet Trask. He is currently
under investigation for enviromental violations in Kitsap County and had a property condemed in Window
Washington for enviromental violations.
I feel having a neighbor like this is detrimental to the health and value of my property and the
Mark Hering
PO Box 539
Port Townsend, WA 98368
379-3400
Thank You,
Mark Hering {/~
NOV
27 20O0
JEFFERSON COUNTY
DEPT. OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
To the Jefferson County Commissioners,
I am opposed to the proposed change of land use in the Glen Cove Industrial area which would
allow auto and truck wrecking or recycling.
I have recently purchased property in the Glen Cove Industrial Park. I would not have purchased
this property knowing a junk yard would be allowed next door· The code clearly states that it would not be
allowed.
The property my partner, Mark Hering, and I own is an investment in our future. We believe
allowing a semi-truck junk yard adjoining us will devalue our property and limit the businesses that would be
interested in residing on our property.
Thank You,
Marie Campanoli
PO Box 539
Port Townsend, WA 98368
379-3400
NOV 2 7 2000
JEFFERSON COUNTY
DEPT. OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
{ ...... ! ....
I
- JEFFERSON COUN~
DEPT. OF COMMUNi~ DEVELOPMENT...,
ll- q---c9o
.~I~¥I~B LESSER DESIGNS
P.O. Box 1496
Port Townsend, WA
OV 27 2000
JEFFERSON COUNTY
DEPT. OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
To: Commissioners of Jefferson County
From: Dana Roberts, 438 22nd Street, Port ToWnsend, 385-1:297
:a e: Dece her 3, 2000e: Commemnt on UnifOrmup onDeVelopment Code (draft)Sectio. i~
INTRO: This follows my comments of October 30, sen~t~
the Planning CommissiOn. I will be out of the state when you h-5¥d the
hearings on this matter, so I'm filing these written comments.
~.J[(~..Q.~,~ Nearly all Jeffco's citizens recognize that all things are not Ail
Right with the Natural Resources and natural systems on which we depend
for healthy & useable air & water. Why this is so will long continue a subject
of friendly discussion & hostile debate. Still, most of us realize that we've
learned some better ways to treat our surroundings than much prior habit
or behavior.
My comments reflect what I've seen work, or are drawn from reports by
individuals who have seen such results. I freely acknowledge one bias in my
outlook: my views are flavored by a strong belief that our Natural World is
not simply a Resource Bank from which we collectively can make withdrawals
forever without ever making deposits or even letting the Balance of Nature
build up interest on our behalf.
SDecific suggestions & Comment~;
+Format: First, thank you for the very helpful provision of line numbers in
the draft text. You will see I've used them in the following comments. In my
comments, I've noted text which I recommend be added in UPPER CASE.
In the final text, both electronic & on paper, it would further help all who
refer to these Regulations to place the full section, sub-section, & sub-sub-
section numbers & letters at the point each differently numbered provision
begins.
In addition, to convenience users, it'd be handy to steal an idea from the
Dictionary by placing atop each page the sections & sub-part numbers that
show up on that page.
in this context, I've always found "all number" identification of the bits &
pieces in a larger work as the easiest 'road signs' by which to find my way
about. E~xample (from next comment): "3.6.4.f.v." seems easier to locate if
expressed as: 3.6.4.6.5--especially given the small Roman Numerals that are
lower case letters.
+Comment on SDecific text or ~3rovisions:
..... Section 3.6.3.3.a.
(begins pg. 9, Line 71 )
Mineral Resource Lands Dist. Nuisance & Disclosure Provisions. Insert
a new clause in Nuisance regulation, between the paragraph "Nuisance" &
existing text words: "SO LONG AS THE OPERATIONS CONDUCTED DO NOT
CONTRAVENE ANY APPLICABLE ENVIRONMENTAL REQUIREMENTS, CODES OR
RULES FOR AIR, WATER, NOISE, SOIL, VISUAL OR, ANY OTHER FACTOR", then
continue with existing text.
..... Section 3.6.4.f.(1 ~.V,
(begins pg. 1 O, Line 117)
The final clause of this provision should be changed to read:
"...easements, WITH ONLY NON-CHEMICAL MANAGEMENT OF VEGETATION.
FOR NEW OR REPLACED UTILITY STRUCTURES, THEIR HEIGHT, MATERIAL AND
PLACEMENT SHALL BE SUCH THAT CHEMICALLY-PRESERVED OR TREATED
POLES AND CHEMICAL TREATMENT OF VEGETATION OR OTHER MATERIALS
SHALL BE OUTSIDE THE ENVIRONMENTALLY-SENSITIVE AREA."
..... Section 3.6.4.h.
(begins pg. 11, Line 34)
Strike the words "reasonable economic" from throughout this provision
in title and text. Please explore with your Legal Staff a relevant US Supreme
Court case "Evans v. South Carolina" (circa 1993) which reportedly held that
denial of all use was unreasonable--but that some or many uses could be
denied. After all, how can the County tell beforehand whether any particular
owner can or will make an economic success of any particular land use?
..... Section 3.6.5.c.(1 ).ii.
(begins pg. 13, line 23)
In this provision, change the text within parenthesis to read:
"INCLUDING ASPHALT BATCH PLANTS"). Comment: experience with these
operations suggests that they are potentially troublesome enough to be
included. Let's not take chances with our potable water resources.
..... Section 3.6.7.b,(5).ii.
(begins pg. 1 7, line 12)
The signs referred to in this provision should be required to be
permanent and maintained throughout the period of use or conduct of the
permitted use on the property. It would seem the long term results of
subsequent random or un-informed disturbance within the hazard area are
just as serious after construction as they may be during construction.
..... Section 3.6.8.d,(Z),
(begins pg. 18, line t 10)
Revise provision to read: "PHYSICAL REMOVAL OF NOXIOUS WEEDS,
WITH NO CHEMICAL APPLICATION."
..... Section 3.6.8.d.(3~,
(begins pg. 18, line 112)
Insert the term: "NON-CHEMICAL" between "as" and "lawn".
..... Section 3.6.8.e. (1) vi.
(begins pg. 19, line 76)
Insert phrase: "LARGEST POSSIBLE CAPACITY AND" into existing text
between: "...shall be the..." and "...minimum length .... "
..... Section 3.6.8.e.(3~ iY, A,
(begins pg. 20, line 32)
Add sentence to text as written: "FOR ABOVE-GROUND UTILITY
FACILITIES, NEW OR REPLACED STRUCTURES SHALL IN HEIGHT, PLACEMENT
AND MATERIAL RESULT IN NO CHEMICALLY-PRESERVED OR -TREATED POLES
NOR SUBSEQUENT CHEMICALLY-BASED MANAGEMENT OF VEGETATION OR
CHEMICAL-PRESERVATIVE TREATMENT OF STRUCTURES WITHIN ANY FWHA."
..... Section 3.6.8.e, (3)iv, B.
(begins pg. 20, line 38)
Add sentence to text as written: "MANAGING OF VEGETATION ON OR
ALONG UTILITY CORRIDORS WITHIN FWHAs SHALL NOT BE PERFORMED WITH
ANY CHEMICALLY-BASED HERBICIDE OR PESTICIDE."
..... Section 3.6.8.e. (7)ii,
(begins pg. 20, line 114)
Insert new words "LANES AND" between existing text word"...biCycle...''
and "...easements,".
..... Section 3.6.8.a. (5)
(begins pg. 21, line 105)
Overall observation: As important as adequate regulation is effective
regulation; Thus, I am cheered by the provision of specific rules for varying
Buffer widths to 'fine-tune' proposed uses or activities in this regard. Some
uses & properties call for wider buffers & some call for narrower. Where a
tough call should be made, I urge relying on the long-term outlook. Better in
those instances to save more now and be able to narrow buffers in the
future, rather than lose the opportunity to do so forever. We will
accordingly need capable staffers to investigate all but the easiest cases.
Even so, care of the Public's watercourses and riparian resources means
monitoring & inspection. In this regard, I urge most strongly that only
well-qualified Staff be employed for this demanding task. Few acts of Our
Government incense Reasonable Citizens more than failure to insure that
Adopted Rules are Carried Out fairly & squarely.
The closest 50 feet to a stream seem to be the most critical for protecting
the entire riparian corridor. That's where we get our biggest effect per
foot. I recommend that no stream buffer be reduced to a narrower
dimension than 50 feet unless there is an effective break in the terrain such
that drainage flows away from the stream at that point and that soil on that
terrain is not highly absorbent. If pressed to reduce Buffer Widths per Table
3-2, I urge holding firm at 120, 80, 65, & 45 feet at the Stream Types as
laid out in that table.
..... Section 3.6.9.c.(2~.i.A.
(begins pg. 24, line 73)
Between the words, "gardens" and "shall" insert: "WHICH ARE
ESTABLISHED AND MAINTAINED WITHOUT CHEMICAL ADDITIVES OR
APPLICATIONS".
..... Section 3.6.9.,e,
(begins pg. 27, line 4)
Add text between introductory paragraph and Section 3.6.10.e.(1 ):
FOR BOTH TYPE 1 AND TYPE 2 NON-COMPENSATORY ENHANCEMENTS, A 5
YEAR BOND FOR SUCCESS OF THAT WORK SHALL BE REQUIRED, OR THE
APPLICANT OBLIGED TO DEFER START OF WORK ON THE EVENTUAL
PERMITTED LAND USE OR OTHER ACTIVITY AT THE SITE FOR 5 YEARS. THIS
BOND OR DELAY IS NECESSARY IN ORDER FOR THE COMPENSATORY WORK TO
PROVE ITS EQUAL OR GREATER ENVIRONMENTAL EFFICACY AND BENEFIT TO
THAT WHICH WOULD BE LOST TO THE PERMITTED ACTIVITY.
..... Section 3.6.9.f.
(begins pg. 27, line 76)
Following your excellent and succinct statement of goal for mitigation,
add new provision, before Section 3.6.10.f(1 ): ANY SUCH MITIGATION SHALL
BE REQUIRED TO EITHER POST A 5 YEAR BOND FOR SUCCESS OF THAT
MITIGATION WORK, OR TO DEFER THE START OF WORK ON THE EVENTUAL
PERMITTED LAND USE OR OTHER ACTIVITY AT THE SITE FOR 5 YEARS. THIS IS
NECESSARY IN ORDER FOR THE MITIGATION TO PROVE ITS EQUAL OR GREATER
ENVIRONMENTAL EFFICACY AND BENEFIT TO THAT WHICH WOULD BE LOST TO
THE PERMITTED ACTIVITY.
..... Table 3-5. Note 3.
(begins pg. 28, line 25)
Revise note to read: "Compensation must be completed prior to
COMMENCING wetland destruction." Omit "where possible", which virtually
negates the requirement and looks like 'window-dressing'.
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL
Jefferson County Board of Comm
P.O. Box 1220
Port Townsend, WA 98368
OF IEFFERSON COUNTY
DEC
JEFFERSON COUNTY
s~l~efl~ COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
zber 4, 2000
L7
OEO. 0 ~ 20,'Z
Re: Proposed Uniform Development Code (UBQ
At its December meeting, the Board of Directors of the Economic Development Council
(EDC) of Jefferson County passed the following motion with regard to final adoption of the
proposed Uniform Development Code:
That the EDC, as an crrganizaticn, mbrdt a statovTeat to ~he fefferson ~ Board of ~sioners
requesting an extmskra o/the pro~ss for adoption o/the prtr~sed Unified Devdop'r~nt Code.
The Board passed this motion for the following reasons:
1. The overall complexity of this document is such that a proper and informed review is
not possible by the December 18 adoption date. The Economic Development Council
is sensitive to the need for the review and implementation process to go forward,
however, we feel that acceleration of this process could lead to challenges of the
document if passed in its present form.
2. The number of substantive changes in language and intent must be given adequate time
for public review and comment as well. The public is ill served when proper and
adequate review is not allowed.
The EDC respectfully requests that the Board of County Commissioners consider an
extension of the review and adoption process for the UDC. Thank you for your
consideration.
JB:dm
Sincerely,
President
734 Water Street, P.O. Box 877, Port Townsend, WA 98368
phone (360) 385-6767 fax (360) 385-6768 info@edcjc.com http://www.edcjc.com
City of Port Townsend
Office of the Mayor
Waterman-Katz Building
i81 Quincy Street, Suite 201, Port Townsend, WA 98368
(360) 379-5047 FAX (360) 385-4290
December 5, 2000
Charles Saddler, County Administrato
Jefferson County Cormnissioners
Jefferson County
P.O. Box 1220
Port Townsend, WA 98368
JEFFERSON COUNTY ·
DEPT, OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
Dear County Administrator Saddler and County Comnfissioners:
Re: Proposed Adoption of Proposed Unified Development Code
The City by letter dated November 22, 2000 (copy enclosed) requested the County
Comtnissioners delay passage of the Unified Development Code (UDC) until the City Council
had an adequate opportunity to review the proposed code with City staffand make
recommendations on any suggested changes. Preliminary review by the City. of the UDC
demonstrates there are a number of issues affecting the City that require delay in adopting
portions of the UDC until the UDC is revised to satisfactorily address those issues.
1. AsPhalt Batch Plants in Critical Aquifer Recharge Areas
Befbre taking any act/on, the UDC needs to be amended to prohibit asphalt batch plants in
wellhead protection areas. On November 14, 2000 Jefferson County staffmet with staff from
the City of Port Townsend. Proposed UDC provisions regarding protections for aquifer recharge
areas were discussed at this meeting. After a lengthy discussion, Jefferson County staff agreed
to recommend to the BOCC to include language in the UDC that prohibits asphalt batch plants in
welll~ead protection areas. (The change would occur at Section 3 - Land Use districts, section
C(1)(ii) - Applicability, by removing the word "not".) However, the draft UDC has not yet been
modified to accomplish this. Additionally, if asphalt batch plants are to be allowed in critical
aquii~r recharge area outside of wellhead protection areas, then the UDC needs to specify that
adequate studies and mitigation measures would be required to prevent contamination of the
underlying aquifer.
2. Saltwater Intrusion and Monitoring Elimination.
The provisions in the County's existing interim critical area Ordinance 14-0626-95 protecting
against saltwater intrusion and providing for monitoring should be retained in full in the UDC.
The proposed UDC at 3.6.5 (c)(3) and elsewhere eliminates protections against saltwater
intrusion that are contained in Ordinance 14-0626-95. As you l, mow, provisions in that
Ordinance resulted from litigation between the City, County, and Shine Community Action
Council in 1995. The City is willing to review in detail with the County and other interested
parties any proposed changes. However, without that detailed review, the provisions in the 1995
Ordinance need to be retained.
Table 3-1 Allowable and Prohibited Uses; Light Industrial/Commercial (Glen
Cove):
The UDC needs to be modified with reference to allowable and prohibited uses in the Glen Cove
light industrialYcommercial district. The drail UDC includes a number o£commercial uses in the
Glen Cove Light !rndustrial/Commercial (LI/C) zoning district that are potentially inconsistent
with the purpose for this district as stated in the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan. The
Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan (t 998) states that the LIYC zone is intended for
"commercial and retail uses that are either directly associated with the light industrial use such as
commodities and products, mechanical or electrical supplies, warehousing and storage, or
provide support services to those who work in the industries, such as a small card." Jefferson
County Comprehensive Plan. Industrial Lands Strategy, Land Use Section. The UDC lists
"Wholesale Distribution Outlets" as an outright permitted use and "Un-named Commercial
Uses" as permitted through discretionary review in the LI/C Glen Cove District. However, the
UDC contains no definition fbr "Wholesale Distribution Outlets." The UDC should not be
adopted until specific definitions are added making any allowed uses consistent with the
Comprehensive Plan policies for the LI/C district. Such a definition should prohibit retail sale
unless the goods were manufactured on-site.
Also the discretionary review process for "Un-named Commercial Uses'~ in the UDC should be
revised to ensure such uses are consistent with the intent of the LI/C district as stated in the
Jefferson County Comprehensive ?lmx. And the UDC slxould specify that notice be given to the
City on applications for discretionary review, including applications for "Un-named Commercial
Uses," in the LI/C (Glen Cove) district.
Thank you for your attention to this letter and expected cooperation.
GeoffMasci, D.C.
Mayor
cc: David Timmons, City Manager
John Watts, City Attorney
Jeff Randall, BCD Director
City Council
GREEN CROW
805 E. 8th · P.O. Box 2469
Port Angeles, WA 98362-0074
(360) 452-3325 · FAX (360) 417-3676
December 04, 2000
Mr. Richard Wojt, Chairma
Jefferson County
Board of Commissioners
PO Box 1220
Port Townsend, WA 98368
Dear Chairman Wojt:
DEC 5
JEFFERSON COUNTY
DEPT. OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMI:N~
UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE
It is our understanding that the Board of County Commissioners (BOCC) intends
to consider public testimony on the adoption of the Unified Development Code
(UDC) for Jefferson County on December 10 and 11, 2000.
While we have not reviewed the entire UDC, we have examined that portion
related to setbacks from land designated as Commercial and Rural Forest Lands.
It is our conclusion that the buffers or setbacks, and the procedures required in
Section 3.5.3 Forest Resource Districts are essentially the same as those provided
in the Interim Forest Ordinance, and are as unworkable as those procedures in
the Interim Forest Ordinance.
In the Interim Ordinance, a 250-foot Setback from Commercial Forest Land is
required. If that setback cannot be accommodated on the specific parcel, the
permit applicant is to "maintain the maximum setback possible" or the permit
applicant and the forest landowner may covenant to accept a lesser setback. The
intent here is to provide the Commercial Forest Land from the pressure of
incompatible adjacent land use and the smaller residential lot owner from the
more noxious of the forest practices..Or so it seems. The fact is that in many rural
areas, e.g. Brinnon, there are hundreds of existing dwellings on small lots
adjacent to Commercial Forest Lands and hundreds more existing undeveloped
lots where the setback cannot be accommodated on the small lot. Since the
Interim Forest Ordinance has been in effect, we are not aware of any structures
that have been denied because they fail to meet setback requirements. In fact,
many structures have been built within 250 feet of the designated Commercial
Forest Land. Thus, while the Interim Ordinance may provide protection for the
forestland from adjacent future development, it does nothing to provide buffer
from the existing land use or development on existing lots.
The proposed UDC does not improve on the Interim Ordinance, rather it simply
continues an ineffective practice. The UDC will continue to force the owner of an
existing small residential lot to bear the burden of providing for a buffer/setback
and, except for the largest of lots, provide no real answer to the issue of the
incompatibility. Also, nothing is done to provide protection from existing
developed lots. We believe it is unfair and ineffective to require the small lot
owner to bear the brunt of the buffer requirement. We also believe that it is
equally unfair for the forest landowner to be required to provide for a buffer area
on forestland, without economic return.
Ultimately, we believe that creating a Forest Transition Area overlay district,
establishing the buffer on the forest land allowing the forest land to be divided
into 20 acre parcels (with appropriate use restrictions), will create the necessary
buffer and provide the forest land owner a modest return on investment. This
process has been used successfully in Snohomish County and could be successful
in protecting forest land in Jefferson County
To deal with this issue in the Brinnon area, we have been working with the
Brirmon Sub Area Planning Group to develop a similar procedure. The Brinnon
area is unique in many ways, especially since much of he land adjacent to both
rivers has been divided into small lots that abut Commercial Forest Land. We
believe that the Forest Transition Area Overlay District concept will provide the
necessary buffers in the Brinnon area and for the rest of Jefferson County. We
respectfully urge the BOCC to consider and adopt the Forest Transition Area
concept.
We also respectfully request that this letter be included in the UDC adoption
hearing record.
Sincerely;
Randall S. Johnson
President
RSJ/dsw
CC~
Commissioner Huntingford
Commissioner Harpole
Commissioner-elect Titterness
Tom McNerney
Pat Rodgers
Juelanne Dalzell
JEFFERSON COUNTY PROSECUTING ATTORNEY
Courthouse- P.O. Box 1220
Port Townsend, Washington 98368
Telephone (360) 385-9180 FAX (360) 385-0073
Jill Landes, Deputy Prosecutor
Michael Haas, Deputy Prosecutor
Theodore M. Cropley, Deputy Prosecutor
David W. Alvarez, Deputy Prosecutor
December 4, 2000
Johnnie R. Hynson
718 Water Street, Suite F
Port Townsend, WA 98368
Re: Unified Development Code
DEC ~ 2000
'JEFFERSON COUNTY
DEPT. OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
Dear Johnnie:
Thank you for your letter dated December 2, 2000. It is important that you make
sure your letter gets to Associate Planner Randy Kline, as he is the keeper of the public
comments on the UDC. Certain misconceptions in your letter, however, need to be
discussed. I am optimistic that my responses to your letter will raise your comfort level.
The UDC, rather than being undertaken as an emergency, has been undertaken as a
project that began back in May 2000, when the contract with the consultant was signed. It
is true that these three County Commissioners made a public promise that enactment this
year of the UDC xvas the #1 planning priority. Why? Because, in part, the Growth
Management Act contemplates immediately enacting development regulations after the
enactment of the Comprehensive Plan. The County's Comprehensive Plan was enacted in
August 1998, more than two years ago. This UDC is seen as an important engine for
future economic growth.
After internal discussions with staff and elected officials, portions of the draft
UDC were made public via paper copies and the internet through September and October
2000. The entire first draft of the UDC was available to the public (again in paper form
or on the internet) around October 12, 2000. During the fall both the Commissioners and
the Planning Commission made efforts to walk through the draft UDC chapter by chapter.
In other words, there has been nothing 'piecemeal' about this draft UDC for the last two
months because all of the UDC has been available for comments and questions. The
Counry's planners had a three-hour session on a Saturday in November to answer any
questions citizens might have had. That is only one example of how this County has
provided opportunities for the citizens to inquire and comment.
The draft of the UDC that will be the subject of the public hearings before the
elected County Commissioners was finalized on or before November 20, 2000 and is
available for your review. It includes all chapters AND, more importantly, it includes
underlines and deletions that represent the input of the public, the planning staff and the
County Commissioners. Thus, it does not appear to be accurate to state that public
comments are not reflected in what might be adopted on December 18th. YOU are urged to
tr~'i:i~)"t~'~'epa~fi'i~h'~!~6'f"C~51~munitv Development (or the County's web site) to obtain
a full copy of the prol~osdq ~D.,C.
You als(; pointed ou; tll~ absence of any reference to the Shoreline Management
Act in..It~:__U~...C_._.T_h%C~.u, nty dontinues to have in place, and will have in place after the
UDC.is. enac{~d}' its ctg-r~n.t S.horeline Management Master Program or "SM_MP". The
UDC'has a placeYeserved (Chapter 5) for a revised SMMP, which will be generated to
reflect the state regulations for shorelines. Those portions of the Washington
Administrative Code relating to shorelines have undergone massive changes and the
revisions were only recently promulgated. Although promulgated, they have been the
subject of an immediate legal challenge. The revised SMMP is in the process of being
written at the present time.
Your letter also suggests that the enactment of the UDC be delayed. It will be up
to the County Commissioners to determine when enactment occurs. You and the citizens
you represent are certainly entitled to request a delay in enactment. You and your clients
can comment on any concern you have by doing so in writing or by giving oral
testimony on December 11th or 12th.
Trusting this answers some of the questions you have raised, I remain,
Very truly yours,
David Alvarez
Chief Civil Deputy Prosecuting Attorney
Cc~
Board of County Commissioners
Charles Saddler
Randy Kline, DCD
JOHNNIE R. HYN$ON, ATTORNEY AT LAW
P.C). Box 247 (360) 379-7382 (.~,~.,~g,.~)
718 Water Strut, Sui~ F {~) ~4~ (~ic~)
Port Town.nd WA ~3~ ]rh)~;~hazc~m
. z
bEC - 4. '
Draft UDC Comments and Concerz~
Au I mc-ntionod to you on the phone yesterday, I have bccn
~=:.t.%ined by a cons,.~rtium of concerned .3~fferson Couniy citizens
cnsurc ~,.~ thc A~inlstra~ive Prsccdurcs Act is followed
d"-~n.= thc approval ..... ss ~ 3efferson County's UDC. You
w~nt::d ~o know what their c~nccrns were. In shot: they have three
"he ~'-.~t J s the bizarre resul~s achieved by :h~ code as
-' ~ w~t .... , (2) t~ ~econ~ ~- that tho ....
r~cc~urcs a~ =~ -o,-u4red ~y du.~ process arc not bcin~
finally [~ ali finally nc one has ~con thc whole review code
o~e spet, i.e. everylhJng is heirs don~
When i set ~ thc m ~+~ ~ a~ --~=~rvcd, ! could see
_ bu:~ a record tO COVer thc APA but they wcr~ sorely
tryinc to ' ' ~ ~
~'~n ~ !at,st ..... 4.~ it says eh~ the hearing t
_~king ....... on ......... ~,.
r,2~.ziew it i~ ,:,n!y a ~ew days before the tsrge~ date. ALso,
~,~+= h=~,e ever ~,~ calledAdd~t~cna--~, ~ ~ ~],,, thc
....... l , uh~t t~'.y could done in January
:~b-,,ars' ~ l~* t~ dc thc j~ -h~y '.,-~+~ to do. The rush to
A.]_*v, i read with interest :he recent article about ycu
...~,., ..... :~- ,.. -, .+~ ~ tho r~nC, AS r am sure you ara aware
~.~ requ4re's rhgt the ]ate~t vets=on, w%Eh your most recent
~n~o~=a~ed in it, still requires public =c~cnt in
order for it to be app .... d according to !~w I am sure that you
_~.. ,.,~ ..... ~_~ cn~.,~u~ to tr= to aeet the ~=~~....~, bu
ha,,e these char, Sos ~een git~en the fuji required due process
· , ' ~'~ is +~ tho c ......... t~ +h~ public
_~n~r~d the final
impression is ~hings are being doc,~;~ented in a very serious an~
~C=~ ..... e~ =~d =hen s~p~y ~gn~_~d. We .... si! in
~ha{~ a workablc ~ s, is ' ~v=.= ....... the co..~mmnt
~c-~ needed
mcet~ng that I attended at thc WSU extension not a single person
in rte audience wa~ ~,',r the draft that was presented. Howover~
..... ~nc sctuing behind was tko tabP~ was for uha= version
DEC-O~-00 09 ~54 AM P. 82
My first step in approaching this problem is to perform an
audit of what has been done sc far againmt the requirements of
=~!lcwing ~ ~
CONSIiTUTIONAL RIGHTS .... n~=_ AT .~n~'nv~=_ :.=__
Ibc definition - ~+~^ is
oe .... n ~¢ vague that i~ cxpand~ to
~n~inizy the powers o~ %ho govermnent ~-j search any
~_c~ty ~- Jefferson county, This ~s imDcrtant and
serious because many o~ t~e ....
- ~.- .cng n~me residents
-Jefferson County have conditions that may, or may net,
pul them in jeopardy, accordin,~ to how the vague terms
....~ defined it 5urns the lawz'~"~ .... a lottery, what
has exi~:sd. =~e~_ .~0 y~ars ces5 you a small fortune. In a
hiqt~!y polio!ca! co:~nty such as Je~erson, the pc, w,?~
~"~r~ .~ bcccmc the power to destroy, As a criminal
defense ia'~icr thc pctcnuia! for abuse in tho UDC as
is written .~s a nigh%mare waiting to hapuen.
i RTRANC4? mHTNG.q~, ... ARK AT,T,OWED UNDER THE [t~}C. - T.I.qRAR~, K.~ ~' ARE
MC'DE DANGEROUS THAN GP~.VEL PETS?
!Iow could~ be ~~ ...... ~=~ (~ even lawful) for
....~ ~a okay tc pUt a ..... ~=~e~ pit next to a retired couple's
new bc,'j.~e, b%~ not okay ~o p~;,~ a library There. '[~$
could bc ~;"~ ..... ~'~;~*~ sCCtlOP.~
..x.., in '~ ' b~% will ~-
· ..TRANGE THTNG.q ARE ATT,OWED UNDER TME []DC - ~ ....
F. ANNC)T
.... E TIlE OI]T~TDE OF TiINTR BUTT:DINgS?
Anyone with the mas~ rudimentary and remote idea of
manufacturing kncw~ that choy need to use nhe areas
outside of their bui!din~. For ex~!e, storage, loading,
tra~iers, power stations, otc. T~ere a=e Limits
current version on this. Thc size of thc buildings used
in manufacturing is ~= ~ ~ ~ ]o~
o.n~,.~ THINGS ARE Ali,OWED U,,.~:R THE UDC - HOUSING CLUSTERS
Housin%' C!L~Ster~ - land can'T be l ef~ for appearance for
...... ~ iocica! reason. For example, why shou!dn'c
4 .... !oDer bc able tc sec aside more ~=~ .... ~ ~4
........ e~e~.~p .... nt more ascetically plenszng? You can't
under tho c%~rro~t code,
STRANGE THINGS ARE ALLOWED UNDER THE tjDC- SETbaCKS
Thc S}~ provision ccncerninq setbacks need
Dav. d A±verez, Esq.
· RT;F~H T¢;
"hc code ~ ~ trv~ ~ be ~a~mcd ~c~g~- at all
before Harpcle leaves town.
Thc ~,,~." ~=~ has ~h~ ~.ercept~ the UDC
~ ..... a ...... ~ that ran
througk whiic peoDic's attention is ciouwhcre. Now that
Cc~mtssicncr ~ ~.~ ~ ~ is ~o!n~ t~ be the new
,/o!T~.i~i,J,ncr, the ~?Or,Je~;~tio]~ !s that the rush must De
doubly pushed _~ that it can b~ improved by the
-' ' '~ --~ '~ this
cou~Ev ~minz~r ......... good for ~zferscn
.......-~ good .DC~_ _~.~
It thc ADA iS nec fo!lowed chore will be a lawsuit to
nullify it. Why not avoid uhis suag~=ring cost in county
lu,~d, fc, r all
T-ying uc pass as an ~ .....
........ =~n~, Whs% ts the emergency?
Thm appearance is that thc emergency provision is used in
+H~..~ ~.~..~~-"~ to bypa~ ...... ~ right ~ due process of law.
Ei!i?,:.l~ !eavi~kg !$ her,l!y an eme~gencv. APA ,'/e~init/,:,n ,pi
RCW 34.05.350 EMERGENCY RULES AND .~MENDMENT$.
(1)_ iF. ........ -" for .... .4 ...... --.¢ 4 ~.4,_ -~
(a) ']'h..~t ~ mine,ii, ate .~dopt ~,:,n, amendment,
or rcpcai of a rule is necessary for *~..,,~
pre~orvatlor~ cf :he public .... heart,t,
safety, ar_~Tnera! wT!f~r~, and that
ob.set-v~ng the time re~.~Jrements et u,DtJ.Te
~d ~ ' '~ '~'
~porc,.~l~ tO ~ ~ * "~" ~do~*~OP
ufa ........ ~ ~"~ ...... ~ bc co~-~ry to
thc ~'~ ~-- inuercst; ~
P~ let m% knnw %xact~5., whal yn%] ~hink ~he amer~n~u
i~? i$ general welfare cf section (~)? Is a dc!~y uf
~',~ ~ under ~,'~-* ~ ~- (b~ under RCW 34 05,380
ox~io~° And if yes " .
....... , ~as an exception filed. DeDendino
U~,C',F, ynl~r ......... r~F,~Ds~ we m~y ~DF, ea: d~ re,:tT, y ~,.: the governor
or file suit Locally.
· L"A;;SASE NOW IS ILL-TIMED
~H,-,,.- dn't thc ' ~ ........ ~ ccmmi
~..,.,~, ~ncom .......... y ssion have a hand ]~..
what term the UDC %Rkes? Againr whV rush nc, w during a
lame-duc~,, w~,,Lm_~__~ 4~on ~O do something that the ~,-~ca~
~ ,~ ~ ~, ~ f ~hC ~,~l .-~ ~S
--~r,~o,i~U~ 0 ~.. adalnst
.~,zc Alvcraz, Esq.
N,-.,~'ember 'l_ ,'1., ",, f" ?)0..
What · -~ ~=~ ~ .... = is +~-a' ~e UDC be enacted in -egal
c<.]h[.,!!a~%t manner rot the good Of all o~ the citizens
"~, ~, A ~u" .....] .... m~n. ..,_,..,._n..,~,'",-'~-~ '-' should be scheduled for mid march;
The d~.{~ ~.t: ohs sect i,:,nS ?.]~. fo:-th for comment
"~ .... i~ ~s thc ~cst cr~ ~-~ ' ~'~' ~-"
The delayw,~ ....... ~ al~w t~e county com~.i$cion that will ~n,¢r.. ~ ~o
thc UDC to kava ~ hand in its drafting its final form as tho
c~]zc, ns o~ Jefferson County will have to live with. T~¢ delay
wSli aL~o itt thc citizens of Jefferson know that it is not being
~' ~'~ ~ ~ ~ ~ the wrong ra~sgn
.m~,~, bottom line {= +~a+ ~ feel that e~,c~y~.e invc!ved wan~g
........................... ~= and legal
manner, and ~.- ..... ir[ucruz~ of Jefferson ~c,n~ ~ -~ ~, be served. I will do
.... ] do to hcip this process
Picasc consider ' ~= ..... i~ ~^ '' =,
U .... ~. .... a . ~ reach me, I Wlz! b~ able ~
re$[.-<:nd lr~mediately~ it i~ my desire To re~olve ~his matter as
c~-!y == sib!c ....
qu~' :' ..~ pos . P!casc ~I frcc to call if y~u have any
~uusticns.
,_lc, hnni e ~. ~yn.$on
W'S~A No. 23995
cc:
Di,ztribution List, County Commissioners, Scala, Sand!or
'~i J C' NC, '""~'~
December 5, 2000
Thomas C. McNerney
354 Point Whitney Road
,.,,~
Brinnon, Washington, 98_,~0
360 796 4349
tmcnernev~9iupitercitv.com
Board of Commissioners
Jefferson County, Washington
1820 Jefferson Street, P.O. Box 1220
Port Townsend, WA 98368
Dear Sirs,
DEC '
JEFFERSON COU N';'v
J
DEPT. OF COMMIINITV F~'F-,"'~ML['~
I have been thinking of how to describe the processing of the UDC. One way might be to
use the analogy that Commissioner Wojt used when he talked to the Planning
Commission. He compared the UDC to a Japanese train that was on a fast track and how
it must arrived at its destination on time.
He said the UDC, like the Japanese train, was on a fast track and it was going to arrive on
time. A decision would be make on Dec. 18th. At that time the UDC would be voted up or
down but it would be done at that time.
I would like to fill in some of the details on the story of the train (UDC) that must arrive
on time.
THE STORY OF THE TRAIN THAT ARRIVED AT THE STATION
ON TIME.
The SCHEDULE for the train's arrival was made last summer before construction was
begun on the train. The date the train was to arrive at the station was selected and the
SCHEDULE worked back from there.
When the SCHEDULE called for the starting of the train's safety inspections (by the
Planning Commission) only two cars (sections), were completed so preliminary
inspections were started on those 2 cars, not knowing if they would fit with the cars being
still constructed (sections being written).
The first preliminary walk through showed so many defects that the designers (planning
staff) said, "We will fix that, just keep looking at each car (sections) when it arrives."
When all the cars finally arrived for the detailed safety inspectors to begin, the
SCHEDULE called for a viewing by the stockholders (Public Hearings by taxpayers)of
the uninspected new train, (lst draft UDC).
The stockholder's viewing of the hastily assembled train (Public Hearings of 1s' Draft
UDC) resulted in many comments from the public to take more time and get it right.
After the stoc 'kholder's viewing, the SCHEDULE called for the safety inspectors to
begin detailed inspections of the train (1st Draft UDC) taking into consideration the
public's comments.
When the safety inspectors (Planning Commission) started to make the detailed
inspection of the train, the designers (Planning Staff) said we have changed things and we
· ,~nd '
now have a new and ~mproved model (~ Draft UDC.) Drop what you are doing on the
first model and work on this new and improved model (2nd Draft UDC). We will bring it
to you a couple of cars at a time.
The SCHEDULE was so tight that the Planning Commissioners lengthened their
meetings, scheduled extra meetings but before the train (2nd Draft UDC) could be
inspected, the SCHEDULE called for the train to be moved to the Board of Directors for
their review with 5 cars still completely uninspected.
On the way to Corporate Headquarters (BOCC), the designers (Planners) substituted a
different train (3ra Draft UDC) that the inspectors (Planning Commission) had never seen.
A cursory walk thru inspection was conducted by the designers of the uninspected 3rd
model of the train (UDC) for the Board of Directors (BOCC).
After the Board's 3 lA hour guided tour, the 3r'~ model of the train (3rd draft UDC) had a
few more attachments added prior to its exhibition to the stockholders, (Public Hearing),
and it is planned to add still more attachments after the stockholder's viewing (Public
Hearing) prior to its grand arrival at the station on time.
Here is the mistake in the comparison.
· The objective of the Japanese high speed passenger trains are to safely provide
reliable service to the passengers on a timely basis.
· The objective of the UDC schedule has been to complete the UDC by a Dec. 18
deadline.
The quality of the product and the service that will be provided to the public have been
secondary to the completion date.
This hastily constructed, continually redesigned, patched up, and uninspected train needs
a through inspection before it is put on the high-speed track with the citizens of Jefferson
County aboard.
The only thorough inspection of this train so far is by the designers of the train. They will
soon become the operators of the train. They will set the operational rules as they go
along on how it will operate. They will recommend v, zhat the fares will be. They will
decide what the penalties will be assessed if anvone breaks their rules.
The passengers (the taxpayers) will pay the bills and suffer the inconveniences if this
uninspected train breaks down, needs replacement or repairs.
SOMEONE BESIDES THE WRITERS OF THIS CODE SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO
MAKE A THOROUGH REVIEW OF THIS CODE.
I urge you to not pass this UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE in its present form but to
return it to the planning commission for its and the public's review of the last draft of the
UDC.
Respectfully submitted,
THOMAS C. McNERNEY
December 6, 2000
Johnnie Hynson
718 Water Street, Suite F, PO Box 247
Port Townsend. WA 98368
Juelanne Dalzell
JEFFERSON COUNTY PROSECUTING ATTORNEY
Courthouse- P.O. Box 1220
Port Townsend, Washington 98368
Telephone (360) 385-9180 FAX (360) 385-0073
Jill Landes, Deputy Prosecutor
Michael Haas, Deputy Prosecutor
Theodore M. Cropley, Deputy Prosecutor
David W. Alvarez, Deputy Prosecutor
Re: Letters from you dated December 5 regarding UDC
Dear Johnnie:
Thank you for your letters dated December 5.
Regarding your initial letter dated December 2, 2000 1 can tell vou that while you
made many planning comments on page 2 (libraries, asphalt batch plants, housing
clusters) in that letter I saw no need to respond to those comments because I am not a
planner and cannot in an articulate manner describe why that language is present in the
UDC. That is why I did not respond item bv item. Note that the UDC language
represents literally dozens of compromises and there is no expectation on the Coun .ty's
part that eveuone from the "millionaire speculator" to the "flora & fauna" crowd is going
to be entirely satisfied. I would add that I believe many of the oddities in the UDC have
been removed, for example, the draft UDC no longer permits new asphalt batch plants in
rural residential zones. You will have to carefully read the revised UDC that you
obtained from Randy Kline. Please pay particular attention to the revised Section 10
regarding search and seizure.
It is also my habit not to discuss specific state statutes and regulations with any
citizen or attorney for several reasons, the most compelling of which is that I am not
obligated to do legal research for another attorney. Such a statement is doubly true in
your circumstances, since you have repeatedly stated that you intend to seek redress
through the proper channels for this hastily-enacted (in your opinion) UDC. However, in
the spirit of cooperation, I will again urge you to review' RCW 36.70A.010 et seq. and
RCW 36.70.010 et seq.
You did ask about what notice was given. If you are to be a top-notch land use
attorney now' that you are in private practice, then you will need to review every week the
"County. Notices" found in the last pages of the Port Townsend Leader. On November
29th the Leader included notice of the UDC hearings on December 11th and 12th. The
notice consumed more than one full page of The Leader.
I would also urge you to direct any additional comments to the planning
department and not to me as the period for public comments on the UDC is not yet
closed. For the reasons stated above, I do not wish to continue to discuss with you the
legalities of what has occurred or will occur.
Finally, please take a moment to spell my last name correctly, it is David Alv_arez
not David Alverez.
Very truly yours,
David Alvarez
Chief Civil Deputy' Prosecuting Attorney
Board of County.' Commissioners
Charles Saddler
Randy Kline, DCD
'JLa ~ax --_~.
,L:~ -' ~;"~':- ~¥ ~,,-, T',:n?,~ ~-~m.~~' ~%-¢~=, .~ ~.-, ~ ~
........... ~ ............... -' L.o;lz]:lls set for De_=~:i>~a /lrr~ an:l lSrh
r_~,_~zc that -~ '--'~:= ~'=~= ~'= ~""~ '"~ ..... '"
,7&; ; 3;,~.- -t' 7 rr,.~y be Of
!
1
WSBA NC,. 2399%
_: L',.~ ~ '- '- .--:VC~. U ~',? ..... ~ ......... ; ..................... ~,-
Z".'.__,~:'.:..r_-.:'.~_L~'_Li-~ '~<; CAe
~ . .:: ............ . ........... ~ ......... · .~ ...... . ~,~. ~ ~. ~x-~' . ~, -Z. 'ri'~'~_
....... j]_,~r ! ,~ .... , ~"~
· -' ~' -,+' ~'k,i~ r;~,:''t~l._-:e/
_~. ~.,~ _ ;~'o~C~-~
.......... ; -' .................. '* .......... -'2[ .Y=.f.~:$:;:~ '.U.:,unzy ;-,ave
~ ........~; .h--i:-~t .... ~:-L:u .... v ~,- .... qc'~ ....
..... ~ .... - .,~ ~_ ~,,~ ,~. ~'-=.~u. ~,: County, in thc cn'd FF
~_ :'.-:i : .................. ' ........
~ .... "4-' called,.,..-= -:h2~,. ,... afn~_~noon, 7. wl]./ Go back :.. .... ~..~
Washington State
Department of Transportation
Sid Morrison
'~ecretary :~f Tra~scor~at~on
December 5, 2000
Mr. A1 Scalf
Director, Community Development
Jefferson County. Planning Department
PO Box 1220
Port Townsend, WA 98368
Aviation Division
:<icg County Int'l Airport / Boeing Field
3900 East Marginal Way South
Seattle. 'NA 98108-4024
2C6) 764-4131 / 1~800-552~0666
:ax (206) 764-4001
BEC 6 2000
JEFFERSON COUNTY
OEP1'. O~ COMMt.I~TY DEVEL~
Dear Mr. Scalf:
I want to thank you for the opportunity to offer comment on the Jefferson County
Uniform Development Code. In review of the Jefferson County Draft UDC, we the offer
the following comments for your consideration.
We especially like the following UDC language:
We appreciate the work of Jefferson County and the Port of Jefferson County in
the development of Section 3 - Land Use Districts: 3.6.1 ! Airport Essential
Public Facility District (A). We support the county's decision to develop an
airport overlay district and recommend the work completed by Douglas County
and Skagit County as exemplary overlay models to serve as a reference guide.
We commend the county for adding to the Aviation Related Development to
include air pilot training schools, aviation clubs, taxi and bus terminal, automobile
rental and associated parking and aircraft related manufacturing. We recommend
further consultation with the Port regarding the requirement of taxiway access for
aircraft related manufacturing as such efforts may or may not utilize runway
access, i.e., propeller manufacturing.
We are concerned with the following sections and request further clarification on these
areas:
Section EPP 3.0 of the Comprehensive Plan prohibits any use that would locate
structures within 100 feet of aircraft approach-departure or transitional surfaces.
Section 4 of the UDC Development Standards states that clear zones, approaches
and surrounding areas shall comply with the standards established in FAR Part
77. Further, Paragraph d. Height Hazards requires all new development or
alteration to be in accordance with FAR Part 77. We request further clarification
for the intent of the language. FAR Part 77 delineates those airspace areas critical
Mr. A1 Scalf
December 5, 2000
Page Two
for the intent of the language. FAR Part 77 delineates those airspace areas critical
to safe flight. The Federal Aviation Administration does not have land use
authority and does not preclude development penetrating the surfaces that lead to
obstructions. Will the UDC prohibit structures within the aircraft approach and
departure or transitional surfaces?
Section 3.3 of the Comprehensive Plan suggests the use of Notice to Title within
the Noise Overlay Zone and Section 3.10 calls for the establishment of a noise
abatement procedure in conjunction with the Port of Port Townsend. The
WSDOT Aviation Division recommends consideration of joint planning efforts
between the county and port to address the two provisions within the
comprehensive plan that is not contained in the UDC. We suggest combining
sub-area planning for the airport in the development of the overlay with the
airport master planning process.
In our previous comments of August 10, 1998 on the Jefferson County
Comprehensive Plan, we recommended avoiding land uses for schools, play
fields, hospitals, nursing homes, mobile home parks, day care facilities and
churches. We restate our recommendation based on the allowable uses contained
in the UDC. We encourage consultation with the Jefferson County Prosecuting
Attorney and risk manager regarding allowable uses that draw a large
concentration of people adjacent to the airport.
We appreciate the opportunity to comment on the Jefferson County Unified Development
Code and commend you on a job well done.
Sincerely,
Theresa Smith
Manager, Aviation Planning
Michael Nowak, Growth Management Program, OCD
Larry Crockett, Port of Port Townsend
Bob Jones, WSDOT Olympic Region
STAFF
SUGGESTED REVISIONS
TO THE PUBLIC HEARING DRAFT
DECEMBER 6, 2000
These suggested revisions, highlighted in blue text, represent the final staff-recommended revisions to
the UDC for review and consideration by the Board of County Commissioners in their deliberation
process. The Department of Community Development (utilizing project review staff not necessarily
involved in the preparation of the UDC) has evaluated the Draft UDC by running several "test cases" (i.e.,
project scenarios) through the new proposed procedural and substantive requirements to "test" the UDC
for consistency and completeness. These recommended changes are based on "housekeeping" revisions
to the draft to correct or clarify the intent of certain sections and to eliminate any remaining
inconsistencies based on DCD staff review. Some of the revisions also address some of the remaining
public and Planning Commission comments or concerns submitted to date on the draft UDC and also
incorporate suggested revisions from the Departments of Public Works and Environmental Health
submitted after preparation and publication of the November 16, 2000 Draft UDC. Although some new
land uses are proposed for Table 3-1(at the request of the Department of Public Works), the DCD does
not consider any of the recommended changes in blue to be substantially significant in terms of altering
the affect or intent of the UDC.
Revisions have been suggested for portions of the following sections:
Section 1 Introductory Provisions:
Clarification on the role of specific county departments in code
administration
Section 2 Definitions:
Clarification on two definitions, the elimination of one definition,
and the addition of one definition
Section 3 Land Use Districts:
Reinsertion of language from existing Critical Areas Ordinance
regarding seawater intrusion, clarifying language regarding
wetland buffers, amended language regarding the Airport
Essential Public Facility District based on consultation with the
Port of Port Townsend, Use Table clarification and addition
based on County departmental comment
Section 4 Performance and
Use-Specific Standards:
Clarification of language based on staff review
Section 6 Development
Standards:
Clarification of language regarding density exemptions
Section 7 Land Divisions:
Clarification of language regarding documentation of water
availability for short and long plats
Section 8 Permit Appfication &
Re view Procedures/SEPA
Implementation:
Clarification on design sketch submission for pre-application
conferences, reinsertion of language from existing ordinance
regarding Hearing Examiner decision issuance timeframe
SECTION I
INTRODUCTORY PROVISIONS
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
45
46
47
48
49
51
52
53
SECTION 1 ° INTRODUCTORY PROVISIONS
Section Page
1.1 Title ............................................. ! ..................................................................................................................................... 1
1.2 Authority, Purpose, and Scope ......................................................................................................................................... 1
1.3 Hearing Examiner System Established ............................. 1
1.3 Int.,,. ............................................................................................................................................................................. 1
1.4 Establishment of Land Use Districts and Official Maps .................................................................................................... 5
1.5 Applicability ...................................................................................................................................................................... 6
1.6 Minimum Standards .......................................................................................................................................................... 7
1.7 Title and Headings Not Law ............................................................................................................................................. 7
~ 1.8 Severability Clause ........................................................................................................................................................... 7
-18 1.9 Waiver .............................................................................................................................................................................. 7
1.1 Title. 54
55
This document is the Jefferson County Unified Develop- 56
ment Code and may be cited as the "UDC' or the "Code."
57
1.2 Authority, Purpose, and Scope. 58
1. Authority and Comprehensive Plan Consistency. 59
This Code is a principal tool for implementing the 60
goals and policies of the Jefferson County Compre- 61
hensive Plan, pursuant to the mandated provisions of 62
the State of Washington's Growth Management Act 63
(Revised Code of Washington (RCW) 36.70A), Shore- 54
line Management Act (RCW 90.58), Subdivisions 65
Code (RCW 58.17), State Environmental Policy Act 66
(RCW 43.21C), and other applicable state and local 67
laws.
68 3.
The land division provisions of this Code (Section 7) 69
are intended to supplement and implement RCW 70
58.17 as the Land Division Ordinance of the County. 71
If the provisions of this. Code conflict with any provi- 72
sion of RCW 58.17, the RCW shall prevail. 73
No land shall be subdivided or developed for any pur- 74
pose which is not in conformance with the Compm- 75
hensive Plan or applicable provisions of this Code. 76
This Code is intended to be used as a single inte- 77
grated document. Each part contributes to a unified 78
regulatory system. 79 1.3
2. Purpose. The general purposes of this Unified De- 80 1.
velopment Code are: 81
a. To encourage land use decision-making in ac- 82
cordance with the public interest, protection of 83
private property rights and the public good, and 84
applicable laws of the State of Washington; 85
b. To protect the general public health, safety, and 86
welfare and encourage orderly economic devel-
opment; 87
88
c. To implement the Jefferson County Compre-
hensive Plan goals and policies through land-use
and other regulations;
d. To provide for the economic, social, and aes-
thetic advantages of orderly development through
harmonious groupings of compatible and com-
plementary land uses and the application of ap-
propriate development standards;
e. To provide for adequate public facilities and ser-
vices in conjunction with development; and
f. To promote general public safety by regulating
development of lands containing physical haz-
ards and to minimize the adverse environmental
impacts of development.
Scope. Hereafter, no building, structure, or land use
activity shall be engaged, erected, demolished, re-
modeled, reconstructed, altered, enlarged, or relo-
cated, and no building, structure or premises shall be
used in Jefferson County except in compliance with
the provisions of this Code and then only after secur-
ing all required permits and licenses. Any building,
structure, or use lawfully existing at the time of pas-
sage of this Code, although not in compliance there-
with, may be maintained as provided in Section ~
Nonconforming Structures and Uses.
Code Administration
Purpose. The purpose of this Section 1.3 is to pro-
vide an administrative land use regulatory, system that
will best satisfy the following, basic needs:
a. To separate the county's land use regulatory.
function from its land use plannin.a, function;
b. To ensure and expand the principles of fairness
and due process in public hearings; and
c._ To provide an efficient and effective land use
EcguJato~. system which integrates the public
Unified Development Code
Section I--Introductory Provisions
1-1
1
2
3 2.
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
35
36
37
39
40
41
42
43
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
55
hearing and decision-making processes for land
use matters.
Department of Community. Development.
a. Duties and Responsibilities. The duties and
responsibilities of the director shall be as follows:
(1) Assist the board of commissioners in their
consideration of alternative future direc-
(2)
tions and implementation of policies for fu-
ture development of the county;
Conduct research and prepare reports to
the board of commissioners, planning
commission and citizens concerning the
priority proiects and issues identified by the
board of commissioners;
(3) Assist development proponents to achieve
project goals in conformance with applica-
ble land use regulations and in support of
the Jefferson County Comoreh~ensive Plan
and any other applicable land use goals
and policies;
(4) Coordinate project, program, contractual
and planning activities with other public
aaencies_______~
(5) Supervise enforcement of building, land
use. and related environmental protection
codes;
(6) Administer county land use and environ-
Enental protection regulations, the Shoreline
Master Program and the National Flood
Hazard Insurance Proaram~
(7) Serve as the county building official:
Prepare budget recommendations al:id
monitor expenditures:
Hire. train, suoervise and assist the build-
ina inseect._.~or and other staff members as-
sioned to elannin~ and bu_ildina res____.oonsi-
bJJities;
(10) Assist in preparation of ordinances, resolu-
tions, contracts, aareements, covenant~ s
and other legal documents related to com-
munit.v development and administration
and enforcement of county land use and
environmental protection ordinances:
(11~ Seek~rants and donations in SUD~_DOrt of
the priority planning projects selected by
the board of commissioners;
f12~ Prepare Job descriptions., performance aD._:
praisals, labor agreement addenda, admin-
istrative procedures, etc.. in exercise of
management and supervisory, responsibili-
ties;
(13) Represent the county under the direction of
the board of commissioners: and
/~IA) Such other duties as may be assigned b.~v
the board of commissioners.
Jefferson County Plannino Core__mission,
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
a, Duties and Responsibilities. The duties and
responsibilities of the planning commission shall
be as follows:
fl~ The ~)lannino co~mmission shall review the
Jefferson County Com~)rehens~ve Plan and
other Dlannina~documents to determine if
the county's olans, aoals. Dolicies. land us~
ordinances and regulations are promoting
orderly and coordinated development
within the county. The commission shall
make recommendations concerning this to
the board of commissioners.
The Dlannina~commission shall review land
use ordinances and regulations of the
county and make recommendations
reoardina them to the board of
commissioners.
(3) The planning commission shall recommend
priorities for and review studies of geo-
graphic sub-areas in the county.
(4) All other county boards, committees, and
commissions shall coordinate their plan-
nin~o activities, as they relate to land use or
the Jefferson County Com..___~rehensive Plan,
with the planning commission.
(5) The planning commission may hold public
hearings in the exercise of its duties and
responsibilities as it deems necessary..
The olanni. _~ng commission shall have such
ether duties and powers as heretofore have
been or hereafter may be conferred upon
the commission by country ordinances or as
directed by resolution of the board of com-
missioners, the performance of such duties
and exercise of such authority to be subject
to the limitations expressed in such enact-
ments.
Jefferson County Department of Public Works.
a. Duties and Responsibilities. The duties and
responsibilities of the Department of Public
Works in the Administration of this UDC shall be
as follows:
(1) The Jefferson County Department of Public
Works shall review develoDment Dro.__~Bosals
s_ubiect to this UDC regarding adequacy of
area circulation, access, roads, drainaa~e
systems, signs, and other areas of its juris-
diction and forward its comments and rec-
ommendations to the Department of Com-
munity Development.
Jefferson County Department of Environmental
Health.
a. Duties and Responsibilities. The Jefferson
County De.~__partment of Environmental Health shall
review development proposals sub!ect to this
UDC reoardino the adeouacv of sewaoe disposal
and water suoDIv s~vstems, or other areas of its
jurisdiction, and forward comments and recom-
Unified Development Code
Section l--lntroductory Provisions
1-2
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
2O
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
3O
31
32
33
35
37
38
39
4O
41
42
43
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
55
mendations to the Dep_artment of C_o_mmuQJ~De-
velopment.
_ _ . ~'- ,. ~,,~
6. Jefferson County Hearing Examiner and Appellate
h Tn ~n~, ,r~ ~nrl ~vn~nd fh~ nrln~nla~ nf f~irn~
c. Tc provide 3~ ~cic~t ~d ~ffcc!i,;9 ~d use
recu!atcr: system which intecratcs ,h .... h~;,.
Offices Created.
a. Pursuant to RCW 35.63.130 and RCW
36.70.970. the se~Darate offices of the Jefferson
County. Hearing Examiner (.hearing examiner)
and the Jefferson County. Appellate Hearino Ex-
aminer (appellate hearing examiner) are created
The hearing examiner and the appellate headno
examiner shall exercise the authority, designated
in Section 8 of this Code for the land use matters
set forth in Section ! .3.,!,(~ 1.3.6: below.
c. Hearings held by the hearinp, examiner or appel-
late hearing examiner shall constitute the hear-
inos reouired bv statue law for such land use mat-
ters.
d. Unless the context requires otherwise: the terms
"hearina examiner" and "appellate hearing exam-
iner" used in this Code shall include hearing ex-
aminers and appellate hearing examiners pro
tempera.
3. AoDointment, Qualifications - Terms.
a. The Jefferson County Board of Commissioners
shall appoint the hearing, examiner and the appel-
late headna examiner solely with reaard to ouali~
fications for the duties of such offices and the
persons so appointed shall have such training or
exoedence as will oualifv them to conduct admin-
istrative or auasi-iudicial hearinas on land use
The terms of appointment for the hearing exam-
iner and the appellate hearing examiner shall be
pursuant to the!r respective contracts executed
with the board of commissioners.
The office of the headng examiner shall be under
the administrative supervision of the hearing ex-
aminer. The office of the aoeellate hearina
examiner shall be under the administrative
supervision of the appellate hearing examiner.
Both offices shall be separate and distinct from
any other ceuntv officer or department.
56
57
58
59
6O
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
7O
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
95
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
d. The hearin.q examiner and the appellate hearino
examiner shall hold no other appointive or elec-
tire public office or position in county, government
except as provided in this Section 1.3.
4. Appointment of Hearing Examiners Pro Tempore.
The board of commissioners may appoint one (.1) or
more hearino examiners pro tempore or appellate
hearing examiners pro tempore to act in the absence
of the regular hearing examiner or reoular appellate
hearing examiner. Such appointment shall be from
qualified applicants to be recommended by the hear-
ing examiner or appellate hearing examiner= as appli-
cable. Hearino examiners and appellate headng ex-
aminer pro tempore: when actina in such ceDacitv.
shall have all powers and duties of the hearing exam-
iner or appellate hearing examiner as prescribed in
this Code or elsewhere.
5. Hearing Examiner and Appellate Hearing Exam-
iner - Conflict of Interest and Freedom from Im-
a. The hearing examiner and the appellate headno
examiner shall not conduct or participate in any
hearing or decision in which the hearing, e. xan~
iner or appellate hearing examiner has a direct or
substantial financial interest.
b. No member of the board of commissioners:
county, official or any other person she!! attempt
to influence or in any way interfere w.!.th the
examiner or appellate hearing examiner in the
performance of their designated duties·
Hearing Examiner and Appellate Hearina Exam-
iner - Powers.
a. Hearino Examiner. As more soecificallv set fort~
in Section 8 of this Code: the hearing examiner
shall have the auth.odty, to conduct open record
pre-decision and open record appeal headngs
and prepare a record thereof: and enter wdffen
findings and conclusions: and decisions for the
following land use matters:
(1) Applications for reasonable economic use
(2) AD__._plications for elan__~ned rural residential
develooments (PRRDs~:
(3) AD___~lication_~s for shoreline substantial de~
velooment permits, and conditional and
vadance permits under the Jefferson
County Shoreline Master Pr0g. ram:
(4) AoDlications for plat alterations and race-
tions;
(5) Applications for long subdivisions;
(6) Aoolications for conditional use Dermits~
(7) ADolications for variances:
(8) AD__._olication for wireless telecommunica-
(9) AD_._Deals of administrative decisions releas-
Unified Development Code
Section l--lntroductory Provisions
1-3
SECTION 2
DEFINITIONS
SECTION 2 ° DEFINITIONS
Section Page
2.1 Scope ............................................................................................................................................................................... 1
2.2 Interpretations ................................................................................................................................................................... 1
2.3 Definitions ......................................................................................................................................................................... 1
Abutting
2.1 Scope.
This section contains definitions of technical and
procedural terms used throughout this Code.
2.2 Interpretations,
1. For the purpose of this Code, all words shall have
their normal and customary meanings, unless
specifically defined otherwise in this Section 2. In
general, words used in the present tense shall include
the future; the singular shall include the plural; and
the plural the singular. The words "shall", "must",
"will", "may not", and "no ... may" are always
mandatory. The word "should" indicates that which is
recommended but not required. The word. "may"
indicates a use of discretion in making a decision. The
word "used" includes "designed, intended, or
arranged" to be used. The masculine gender includes
the feminine and vice versa. References to "distance"
means distance as measured horizontally unless
otherwise specified.
2. All definitions which reference the Revised Code of
Washington (RCVV), Washington Administrative Code
(WAC), and Uniform Building Code (UBC) are
intended to mirror the definitions in these codes at the
effective date of the Unified Development Code (this
Code) or as amended. If the definition in this Code
conflicts with a definition under state law or regulation,
the state definition shall control over this definition.
These definitions are not intended to establish
regulations.
Definitions,
Adjoining with a common boundary line or any portion
thereof.
Abandon
To terminate er--mmeve the use of a structure by an
affirmative act, such as changing to a new use; or to
cease, terminate, or vacate a use or structure through
nonaction. Except for on_qoing agricultural activities, there
shall be a presumption that a use has been abandoned if it
is not undertaken, utilized, implemented or performed for a
period of two years.
Accessory Dwelling Unit
An additional dwelling unit either in or added to an existing
single-family detached dwelling, or in a separate
12/6/00 -Unified Development Code
Draft Section 2--Draft Definitions
accessory structure on the same lot as the main dwelling,
for use as a complete, independent living facility with
provisions within the accessory dwelling unit for cooking,
eating, sanitation and sleeping. Such a dwelling shall be
considered an accessory use to the main dwelling and be
clearly subordinate to the main dwelling.
Accessory Use
Use of land or of a building or portion thereof incidental
and subordinate to the principal use or building and
located on the same lot with the principal use.
Accumulative Short Subdivision
Multiple short subdivision of contiguous land under
common ownership. Ownership for purposes of Section 7
of this Code means ownership as established at the date
of the initial short subdivision approval. Ownership by
persons related by blood or marriage where an inter-family
land conveyance has occurred within two (2) Years of
making application for short subdivision approval shall be
construed to be common ownership.
Acre
A unit of measure of land area which consists of 43,560
square feet.
Adequate
Acceptable but not excessive.
Adequate Capacity (Adequate Capital or Public
Facilities)
Capital facilities and services that have the capacity
available to serve development at the time of occupancy
or use without decreasing levels of service (LOS) below
the standards set forth in the Comprehensive Plan.
"Adequate capacity" also includes a financial commitment
that is in place to complete the improvements, or non-
capital strategies, necessary to provide a specific level of
service within six years. (See also "Available Capacity",
"Concurrency", "Levels of Service").
Adjacent
Adjacent shall mean (in addition to abutting) that which is
near or close; for example, an industrial district across the
road or highway from a commercial district shall be
considered as "adjacent".
Adjacent Lands, Shoreline
Lands adjacent to the shorelines of the state (outside of
shoreline jurisdiction). ,See RCW 90.58.340.
Those important and necessary facilities which provide
essential services that are typically difficult to site, such as
airports, state educational facilities, state or regional
transportation facilities, state and local correctional
facilities, solid waste-handling facilities, and in-patient
facilities including substance-abuse facilities, mental
health facilities, and group homes (RCW 36.70A.200).
They do not necessarily include all public facilities or
services; they may be, but are not necessarily, publicly
owned. Essential public facilities in Jefferson County
include: airports, large scale transportation facilities, solid
waste handling and ~ disposal facilities, Cc'--'.-.ty
o..,., .....,,.,.+; .... ,~ ,r~,,.~,.,., correctional facilities, in-
patient treatment facilities including substance-abuse
facilities, and mental health facilities, state-owned
educational facilities, govc;nm~nt
~..;i;+; .... . ....... ;, ...... + ...... +"~° and sewage
wastewater treatment ~ plants.
Excavation
The mechanical removal of earth.
Exemption (Exception)
Reserved
Existing Use
The use of a lot or structure or improvements at the time
of the enactment of the Unified Development Code (this
Code).
Expansion, Non-Conformint:l Use
(See Intensification, Non-Conformin~l Use)
Extraction
The commercial removal of naturally occurring materials
from the earth, excluding water.
Facility and Service Provider
The department, district, agency or private entity
responsible for providing a specific concurrency facility.
Family
Individu31~ -~'~*~'~ ....
-~' .... s!.-,?,!¢ '~ .... '~ ..... =* An individual or two or more
persons related by blood or marriage or a group of not
more than five (5) persons (excluding servants) living
together as a single housekeeping unit and doing their
cooking on the premises as distinguished from a group
occupying a boarding house or rooming house or motel.
12/6/00 -Unified Development Code
Draft Section 2--Drafl Definitions
ncr sc.".'c c!cchc! cf _~.".y
Feasible Alternative
An alternative that:
a. Meets the requirements of federal, state, and
local laws and regulations;
b. Attains most or all of the basic objectives of the
project;
c. Is technically and technologically possible;
d. Can be accomplished at a reasonable cost;
e. Can be accomplished in a reasonable amount of
time; and
f. Adverse environmental, health, and safety effects
are no greater than those of the original proposal.
A determination of what is reasonable or feasible is made
by the decision-making body on a case-by-case basis,
taking into account the:
1) Probable intensity, severity, and cumulative
impacts of the original' proposal and alternative
approaches, and opportunity for the avoidance or
reduction in the number, intensity, or severity of
significant impacts, or of the aggregate adverse
impact;
2) Risk of "upset conditions" (£e., the risk that the
control and mitigation measures will fail, be
overwhelmed, or exceed allowed limits), and the
potential severity of the impact should control or
mitigation measures be ineffective or fail;
3) Capital and operating costs;
4) Period of time to accomplish, costs of additional
time or delay, and time constraints for
completion; and
5) Location and site-specific factors, such as
seasonal or topographic constraints,
environmentally sensitive areas and habitats, site
accessibility, and local community concerns.
Federal Candidate Species
Formally proposed endangered or threatened species and
candidate species for which the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service has information to indicate biological vulnerability
and threat.
Federal Endangered Species
Species in danger of extinction according to the U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service official listing.
Federal Sensitive Species
Species that are considered a sensitive species by the
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
Federal Threatened Species
Species likely to become endangered within the
foreseeable future according to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service official listing.
Feed Lots {Stockyards)
newsprint, cardboard, aluminum, glass, plastics, and
ferrous metal. Recycling dOes not include combustion of
solid waste or preparation of a fuel from solid waste.
Recycling Center
An area, with or without buildings, upon which used
materials are separated and processed for shipment.
Recvclino Co~llection Facilities
Neighborhood facilitLes_for the drop~eJ'npora~
~Aorage of rec_vclable~J:)jAtwit_ho, ut waste processing:
Religious Assembly Facility
A facility designed and used primarily for ceremonies,
dtuals, and education pertaining to a particular system of
spiritual beliefs (e.g., a church).
Residential Care Facility
A facility that provides room, board and care with 24 hour
supervision for ~t Ic3st t';:c b'--'t ncr mcm th=n ~;;~nt:,'
persons who, by reason of circumstance or condition,
requires care. This may include care for the aged or
functionally disabled persons but shall not include
correctional facilities, inpatient substance abuse or
inpatient mental health facilities that are otherwise
identified as essential public facilities by the
Comprehensive Plan and regulated under Section 3.3.5.
Residential Development
Development of land with dwelling units for non-transient
occupancy. For the purposes of this Code, accessory
dwelling units, garages, and other similar structures
accessory to a dwelling unit shall also be considered
residential development unless regulated otherwise by this
Code or subarea plans. (See also "Dwelling Unit" and
"Accessory Dwelling Unit".)
Resource Lands
Agricultural, forest, and mineral lands that have long-term
commercial significance.
Resource Based Industrial
A Forest Resource-Based Industrial land use designation
that recognizes existing, active sawmills and related
activities.
Restoration
To return to an original or like condition.
Restriction
A limitation placed upon the use of parcel(s) of land.
Retail Sales and Services
Establishments engaged in retail sales of .qoods, inc ud ng,
but not limited to, the retail sale of merchandise not
specifica y listed under another use classification in Table.
3-1 of the UDC. This classificat on includes, but is not
limited to, department stores, clothin.q stores, shoe stores,
|ewelry stores, hardware stores, furniture stores, antique
stores, pharmacies, appliance stores, agricultural feed and
SUDDIv stores, stationary stores, office supply stores and
other similar uses; and establishments enga,qed in the
sale of services directly to the consumer including, but not
12./6/00 -Unified Development Code
Draft Section 2reDraft Definitions
limited to, small equipment repair, plumbing and electrical
repair services, and other similar uses..
Right-of-Way
(See "Public Way")
Right-to-Farm Provisions
Provisions intended to enhance and encourage
agricultural operations by recognizing agricultural activities
as essential rural activities that do not constitute a
nuisance.
Right to Forestry Provisions
Provisions intended to enhance and encourage
sustainable forestry operations by recognizing forestry
activities as essential rural activities that do not constitute
a nuisance.
Road
An improved and maintained public or private right-of-way
which provides vehicular access to abutting properties,
and which may also include provision for public utilities,
pedestrian access, cut and fill slopes, and drainage.
Road, Access
A road that functions solely to provide access to two or
more properties.
Road, Arterial
Roads designated as arterial roads in the Transportation
Element of the Comprehensive Plan.
Road, Collector
a. Roads designated as collector roads in the
Transportation Element of the Comprehensive
Plan.
b. A street or road whose principal function is to
carry traffic between access and arterial roads
and streets.
Road, Primary
Any existing or proposed road designated as an arterial or
collector road in the Transportation Element of the
Comprehensive Plan or so designated by the Jefferson
County Engineer.
Road End
1) A road closed at one end that may be designed for
future road extensions. 2) The point at which a public road
meets the tidelands or a body of water.
Roadway
That portion of an approved road or street intended for the
accommodation of vehicular traffic, generally between
curb lines on an improved surface.
Runoff
Water that is not absorbed into the soil but rather flows
along the ground surface following the topography.
Runway
The defined area at an airport, airfield, or airstrip indicated
]8
other public utilities associated with urban areas and
normally not associated with rural.
Urban Growth
Growth that makes intensive use of land for the location of
buildings, structures, and impermeable surfaces to such a
degree as to be incompatible with the primary use of such
land for the production of food and other agricultural
products, or forests, or the extraction of mineral resources.
Urban Growth Area
An area designated by the County within which urban
growth is to be encouraged and outside of which growth is
not intended to be urban in nature. (cf. RCW 36.70A)
Use
The purpose that land or building or structures now serve
or for which they are or may be occupied, maintained,
arranged, designed, or intended.
Utilities
Facilities serving the public through a network of wires or
pipes, and ancillary structures thereto, including systems
for the delivery of natural gas, electricity, and
telecommunications services.
Utility Distribution Lines
Pipes, wires, and associated structural supports.
Utility Facilities
Facilities directly used for the distribution or transmission
of services to an area, excluding utility service offices.
Utility Substations
The intermediate substations used for the transmission of
utilities. (See "Utility facilities".)
Utility Transmission Lines
Pipes, wires and associated structural supports.
Vacation, Roads and Streets
A statutory procedure by which the County may relinquish
its interest in streets, alleys, or easements.
Variance
The means by which an adjustment is made in the
application of the specific bulk, dimensional, or
performance standards set forth in this Code to a
particular piece of property, which property, because of
special circumstances applicable to it is deprived of
privileges commonly enjoyed by other properties in the
same land use designation or vicinity and which
adjustment remedies disparity in privileges. Variances
shall not be used to__vary from the allowable, conditional
and prohibited uses set forth in Table 3.1 of this Code.
Variance, Major
All variances other than those meeting the definition of a
12/6/00 -Unified Development Code
Draft Section 2--Draft Definitions
minor variance.
Variance, Minor
Variances that would permit expansion of an existing
building that would extend no more than ten (10) percent
beyond the dimensional, area and bulk requirements
specified by this Code. Minor variances also include
variances to allow expansion of an existing building that is
nonconforming as to setback or lot coverage requirements
when the proposed expansion would not:
a. Increase the nonconformity of the building; and
b. Result in any portion of the building or expansion
being located closer to aR the nearest abutting
property line than does the existing building at its
nearest point to the property line.
Vicinity
In rural and resource lands, q:the area generally within one
mile of the exterior boundary of a given parcel.
WAC
The Washington Administrative Code.
Warehouse (or Wholesale Distribution Center)
A building: establishment or place of business used
primarily for the storage of goods and materials for
commercial or industrial purposes. Retail sales from such
establishments shall be incidental to the primary, use and
limited to that allowed by Section 4.22 Industrial Uses--
Standards for Site DevelopmeQL
Water Conservation
A reduction in the amount of water used to carry out a
beneficial water use without a reduction in the value of
service the water provides.
Water Storage Tanks
Tanks or reservoirs used for the storage of water.
Water Supply Plans
A design sketch showing proposed source and lots to be
served or detailed engineering plans and specifications-iR
th~ Codc.
WDFW
Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife.
WDOE
The Washington Department of Ecology. (See
"Ecology".)
Well (or Approved Water System)
Any water source approved by the County Health
Department and Washington Department of Sc~=! and
Health ~, including but not limited to, wells, ponds,
roof collection systems, treated systems, and public water
supplies. (See "Individual Water System".)
Well Testing
Acquiring data directly from a constructed well in order to
determine characteristics of the well, the water found in
the well, or the geologic formations through which the well
has passed. The well test may include pump testing, water
23
SECTION 3
LAND USE DISTRICTS
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
3O
31
32
33
35
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
45
46
47
48
51
§
53
55
§7
§8
59
3.6.5
a.
12
(5) The proposed variance will not cause deg- 60
radation to surface or ground water quality. 61
(6) The proposed variance complies with all 62
Federal, State and local statutory and 63
common law, including the Endangered 64
Species Act, and statutory laws related to
sediment control, pollution control, flood- 65
plain restrictions, and on site wastewater 66
disposal, and common law relating to 67
property.and nuisance. 68
(7) There will be no material damage to nearby 69
public or private property and no material 70
threat to the health or safety of people on 71
or off the property. 72
(8) The inability to derive reasonable eco- 73
nomic use of the property is not the result
of actions by the applicant in segregating 74
or dividing the property and creating the 75
undevelopable condition after the effective 76
date of this code. 77
Conditions. 78
(1) In granting approval for reasonable eco- 79
nomic use variances, the Hearing Exam- 80
iner may require mitigating conditions that 81
will, in the Examiner's judgment, substan- 82
tially secure the objectives of this code. 83
(2) In granting approval for reasonable eco- 84
nomic use variances involving designated 85
wetlands, the Hearing Examiner shall con-
sider the following mitigating conditions: 86
i. Provision of a mitigation plan dem- 87
onstrating how the applicant intends 88
to substantially restore the site to 89
predevelopment conditions following 90
project completion; and 91
ii. The restoration, creation or en- 92
hancement of wetlands and their 93
buffers in order to offset the impacts 94
resulting from the applicant's actions; 95
the overall goal of any restoration, 96
creation or enhancement project 97
shall be no net loss of wetlands func-
tion and acreage. 98
99
Critical Aquifer Recharge Areas.
100
Classification. Critical Aquifer Recharge Areas 101
are naturally susceptible due to the existence of 102
permeable soils. Certain overlying land uses can 103
lead to water quality and/or quantity degradation. 104
The following classifications define Critical Aqui-
fer Recharge Areas. 105
106
(1) Susceptible Aquifer Recharge Areas are 107
those with geologic and hydrologic condi- 108
tions that promote rapid infiltration of re- 109
charge waters to groundwater aquifers. For
the purposes of this section, unless other- 110
wise determined by preparation of an Aqui- 111
fer Recharge Area Report authorized under 112
113
this section, the following geologic units, as
identified from available State of Washing- 114
115
(2)
(3)
ton Department of Natural Resources geo-
logic mapping, define susceptible aquifer
recharge areas for east Jefferson County:
i. Alluvial fans (Ha),
ii. Artificial fill (Hx),
iii. Beach sand & gravel (Hb),
iv. Dune sand (Hd),
v. Flood plain alluvium (Hr),
vi. Vashon recessional outwash in del-
tas and alluvial fans (Vrd),
vii. Vashon recessional outwash in
meltwater channels (Vro),
viii. Vashon ice contact stratified drift
(Vi),
ix. Vashon ablation till (Vat),
x. Vashon advance outwash (Vao),
xi. Whidbey formation (Pw), and
xii. Pre-Vashon stratified drift (Py).
Those areas meeting the requirements of
Susceptible Aquifer Recharge Areas
(above) and which are overlain by the fol-
lowing land uses as identified in this Code
are subject to the provisions of the protec-
tion standards in this Section:
i. All Industrial Land Uses
ii. All Commercial Uses
iii. All Rural Residential Land Uses
A. requiring a Discretionary Use or
Conditional Use Permit or
B. with nonconforming uses that
would otherwise require a Dis-
cretionary Use or Conditional
Use Permit
iv. Unsewered Planned Rural Residen-
tial Developments
v. Unsewered residential development
with gross densities greater than one
unit per acre
Special Aquifer Recharge Protection Ar-
eas include:
i. Sole Source Aquifers designated by
the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency in accordance with the Safe
Drinking Water Act of 1974 (Public
Law 93-523).
ii. Special A~tuifer-Protection Areas and
Ground Water Manaqement Areas
iii.
designated by the Washington De-
partment of Ecology under Chapter
173-200 WAC.
Wellhead Protection Areas deter-
mined in accordance with delineation
methodologies specified by the
Washington Department of Health
unCer authority of Chapter 246-290
WAC.
Unified Development Code
Section 3 - Land Use Districts
2000 ............ on,~
December 7, r~ .... ~r ~ ....
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
35
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
5O
51
52
53
55
56
Designation. Jefferson County shall prepare and 57
exhibit a dated Critical Aquifer Recharge Area 58
map which will demonstrate the approximate dis- 59
tribution of the Susceptible Aquifer Recharge Ar- 60
eas and Special Aquifer Recharge Protection Ar- 61
eas. The Cdtical Aquifer Recharge Area map 62
shall be periodically revised, modified, and up- 63
dated to reflect additional information. 64
Applicability. 65
66
(1) The following land use activities are con- 67
sidered high impact land uses due to the 68
probability and/or potential magnitude of 69
their adverse effects on groundwater and 70
shall be prohibited in Susceptible Aquifer 71
Recharge Areas and Special Aquifer Pro- 72
tection Areas'. In all other areas of the 73
County outside of Susceptible and Special 74
Aquifer Recharge Areas, these activities 75
shall require a Critical Aquifer Recharge 76
Report pursuant to this Section. 77
i. Chemical manufacturing and reproc- 78
essing; 79
ii. Creosote(asphalt manufacturing or 80
treatment (doss not includes asphalt 81
batch plants); 82
iii. Electroplating and metal coating acti- 83
vities; 84
85
iv. Hazardous waste treatment, storage 86
and disposal facilities; 87
v. Petroleum product refinement and 88
reprocessing; 89
vi. Underground storage tanks for petro- 90
leum products or other hazardous 91
materials; 92
vii. Recycling facilities as defined in this 93
Code; 95
viii. Solid waste landfills; 96
ix. Waste piles as defined in Chapter 97
173-304 AC; 98
99
x. Wood and wood products preserv-
lng; 100
xi. Storage and primary electrical bat- 101
tery processing and reprocessjng. 102
(2) All other land uses shall be subject to the 103
protection standards contained in this Sec- 104
tion and mitigating conditions included with 105
a Critical Aquifer Recharge Report, where 106
applicable. 107
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
and islands are susceptible to a condition
that is known as seawater intrusion. Sea
water intrusion is a condition in which tho
saltwater/freshwater interlace in an aquifer
moves inland sc that ,;;oils drilled on up
Unified Development Code
Section 3 - Land Use Districts
December 7, 2000December 6. 2000
(3)
cant additional treatment and cost. Main
tot/freshwater interface is primarily a funs
the only a~ency with authority to renu!ate
groundwater withdrawal for individual wells
in l~rnc ..... ~' .... {"'--..There¢ore, ,',
cpment ~,4 i..~,~ ,,o,~ ~+i,,:,:~o on
and in close proximity to marine shorelines
in particular shclj!d be developed in such a
maintain the saltwater/freshwater balance
to the maximum extent possible by infi!trat
fh~ ~n, l[far Tr~ hain nr~,~nf
fore, al! new development activity on Mar
rowstone Island, Indian island and within
500 feet of any marine shore!ine shall be
to the maximum extent practicable, onsite.
Susceptible Seawater Intrusion Areas will
be defined by the following process. Jef-
ferson County shall prepare an initial Sus-
ceptible Seawater Intrusion Area delinea-
tion based on readily available existinq
data and develop a methodology for de-
termining whether a susceptible area
should be desiqnated a Vulnerable Sea-
water Intrusion Area. The methodology
shall include procedures and regulations to
collect chloride concentrations, specific
conductance readinqs, well location and
elevation for all new wells constructed in
Jefferson County, and Monitoring and sta-
tistical evaluation Protocol for wells located
within Susceptible Seawater Intrusion Ar-
oas. Suscepible Seawater Intrusion Areas
include those areas characterized by the
following criteria:
a. A history of chloride analyses from wells
demonstrating concentrations greater
than or equal to 50 mg/I;
b. State certified laboratory tests from test
wells demonstrating chloride concentra-
tions greater than or equal to 50 mg/I;
and
c. Located within a ground water basin
where chloride concentrations are
greater than or equal to 50 mg/I.
d. A history of chloride analysis from a
Group A or a Group B well demonstrat-
in.q concentrations greater than or equal
to 50 mg/I.
e. Jefferson County shall evaluate each of
the initial Susceptible Areas, in accor-
13
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
45
47
48
49
5O
51
52
53
55
57
58
59
6O
14
dance with the above methodoloqyl for
designation as vulnerable areas. When
one Group A or Group B well alone has
been used to delineate a Seawater In-
trusion Area, the extent of the area de-
lineated will be that area served by the
subject well
Vulnerable Seawater Intrusion Areas in-
clude those areas characterized by the fol-
Iowinq criteria:
a. A history of chloride analyses from wells
demonstratinq concentrations greater
than or equal to 100 mg/I;
b. Located within a ground water basin
where chloride concentrations are
greater than or equal to 100 m.q/I; and
c. Chloride concentrations between 50
and 100 m.q/I, yet show a trend towards
increasing chloride levels; and
A history of chloride analyses from a
Group A or a Group B well demonstrat-
ing concentrations greater than or equal
to 100 mq/I.
(5) Where there are indications that chloride
levels observed in ground water quality
analyses reflect connate water and are not
related to or influenced by current coastal
saltwater bodies, such chloride levels shall
not be used in determination of seawater
intrusion critical aquifer recharge area
boundaries. The followinq criteria may be
used to differentiate between connate and
non-connate chloride sources: one sample
will be collected for laboratory analysis of
major cations and anions. At a minimum,
the analysis will include the following con-
stituents: chloride, sulfate, total phosphate,
nitrate + nitrite, total alkalinity, calcium,
iron, magnesium, potassium, silica, so-
dium, and bromide. Evaluatinq the propor-
tions of these constituents in ground water
relative to sea water will determine whether
the intrusion is a result of connote or non-
connote chloride sources.
Protection Standards.
(1) General. The following protection stan-
dards shall apply to land use activities in
Susceptible Aquifer Recharge Areas and
Special Aquifer Protection Areas unless
mitigating conditions have been identified
in a Critical Aquifer Recharge Report that
has been prepared pursuant to this sec-
tion.
(2) Stormwater Disposal. Stormwater runoff
shall be controlled and treated in accor-
dance with best management practices
and facility design standards as identified
and defined in the Stormwater Manage-
ment Manual for the Puget Sound Basin,
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
108
109
110
112
1~3
~4
115
117
118
~20
as amended and the stormwater provisions
contained in Section 6 of this Code.
(3) On-Site Sewage Disposal.
i. All land uses identified in Section
3.6.5.a and Special Aquifer Re-
charge Protection Areas that are also
classified as Susceptible Aquifer Re-
charge Areas (as defined in this Sec-
tion), shall be designated Areas of
Special Concern pursuant to Chapter
246-272-21501 WAC.
A. Such designation shall identify
minimum land area and best
management practices for nitro-
gen removal as design parame-
ters necessary for the protection
of public health and groundwater
quality.
B. Best Management Practices
(BMP's) shall be adopted by ac-
tion of the Board of Health.
ii. As new information becomes avail-
able that would classify an area as a
Special Aquifer Recharge Protection
Area or an Area of Special Concern
under this Section, said area may be
designated as such by the County.
Any additional Areas of Special Con-
cern designated through this process
shall receive the same protections
identified in Subsection (3)i.A and B
above.
(4) Golf Courses and Other Turf Cultivation.
Golf courses shall be developed and oper-
ated in a manner consistent with "Best
Management Practices for Golf Course
Development and Operation", King County
Environmental Division (now: Department
of Development and Environmental Ser-
vices), January 1993. Recreational and
institutional facilities (e.g. parks and
schools) with extensive areas of cultivated
turf, shall be operated in a manner con-
sistent with portions of the aforementioned
best management practices pertaining to
fertilizer and pesticide use, storage, and
(5) ~i~li~n~rcial Agriculture. Commercial ag-
ricultural activities, including landscaping
operations must be operated in accor-
dance with best management practices for
fertilizer, pesticide, and animal waste man-
agement as developed by the Jefferson
County Conservation District.
(6) Underqround Storaqe Tanks. Where not
otherwise prohibited under this ordinance,
underground storaqe tank desiqn, con-
struction, installation, operation, and moni-
toring shall be regulated by the Washing-
ton Department of Ecology in accordance
with Chapter 90.76 RCW and Chapter 173-
Unified Development Code
Section 3 - Land Use Districts
December 7, 2000December 6, 2000
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
55
57
58
59
360 WAC. The Jefferson County Fire Mar- 60
shall shall ensure that heatinq oil and farm 61
fuel tanks of less than 1,100 gallons, which 62
are currently exempt from regulation under 63
the Washinqton Department of Ecology 64
pro.qram, serving new development or ex- 65
pansions or replacements are installed, 66
operated, and monitored in a manner that 67
protects groundwater. 68
(~(7)Above Ground Storage Tanks. Above 69
ground tanks shall be fabricated, con- 70
structed, installed, used and operated in a 71
manner which prevents the release of a 72
hazardous substances or dangerous 73
wastes to the ground or groundwater. 74
Above ground storage tanks intended to 75
hold or store hazardous substances or 76
dangerous wastes are provided with an 77
impervious containment area, equivalent to
or greater than 100 percent of the tank vol- 78 3.6,6
ume, enclosing and underlying the tank, or 79 a.
ensure that other measures are under- 80
taken as prescribed by the Uniform Fire 81
Code which provide an equivalent measure 82
of protection. 83
67-)(8) Mining and Quarrying, Mining and quarry- 84
lng performance standards containing 85
groundwater protection best management 86
practices pertaining to operation, closure, 87
and the operation of gravel screening, 88
gravel crushing, cement concrete batch 89
plants, and asphalt concrete batch plants, 90
where allowed, are contained in Sections 4 91
and 6 of this Code. 92
(~(9) Hazardous Materials. Land use activities 93
that generate hazardous waste, which are 94
not prohibited outright under this code, and 95
which are conditionally exempt from ragu- 96
lation by the Washington Department of 97
Ecology under WAC 173-303-100, or 98
which use, store, or handle hazardous 99
substances, shall be required to prepare 100
and submit a hazardous materials man- 101 b.
agement plan. Th~ hazardc'--'= m3tcrials
102
......... , ,,, ..... ;,E,,,,,,.,;,, cn ¢,,~ with
103
thc J:ff:rscn Ccunty P'--'b!!c Wcrks Do
104
· '~'+~""+ ~"'~ ~'~ '""~+~"~ ~nnu:~ly by tho
" ................. ~' ..... 105
~ The hazardous materials
106
management plan must be updated annu-
ally by the facility owner. 107 3.6.7
(10) Seawater Intrusion. Jefferson County 108 a.
shall develop best manaqement practices 109
for application within Vulnerable Seawater 110
Intrusion Areas. The recommendations 111
112
113
114
115
identified in the "Washinqton State DOE -
Geoloq¥, Water Resources, and Sea-
water Intrusion Assessment of Marrow-
stone Island, Jefferson County, Wash-
ington (Water Supply Bulletin No. 59)"
Unified Development Code
Section 3 - Land Use Districts
December 7, 2000D~cember 5, GOOO
shall be used as guidelines for developing
Best Management Practices (BMP's).
(9)(11) Mitigating Conditions. The Admin-
istrator may require additional mitigating
conditions, as needed, to provide protec-
tion to all Critical Aquifer Recharge Areas
to ensure that the subject land or water use
action will not pose a risk of significant ad-
verse groundwater quality impacts. The de-
termination of significant adverse ground-
water quality impacts will be based on the
Antidegradation policy included in Chapter
173-200 WAC.
(! 0)(12) Authority for Denial. The Administrator
may deny approval if the protection start-
dards contained herein or added mitigating
conditions cannot prevent significant ad-
verse groundwater quality impacts.
Frequently Flooded Areas,
Incorporation by Reference. This section incor-
porates by reference the classification, designa-
tion and protection provisions contained in the
Jefferson County Floodplain Management On://-
nance (Ordinance No. 1-89) with the following
addition:
(1) In addition to the insurance maps identified
in the Floodplain Management Ordinance
(Ordinance No. 1-89), flood hazard areas
shall be identified with reference to the
Federal Emergency Management Agency
(FEMA) 100-year floodplain designations.
Such flood hazard areas shall be subject to
the criteria of the Floodplain Management
Ordinance.
The Floodplain Management Ordinance
conforms with the intent of the Minimum
Guidelines (WAC 365-190-080(3))through
directly considering the effects of flooding
on human health and safety, together with
effects on public facilities and services,
through its protection standards.
Relationship to Other Regulations. While the
Jefferson County Floodplain Management Ordi-
nance requires consistency with all other appli-
cable laws, in the event that a conflict should ex-
ist the stricter standard shall apply to the regu-
lated development.
Geologically Hazardous Areas.
Classification/Designation.
(1) Classification. Geologically hazardous ar-
eas shall be classified based upon a com-
bination of erosion, landslide and seismic
hazard.
(2) Designation. The following erosion, land-
slide and seismic hazard areas shall be
subject to the standards of this section:
15
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
45
46
47
48
49
5O
51
52
53
55
57
iii.
iv.
investigation utilizing the methodol-
ogy contained in the Washington
State Wetlands Identification and De-
lineation Manual, March 1997, or as
amended hereafter. ·
If the wetland is located off of the
property involved in the project appli-
cation and is inaccessible, the best
available information shall be used to
determine the wetland boundary and
class.
After approval of the delineation re-
port, the wetland boundary shall be 62
staked and flagged in the field.
63
This requirement may be waived un- 64
der the following circumstances: 65
A. Single-Family Residences. The 66
requirement for a wetland de- 67
lineation and special report may 68
69
be waived for construction of a
70
single-family residence on an 71
existing lot of record if field in- 72
vestigation by County staff indi- 73
cates the following: 74
1. Sufficient information ex- 75
ists for staff to estimate 76
the boundaries of a wet- 77
land without a delineation; 78
and 79
2. The single-family resi- 80
81
dence and all accessory
structures and uses are 82
not proposed to be located 83
within the distances identi- 84
fled in Table 3-~3, below, 85
from the estimated wet- 86
land boundary. 87
B. Subdivisions and Short Sub- 88
divisions. The requirement for a 89
wetland delineation and special 90
report will be waived for subdivi- 91
sions and short subdivisions of 92
an existing lot of record if field 93
investigation by County staff in- 94
dicates the following: 95
1. Sufficient information ex- 96
ists for staff to estimate 97
the boundaries of a wet- 98
land without a delineation; 99
and 100
2. Building envelopes or 101
building setback lines are 102
not proposed to be located 103
within the distances identi- 104
fled in Table 3-X_3, below, 105
from the estimated wet- 106
land boundary. 107
108
Unified Development Code
Section 3 - Land Use Districts
December 6, 2000
58 Table 3-X3_.Minimum Wetland Buffers Necessary as
59 part of Qualifying for a Waiver from De-
60 lineation and Special Report Require-
61 ments.(~, 2,3)
Wetland
Category
Required Distance from
Estimated Wetland Boundary (fset)(4)
I 225
II 150
III 75
IV 37
Notes:
1. These buffers are one part of the complete requirements
necessary to qualify for a waiver. See Section 3.6.9.d.2
abov.e.
2. These are not standard wetland buffers: they are optional
buffers for cases when a delineation is not made. These
minimum waiver buffers, shown in Table 3-X, are 1.5 times
the standard buffer widths identified in this section. If a sin-
gle-family residence, building envelope, or setback line in a
subdivision is proposed to be closer to the wetland than the
distance identified in the table, a wetland delineation report
must be performed.
3. The same opportunities for exemption from delineation shall
apply to uncategorized wetlands. The Department of C0m-
rnvnity Development staff shall be responsible for
determinin,q the wetland category.
The following shall not be located within the distances
identified in the table: 1) single-family residences and all
accessory structures and uses; 2) subdivision building enve-
lopes and setback lines.
(3)
(4)
Drainage and Erosion Control. An appli-
cant submitting a project application shall
also submit, and have approved, a drain-
age and erosion control plan as specified
in this Section. The plan shall discuss,
evaluate and recommend methods to
minimize sedimentation of designated wet-
lands during and after construction.
Buffer Marking. Upon approval of the de-
lineation report the location of the outer ex-
tent of the wetland buffer shall be marked
in the field as follows:
i. A permanent physical separation
along the upland boundary of the
wetland buffer area shall be installed
and permanently maintained. Such
separation may consist of logs, a
tree or hedge row, or other prominent
physical marking approved by the
Administrator.
ii. Buffer perimeters shall be marked
with temporary signs at an interval of
one per parcel or every one hundred
(100) feet, whichever is less. Signs
shall remain in place prior to and dur-
ing approved construction activities.
25
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
55
(5)
The signs shall contain the following
statement: '~/etland & Buffer -- Do
Not Remove or Alter Existing Native
Vegetation."
iii. In the case of short plat, long plat,
binding site plan, and site plan ap-
provals under this Code, the appli-
cant shall include on the face of any
such instrument the boundary of the
wetland and its buffer.
iv. The applicant may also choose to
dedicate the buffer through a con-
servation easement or deed restric-
tion that shall be recorded with the
Jefferson County Auditor. Such
easements or restrictions shall, how-
ever, use the forms approved by the
Prosecuting Attorney.
Buffers - Standard Requirements. The
following buffer provisions shall apply:
i. Buffer areas shall be required to pro-
vide sufficient separation between
jace.".t ....... '~ prcje~ the desk]:
Dated weJland and the adiacent px¢:
p_osed proiect.
ii. The appropriate width of the wetland
buffer shall be determined by either:
application of the standard buffer
widths set forth below in Table 3-4;
or, 3n ~ccepted Wet!3nd De ine2tion
se6tie~ b_~v variations to the standard
buffers as allowed in Sections
3.6.9(d)(6), 3.6.9(d)(7), or 3.6.9(d)(8),
b~low.
iii. Buffers shall remain naturally vege-
tated except where the vegetation
has been disturbed, invaded by
highly undesirable species (e.g., nox-
ious weeds), or would substantially
benefit from the increased diversity
of introduced species. Where buffer
disturbance has occurred during
construction, replanting with native
vegetation shall be required. Minor
pruning of vegetation to enhance
views and removal of undesirable
species (e.g., alders) may be permit-
ted by the Administrator on a case-
by-case basis.
iv. All buffers shall be measured per-
pendicularly from the wetland
boundary as surveyed in the field.
v. Standard wetland buffer widths shall
be as established in Table 3-X~_.
56 Table 3-X~,_. Standard Buffer Widths for Wetlands
Wetland Standard
Category Buffer Width
150 ft
26
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
II 100it
III 50 It
IV 25 tt
(6) Reducing Buffer Widths. The Administra-
tor may reduce the standard wetland buffer
widths, when the project applicant demon-
strates both of the following to the satisfac-
tion of the Administrator:
i. Standard wetland buffer width aver-
aging as set forth in this section is
unfeasible.
ii. The project application includes a
buffer enhancement plan using na-
tive vegetation which substantiates
that an enhanced buffer will improve
the functional attributes of the buffer
to provide additional protection for
functions and values.
(7) Increasing Buffer Widths. The Adminis-
trator may increase the standard wetland
buffer widths when a larger buffer is nec-
essary to protect wetland functions and
values based on local conditions. This de-
termination shall be made only when the
Department demonstrates any one of the
following through appropriate documenta-
tion:
i. A larger buffer is necessary to main-
tain viable populations of existing
species.
ii. The wetland is used by species listed
by the Washington State Department
of Wildlife as endangered, threat-
ened, or sensitive, or has docu-
mented priodty species or habitats or
essential or outstanding potential
habitat for those species, or has un-
usual nesting or resting sites (e.g.,
heron rookeries and raptor nesting
'trees).
iii. The adjacent land is susceptible to
severe landslide or erosion, and ero-
sion control measures will not effec-
tively prevent adverse wetland im-
pacts.
iv. The adjacent land has minimal vege-
tative cover or slopes greater than
forty-five (45) percent.
(8) Averaging Buffer Widths. The Adminis-
trator may modify the standard wetland
buffer widths set forth in this section by av-
eraging. Buffer width averaging shall be al-
lowed only when an individual or firm meet-
ing the criteria of Subsection 3.6.10fi)(2)
demonstrates all of the following to the sat-
isfaction of the Administrator:
i. Width averaging will not adversely
impact the wetland functional values.
Unified Development Code
Section 3 - Land Use Districts
December 6, 2000
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18 3.6.11
19
20 a.
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33 b.
35
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
45
47
48
49
5O
51 c.
52
53
55
57
58
lated wetland then a detailed
compensatory mitigation plan as
outlined in Section 3.6.10.j(4),
below must be provided.
(4) Mitigation Plan Contents. All wetland res-
toration, creation, and enhancement pro-
jects required by this Code, either as a
condition of project approval or as the re-
sult of an enforcement action, shall follow a
mitigation plan prepared by a qualified
specialist as defined herein and conducted
in accordance with the requirements de-
scribed in this Code. The applicant or viola-
tor must receive written approval of the
mitigation plan by the Administrator prior to
commencement of any wetland restoration,
creation, or enhancement activity.
Airport Essential Public Facility District
(A).
Purpose. The purpose and intent of this section
is to regulate aP~Lmstr-~ land uses within the
"Airport Essential Public Facility" oveday district
in order to encourage orderly economic devel-
opment in a manner compatible with airport op-
erations and adiacent properties. Th!c dictdct
c~,,,~,, ,, ~ ..... ~':~ ~: .... "Airport
Overlay District" '::![[ be ectab![shed and to pro-
tect existing general aviation public use airports
from conflicting or incompatible adjacent land
uses or activities.
Designation. c,,, ,~,~ ..,,m,.' .... .',.,~ +~, ......
al!crt!ct "~,",c!stc of !and assc"Jated ':.'!th the air
prehenc!ve P!an Map).
The pr!mary funct!cn cf the Jefferccn Ccunty
.... ,._,. ,.CI, ,, overlay district (see Of-
ficial Comprehensive Plan Map) applies to all
Port of Port Townsend owned property within the
ru,qwa¥ em;!re,qmeet cf the Jefferson County In-
ternational Airport (JCIA). The JCIA is a general
aviation airport that provides recreational, busi-
ness, flight training, charter and air taxi services
and other uses. i~, ...... :,~ ~ ..... r, .... +,,
that ass'--'re th?-t !t !s '--'cEd fcr this pur;'.ccc.
Allowable and Prohibited Uses. All new devel-
opment within the Jefferson County International
Airport shall be restricted to uses which are
clearly identified as aviation support facilities or
aviation related development.
(1) Aviation Support Facilities. Aviation
Support Facilities are those uses which di-
rectly support flight operations and the op-
Unified Development Code
Section 3 I Land Use Districts
December 6, 2000
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
95
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
eration of the Jefferson County Airport, and
include, but are not limited to:
i. Passenger service terminals, includ-
ing food service;
ii. Navigational aids;
iii. Runway aprons;
iv. Terminal buildings;
v. Hangars;
vi. Fuel storage facilities;
vii. Operations/maintenance facilities;
viii. Automobile park!ng.
(2) Aviation Related Development: Aviation
Related Development are those uses
which are reliant upon the airport for their
businesses, which include but are not nec-
essarily limited to:
i. Aircraft repair facilities;
ii. Aircraft remodeling facilities;
iii. Aircraft sales and related aircraft
equipment, services and supplies;
iv. Aircraft manufacturing;
v. Airborne freight facilities;
vi. Air pilot training schools;
vii. Aviation clubs;
viii. Taxi and bus terminal;
ix. Automobile rental and associated
parking;
x. Aircraft related manufacturing ree~
!ng ta×!'::ay access, authorized and
approved by the Federal Aviation
Administration.
(3) Accessory Uses: ~ Other
uses accessory uses to uses allowed in
3.6.11(c~. above~ are permitted in the Air-
port Essential Public Facility Overlay Dis-
trict:-- subiect to aDoroval bv the Federa~l
Aviation Administration.
i. On site hazardous waste treatmeP, t
or stora§e facilities.
(4) Prohibited Uses: In order to determine
whether or not a proposed use fits within
the Airport Essential Public Facility Airgert
Essential Public Faci!i~! overlay, the use
must be specified. Str,--'~,_'r~_s withc,--'t a
.... -'~, ........ ;,i ,,,,+ ~.~ p~.~:,~..,~ Addition-
ally, uses or activities that may affect flight
operations including, but not limited to the
following, are prohibited:
i. Any use that releases airborne sub-
stances, such as steam, dust or
smoke;
ii. Any use that attracts concentrations
of birds, waterfowl or other wildlife;
33
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
3O
31
32
33
35
37
38
39
4O
41
42
43
45
47
48
49
5O
51
52
53
55
57
58
59
60
61
iii. Uses that are determined to pose a 62
hazard to the safe operation of the 63
Airport as an aviation facility. 64
d. Development Standards. This section provides 65
standards to minimize the conflicts between the 66
Jefferson County International Airport and pro- 67
posed future development proximal to the airport 68
proper. These protective standards prevent the 69
establishment of future incompatible uses and 70
airspace obstructions in airport clear zones, ap- 71
proaches and surrounding areas and shall com- 72
ply with the standards established in the Federal 73
Aviation Administrat!cn's Aviation Regulations 74
(FAR), Part 77 (Objects affecting navigable air- 75
space). Where the standards contained in this 76
section conflict with FAR, Part 77, the more re- 77
strictive shall apply. All other development stan- 78
dards and review and approval criteria in this 79
Code shall also apply. 80
e. Electrical Emissions. Any use or activity that 81
emits electrical currents shall be installed in a 82
manner that does not interfere with communice- 83
tion systems or navigational equipment. 84
f. Lighting. New development that creates glare of
85
lighting that interferes with the lights necessary 86
for aircraft navigation, including landing and take-
off, shall be prohibited. 87
~ ..... r ............................... ,. 89
........... ~, ................... r .......... , g0
.................................. ~ ......... r'~ 92
,- ......... 3 ......................... 93
.................. r.v~-~.,y. 94
-. c ~r,c'.'.'~ .... g
.......................... '_', C~
are-kr~)wm. 99
h. Height Restrictions. New development or al- 100
teration of existing development within the air- 101
port's navigable airspace shall be in accordance 102
with "Federal Aviation Regulations, Part 77: Ob- 103
jects Affecting Navigable Airspace." 104
i. Ground Transportation Facilities. All uses 105
shall be served by adequate transportation faclli- 106
ties, including appropriate facilities for transit, 107
pedestrians, and bicycles. Where transportation 108
facilities are not adequate to serve a proposed 109
use, the applicant shall make provision for nec-
essary improvements. Transportation facilities 110
shall be deemed adequate if necessary ira- 111
provements are planned and funded in the Jet- 112
ferson County Comprehensive Plan Six Year 113
Transportation Improvement Program. 114
115
Transportation facilities shall meet the design 116
standards of the Department of Public Works 117
and Jefferson Transit. These standards include, 118
but are not limited to, the American Association
of State Highway and Transportation Officials
(AASHTO) Policy on Geornetdc Design of High-
ways and Streets, the Institute of Transportation
Engineers Trip Generation Manual, and the
Washington Department of Transportation High-
way Design Manual and Standard Specifications
for Road, Bridge, and Municipal Construction.
j. Notice Provisions. Land division, site plan ap-
plications, and building permits within the air-
port's area of influence (defined in the interim as
that area within the airport's 65 DNL noise con-
tour interval) shall be submitted to the Port of
Port Townsend for comment. In addition, these
applications shall contain or be accompanied by
a notice provided by the administrator. Said no-
tice shall include the following disclosure: "The
subject property is near an airport where a vari-
ety of airport dependent uses occur that ara not
compatible with development. Potential discom-
forts or inconveniences may include, but are not
limited to: noise, aircraft take-offs and landings."
Such notice to be affixed to the plat and recorded
with the Jefferson County Auditor.
k. Noise Provisions. [Reserved for Future Use]
3.6.12 West End Planning Area.
This overlay district encompasses the area designated as
"West Jefferson County" on the Jefferson County
Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map (the Official Map).
The intent of this designation is to allow for expanded
rural-compatible employment opportunities in a unique
area that is isolated and remotely located from commer-
cial and urban growth areas. This region is characterized
by high unemployment, a distressed economy, Iow
residential densities, and a total projected 20-year
population growth of only 43 persons.
a. Home-Based Businesses. In West Jefferson
County (hereafter, West End) home-based busi-
nesses shall be regulated according to the fol-
lowing provisions.
(1) Home-based businesses in the West
End shall be EXEMPT from the following
provisions of Section 4, Performance and
Use-Specific Standards:
i. The number of non-resident employ-
ees permitted pursuant to the re-
quirements of Section 4.20;
ii. The types of on-site retail sales al-
lowed pursuant to Section .4.20;
iii. The hours of operation as specified
in Section .4.20;
iv. The expansion limitations of the
home-based business as specified in
Section 4.20. Instead, home-based
businesses in the West End may be
permitted conditionally at a non-
residential location under provisions
of RCW 36.70A.070(5)(d)iii, which
relate to the siting of isolated small-
scale businesses.
Unified Development Code
Section 3 - Land Use Districts
December 6, 2000
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32 18.
33
35
37 19.
38
39
40
41
42
43
45
47
48
49
50 20.
51
52
53
55
56 3.7
57
(1) The legal description of the total parcel
subject to the application;
(2) Those individuals er corporations holding
an ownership interest and any security in-
terest (e.g., deeds of trust or mortgages) or
any other encumbrances affecting the title
of said parcel. Such individuals or corpora-
tions shall sign and approve the final plan
prior to final approval;
(3) Any lands to be dedicated to the county
shall be conformed as being owned in fee
title by the owner(s) signing the dedication
certificate;
(4) Any easements or restrictions affecting the
property with a description of purpose and
referenced by the auditor's file number
and/or recording number; and
(5) If lands are to be dedicated or conveyed to
the county as part of the proposal, an
American Land Title Association title policy
may be required by the Director of the De-
partment of Public Works.
f. The applicant shall submit for final approval any
PRRD agreement that may be required in con-
formance with Section 3.6.13.14, supra.
g. The final PRRD plan shall be processed as a
Type IV application as set forth in Section 8...
of this Code, and shall be approved by the Board
of County Commissioners upon satisfaction of all
conditions of approval and all requirements as
provided in this Section 3.6.13.
Time Limitations on Final PRRD Submittal.
Approval of a preliminary PRRD shall expire unless
the applicant submits a proposed final PRRD with all
supporting documents in property form for final ap-
proval within five (5) years after preliminary approval.
Extinguishment of Preliminary Planned Unit
Developments Approved Prior to UDC Adoption.
The applicant or owner of a property subject to a
planned unit development preliminarily approved prior
to the initial adoption date of this Unified Develop-
ment Code (UDC) shall obtain all permits for the de-
velopment of the site within two (2) years of the initial
adoption of this Code. If the applicant fails to obtain
all permits within two (2) years, the approval shall be
extinguished, and no site development permits shall
be issued until the applicant files an application and
obtains approval for a PRRD in accordance with this
Section 3.6.13.
Filing of Final PRRD Plan. Upon review and
approval of a final PRRD, the DCD Administrator
shall return the odginal to the applicant for recording.
The final PRRD plan shall be filed in accordance with
the applicable procedures provided in Section 7 of
this Code.
Subarea Plans [RESERVED FOR
FUTURE USE]
Unified Development Code
Section 3- Land Use Districts
December 6, 2000
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
1 Jefferson Count.v International Air-
port Subarea Plan (Reserved--see
Comprehensive Plan Policy EPP 2.2)
3.8
Major Industrial Development
[RESERVED FOR FUTURE USE]
3.9
Development Agreements
[RESERVED FOR FUTURE USE]
43
Table 3-1: Allowable and Prohibited Uses -- continued
Table 3-1: Allowable and Prohibited Uses
How To Use This Table
Table 3-1 displays the classifications of uses for Land Use Districts.
The allowability and classification of uses as represented in the table are further
modified by the following:
The location may have a multiple designation. This would be true of
the Shoreline Master Program, a subarea plan, or an overlay district
applied to the location. The Shoreline Master Program (SMP) should
be consulted if the location of interest is subject to the SMP jurisdic-
tion. See also Notes 1-3 to this table.
All regulations in this Code apply to the uses in these tables. To de-
termine whether a particular use or activity can occur in a particular
land use distdct and location, all relevant regulations must also be
consulted in addition to this table.
Yes
D
C
C(a)
C{d)
No
Categories of Uses
Uses allowed subject to the provisions of this Code, including
meeting applicable performance standards (Section 4) and devel-
opment standards (Section 6); if a building or other development
permit is required, this use is also subject to site-f~aR project permit
approval; see Section 8.
Discretionary uses are certain named and all unnamed uses which
may be allowed subject to administrative approval and consistency
with the UDC, unless the Administrator prohibits the use or requires
a conditional use permit based on project impacts; see Section 3.2.b
and Section 8.
Conditional uses, subject to criteria, public notice, wdtten public
comment and public hearing procedure; see Section 8.8
Conditional administrative uses, subject to criteria, public notice,
written oublic comment, and a._~n administrative approval procadure,
but not a public hearin.q; see Section 8.8
Conditional disc,,retiep~a~ uses, subject to criteria, public notice,
written public comment and, at the discretion of the Administrator, a
public hearing procedure, if warranted, based on the project's
potential impacts, size or complexity, accordin~l to criteria in Section
8.8.4 of the UDC; see Section 8.._~8
Prohibited use.
Unified Development Code
Section 3 - Land Use Districts
December 6, 2000
NOTES:
All uses must be consistent with the purpose of the land use district in which they are proposed to occur; See
the Land Use Element of the Comprehensive Plan. All land uses in all districts must meet the general regula-
tions in Section 3.3 unless otherwise stated herein.
A land use or development proposed to be located entirely or partly within 200 feet of the ordinary high water
mark of a regulated shoreline is within the jurisdiction of the Shoreline Master Program, and is subject to the
applicable provisions of Section 3 of the UDC and of the SMP, as well as the applicable provisions and permit
requirements indicated in this table. Please refer to the Shoreline Master Program for specific use regulations
and regulations by shoreline environment.
Oveday districts provide policies and regulations in addition to those of the underlying land use districts for
certain land areas and for uses that warrant spedfic recognition and management. For any land use or devel-
opment proposed to be located entirely or partly within an oveday district, or within the jurisdiction of a subarea
plan, the applicable provisions of the oveday district or subarea plan as provided in Sections 3.6 and 3.7 shall
prevail over any conflicting provisions of the UDC.
4. The assignment of allowed or prohibited uses may not directly or indirectly preclude the siting of "essential
public facilities" (as designated in the Comprehensive Plan) within the County. See Section 3.3.5 of this Code.
5. Land Use Districts:
AG Agricultural Resource Lands I Rural Industrial
AG-20 Commercial Agriculture RI Resource Industrial
AG-5 Local Agriculture LI/C Light Industrial/Commercial (Glen Cove)
LI Light Industrial
F Forest Resource Lands HI Heavy Industrial
CF-80 Commercial Forest
RF-40 Rural Forest P Public
IF Inholding Forest PPR Parks, Preserves and Recreation
RR
RR 1:5
RR 1:10
RR 1:20
Rural Residential
Rural Residential - 1 DUI5 Acres
Rural Residential - 1 DUll0 Acres
Rural Residential - 1 DU/20 Acres
UGA
Future Potential Urban Growth Area (Reserved)
RC
RVC
CC
NC
GC
Rural Commercial
Rural Village Center
Convenience Crossroad
Neighborhood/Visitor Crossroad
General Crossroad
6. Forest Practices (including timber harvesting), except for Class IV, General (see Section 4.16), are regulated by
the Washington Department of Natural Resources.
Unified Development Code
Section 3- Land Use Districts
December6, 2000
45
0
SECTION 4
PERFORMANCE AND USE-SPECIFIC
STANDARDS
SECTION 4 . PERFORMANCE AND USE-SPECIFIC STANDARDS
Section Title
Page
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
3O
31
32
33
35
37
38
39
4O
41
42
43
44
45
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
55
56
4.1
4.2
4.3
4.4
4.5
4.6
4.7
4.8
4.9
4.10
4.11
4.12
4.13
4.14
4.15
4.16
4.1
4.18
4.19
4.20'
4,21
4.22
4.23
4.24
4.25
4.26
4.27
4.28
4.29
4.30
4.31
4.32
4.33
4.34
4.35
4.36
4.37
4.38
4.39
4.40
4.41
4.42
General Provisions ....................................... · .................................................................................................................. 1
Accessory Uses and Structures ..................................................................................................................................... 2
Agricultural Activities, Best Management Practices for Water Quality. [RESERVED] ........................................................ 3
Airports. (RESERVED) ....................................................................................................................................................... 3
Airfields and Airstrips. (RESERVED) .................................................................................................................................. 3
Animal Kennels and Shelters ......................................................................................................................................... 3
Asphalt and Concrete Batch Plants .................................... : ........................................................................................... 3
Assembly Facilities ......................................................................................................................................................... 3
Automotive Fuel, Service, and Repair Stations .............................................................................................................. 4
Automobile Wrecking Yards and Junk (or Salvage) Yards ............................................................................................. 4
Cemeteries ..................................................................................................................................................................... 4
College or Technical Schools ............................................................................................ · ............................................. 5
Commercial Communication Facilities and Sites ........................................................................................................... 5
Commercial Uses--Standards for Site Development ..................................................................................................... 5
Convenience Stores and Car Washes ........................................................................................................................... 5
Conversions of Land to Non-Forestry Use, other Class IV General Forest Practices, and Conversion Option
Harvest Plans (COHP) ................................................................................................................................................... 5
Cottage Industry ........................................................................................................................................................... 10
Day Care and Residential Care Facilities.: ................................................................................................................... 11
Golf Courses ................................................................................................................................................................ 12
Home Businesses ........................................................................................................................................................ 12
Hospitality Establishments ........................................................................................................................................... 13
Industrial Uses--Standards for Site Development ....................................................................................................... 14
Lumber Mills (Portable and Stationary) ........................................................................................................................ 15
Mineral Extraction, Mining, Quarrying and Reclamation .............................................................................................. 15
Manufactured/Mobile Home Parks ............................................................................................................................... 17
Nonconforming Legal Structures and Uses .................................................................................................................. 18
Outdoor Commercial Amusement Facilities ................................................................................................................. 19
Outdoor Storage Yards ................................................................................................................................................ 19
Recreational Developments ......................................................................................................................................... 20
Recycling Collection Facilities and Recycling Centers ................................................................................................. 20
Residential Care Facilities and Nursing Homes .... : ...................................................................................................... 20
(Mini) Storage Fadlities .................................................................................................................................................. 21
Seasonal ~ Roadside Stands ....................................................................................................................... 21
Sewage Sludge and Septage ....................................................................................................................................... 21
Small-Scale Recreation and Tourist Uses .................................................................................................................... 21
Solid Waste Handling and Disposal Facilities .............................................................................................................. 26
Tank Farm Facilities (Bulk Fuel Storage) ..................................................................................................................... 26
Temporary Outdoor Uses ............................................................................................................................................. 26
Temporary Festivals ..................................................................................................................................................... 27
Utility Developments, Minor ......................................................................................................................................... 28
Utility Developments, Major ......................................................................................................................................... 28
Veterinary Clinics or Hospitals ..................................................................................................................................... 29
4.1 General Provisions.
The performance standards provided in Section 4 are
those specific requirements that must be met before ap-
proval may be given for a proposed development or use
within a particular land-use district.
Note also that specific proposals for new development
Unified Development Code
Section 4---Performance and Use-Specific Standards
Rev. December 6, 2000
57 may be subject to more than one set of performance stan-
58 dards. For example, a proposal for an RV Park would be
59 subject to the performance standards for all Commercial
60 Uses in Section 4.14, for Recreational Developments in
61 Section 4.29, and for Small-Scale Recreation and Tourist
62 Uses in Section 4.35. Where the development is subject to
63 the jurisdiction of the Shoreline Master Program, additional
4-1
1 4.29 Recreational Developments. 58
2 Recreational developments are campl:lrounds, parks, play- 59
3 lng fields, and facilities for indoor and outdoor sports and 60
4 recreational facilities, and similar developments, including 61
5 Small-Scale Recreational Toudst Uses (Section 4.35). 62
6 1. All Recreational Developments. The following stan- 63
7 dards apply to all recreational developments: 64
65
8 a. Recreational areas shall be located so as to pro- 66
9 tect adjacent properties from adverse impacts. 67
10 Where the proposed recreational use can rea-
68
11 sonably be expected to have adverse impacts on
12 adjacent properties, and where existing ground 69
70
13 cover, such as trees or shrubs, will not provide an 71
14 adequate buffer between the recreational area
15 and adjoining properties, screening or fencing will 72
16 be required. 73
17 b. Parks and campgrounds in which individual lots 74
18 or spaces are to be sold in fee simple are prohib- 75
19 ited. 76
77
20 c. Parking areas associated with recreational areas
21 shall be located inland away from the water and 78
22 beaches and shall be designed to control surface 79
23 runoff and prevent the pollution of nearby water 80
24 bodies. Safe access from parking areas to rec- 81
25 reation areas shall be provided by means of 82
26 walkways or other suitable facilities. 83
27 d. Playing fields must meet the following standards: 84
28 /~ u ...... ~ ..... ,~ ..... ~;~.~ ~ ~h .... ~,-,~ 85
29 frcm ='--'nfi=¢ tc !0:00 p.m. 86
30 (2) Any lighting must be of direct cutoff design 87
31 and not extend beyond the property 88
32 boundaries. 89
33 (3) Any trash or garbage receptacles must be 90
34 screened from view from surrounding 91
35 properties. 92
36 (4) Any restroom facilities must be screened 93
37 from view from surrounding properties and
38 the entrance must be fully visible from the 94
39 public areas. 95
40 e. No use shall be made of equipment or material 96
41 which produces unreasonable vibration, noise, 97
42 dust, smoke, odor, o_[r electrical interference to the 98
43 detriment of t. he quiet use and enjoyment of ad- 99
44 joining property. 100
101
45 2. Commercial Recreational Development.
102
46 a. Recreational uses wl'~ich are also commercial en- 103
47 terprises are subject to the Site Standards for 104
48 Commercial Uses, UDC Section 4.14, in addition 105
49 to the regulations in Section 4.29.1, above. 106
50 4.30 Recycling Collection Facilities and 107
51 Recycling Centers. lO8
lO9
52 1. Recycling Collection Facilities. Recycling collection 110
53 facilites provide a neighborhood drop-off point for
111
54 temporary storage e~ of recyclables but without proc-
55 essing thereof· The following standards apply to all 112
56 recycling collection facilities: 113
57 ~ ~'~11~,~; .... ;~,~ ohoU h~ ~,4~;~1 by ~; ..... ~' 114
4-20
b. Weather protection of recyclable items shall be
ensured by using weatherproof containers or by
providing a roof over the storage area. wher~____.~e
necessary, to avoid adverse impacts;
c. Only recyclable materials shall be collected and
__ stored ~ ~ such collection points. Except for
initial sorting and ba[~ bundlin,q er-re~syelable
~, all other processing of such ma-
terials shall be conducted offsite; and
d. All deposited material shall be contained wholly
within the recycling box or facility. No litter shall
be allowed to accumulate outside the recycling
box or facility. The recycling box or facility shall
be kept clean and free of odors or pests.
Recycling Centere. An area, with or without build-
ings, upon which used materials and recyclables are
separated and processed for shipment. The following
standards apply to all recycling centers;
;
c. Processing operations shall be conducted within
a building;
d. The operation shall be effectively screened from
view from neighboring properties and rights-of-
way;
e. The operation shall meet all federal, state and lo-
cal requirements for noise and air quality control;
and
f· The operation shall obtain, comply with and
maintain a solid waste handling permit from the
Jefferson County Department of Health.
Residential Care Facilities and Nurs-
ing Homes.
The following apply to all residential care facilities:
a. Residential care facilities housing five (5) or
fewer residents, other than staff, are permitted
outright in all residential districts. All-ether~_Resi-
dential care facilities housin!:l more than five (5)
residents in rural residential districts are condi-
tional uses subject to the applicable requirements
of this Code;
b. Conditional use approval is contingent upon con-
taining and maintaining state licensing for opera-
tion of the facility. Conditional use approval ter-
minates when the state license is no longer in ef-
fect. Furthermore, any increase in the number or
change in the class of residents authorized by the
state license terminates approval unless a new
conditional use authorization is obtained for the
new class or number of residents.
c. The maximum number of residents permitted in a
facility is twenty (20), exclusive of staff.
d. Minimum lot size shall be five (5) acres·
e. Minimum Off-Street Parking. One (1) space
4.31
Unified Development Code
Section 4~Performance and Use-Specific Standards
Rev. December 6, 2000
1 shall be required for each vehicle permanently
2 located at the facility or operated on a daily basis
3 in connection with the facility and one (1) for each
4 employee. All parking spaces shall meet the
5 standards of Section 6.
6 2. The following standards apply to all nurs-
7 lng!convalescent homes and assisted livin,q facilities
8 for the elderly:
9 a. The provider shall demonstrate compliance with
10 state licensing requirements.
11 b. The maximum number of residents permitted in
12 such a facility in a rural residential district shall be
13 twenty (20), exclusive of staff. VVithin the Rural
14 Village Center, Nei,qhborhood Visitor Crossroad,
15 and General Crossroad commercial designations,
16 where such facilities are allowed, the maximum
17 number of residents allowed shall be forty (40),
18 exclusive of staff.
19 4,32 (Mini) Storage Facilities,
20 The following stan, dards apply to all residential (mini) stor-
21 age facilities:
22 1. The site shall be contiguous to a designated ,--'than
23 arterial or ."Jra! collector road, although access may or
24 may not be directly onto such arterial or collector, as
25 determined through the review process;
30 a~ All street fronta,qes, other property
31 lines and outdoor storage areas shall be
32 landscaped or screened in accordance with Section
33 6.1._~3;
34 3. All access, travel surface, loading areas, and building
35 aprons shall be paved;
36 4. Signing shall be limited to on-premises signage and
37 shall meet the standards of Section 6.1,5;
39 6. Exterior lighting shall meet the standards of Section
40 6.1._~4;
41 7. The Approving Authority may require exterior modifi-
42 cations of structures, including use of architectural
43 features or details, materials for siding and roofing,
44 reduction of building mass and number of units when
45 necessary to assure compatibility with adjoining resi-
46 dential districts; and
47 8. Use of the facility shall be limited to the storage of
48 excess personal property. No garage sales, servicing
49 or repair of vehicles or appliances, commercial busi-
50 ness or other similar activities shall be conducted on
51 the premises.
52 4.33 Seasonal ~ Roadside
53 Stands.
54 The following standards apply to all seasonal roadside
55 stands:
56 1. The stand shall be not more than
57 one thousand (1,000) square feet in size;
58 2. Sales are limited to agricultural: aquacultural, and
59 silvicultural related products;
60 3. Off-street parking shall be required, and shall have a
61 sufficient area to allow automobiles to park safely off
62 the road right-of-way and to re-enter the traffic in a
63 forward direction. All parking spaces shall meet the
64 standards of Section 6.
66 ...... '
67 5. Roadside stands shall be limited to one (1) per legal
68 lot of record.
69 6. Roadside stands shall be limited to a maximum of six
70 (6) months site occupation and operation per legal lot
~ 71 of record in any given year.
72 7. Roadside stands shall require a Temporary Outdoor
73 Use Permit (Type I) subject to the requirements of
74 Section 4.38.4.
75 4.34 Sewage Sludge and Septage.
76 1. Storage and treatment of sewage sludge and septage
77 at any facility other than an approved sewerage sys-
78 tern plant, and development of storage.or treatment
79 facilities, are industrial uses for the purposes of this
80 Code and are subject to the site standards for indus-
81 trial uses in this Section and to approval by the
82 County Health Department.
85 3. The application of sewage sludge and septage to land
86 for disposal or for fertilization is subject to approval by
87 the Jefferson County Board of Health, or its designee,
88 and state approval requirements.
89 4.35 Small-Scale Recreation and Tourist
90 Uses.
91 1. Small.Scale Recreation and Tourist Uses. Small-
92 scale Recreational and Tourist Uses rely on a rural
93 location and settinR and provide opportunities to di-
94 versify the economy of rural Jefferson County by util-
95 izing the County's abundant recreational opportunities
96 and scenic and natural amenities in an environmen-
97 tally sensitive manner consistent with the rural char-
98 acter of the County. These types of uses may be con-
99 ducted in the land use districts specified in Table 3-1
100 upon approval ef-a-sim-pla~ pursuant to this Code
102 t!cn 8.
103 The following list of uses is not intended to be
104 exhaustive, but rather is intended to be illustrative of
105 the types of Small-Scale Recreation or Tourist Uses:
106 a. Aerial Recreational Activities such as balloon
107 rides, glider and parachute events;
108 b. Animal Preserves and Game Farms;
109 c. Equestrian Centers, e~ O__Q parcels ten (10) acres
110 or larger in size;
111 d. Campgrounds and Camping Facilities;
112 e. Commercial Fishing Ponds;
113 f. Cultural Festivals;
Unified Development Code
Section 4--Performance and Use-Specific Standards
Rev. December 6, 2000
4-21
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
35
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
55
57
property line and at least one hundred (100) feet
from any existing residence except the owner's or
caretaker's dwelling(s);
c. Riding trails are not considered riding, training or
exercising facilities and are not subject to this
standard;
d. The Administrator may authorize a reduced set-
back for equestrian facilities, provided that the
The County may impose conditions of approval to
mitigate any adverse impacts which may result
from granting the reduced setback;
e. An animal waste management plan shall accom-
pany the application. The plan shall be prepared
in consultation with the Natural Resource Con-
servation Service (NRCS), local Conservation
District, or similar agency;
f. Adequate parking, traffic management, and dust
management shall be provided for horse shows
with stables with more than twenty (20) stalls;
g. Public address systems using loud speakers
shall only be used between 10:00 a.m. and 8:00
p.m.;
h. A tack shop may be provided when it is only for
the use of owners of horses boarded at the stable
or event participants;
i. An on-site caretaker or manager's residence is
allowed; and
j. A parcel size of not less than ten (10) acres shall
be required.
Outdoor Shooting Ranges. Outdoor shooting
ranges are subject to the following standards:
a. They shall be located, designed, constructed and
operated to prevent the likelihood of discharge of
ammunition beyond the boundaries of the parcel
where they occur;
b. The National Rifle Association's Range Manual
shall be consulted and used in the development
and operation of ranges; Articles 1, 2, and 3 of
the safety recommendations for outdoor shooting
ranges shall be used as minimum guidelines in
the design and construction of shooting ranges;
c. Warning and trespass signs advising of the range
operation shall be placed on the perimeter of the
property at intervals no greater than fifty (50) feet;
d. The shooting areas shall be surrounded by an
eight-foot-high noise barder in the form of an
earth berm or wall, or be located in a minimal
eight-foot deep depression;
e. The minimum lot size for an outdoor rifle, trap,
skeet or pistol range used by an organization
shall be ten (10) acres. For an outdoor archery
range used by an organization, minimum lot size
shall be five (5) acres;
f. No structure or shooting areas associated with a
shooting range shall be located closer than one
hundred (100) feet to any lot line;
g. A minimum location of five hundred (500) feet is
58 required from any occupied dwelling other than
59 the dwelling of the owner;
60 h. All shooting areas must be completely fenced;
61 and
62 i. In the consideration of an application for permit,
63 the Approval Authority shall take into account
64 both safety and noise factors, and may prescribe
65 additional conditions with respect thereto.
66 9. Rural Recreational Lodging or Cabins for Over-
67 night Rental and Recreational Cultural or Reli-
68 gious Conference Center/Retreat Facilities, Rural
69 Recreational Lodging or Cabins for Overnight Rental
70 and Conference Retreat Facilities are subject to the
71 following standards:
72 a. Minimum parcel size is ten (10) acres;
73 b. .~. mc.':.!m'-m _'cf Fifteen (15) built cabins or bed-
74 rooms for overnight lodging :;c :!!c'::c"_, "F- '.c c
77 th_'c;:c.".'J ~,..A ................. ~,,,,.~.~.~ /-~ ~nm square feet of
78 gross floor area are allowed for everv ten (10~
79 acres of parcel size: up to a maximum of thirty
80 (30..__~ rooms or cabins comorisin.~_g no more than
81 12:000 square feet of total building area over the
82 entire site, excluding a caretaker's or manaRer's
83 residence;
84 c. Lodging operators may not allow any person to
85 occupy overnight lodging on the premises for
86 more than three (3) months in any year;
87 d. New residential development shall not be permit-
88 ted. New residential development includes the
89 subdivision or sale of land for year round or sec-
90 ond-home residential housing that is owner-
91 occupied or rented;
92 e. An on-site caretaker or manager's residence is
93 allowed.
96 ~"~'~ ......... ~;~-~' .... ; ....· A conditional
97 use oermit subiect to a TvDe III aooroval orocass~
98 which includes a public hearing: shall be re-
99 o_uired.
100 11. Rural Restaurants. Rural Restaurants may be al-
101 lowed as Small-Scale Recreational and Tourist Uses,
102 subject to the following standards:
103 a. Only when associated with and subordinate to a
104 primary recreational or tourist use;
105 b. Indoor dining facilities m=¥ shall not exceed a to-
106 tal of fc.~.7~/'~n\.-~ fifty ('50) seats, including outdoor
107 seating, unless it can be demonstrated that a lar-
108 ger capacity facilih' is needed to serve the de-
109 mand generated by the primary recreational or
110 tourist use;
111 c. The structure shall constitute no greater than five
112 thousand (5,000) square feet of gross floor area.
113 d. ^ ~, ~.~ ~m~,,.~m ~~ ~tDrive-through food
114 service is prohibited. This does not include es-
l 15 .Dresso stands.
Unified Development Code
Section 4--Performance and UselSpecific Standards
Rev. December 6, 2000
4-25
SECTION 6
DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
including an approved or functioning Accessory
Dwellin.q Unit), of which all structures have an in-
dividual, legally permitted and installed septic sys-
tem approved by the Jefferson County Environ-
mental Health Department, and neither structure
was approved as, or functions as, an accessory
dwelling unit (ADU);
If on or before January. 20. 1998.__;the parcel to be
divided containsed one or more existing legally
permitted residential structures, of which each
structure hasd an installed, individual and legally
permitted septic system approved by the Jefferson
County Environmental Health Department, and the
property containsed at least one additional legally
permitted and installed septic system not yet dedi-
cated or connected to an existing residential struc-
ture.
The following conditions shall apply to all density
exemptions authorized under this section 6.5.4:
(1) A property owner who meets the criteria in
(2)
section 6.5.4(b), above, and has more than
one unconnected, but legally permitted and
installed septic system approved by the Jef-
ferson County Environmental Health De-
partment shall only be allowed to create one
additional lot through the short plat process,
regardless of the total number of legally
permitted and installed, but undedicated
septic systems on the property.
Each of the existing residential units must
have been constructed in compliance with
all applicable building codes, zoning codes,
and county, state and federal laws in effect
at the time of construction and/or placement
in the case of a manufactured or mobile
home, and none of the residential structures
were permitted as an ADU and neither struc-
ture consists of a recreational vehicle or
travel trailer.
(3) Each of the installed septic systems were
leoallv permitted at the time of installation
and are currently functioning properly as de-
termined by the Jefferson County Environ-
mental Health Department, and are in com-
pliance with the applicable environmental
health regulations as reviewed and ap-
proved by the Jefferson County Environ-
mental Health Department.
(4) The property shall be divided in a manner
that creates lots of a size which are as equal
as possible or as close to conforming with
the minimum lot size or mapped density re-
quirements of this Code, whichever is the
more restrictive.
(5) Lots created under the exemption author-
ized in this section 6.5.4 shall be exempt
only from the density or minimum lot size
requirements of this Code and shall be sub-
ie.ct to all other requirements of this Code,
includin.q the requirement for its own access
or agreed upon and leRally created shared
access (shared easement), as well as com-
Unified Development Code
Section 6~Development Standards
December 6, 2000
6.6
(6)
pliance with all other applicable county,
state and federal laws.
The responsibility to demonstrate that each
residential structure was constructed or
sited under a valid building permit and/or the
regulations in effect at the time of construc-
tion, or placement in the case of a manufac-
tured or mobile home, and that each septic
system was approved and inspected by the
Jefferson County Environmental Health De-
partment shall be that of the proponent.
(7) The provisions of this section 6.5.4 shall not
apply to any recreational vehicle parks, mOo
bile home parks, campgrounds, camper
clubs, seasonal (vacation) homes, or any
property developed under a binding site
plan.
Grading and Excavation Standards.
General Regulations.
a. All grading and clearing activities shall be con-
ducted so as to minimize potential adverse effects
of these activities on forested lands, surface water
quality and quantity, groundwater recharge, and
fish and wildlife habitat, adjacent properties and
downstream drainage channels.
b. Grading and excavation to construct ponds and
reservoirs shall:
(1) Meet all applicable setbacks specified in this
Code, except for stormwater detention facili-
ties authorized by the County Engineer;
(2) Maintain in-stream flows of natural drainage
courses; and
(3) Protect adjacent property from damage.
Drainage and Erosion Control, ' ' . .
Sect!c~ 3 cfth!=
All grading activities shall be accomplished as follows:
a. Design and maintain adequate buffers of undis-
turbed native vegetation to minimize off-site im-
pacts of surface water runoff, erosion, and sedi-
mentation.
b. Design and construct all graded surfaces that are
to be revegetated so that the graded surfaces will
hold topsoil and to minimize surface runoff, ero-
sion, and sedimentation.
c. Selectively salvage the upper six to twelve inches
of topsoil, stockpile it, and respread over all dis-
turbed areas to be revegetated. Excess excavated
material, if not retained onsite, must be disposed
of at a permitted site approved by the Administra-
tor.
d. Any area cleared or graded and not covered with
gravel or an impervious surface shal! be seeded
immediately on completion of the project. If ero-
sion is probable, areas with exposed soil shall be
protected by temporary means during and follow-
ing construction until seeding is established. All
SECTION 7
LAND DIVISIONS
required under Section 3 of this Code, prepared
in accordance with the requirements of Section
3.6.11 of this Code;
g. A ster-mwater preliminary drainage plan prepared
in a manner consistent with the requirements of
Section 6 of this Code, including any soil test in-
formation that may be deemed necessary by the
Director of the Department of Public Works;
· h. The estimated quantities of any fill to be expected
from the site and imported to the site; and
i. Documentation of water availability and ade-
aua~cy [or each parcel affected sufficient to meet
tlze_ rea~uirements of Section 6.3 (zf this UDC.
..~2~m ::'2tot r!;ht ps:m!t :squ!roms.".ts.
Preliminary Short Plat Preparation. The preliminary
short plat shall be prepared in accordance with the
following requirements:
a. The preliminary short plat shall be prepared by a
Washington Sate licensed engineer or land sur-
veyor registered or licensed by the state of
Washington. The preparer shall certify on the
short plat that it is a true and correct representa-
tion of the land actually surveyed. The prepara-
tion of the plat shall comply with the Survey Re-
cording Act, Chapter 58.09 RCW and Chapter
332-130 WAC as now adopted or hereafter
amended. Upon surveying the property, the sur-
veyor shall place temporary stakes on the prop-
erty to enable the county to locate and assess
features of the short plat in the field. The datum
to be used for all surveying and mapping shall be
as follows: The projection name is the state
plane; the projection spheroid is GRS 1980; the
coordinate system is Washington State Plane
North Zone; and the horizontal datum is NAD 83.
b. All geographic information portrayed by the pre-
liminary short plat shall be accurate, legible and
drawn to a horizontal scale of fifty (50) feet or
fewer to the inch, except that the location sketch
and typical roadway cross-sections may be
drawn to any other appropriate scale.
c. A preliminary short plat shall be eighteen (18) by
twenty-four (24) inches in size, allowing one-half
inch borders, and if more than one
sheet is needed, each sheet shall be numbered
consecutively and an index sheet showing the
entire property and orienting the other sheets, at
any appropriate scale, shall be provided. In addi-
tion to other map submittals, the applicant shall
submit one (1) copy of each sheet reduced to
eight and one-half (8~) inches by eleven
and one-half (11~) inches in size. If more than
Unified Development Code
Section 7--Land Divisions
one (1) sheet is required, an index sheet showing
the entire subdivision with road and highway
names and block numbers (if any) shall be pro-
vided. Each sheet, including the index sheet,
shall be of the above specified size.
The area of each proposed lot, tract or parcel on
the short plat map shall accurately show that
each lot, tract or parcel contains sufficient area to
satisfy minimum zoning requirements. The area
of land contained in access easements, access
panhandles or pipestem configurations shall not
be included in the area computations.
Preliminary Short Plat Contents,
a. A preliminary short plat shall be submitted on one
(1) or more sheets and shall provide the informa-
tion described below. All specifications for re-
quired improvements shall conform to the devel-
opment standards contained in Section 6 of this
Code.
(1) The name of the proposed subdivisions to-
gether with the words "Preliminary Short
Plat";
(2) The name and address of the applicant;
(3) The name, address, stamp and signature
of the professional engineer or professional
land surveyor who prepared the preliminary
plat;
(4) Numeric scale (fifty (50) feet or fewer to the
inch), graphic scale, true north point, and
date of preparation;
(5) Identification of all land intended to be
cleared, and the location of the proposed
access to the site for clearing and grading
during site development or construction;
and
(6) A form for the endorsement of the adminis-
trator, as follows:
APPROVED BY JEFFERSON COUNTY
b:
Department of Community Date
Development Administrator
The preliminary plat shall contain a vicinity sketch
sufficient to define the location and boundaries of
the proposed subdivision with respect to sur-
rounding property, roads, and other major con-
structed and natural features.
Except as otherwise specified in this Section 7,
the preliminary short plat shall contain the follow-
ing existing geographic features, drawn lightly in
relation to proposed geographic features:
(1) The boundaries of the property to be sub-
divided, and the boundaries of any adja-
cent property under the same ownership as
the land to be subdivided, tO be indicated
by bold lines;
(2) The names of all adjoining property own-
ers, or names of adjoining developers;
(3) All existing property lines lying within the
proposed subdivision, including lot lines for
easements, access panhandles or pipestem con-
figurations shall not be included in the area com-
putations;
d. Five (5) paper copies of a preliminary plat meet-
ing the standards and requirements of Sections
7.4.3 and 7.4.4 of this Section 7;
e. Where applicable, any Special Reports or studies
required under Section 3 of this Code, prepared
in accordance with the requirements of Section
3.6.11 of this Code
f. A ctcrmwctcr preliminary drainage plan prepared
in a manner consistent with the requirements of
Section 6 of this Code, including any soil test in-
formation as may be deemed necessary by the
Director of the Department of Public Works;
g. The estimated quantities of any fill to be exported
from the site and imported to the site; and
h. Documentation of water availability and ade-
quacy for each parcel affected sufficient to meet
the requirements of Section 6.3 of this UDC. ~^?,,t-~
T~
from :':2tot r!ght ps:mit r-squ!remcnts.
Preliminary Plat- Preparation. The preliminary plat
shall be prepared in accordance with the following re-
quirements:
a. The preliminary plat shall be prepared by a
Washington State licensed engineer or land sur-
veyor registered or licensed by the state of
Washington. The preparer shall certify on the plat
that it is a true and correct representation of the
lands actually surveyed. The preparation of the
plat shall comply with the Survey Recording Act,
Chapter 58.09 RCW and Chapter 332-130 WAC
as now adopted or hereafter amended. Upon
surveying the property, the surveyor shall place
temporary stakes on the property to enable the
county to locate and assess features of the long
plat in the field. The datum to be used for all sur-
veying and mapping shall be as follows: The pro-
jection name is the state plane; the projection
spheroid is GRS 1980; the coordinate system is
the Washington State Plane North Zone; and the
horizontal datum is NAD 83.
b. All geographic information portrayed by the pre-
liminary plat shall be accurate, legible and drawn
to a horizontal scale of fifty (50) feet or fewer to
the inch, except that the location sketch and typi-
cal roadway cross-sections may be drawn to any
other appropriate scale.
c. A preliminary plat shall be eighteen (18) inches
by twenty-four (24) inches in size, allowing one-
half (1/2) inch borders, and if more than one (1)
sheet is needed, each sheet shall be numbered
consecutively and an index sheet showing the
entire property and orienting the other sheets, at
any appropriate scale, shall be provided. In addi-
tion to other map submittals, the applicant shall
submit one (1) copy of each sheet reduced to
eight and one-half (8-1/2) inches by eleven and
one-half (11-1/2) inches in size. If more than one
(1) sheet is required, an index sheet showing the
entire subdivision with road and highway names
and block number (if any) shall be provided. Each
sheet, including the index sheet, shall be of the
above-specified size.
d. The area of each proposed lot or parcel depicted
on the long plat map shall accurately show that
each lot, tract or parcel contains sufficient area to
satisfy minimum zoning requirements. The area
of land contained in access easements, access
panhandles or pipestem configurations shall not
be included in the lot size computations.
Preliminary Plat - Contents.
a. A preliminary plat shall be submitted on one (1)
or more sheets and shall provide the following in-
formation. All specifications for public improve-
ments shall conform to the standards contained
in Section 6 of this Code, including any standards
incorporated therein:
(1) The name of the proposed subdivision to-
gether with the words "Preliminary Plat;"
(2) The name and address of the applicant;
(3) The name, address, stamp and signature
of the professional engineer or professional
land surveyor who prepared the preliminary
plat;
(4) Numeric scale fifty (50) feet or fewer to the
inch), graphic scale, true north point, and
date of preparation;
(5) Identification of all land intended to be
cleared, and the location of the proposed
access to the site for clearing and grading
during site development and construction;
and
(6) A form for the endorsement of the Adminis-
trator of the Department of Community De-
velopment, as follows:
APPROVED BY JEFFERSON COUNTY
Department of Community Date
Development Administrator
The preliminary plat shall contain a vicinity sketch
sufficient to define the location and boundaries of
the proposed subdivision with respect to sur-
rounding property, roads, and other major con-
structed and natural features.
Except as otherwise specified in this Section 7,
the preliminary plat shall contain the following ex-
isting geographic features, drawn lightly in rela-
tion to proposed geographic features:
(1) The boundaries of the property to be sub-
divided, and the boundaries of any adja-
Unified Development Code
Section 7--Land Divisions
10
SECTION 8
PERMIT APPLICATION & REVIEW
PROCEDURES/SEPA IMPLEMENTATION
8.2 Project Permit Applications (Type
I-IV).
1. Pm-Application Conference.
a. Purpose. Pre-applicetion conferences provide a
prospective applicent and the county the oppor-
tunity to determine if and how the regulations
(e.g., environmentally sensitive areas and SEPA)
may apply, an opportunity to acquaint the appli-
cant with the requirements of the Jefferson
County Unified Development Code, and to dis-
cuss, Jf 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.
b. When Required. Pre-application conferences
are required for all Type II and Type III project
applications and Type I project applications pro-
posing impervious surfaces of ten thousand
(10,000) square feet or more and/or non-single
family structures of five thousand (5,000) square
feet or more. Pre-application conferences for all
other types of applications are optional, and re-
quests for conferences will be considered by the
Administrator on a time-available basis.
c. Scheduling and Conceptual Design Review.
The conference shall be held within fifteen (15)
calendar days of the request and payment of the
fee set forth in the Jefferson County Fee Ordi-
nance, .k.'O. ~,~, ,^~ ,k~. /~
............... S3L'3,~ ~, /
Da~vment of tl~e 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, sug-
gested vehicle access to the site, and provision
of utilities. Final drawings are discouraged at this
pre-application stage. Additionally, the applicant
shall identify all land uses on adjacent properties
and all platted and opened roads serving the site.
d. Information Provided to Applicant. At the con-
ference, the Administrator shall provide the appli-
cant with:
(1) A list of the requirements for a completed
application;
(2) A general summary of the procedures to be
used to process the application;
(3) The references to the relevant code provi-
sions or development standards that may
apply to the approval of the application;
and
(4) A list of any applicable hourly review fees
that may be charged bv one or more
Cqunty aoencies upon the filing of an pro-
iect oermit aoplication with the County,
e. Assurances Unavailable. It is impossible for the
conference to be an exhaustive review of all po-
tential issues. The discussions at the conference
or the information provided by the Administrator
shall not bind or prohibit the County's future ap-
plication or enforcement of all applicable laws
Unified Development Code
Section 8 - Permit Application & Review Procedures/
SEPA Implementation
December 6, 2000
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 re-
quirements of county, state and federal codes,
laws, regulations and land use plans.
Development Permit Application.
a. Information Required for All Applications. Ap-
plications for project permit decisions shall be
submitted upon forms provided by the Adminis-
trator. A project permit application is complete
when it meets the submission requirements of
this Section 8.2.2. An application shall consist of
all materials required by the relevant section of
this Code or other applicable county ordinance or
regulation, and shall also include the following
general information:
(1) A completed project permit application
form, including a SEPA checklist unless
categorically exempt from SEPA;
(2) A verified statement by the applicant that
the property affected by the application is in
the exclusive ownership of the applicant, or
that the applicant has submitted the appli-
cation with the wdtten consent of all owners
of the affected property, and proof of own-
ership of the property;
(3) Identification of a single contact person or
entity to receive determinations and notices
required by this Code;
(4) A legal description of the site~:zCJlJdjQg_t~
Jefferson County Assessor's Parcel Num-
(5) The applicable fee as set forth in the Jef-
ferson County Fee Ordinance, Nc...
(6) For each building permit necessitating po-
table water, evidence of available and ade-
quate water supply and, if applicable, com-
pliance with the requirements established
by the Jefferson County Department of
Health for the provision of water; evidence
may be in the form of a water dght permit
from the Department of Ecology, or another
form sufficient to vedfy the existence of an
adequate water supply;
(7) Evidence of septic approval or sewer avail-
ability and, if applicable, compliance with
the requirements established by the Jeffer-
son County Department of Health for
wastewater disposal;
(8) A site plan, showing the location of all pro-
posed lots and points of access and identi-
fying all easements, deeds, restrictions or
other encumbrances restricting the use of
the property, if applicable. All information
should be accurate, legible and generally
should be drawn to a scale no smaller than
one (1) inch equals fifty (50) feet for a plot
larger than one (1) acre and no smaller
than one (1) inch equals twenty-five (25)
feet for a plot one (1) acre or smaller; and
dence, considering the facts germane to the pro-
posal or appeal, and evaluating the proposal or
appeal for consistency with this Unified Devel-
opment Code, adopted plans and regulations.
Notice of the Hearing Examiner hearing shall be
in accordance with Section 8.3.9 of this Section
8. As applicable, all appeals of administrative in-
terpretations made under Section 8.6, below, and
appeals of SEPA threshold determinations made
under Section 8.10, below [other than determina-
tions of significance (DS)] shall be considered to-
gether with the decision on the project application
in a single, consolidated public hearing.
In addition to the approval criteria listed else-
where in this Unified Development Code, the
Hearing Examiner shall not approve a proposed
development unless he/she first makes the fol-
lowing findings and conclusions:
(1) The development adequately mitigates im-
pacts identified under Sections 3.6.4
through 3.6.9, of this Code (i.e., environ-
mentally sensitive areas) and Sectfon 8.10,
below (i.e., SEPA implementing provisions)
of this Code;
(2) The development is consistent with the Jef-
ferson County Comprehensive Plan and
meets the requirements and intent of this
Unified Development Code;
(3) The development is not detrimental to the
public health, safety and welfare;
(4) For subdivision applications, findings and
conclusions shall be issued in conformance
with Section 7 of this Code and RCW
58.17.110.
In the Hearing Examiner's decision regarding
Type III actions and appeals of Type II adminis-
trative decisions, the Headng Examiner shall
adopt written findings and conclusions.
(1) The Hearing Examiner's decision following
closure of an open record pre-decision
public hearing on a Type III action shall in-
clude one (1) of the following actions:
i. Approve;
ii. Approve with conditions;
iii. Deny without prejudice (reapplication
or resubmittal is permitted); or
iv. Deny with prejudice [reapplication or
resubmittal is not permitted for one
(1) year].
(2) A Hearing Examiner's decision following an
open record appeal hearing on a Type II
administrative decision, on a SEPA thresh-
old determination. [oth~; th=r, =
+;-,,, ,,~ =!gn!fic~nc.~ ~n~ on a Type II
ministrative decision, f)em:~,~,sa~;k~, or
on a SEPA threshold determination (eth~
than c DS) on a Type III permit decision~
Unified Development Code
Section 8- Permit Application & Review Procedures/
SEPA Implementation
December 6, 2000
T .... Ill c,,-,~l;,.,,.,+;,..,,'~ ch~ll include one of the
following actions:
i. Grant the appeal in whole or in part;
ii. Deny the appeal in whole or in part;
or
iii. If appropriate, in a proceeding involv-
ing a SEPA appeal of a threshold de-
termination consolidated with the
hearing on a Type III permit applica-
tion, continue the open record public
hearing pending SEPA compliance.
(3~_) The Hearina~ Examiner decision shall ~
sued within ten (10) working days unless a
~3.a. er period is agreed uDon by the Hear-
~;~Examiner and the applicant.
Appellate Healing Examiner Action {Appeals of
Type III Decisions),
a. Upon receiving notice of an appeal of a Type III
decision by the Hearing Examiner, the Appellate
Hearing Examiner shall hold a closed record ap-
peal hearing, adopt written findings and conclu-
sions and make a decision.
b. The Appellate Hearing Examiner's decision fol-
lowing a closed record appeal hearing shall in-
clude one of the following actions:
(1) Grant the appeal in whole or in part;
(2) Deny the appeal in whole or in part;
(3) Remand for further proceedings and/or
evidentiary hearing in accordance with
Section 8.4.9, below.
Board of County Commissioners Action (Type IV
Decisions),
a. The Board of County Commissioners shall make
a decision after reviewing Type IV actions dudng
a regularly scheduled meeting.
b. In its decision, the Board of County Commission-
ers shall make its decision by motion, resolution
or ordinance, as appropriate.
Procedures for Public Hearings. Public headngs
(including open record appeals of Type II decisions
and open record pre-decision hearings on Type III
permit applications) shall be conducted in accordance
with the Hearing Examiner's rules of procedure and
shall serve to create or supplement an evidentiary re-
cord upon which the Hearing Examiner will base
his/her decision. In cases where scientific standards
and criteria affecting project approval are at issue, the
Hearing Examiner shall allow orderly cross-
examination of expert witnesses presenting reports
and/or scientific data and opinions. The Hearing Ex-
aminer may address questions to any party who testi-
fies at a public hearing. The Hearing Examiner shall
open the public hearing and, in general, observe the
following sequence of events:
a. Staff presentation, including submittal of any ad-
ministrative reports. The Hearing Examiner may
ask questions of the staff.
13
JEFFERSON COUNTY
GUEST LIST
HEARING: Unified Development Code
DATE: Monday, December 11, 2000 from 3:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m.
PLACE: Lower Level Conference Room at the Courthouse
NAME (Please Print) STREET ADDRESS CITY Testimony?
YES NO MAYBE
~~ ~x~~-. ~n n
JEFFERSON COUNTY
GUEST LIST
HEARING: Unified Development Code
DATE: Monday, December 11,2000 from 3:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m.
PLACE: Lower Level Conference Room at the Courthouse
NAME (Please Print) STREET ADDRESS CITY Testimony?
YES NO MAYBE
B
BBB
nnn
To: Jefferson County Board of Commissioners
From: Craig Durgan & Gladys Durgan
Gladys' Garden Nursery
Evergreen Storage
1275 Chimacum Road
Port Hadlock, WA.
Dear Commissioners,
December 10, 2000
We own and operate two businesses in the Chimacum Neighborhood/Visitor Crossroads (NC).
The current Unified Development Code as proposed in the November 16, 2000 Public Hearing
Draft will severely impact both of our businesses. We are greatly concerned over the following
elements of the proposed UDC as follows:
Regarding the allowed use of a nursery/garden supply/landscape supply in the Chimacum
Neighborhood/Visitors Crossroads (Chimacum NC).
In the current draft Unified Development Code (UDC) neither a nursery, garden supply or
landscape supply is allowed in the Chimacum NC under table 3-1.
It is clear when reading the current Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan (CP) that farm and
garden supply is allowed in the Chimacum NC under LNP5.5.2 on page 3-72. We believe that a
nursery/garden supply/landscape supply is consistent with this use.
In addition, under the Interim Controls Ordinance (ICO) that implements the CP, the uses of
nursery, garden supply and landscape supply are allowed in the Chimacum NC as per table 13-1
on pages 37 and 38.
A nursery/garden supply/landscape supply has been a use in the Chimacum NC since 1980. Tony
Bodenheimer ran such a business, namely Northwest Landscaping, until 1999. We purchased his
property and intend on moving our nursery/garden supply/landscape supply, namely Gladys'
Garden, to that site from our present site at 1275 Chimacum Road in the near future. We are a
viable, locally owned, small business. We are not a large out-of-area big box store. To not allow
our business as a legal use in the Chimacum NC is completely unfair and not in accordance with
the current Comprehensive Plan and the Interim Controls Ordinance.
I ask that the uses of nursery/garden supply/landscape supply be made an allowed use in the
Chimacum NC.
We also operate a mini-storage business at the present location of our nursery. We would like to
make comment regarding the proposed restrictions in regard to "residential mini-storage" as
noted on page 4-20 of the Draft Unified Development Code.
The required standards go beyond those required for other businesses with out regard to reason.
The requirement for paving, the height restrictions, possibility of exterior modifications with no
standard specified, and the restrictions of use are all beyond need. Our detailed comments are as
follows:
Paragraph 4.32.3 requires that all access, travel surfaces, loading areas and building aprons are
paved. This standard singles out only mini-storage. Why this is a requirement in a rural county
that has many unpaved roads is unclear. There is certainly not a requirement that the county pave
all its roads.
Paragraph 4.32.4 places signage restrictions that do not exist for other businesses. Other
businesses are allowed off-site directional signs. This should also be allowed for storage
businesses.
Paragraph 4.32.5 requires a maximum building height of 18 feet. This requirement goes beyond
any requirement for any other structure or business in Jefferson County. The maximum building
height in the county is 35 feet. Why are mini-storage's being held to an 18 foot maximum height;
even private homes can be higher. This will preclude our being able to store many boats and
other vehicles inside. Due to the maximum on-road height of 14 feet, a 14 foot door height is
needed. This mandates a 16 foot eave height. With a standard slope of 2" to the foot this leaves a
peak height of 21 feet for my particular storage buildings. Even with the peaked roof average of
18.5 feet 1 will still exceed this maximum. No need for this restriction has been demonstrated.
Why are mini-storage's being singled out as the only height restriction other than the 35 foot
county maximum? This standard should be eliminated.
Paragraph 4.32.7 requires architectural requirements that are not defined. In addition this
requirement is not required of other businesses. This requirement is open to much abuse by the
county. I see not reason why this should be implemented. To require it solely of mini-storage's,
with out any definition, is not reasonable.
Paragraph 4.32.8 requires that the mini-storage only store goods for personal property. Both
individuals and businesses use storage. This requirement is tantamount to requiring that a
restaurant only serve food to a certain class of people. What purpose this serves has not been
stated and is in question. In addition, this paragraph further restricts the operation of mini-storage
by not allowing clients to sell their goods on-site. Many people who wish to dispose of their
goods do not want to have the general public access their private property in a garage sale.
Lastly, the paragraph states that commercial businesses shall not be allowed to utilize mini-
storage. What purpose this serves is not alluded to. How is a business supposed to store their
property? There are no warehouses in Jefferson County that I am aware of. This requirement is
interference in the normal operation of a business.
Outside Storage Yards are not an allowed use in the Chimacum NC. We are concerned that this
will not allow us to continue to be allowed to utilize our facility for outside storage of boats, cars,
trucks and mobile homes as we presently do. It is quite common for mini-storage to have outside
storage. It should be noted that a mobile home could not be stored unless it is at a storage facility
as per the county Administrator. Only a site with a valid mobile home permit or a storage facility
can have a mobile home on it.
As a footnote to table 6-1, footnote 4, "Special Rear and Side Setbacks", we note that there is
requirement for a 35' buffer between commercial and residential use. This requirement does not
stipulate if the buffer is to be on the residential side, the commercial side or both. In addition the
term "residential use" is not so clearly defined. Does this mean residential district or merely
someone having a residence on a commercial property. There are many commercial properties in
Jefferson County that in addition to having a business, also have the business owner's residence.
Are other adjoining commercial businesses to be penalized because the business owner next door
chooses to live on the site of a commercial business? This standard could very well cause a
property owner of a commercial lot to lose 35' on each side and in the back of his property. Not
even most roadside buffers are this restrictive. It is interesting to note that the same footnote only
requires a 25' buffer between light industrial land and residential.
Applying to both our businesses are the proposed maximum impervious surface and maximmn
building size. The maximum impervious surface area countywide is proposed at 60%. This
standard overlays the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA). SEPA already takes maximum
impervious surface into account as a function of performance standards. Many sites can and do
support much more than a 60% surface coverage. My mini-storage site was engineered for 90%
maximum lot coverage. To mandate a 60% maximum coverage is unnecessary as this
requirement is already taken into account when the storm water retention plan is developed and
approved. This standard will in effect artificially limit the complete development of a site and
cause urban sprawl. The State Growth Management Act specifically was implemented to reduce
urban sprawl. The Comprehensive Plan does not stipulate any particular standard for maximum
impervious surface.
As for the maximum building size. The Comprehensive Plan does not specify any particular size
for a maximum building size. The standard for the Chimacum NC is currently being proposed as
7500 square feet. This standard does not take into account lot size. Both our parcels are over 5
acres. Five acres is equivalent to 217,800 square tbet. A 7500 square foot building on this size
parcel occupies less than 3.5% of the site. We can not understand the need for such a restriction.
Under the proposed standard are allowed to pave 60% of the property but only build on less than
3.5% of it! Can this be explained in any manner? These building restrictions need to be revisited.
We would like to conclude that it is our opinion that many of the requirements in the draft
Unified Development Code seem to have been written with a different demographic area in
mind. The proposed UDC needs to be more thoroughly evaluated and given a more
comprehensive public review process. Passage of the UDC at this time is not in the interests of
the citizens of Jefferson County.
Regards,
Craig & Gladys Durgan
Board of County Commissioners
Jefferson County, Washington
December 11, 2000 "~'77~''
RE: Section 6 Development Standards Table 6-1 Density, Dimension and Open Space
Standards
I generally disagree with all the size (height and square footage) standards for all rural
commercial and rural industrial sections and I specifically disagree with the 35-foot height and
25,000 square foot limit on light industrial usage.
Implementing these standards will make recruitment of viable, long range, businesses - be they
local or from the outside - very difficult. Who wants to invest when you can only get so big and
so big is not very big at all.
Say we do find an organization, of a mind, willing to invest in Jefferson County and they are
hugely successful. They sell lots of whatever they make, hire lots of locals at family wage jobs,
bring substantial other folks to the county to fill critical jobs and they all pay their fair share of the
tax burden. What do we say to them when they need to expand to meet the demands of their
business and the size is beyond that allowed? Do we say "Go to some other place and take your
taxpaying friends with you" because size is more important than success?
I would suggest that if you must limit, do it by architectural standards, open space requirements
and set backs, not by}rying to limit size.
"--"Conrad W. Pimer
P. O. Box 1427
Port Hadlock, WA 98339
360-437-2108
Home Associates
Oesi n Ludlow Bay Homes
Builders ,nc. Construction
BOCC. Jefferso:: Comip;
Ge!ltlenlan:
%
The comments in tiffs memonmdum are m response to lite Jefferson County Home Builders Ass~iation
concerns regarding ~tz¢ reformation 5t :hz PaNic Heanng Dral~ (November 1~). 2000. We wish to address a
coucern we hav: with Sect/on 5, The 5i~oretine Master Program, which is pinioned to be uncaged m this
draft. As a poi~,t of c62cerlt, the e:-ilgliltt1 Shoreline Master Plan is not m the draft! The fiict that no
~!lOttld r~O[ .
changes are "preposed ..... be a~: administrative edic~ to ~rectude tl~s section form the dr~ If the
BOCC is lauding punic process :r;. !~le pro?ceding, the Conunis~ioners should resist all the i~ormation is m
the draft. The s:Iblxc should nor ha~,~ ~c~ p,h~ce meal ,~,,.,,..,,s.h t}~e process to .~mrticipate-
Ti~e DOE has an. ex~ensive proposal ~;:' SLorc}ines. ;',s tile EOOC is axu, ce, ti',,¢ guidelines incluce both a
tnan&'nou? aud op~iouai den,,enl. Pat?, A of' rite gu:dclmes is umndator3: for SMA compliance, Path B is an
option allowing !c~cal gove:mnents io apply m th:,~ Naticnai Mam:.e Fidaenes Service and the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service for a take limitati,~:,. :~at would exemp~ the coun ~w from the take provisions under 4(d)
niles.
The pttblicized intent of the U~C is to offer land owners clariq'. The BOCC is aware that Jefferson County
ma) not be abie to afford rite expensive reqmrements in Path B. [t appears most local govermneuts will
choose Path A. :i~s memos theft millions of !ocal dollars will b~ spenl tbr "compliance" with no assnmnce
ihaI ESA comp:~.~mce will ~esuh. '*': -~ ~
& ,,.ca,, ~o ~lfis memorandum is an c-mail zop~ from Neff Aaland. a
DOE Secti3n C~def w!:o clearly :~1E~25 ~he 5.X.{A is al-t tmfimded mand;ne Wi!h the current budgeta~~
constraints how is ibc BOCC goir~g lo s,::! )oiicy as regards the SMA'?
M5 expressed concern is ihm m it's !t:,~sle fo have this document signed, se;iierl and delivered, the train may
nth on schedule only to be derailed .~ecause of the speed! The SMA is lurking and the BOCC may wish to
have a UDC tl,.a'; is based on comp!cie ir£onnation and extensive public participation.
Respectk'c~ly s,a=.)0n 2~,::d.
Jefi~erson' Coum?.
Mail: 22 McCurdy Lane Port Ludlow WA 98365
Office: 111 Village Way Port Ludlow WA 98365
Phone: 360/437-0931 Fax: 360/437-9638 E-mail: hab@olympus.net
"/Sent: Wednesday, May 24, 2000 8:54 AM [0: Summerhays, Jeannie
Subject: Re: FW: SMA Guidelines Weekly Update ~ - May 2~, 2000
RIGHT ON!
Skowlu~:l, Peter
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Aaland, Nell
Wednesday, May 24, 2000 8::M. AJd' '
Skowlund, Peter
FW: SMA Guicletines Weeidy UlXlate ~/7 - May 23, 2000
Befit: W~n~a% May 2~, ~0 ~:24 AM
Subject: RE: SMA Gu~elines W~ly V~ate ~ - May 23, 2~
~ Wed~day, May Z4, ~0~ ~:10 AM
To: A~aM. N~
~ubje~: RE: SMA G~d~ Wee~y ~dete ~7 - M~ 23.
A few que~io~ that I Oon~ have a~e~ for y~
~en ~U we receive w~en ~nfl~ion ~m ~e f~s ~at ~ mia provides '~fe ~ from ~i~ ~ffy I~al
a~ions under the ESA? If ~e mia never m~ives 'safe ha~ ~e~ing ~at wou~
We ~ve received lettem rmm NMF.S~SFWS ~ week ~at ~ys ~ey a~ pleM~ ~th p~h B a~ ~1 effher
~ude Jn a ~(~S) or do a s~on 7 (NMFS). We ~ hope ~ ~n g~ NMFS to ~mm~ to a ~, at ~e time
~y ~end ~eir ~Je.
Path A ~d Path B am veq d~er~t ~t ~th am sa~ to P~e the ~me environmental o~. B~
fun~lonal~ eq~valent, ~h palhs ~o~ be equai~ a~e or uneatable t0 ~e f~, If ~e ~ "~fe
~ Ihe ot~er shou~ too.
I ~me ~ you. Hoover, NMFS d~[
~ ~he role ~ appeal~ .to a~ inv~idal~ ~ t~e SHB, ~
S~ Pmg~m ~pa~ to ~ on de~i~ the
Y~. We am ~ to ~e~ ~. I donl ~ ~ m~
Is E~l~y pm~ to fo~ ~ our Io~1 ~ve~e~ ~
more im~nt to Eco~y. 8MP ~te money ~ ~
Yes, ~ ~ already ~~ ~ add ~age f~ffie S~
ve nl% ~k ~S~an
fle~ yeaFs gmn~? ~U ~ ea~ m~ of o~ g~ ~ for 5~ ~?
~e un~d~ man, ate ;; ~ the i~t~'s ~u~ ~ey ~u~ ~th~ ~e ~e rung, ~ ~ange ~r
mandate to mvi~ an~ a~ ~. ~y d~ ~e~ ~ ~U ~ve the ma~e ~ ~ 1724. ~m am ~e
who a~ue ~ 1724 ~nl a d~ m~a/e; ~ ~nl ~me ~ ~aL
~uming ~e mia ~m~ ~ J~al ~a~nges, h~ do ~ ~an
managem~ mquiremen~ ~ il ~s ~ ~? ~i ~ ~k for more money or ~op do~ ~er ~ ~ ~ up the
1 December 2000
Paul Heinzinger
P.O. Box 213 / 83 Heinzinger Road
Nordland, WA. 98358
360 385 0772
GENERAL OBSERVATIONS ON THE UDC
%
One of the objectives of the comprehensive plan was to preserve our rural atmosphere. I
am now reading regulations that are very urban in their content. It seems ironic that we
are somehow going to preserve our rural character by enacting urban type regulations and
planned community C C & Rs.
It is very difficult to see any correlation between the comprehensive plan and the UDC.
There appears to be no road map that the ordinary citizen can use to see the correlation
between the two. It is not obvious that the sometimes very restrictive regulations flow
from the comprehensive plan. One must enlist the aid of a planner to explain that while
the comprehensive plan does not refer explicitly to the very restrictive regulations, the
regulations flow fi.om the inherent fabric of the plan. (In other words it is very difficult to
trace the origin of the regulation)
The schedule associated with the UDC appears to be very unrealistic especially
considering the inability of the Planning Commission to completely review the document.
These people are one of the mechanisms, we the public, depend on to present our views.
I attended most of the Planning Commission deliberation sessions and there were large
portions of the UDC that were not considered. Are we now going to thwart the purpose
of the Planning Commission as an expedient means of getting the UDC out?
I am having great difficulty in understanding why Section 5 is reserved and not included
in this supposedly "unifying document"? A large amount of Jefferson County is
comprised of saltwater shorelines and we have a UDC that doesn't address this aspect.
As I look at the UDC and the left out Shoreline Management Plan, it appears that the
goals of these two when compared with the goals of the Endangered Species Act could
very well be in opposition with one another. Growth Management looks at all the
ecosystems while the ESA has a substantially narrower view. This impact must be
considered as it contributes to the code being silent when looking at saltwater shorelines
and the associated buffers and setbacks. (Remember that there are significant changes
proposed to the SMP thus compounding this problem)
As one reads the UDC it becomes apparent that one immediate result of these new
regulations is a significant cost being added to new home building. This directly
translates into higher costs for affordable housing. Isn't that one of our more pressing
County needs as defined in the Comprehensive Plan?
The UDC in Section 10 the landowner is portrayed as a poor steward, not to be trusted
and if he doesn't conform to charge him with criminal action. The County should do
everything in its power to work with the landowner to insure that this condition never
arises. The landowner may lack understanding of the process but it is hard to make the
hypothesis that a landowner would enter into this process with criminal intent. It is
hoped that the tone of this Section 10 is changed to treat landowners as law-abiding
citizens. The government exists to help the citizens not prosecute them.
In places these regulations almost read like "Cottage Businesses for Dummies". Many of
the regulations are "how to do it" instructions. An example is Animal Kennels where it
says that the animals can only be out between 7 AM and 10 PM unless accompanied by
an attendant. Under Cottage Industries similar restrictive time is put on the hours that
one can operate. Is this what we want and how do you trace this back to the
Comprehensive Plan?
SPECIFIC COMMENTS ON THE UDC
Section One 1.9 Waiver " ...... nor shall such a waiver or failure to enforce constitute a
future or continuing waiver of the specific part that was waived or not enforced." This
statement combined with Section 10.4 places the land/home owner in an untenable
position. This really gives the county license to accept an action performed by the
landowner and then at a later date rescind that acceptance action. Think of the impact
this could have especially when this is exercised after considerable effort has been
accomplished or the task completed based on the acceptance of the county.
Section Two The definition section appears to incomplete in two areas. The first is
that the list of definitions lacks definitions for numerous terms like Fish and Wildlife
Habitat Areas, State Environmental Policy Act, Critical Area Recharge Report, etc. The
other area is the lack of an acronym list. At times in the UDC when an acronym is first
used it is defined but it is very hard to find this acronym looking back in the UDC. Many
acronyms are used and the occasional user is not that skilled in language of acronyms.
Remember this is a unifying document and therefore it shouldn't rely on underlying
documents for definitions and acronyms.
Section Three 3.6.4.h Reasonable Economic Use Variance "The property owner
and/or applicant for a reasonable use variance has the burden of proving that the property
is deprived of all reasonable use." There is no attempt made to define reasonable use in
this document. The way this is written it is essentially a no win situation for the property
owner where he is assumed guilty until proven innocent.
Section 3.6.5.c. (3) Seawater Intrusion Areas ........ . "To help prevent seawater
from intruding landward into underground aquifers, all new development on
Marrowstone Island, Indian Island and within 500 feet of any marine shoreline shall be
required to infiltrate all stormwater runoff, to the maximum extent practicable, onsite."
The homes located above the bluffs that comprise much of the Marrowstone Island
shorelines must be considered, lfthe above statement means that the County says that no
water can be discharged from the property over the face of the bluffyou have the
problem of what to with the run-offwater at these locations. Directing this water into dry
wells may not be the solution. After heavy rains in Oct. 1996, on the east side of
Marrowstone Island between the ibrt and East Beach park some horrendous landslides
occurred. An island resident, who is concerned about landslides, has pictures showing
slides where there is development. Where the land is undisturbed by development, there
is no slide activity. Lets be careful not to attempt to solve one problem, seawater
intrusion and cause another equally as serious problem, landslides.
Section Three 3.6.8 Fish and Wildlife Habitat Areas This section infers that
saltwater shorelines tall within FWHAs but appears to be completely silent on the size of
buffers associated with saltwater shorelines. The buffers refereed in this section all seem
to be related to streams not saltwater shorelines. This section requires clarification. The
definition for FWHAs places almost all if not ali saltwater shorelines in FWHSAs.
Section Four 4.2.4 Antenna Structures and Satellite Dishes If dwellings only have
to be set back 5 feet from the property line, why must dishes be set back 10 feet
especially when most of them are mounted on a dwelling?
Section Four 4.2.5 Parking and Storage of Major Recreational Equipment This
section should either be thrown out or completely rewritten.
Section Five Shoreline Management Plan As addressed in the comment section the
reserving of this section doesn't appear to be justified. The omission of this section
contributes to the confusion existing under Section 3.6.8 previously discussed.
December 11, 2000
Comments on the Draft Unified Development Code for Jefferson
County, WA
It has come to my attention that Section 4.24, "Mineral Extraction, Mining,
Quarrying and Reclamation" will replace the Mineral Lands Ordinance
adopted June 5, 1995.
T would like to recommend the following changes (noted by underlined
boldface):
· The definition of "Mineral Processing" found on page 13 of Section 2
(Draft Definitions) be changed to read: "Activities accessory to mineral
extraction that include material washing, sorting, crushing or more
intensive modification or alteration through mechanical_chemical or
other means to a mineral resource after it has been removed from
the earth. This does not include asphalt or concrete batch plants.
· Section 4.24, the top of the second column: "The following standards
apply to all proposed and operatinq surface mining and reclamation
activities:"
· #2: "Applications for development permits for extraction
expansion beyond current permit limits shall be accompanied by
a report ....... "There should also be added to the list of items to be
covered in the geologist's report a part §, Adverse impacts to
properties in the vicinity of the site.
· #4: "Topsoil or other overburden having value for agriculture,
reclamation, or other beneficial uses shall not be removed or
disposed of in a manner which will reduce its value or prevent its
future use.
· #6: "All extraction and reclamation activities that create a noise
disturbance must take place between 7.'00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. on
weekdays only ('no weekends or holidays), unless extended hours
of operation are authorized for emergency purposes by the
Administrator. No use shall be made of equipment or material which
produces unreasonable vibration, noise, dust, smoke, odor, electrical
interference to the detriment of properties in the vicinity of the
mineral extraction, minin.q, quarryin.q or reclamation
activities. No use of shall be made of equipment or material
which will interfere with persons havinq the quiet use of their
property in the vicinity of said activities.
#7, a.: ":If increased off-site impacts (noise, vibration, dust, traffic,
smoker electrical interference, qroundwater quality , or
Quantity, and quiet use and enjoyment of one's property)
would result from expansion, intensification, or modification, a
conditional use permit shall be required.
Thank you for your consideration of these changes.
Rae Belkin
Mats Mats Area Coalition
900 Olympus Boulevard
Port Ludlow, WA 98365
Phone: (360) 437-9442
I (4) All products offered for retail sales on the
2 site are manufactured, warehoused, or as-
3 · sembled on the premises (except for prod-
4 ucts sold at colleqes or technical schools).
5 d. No use shall be made of equipment or material
6 which produces unreasonable vibration, noise,
7 dust, smoke, heat, glare, odor, or electrical inter-
8 ference to the detriment of the quiet use and en-
9 joyment of adjoining property.
10 e. Use of a County access road or private road for
11 access to new industrial development shall be
12 permitted only if the applicant demonstrates that
13 public health, safety and welfare will be pro-
14 tected, and if traffic and maintenance impacts to
15 the private road are minimized by conditions on
16 the permit.
17 f. Development standards, including parking, visual
18 screening and landscaping requirements, shall
19 be as specified in Section 6, Development Stan-
20 dards.
21 2. Ught Industrial Uses--Additional Standards.
22 a. Ail operations other than loading and unloading
23 shall be conducted within a fully enclosed build-
24 lng.
28 ~'~mi~a~ e-hell ~. ~v~a~l ~,~el ~mh~{· ~
28 ~
29 c..No emissions of dust, dirt, odors, smoke, toxic
30 gases or fumes will occur.
31 4.;23 Lumber Mills {Portable and Station-
32 ary).' ·
33 1. The hours of operation of all lumber mills--new, exist-
34 lng, or portable---am limited to 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m.
35 2. No use shall be made of equipment or mste~al which
36 produces unreasonable vibration, noise, dust, smoke,
37 odor, electrical interference to the detriment of adjoin-
38 lng property.
39 4.:24 Mineral Extraction, Mining, Quarrying
4o and Reclamation.
41 In addition to meeting all other applicable requirements of
42 this Code, includin~i this Section 4.24, all new mineral ex-
43 traction and mineral processing activities located outside
44 of an approved mineral resource land (MRL) overlay dis-
45 trict desi,qnation {as specified in Section 3.6.3) shall be
46 subject to the following standards:
47 1. New mineral extraction and mineral processin~ a~vi-
48 ties in rural residential districts shall require a condi-
49 ti_onal use peri. it subject to a Type III permit approval
50 process.
.51 ~. The total disturbed area of mineral extraction, minin,q
52 ,and quam/ing sites {excludin,q access roads) and any
53 associated mineral processin.q activities shall not ex-
54 _ceed ten (10) acres. Any proposed mineral extraction
65 which would create disturbed areas in excess of ten
56
57
(10) oross acres shall require an MRL designation in
accordance with Section 3.6.3 of this UDC.
58 The following standards apply to all surface mining and
59 reclamation activities:
60 ~. Ail surface extraction shall be performed in full com-
81 pliance with the Washington State Surface Mining Act
62 (RCW 78.44). Other extraction must conform with all
63 applicable Washington state laws.
64 2. Applications for development permits for extraction
65 shall be accompanied by a report prepared by a pro-
66 fessional geologist which shall include at least the fol-
67 lowing information:
68 a. Types of materials present on the site;
69 b. Quantity and quality of each material;
70 c. Lateral extent of deposit(s);
71 d. Depth of deposit(s);
72 e. Depth of overburden; and
73 f. Method of extraction.
74 3. Ail extraction, surface mining, and reclamation opera-
75 tions must, to the extent possible, employ best man-
76 agement practices (see Section 6 of this Code) for
77 drainage and erosion and sedimentation control,
78 buffer zones, and Other precautionary measures as
79 appropriate to protect adjoining lands, surface and
80 groundwater quality and quantity, natural drainage
81 systems, environmentally sensitive areas, wildlife
82 habitat, and scenic resources from adverse impacts
83 resulting from the extraction operations and to meet
84 the standards of this Code and other applicable
85 county, state, and federal codes and regulations.
86 4. Topsoil or other overburden having value for agricul-
87 ture or other beneficial uses shall not be removed or
88 disposed of in a manner which will reduce its value or
89 prevent its future use.
90 5. Spoils shall be placed outside of environmentally sen-'
91 sitive areas and shoreline areas. Final slope angle
92 shall be no steeper than 1.5:1. Best management
93 practices shall be employed for drainage and other
94 controls so that 1) spoils are properly drained and do
95 not cause ponding, 2) runoff water meets the re-
96 quirements and standards of this Code and other ap-
97 plicable County; state and federal codes and regula-
98 'tions, and 3) ma.~s soil movement is prevented.
99 6. Ail extraction and reclamation activities that create a
100 noise disturbance, must take place between 7:00 a.m.
101 and 7:00 p.m. on weekdays, unless extended hours of
102 operation are authorized for eme~ency purposes by
103 the Administrator. No use shall be made of equipment
104 or material which produces unreasonable vibration,
105 noise, dust, smoke, odor, electrical interference to the
106 detriment of adjoining property or the persons havin.q
107 the quiet use and enjoyment of that adjoinino. DroD-
108 erty.
109 7. The alteration, intensification, and expansion of exist-
110 lng gravel pits and surface mining operations is al-
111 lowed subject to reasonable performance' standards
112 to ensure that alteration, intensification, and expan-
113 sion of such uses have minimal adverse impacts on
114 surrounding areas and uses, and provided that;
11,~ a. If increased off-site impacts (noise, vibration,
116 dust, traffic) would result from expansion, intensi-
Unified Development Code
Section 4.--Performance and Use-Specific Standards
Rev. November 15, 2000
4-15
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
55
56
57
58
59
60
flcation, or modification, a conditional use permit 61
shall be required. 62
b. Modification to include a new use or operation 63
(e.g., a rock crusher) shall require a conditional 64
use permit 3nd be !!m!!~d ~.c = m!.-.!m'-'m !ct =!--'~ cf 65
~ subiect to a Type III permit ap- 66
proval process. 67
The following performance standards are required for 68
mining, quarrying and asphalt/concrete batch opera- 69
tions located within a designated Critical Aquifer Re- 70
charge Area. Mining, quarrying and asphaltJconcrete 71
batch operations in such areas must also comply with 72
the Best Management Practices identified in Section 73
6.17, Development Standards, for those activities. 74
a. Mining, Quarrying, cement concrete batch plants, 75
and asphalt concrete batch plants located within 76
a. designated Critical Aquifer Recharge Area 77
shall, prior to approval and operation, submit a 78
Site Evaluation Report to Jefferson County for 79
review and approval. Prior to preparation of a 80
Site Evaluation Report, the applicant shall pre- 81
pare and submit a Scope of Work for the report to 82
Jefferson County for review and approval. 83
84
b. At a minimum, the Site Evaluation Report shall 85
contain the following elements: (a) Permeability 86
of the unsaturated zone, (b) Location of nearby 87
sensitive areas (wellhead protection areas, spe-
cial protection areas, etc.), (c) Ground water 88
depths and flow direction, (d) Location, construc- 89
tion, and use of existing wells within ¼ mile of the 90
subject site, (e) Site map at I inch to 2000 feet 91
scale, (f) Activity Characterization, (g) proposed 92
Best Management Practices, and (h) A Confin- 93
gency Plan. In addition, the following detailed in- 94
formation about the hydrogeologic characteristics 95
of the site and a prediction of the behavior of a 96
contaminant may be required. (i) Background wa- 97
ter quality complied over at least a one year pe- 98
riod, (ii) Contaminant transport modeling based 99
on potential releases to ground water, (iii) Model- 100
lng of ground water withdrawal effects, (iv) Geo- 101
logic and hydrogeOlogic c~haracterisfics including, 102
but not limited to, surfac~ water on site and with 103
the subbasin or watershed that may have interac- 104
tions with groundwater or surface contaminants, 105
and (v) Ground water monitoring plan provisions. 106
c. Gravel Mining and Rock Quarrying operations Io- 107
cated with in a designated Critical Aquifer Re- 108
charge .Area shall, prior to approval and opera- 109
tion, obtain a National Pollutant Discharge Elimi- 110
nation System and State Waste Discharge Indi- 111
vidual General Permit (NPDES) for process wa- 112
ter, storm water, and mine dewatering water dis- 113
charges from the Washington State Department 114
of Ecology, Water Quality Program. 115
d. Cement concrete batch plants, and asphalt con- 116
crete batch plants located within a designated 117
Critical Aquifer Recharge Area shall, prior to ap- 118
proval and operation, obtain a National Pollutant 119'
Discharge Elimination System and State Waste 120
Discharge Individual Permit from the Washington
State Department of Ecology, Water Quality Pro-
gram.
e. Mining, Quarrying, cement concrete batch plants,
and asphalt concrete batch plants located within
a designated Critical Aquifer Recharge Area shall
demonstrate that the proposed activities shall not
cause degradation of the groundwater quality be-
low the standards described in Chapter 173-200
WAC (Water Quality Standards for Ground Water
of the State of Washington).
f. Mining, Quarrying, cement concrete batch plants,
and asphalt concrete batch plants located within
a designated Critical Aquifer Recharge Area,
shall, pursuant to Section 6.17.1,
hibit-A) implement the Washington State Depart-
ment of Ecology's Storm Water, Water Quality,
Hazardous Waste, Wetland, and Solid Waste
Program BMPs and relevant BMPs from the De-
partments of Health, Agriculture, Transportation,
and State Conservation District Office Or Dem-
'onstrate through a Best Management Practices
Report Pursuant to Section 6.17.2,
..._..~'~'"~ _,~=~ how they will integrate .other necessary
and appropriate mitigating measures on the de-
sign, installation, and management of the pro-
posed facility or use.
g. Provide a written agreement to the County pro-
viding that all employees at mining, quarrying,
cement concrete batch plant, or an asphalt batch
plant site will be notified that the operation lies
above an aquifer recharge area and providing
annual training regarding all measures set forth
by the BMPs established in 6.17.1
h. Mining, Quarrying, cement concrete batch plants,
and asphalt concrete batch plants located within
a designated Critical Recharge Area shall at all
times comply with Olympic Air Pollution control
Authority permit requirements.
i. Mining, Quarrying, cement concrete batch plants,
and asphalt concrete batch plant operations lo-
cated within a designated Critical Area Aquifer
Recharge Area shall engage a third party, selec-
tion of which is approved in advance by the
County, to monitor compliance with regulations
and conditions pertaining to their NPDES/State
Waste Discharge Permit. Reports shall be pre-
pared and distributed as required in the
NPDES/State permit with copies to the County
each month unless the permit requires quarterly
reporting, in which case copies will be provided to
the County quarterly.
j. Mining, Quarrying, cement concrete batch plants,
and asphalt concrete batch plant operations lo-
cated within a designated Critical Area Aquifer
Recharge Area shall submit an annual report to
the County evaluating implementation of the. De-
partment of Natural Resources approved recla-
mation plan. A qualified, independent consultant
approved by the County shall prepare the report.
4-16
Unified Development Code
Section 4---Performance and Use-Specific Standards
Rev. November 15, 2000
RO. Box 1180 · Port Townsend, Washington 98368-4624
Administration: (360) 385-0656
Operations: (360) 385-2355
Fax: (360) 385-3988
December 11,2000
Jefferson County Commissioners
Dan Harpole, Glen Huntingford, and Richard Wojt
PO Box 1220
Port Townsend WA 98368
RE: Unified Development Code
Dear Sirs:
On November 29, 2000, Port Staff and County Staff met in a very productive meeting
to discuss changes to the Unified Development Code draft of Section 3.6.11, Airport
Essential Public Facility District. The meeting was an excellent start to the formal
consultations required by state law.
Based on that meeting, a new draft has been prepared by County staff. The Port
Commission and staff would like to submit to the BOCC that these changes be adopted.
It is also requested that the proposed addition to Section 3.7, Sub-area Plans be
adopted as well. This will allow the new Airport Master Plan to become the Airport
Sub-area Plan, as outlined in Comprehensive Plan Policy EPP 2.2.
One small change not shown in the enclosed draft is in sub-paragraph "j". During the
meeting on November 29, 2000, we agreed that the "65 DNL" was not the correct figure
and should be changed to 55 DNL. 55 DNL noise contour interval was the previous
agreed-upon standard (Interim Control Ordinance) for notice provisions of building
permits. 65 DNL lies wholly within the airport property and serves no purpose.
As the Airport Master Plan update process proceed this coming year, we will take
whatever steps are necessary to work with County staff to ensure the plan will meet
sub-area plan criteria. It will be submitted to the County as the Airport Sub-area Plan
next fall. Additional formal consultations under RCW 36.70.547 will be required as we
proceed through this process.
As for Comprehensive Plan Policies EPP 3.1 and 3.3, the adoption of the enclosed
UDC Section 3.6.11 does not satisfy the need for a Noise Overlay Ordinance. Again, at
the November 29, 2000 meeting, it was decided to move forward on reaching
agreement to satisfy the Comprehensive Plan. The attorneys for the County and the
e-mail: Info@portofpt.com website: www. portofpt.com
Jefferson County Commissioners
December 11, 2000
Page Two
Port are to meet and report back with possible resolutions to the issues surrounding this
ordinance.
Again thank for the productive work so far. The Port of Port Townsend Commission and
staff look forward to continuing to work with the County on these important issues, not to
just satisfy the law but to protect our citizens.
Sincerely,
Larry Crockett
General Manager
CC: Port of Port Townsend Commissioners
STAFF
RECEIVED
DEC 0 7 2000
PORT OF PORT TOWNSEND
ADMINISTRATION OFFICE
SUGGESTED REVISIONS
TO THE PUBLIC HEARING DRAFT
DECEMBER 6, 2000
These suggested revisions, highlighted in blue text, represent the final staff-recommended revisions to
the UDC for review and consideration by the Board of County Commissioners in their deliberation
process. The Department of Community Development (utilizing project review staff not necessarily
involved in the preparation of the UDC) has evaluated the Draft UDC by running several "test cases" (i.e.,
project scenarios) through the new proposed procedural and substantive requirements to "test" the UDC
for consistency and completeness. These recommended changes are based on "housekeeping" revisions
to the draft to correct or clarify the intent of certain sections and to eliminate any remaining
inconsistencies based on DCD staff review. Some of the revisions also address some of the remaining
public and Planning Commission comments or concerns submitted to date on the draft UDC and also
incorporate .suggested revisions from the Departments of Public Works and Environmental Health
submitted after preparation and publication of the November 16, 2000 Draft UDC. Although some new
land uses are proposed for Table 3-1(at the request of the Department of Public Works), the DCD does
not consider any of the recommended changes in blue to be substantially significant in terms of altering
the affect or intent of the UDC.
Revisions have been suggested for portions of the following sections:
Section I Introductory Provisions:
Clarification on the role of specific county departments in code
administration
Section 2 Definitions:
Clarification on two definitions, the elimination of one definition,
and the addition of one definition
Section 3 Land Use Districts:
Reinsertion of language from existing Critical Areas Ordinance
regarding seawater intrusion, clarifying language regarding
wetland buffers, amended language regarding the Airport
Essential Public Facility District based on consultation with the
Port of Port Townsend, Use Table clarification and addition
based on County departmental comment
Section 4 Performance and
Use-Specific Standards:
Clarification of language based on staff review
Section 6 Development
Standards:
Clarification of language regarding density exemptions
Section 7 Land Divisions:
Clarification of language regarding documentation of water
availability for short and long plats
Section 8 Permit Application &
Review Procedures/SEPA
Implementation:
Clarification on design sketch submission for pre-application
conferences, reinsertion of language from existing ordinance
regarding Hearing Examiner decision issuance timeframe
SECTION 3
LAND USE DISTRICTS
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
2O
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
3O
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
4O
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
5O
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
3.6.11
lated wetland then a detailed
compensatory mitigation plan as
outlined in Section 3.6.10.i(4},
below must be provided.
(4) Mitigation Plan Contents. All wetland res-
toration, creation, and enhancement pro-
jects required by this Code, either as a
condition of project approval or as the re-
sult of an enforcement action, shall follow a
mitigation plan prepared by a qualified
specialist as defined herein and conducted
in accordance with the requirements de-
scribed in this Code. The applicant or viola-
tor must receive written approval of the
mitigation plan by the Administrator prior to
commencement of any wetland restoration,
creation, or enhancement activity.
Airport Essential Public Facility District
(A).
Purpose. The purpose and intent of this section
is to regulate a~ land uses within the
"Airport Essential Public Facility" overlay district
in order to encourage orderly economic devel-
opment in a manner compatible with airport op-
erations and adjacent properties. This district is
depicted on the official Jefferson County !and
Study," ~ .....
Over!cy District" ,;;il! be estab!ished and to pro-
tect existing general aviation public use airports
from conflicting or incompatible adjacent land
uses or activities.
Designation. ~"'
n~r'l' ,-~n,4 ~',,~,~n~,4
The primar; function of the Jefferson County In
*.~.,,~.,~,..,*;'-~'~' Airpc,"t w~,./.r.~.~.~ overlay district (see Of-
ficial Comprehensive Plan Map) applies to all
Port of Port Townsend owned property within the
runway environment of the Jefferson County In-
ternational Airport (JCIA). The JCIA is a general
aviation airport that provides recreational, busi-
ness, flight training, charter and air taxi services
and other uses. is + ...... ;~,~ ~ ..... r- .... +,,
Allowable and Prohibited Uses, All new devel-
opment within the Jefferson County International
Airpod shall be restricted to uses which are
clearly identified as aviation suppoA facilities or
aviation related development,
(1) Aviation SuppoA Facilities. Aviation
Supped Facilities are those uses which di-
rectly supped fliRht operations and the op-
Unified Development Code
Section 3 - Land Use Districts
December 7, 2000
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
.77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106'
107
108
109
110
111
oration of the Jefferson County Airport, and
include, but are not limited to:
i. Passenger service terminals, includ-
ing food service;
ii. Navigational aids;
iii. Runway aprons;
iv. Terminal buildings;
v. Hangars;
vi. Fuel storage facilities;
vii. Operations/maintenance facilities;
viii. Automobile parking.
(2) Aviation Related Development: Aviation
Related Development are those uses
which are reliant upon the airport for their
businesses, which include but are not nec-
essarily limited to:
i. Aircraft repair fa(~ilities;
ii. Aircraft remodeling facilities;
iii. Aircraft sales and related aircraft
equipment, services and supplies;
iv. Aircraft manufacturing;
v. Airborne freight facilities;
vi. Air pilot training schools;
vii. Aviation clubs;
viii. Taxi and bus terminal;
ix. Automobile rental and associated
parking;
x. Aircraft related manufacturing ~
~"~ +~ ............ a~thorized and
approved by the Federal Aviation
Administration.
(3) Accessory Uses:. :~-fe144A~4,~ Other
uses accessory uses to uses allowed in
&6.1 1(c) , above, .are permitted in the Air-
port Essential Public Facility Overlay Dis-
trict.'-- subject to aooroval b~v the Federal
Aviation Administration,
i. On site hazardous waste treatment
(4) Prohibited Uses: In order to determine
whether or not a proposed use fits within
the Airport Essential Public Facility Airport
Esscntla! Public Fccil!ty overlay, the use
must be specified. Structures without a
.... ~¢,~ use ,,,m ,~, ~, ..... ;*+~'~ Addition-
ally, uses or activities that may affect flight
operations including, but not limited to the
following, are prohibited:
i. Any use that releases airborne sub-
stances, such as steam, dust or
smoke;
ii. Any use that attracts Concentrations
of birds, waterfowl or other wildlife;
33
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
4O
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
5O
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
6O
61
34
iii. Uses that are determined to pose a
hazard to the safe operation of the
Airport as an aviation facility.
d. Development Standards. This section provides
standards to minimize the conflicts between the
Jefferson County International Airport and pro-
posed future development proximal to the airport
proper. These protective standards prevent the
establishment of future incompatible uses and
airspace obstructions in airport clear zones, ap-
proaches and surrounding areas and shall com-
ply with the standards established in the Federal
Aviation Administration's Aviation Regulations
(FAR), Part 77 (Objects affecting navigable air-
space). Where the standards contained in this
section conflict with FAR, Part 77, the more re-
strictive shall apply. All other development stan-
dards and review and approval criteria in this
Code shall also apply.
e. Electrical Emissions. Any use or activity that
emits electrical currents shall be installed in a
manner that does not interfere with communica-
tion systems or navigational equipment.
f. Lighting. New development that creates glare of
lighting that interferes with the lights necessary
for. aircraft navigation, including landing and take-
off, shall be prohibited.
......... , v, ,..v,. .............. prep= .
h. Height Restrictions. New development or al-
teration of existing development within the air-
port's navigable airspace shall be in accordance
with "Federal Aviation Regulations, Pad 77: Ob-
jects Affecting Navigable Airspace."
i. Grour~ Transportation Facilities. All uses
shall be served by adequate transportation facili-
ties, including appropriate facilities for transit,
pedestrians, and bicycles. Where transportation
facilities are not adequate to serve a proposed
use, the applicant shall make provision for nec-
essary improvements. Transportation facilities
shall be deemed adequate if necessary im-
provements are planned and funded in the Jef-
ferson County Comprehensive Plan Six Year
Transportation Improvement Program.
Transportation facilities shall meet the design
standards of the Department of Public Works
and Jefferson Transit. These standards include,
but are not limited to, the American Association
of State Highway and Transportation Officials
(AASHTO) Policy on Geometric Design of High-
62 ways and Streets, the Institute of Transportation
63 Engineers Trip Generation Manual, and the
64 Washington Department of Transportation High-
65 way Design Manual and Standard Specifications
66 for Road, Bridge, and Municipal Construction.
67 j. Notice Provisions. Land division, site plan ap-
68 plications, and building permits within the air-
69 port's area of influence (defined in the interim as.._.
70 that area within the airport',~/6¢5~.l.l~,lL noise con-
71 tour interval) shall be subm'ltt~d to the Port of
72 Port Townsend for comment. In addition, these
73 applications shall contain or be accompanied by
74 a notice provided by the administrator. Said no-
75 tice shall include the following disclosure: "The
76 subject property is near an airport where a vari-
77 ety of airport dependent uses occur that are not
78 compatible with development. Potential discern-
79 forts or inconveniences may include, but are not
80 limited to: noise, aircraft take-offs and landings."
81 Such notice to be affixed to the plat and recorded
82 with the Jefferson County Auditor.
83 k. Noise Provisions. [Reserved for Future Use]
84 3.6.12 West End Planning Area.
85 This overlay district encompasses the area designated as
86 "West Jefferson County" on the Jefferson County
87 Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map (the Official Map).
88 The intent of this designation is to allow for expanded
89 rural-compatible employment opportunities in a unique
90 area that is isolated and remotely located from commer-
91 cial and urban growth areas. This region is characterized
92 by high unemployment, a distressed economy, Iow
93 residential densities, and a total projected 20-year
94 population growth of only 43 persons.
95 a. Home-Based Businesses. in West Jefferson
96 County (hereafter, West End) home-based busi-
97 nesses shall be regulated according to the fol-
98 lowing provisions.
99 (1) Home-based businesses in the West
100 End shall be EXEMPT from the following
101 provisions of Section 4, Performance and
102 Use-Specific Standards:
103 i. The number of non-resident employ-
104 ees permitted pursuant to the re-
105 quirements of Section 4.20;
106 ii. The types of on-site retail sales al-
107 bowed pursuant to Section 4.20;
108 iii. The hours of operation as specified
109 in Section 4.20;
110 iv. The expansion limitations of the
111 home-based business as specified in
112 Section 4.20. Instead, home-based
113 businesses in the West End may be
114 permitted conditionally at a non-
115 residential location under provisions
116 of RCW 36.70A.O70(5)(d)iii, which
117 relate t¢ the siting of/sglated ~mall-
118 scal .e businesses.
Unified Development Code
Section 3 - Land Use Districts
December 7, 2000
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
2O
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
18.
19.
20.
3.7
(1) The legal description of the total parcel
subject to the application;
(2) Those individuals or corporations holding
an ownership interest and any securitY in-
terest (e.g., deeds of trust or mortgages) or
any other encumbrances affecting the title
of said parcel. Such individuals or corpora-
tions shall sign and approve the final plan
prior to final approval;
(3) Any lands to be dedicated to the county
shall be conformed as being owned in fee
title by the owner(s) signing the dedication
certificate;
(4) Any easements or restrictions affecting the
property with a description of purpose and
referenced by the auditor's file number
and/or recording number; and
(5) If lands are to be dedicated or conveyed to
the county as part of the proposal, an
American Land Title Association title policy
may be required by the Director of the De-
partment of Public Works.
f. The applicant shall submit for final approval any
PRRD agreement that may be required in con-
formance with Section 3.6.13.14, supra.
g. The final PRRD plan shall be processed as a
Type IV application as set forth in Section 8.
of this Code, and shall be approved by the Board
of County Commissioners upon satisfaction of all
conditions of approval and all requirements as
provided in this Section 3.6.13.
Time Limitations on Final PRRD Submittal.
Approval of a preliminary PRRD shall expire unless
the applicant submits a proposed final PRRD with all
supporting documents in property form for final ap-
proval within five (5) years after preliminary approval.
Extinguishment of Preliminary Planned Unit
Developments Approved Prior to UDC Adoption,
The applicant or owner of a property subject to a
planned unit development preliminarily approved prior
to the initial adoption date of this Unified Develop-
ment Code (UDC) shall obtain all permits for the de-
velopment of the site within two (2) years of the initial
adoption of this Code. If the applicant fails to obtain
all permits within two (2) years, the approval shall be
extinguished, and no site development permits shall
be issued until the applicant files an application and
obtains approval for a PRRD in accordance with this
Section 3.6.13.
Filing of Final PRRD Plan, Upon review and
approval of a final PRRD, the DCD Administrator
shall return the original to the applicant for recording.
The final PRRD plan shall be filed in accordance with
the applicable procedures provided in Section 7 of
this Code.
Subarea Plans [RESERVED FOR
FUTURE USE]
Unified Development Code
Section 3 - Land Use Districts
December 7, 2000
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
7O
J~fferson County. International Air-
port Subarea Plan (Reserved--see
Comprehensive Plan Policy EPP 2.2)
3.8
Major Industrial Development
[RESERVED FOR FUTURE USE]
3,9
Development Agreements
[RESERVED FOR FUTURE USE]
43
JEFFERSON COUNTY
GUEST LIST
HEARING: Unified Development Code
DATE: Tuesday, December 12, 2000 from 6:00 p.m. to 9:00 p.m.
PLACE: Superior Courtroom
NAME (Please Print) STREET ADDRESS CITY Testimony?
YES NO MAYBE
~uL 4-
JEFFERSON COUNTY
GUEST LIST
HEARING: Unified Development Code
DATE: Tuesday, December 12, 2000 from 6:00 p.m. to 9:00 p.m.
PLACE: Superior Courtroom
NAME (Please Print) STREET ADDRESS CITY Testimon),?
YES NO MAYBE
[ -J I
JEFFERSON COUNTY
GUEST LIST
HEARING: Unified Development Code
DATE: Tuesday, December 12, 2000 from 6:00 p.m. to 9:00 p.m.
PLACE: Superior Courtroom
NAME (Please Print) STREET ADDRESS CITY Testimony?
YES NO MAYBE
A,,.,~ ~"~~~ 1~1 &w,,,~ ;er, ~ . r--x 0 O
~ BOO
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
JEFFERSON COUNTY
GUEST LIST
HEARING: Unified Development Code
DATE: Tuesday, December 12, 2000 from 6:00 p.m. to 9:00 p.m.
PLACE: Superior Courtroom
NAME (Please Print) STREET ADDRESS CITY Testimony?
YES NO MAYBE
Bnn
nBB
BnB
BBn
BBn
nBS
BnB
~nn
nBI3
BBB
nnn
nnB
nnn
F LE
PORT GAMBLE S'KLALLAM TRIBE
NATURAL RESOURCES DEPARTMENT
31912 Little Boston Road NE · Kingston, WA 98346
December 1, 2000
Jefferson County
· Board of County Commissioners
PO Box 1220
Port Townsend, WA 98368
KE: Proposed Uniform Development Code for Jefferson County
Dear Jefferson County Commissioners:
The Port Gamble S'Klallam Tribe has serious concerns with Jefferson County's proposed
Uniform Development Code (UDC). This set of development standards is inadequate
~ and will result in significant adverse impacts to local fish, shellfish, and wildlife
resources on Which our Tribe depends for its cultural and economic well-being. Past
habitat destruction stemming fi:om poor development standards has resulted in closure of
shellfish harvest areas and drastic salmon population.declines, culminating in the listing
of Puget Sound chinook and Hood Canal summer chum under the federal Endangered
Species Act in March 1999. These losses have jeopardized our Tribe's court-affirmed
.treaty rights to fish, and new impacts permitted under the UDC would further erode our
Treaty resources.
Meanwhile, we recognize that the UDC contains significant improvements to the
County's development rules and we do not wish to see these measures weakened as the
planning process moves forward. Fish and wildlife habitats in Jefferson County are
under immediate threat of loss as developers seek to. vest projects before new, more
stringent development regulations go into effect. More protective development codes are
needed now.
Our specific comments are detailed in attached notes. From our review, we conclude that
Jefferson County has:
1. Failed to employ best available science in the development of the UDC, though
this is explicitly required under state law governing GMA planning (RCW
36.70A. 172 and WAC 365-195) and the federal Endangered Species Act.
2. Failed to invest sufficient resources in its regulatory framework, exempted certain
land uses fi:om regulation, and thereby compromised the certainty that habitat for
imperiled fish and wildlife can be adequately protected.
3. Failed to commit to monit6king to provide information on compliance and
effectiveness of UDC protection standards.
As a result of these failures, a regulatory exemption for Jefferson County fi:om takings
liability under the federal Endangered Species Act cannot be justified without substantial'
(360) 297-4792 (360) 478-4583 (206) 464-7281 (360) 297-4791
Phone Bremerton Seattle Fax
changes to the UDC. The UDC represents an historic opportunity to improve public
understanding and compliance with land use laws, and improve the balance between
private property rights and the'need for resource protection. Unfortunately, as currently'
written, the UDC misses this opportunity.
The Port Gamble S'Klallam Tribe looks forward to further discussions on needed
improvements to the UDC with Jefferson County staff. Please direct future inquiries on
this matter to Ted Labbe, Habitat Biologist, at 360-297-6289 or tlabbe~pgst.nsn.us.
Sincerely,
Tribal Chair, Port Gamble S'Klallam Tribe.
CC:
Jefferson County Department of Community Development
Jefferson County Planning Commission
Washington Dept. of Fish and Wildlife
Washington Dept. of Ecology
National Marine Fisheries Service
US Fish and Wildlife Service
Jamestown S'Klallam Tribe
Skokomish Tribe
Point No Point Treaty Council
Hood Canal Coordinating Council
Washington Environmental Council
Northwest Ecosystem Alliance
PORT GAMBLE S'KLALLAM TRIBE
COMMENTS ON PROPOSED UNIFORM DEVELOPMENT CODE
FOR JEFFERSON COUNTY
December 1, 2000
1. General Protection Standards for Environmentally Sensitive Areas:
Scope and Applicability of the ESA District - The treatment of.Environmentally Sensitive
Areas (ESAs) as an overlay district to more effectiVely regulate all activities whether
permitted or not is an improvement in the proposed UDC and this aspect of the Code
should not be compromised. Meanwhile, we regret the withdrawal of the expanded
coverage for ESA project review proposed in an earlier draf~ that would have applied to
all projects within 300 feetof designated ESAs (section 3.6.4.d.). Frequently, activities
in adjacent parcels have impacts on fish and wildlife habitats located off-site. This
provision of the UDc should be restored and the implementing language for protection of
geologically hazardous areas, fish and wildlife habitat areas, and wetlands (sections
3.6.7.b(1), 3.6.8.g(1), 3.6.9.d(1), respectively) should be harmonized to explicitly clarify
that general protection standards (such as drainage and erosion control) are applicable "to
all uses and activities within ESAs, their buffers, or within 300 feet of areas designated as
ESAs unless otherwise exempt."
Creation of Non-Conforming Lots - An important improvement under the proposed UDC
is a prohibition on the creation of non-conforming lots in certain ESAs. However, as
currently proposed .this measure is only applicable to fish and wildlife habitat areas
(FWHAs) under section 3.6.8.e(2). This is a critical measure that should be made
applicable to other ESAs and their buffers such as wetlands and geologically hazardous
areas. Otherwise, there is substantial risk that variances will be used by developers to
locate building sites, access roads, or sewage disposal systems in designated ESAs or
their buffers after an approved subdivision has occurre&
Need for Improved Mapping and Site-Level Review - Many of the map layers Jefferson
County relies on to characterize Environmentally Sensitive Areas (ESAs) are imprecise
and inaccurate. As a result, fish and wildlife habitat is at significant risk fi.om loss and
degradation. In particular, the State Department of Natural Resources water type maps
the County relies on to determine stream buffer requirements are known to be inaccurate
(BaNs and Ereth 1994), and landslide hazard mapping information is not sufficiently '
precise. Jefferson County has made no investments in upgrading these tools, and
apparently has no plans to in the foreseeable future. Moreover, the county lacks
qualified, dedicated staff to review geotechnical reports and habitat management plans,
there is no provision to guarantee peer review of special reports under the UDC, and as a
result, there is a high risk that these tools will be inadequate to protect sensitive areas
from loss and degradation. Without investments in such regulatory tools and sufficient
site-level review, there is little certainty that the provisions of the UDC will be achieved.
The County should have one dedicated, qualified staffperson available to verify ESA
information at the site level, develop mitigation plans for minor projects, and garner peer
review of technical reports where there is insufficient staff expertise.
2. Protection offish and Wildlife Habitat Areas:
Buffer Widths - While the proposed buffer widths for Fish and Wildlife Habitat Areas
(FWHAs) represent an improvement over current rules, the standards are not adequate for
protection of fish and wildlife habitats. Numerous scientific reviews (FEMAT 1993,
Spence et al. 1996, Knutson and Naef 1997) evaluating a range of riparian functions
(snag/large woody debris recruitment, stream shading, bank stabilization, sediment
control, nutrient/pollutant filtration, microclimate control, wildlife habitat, etc.) have
recommended buffers well beyond those outlined under the proposed UDC. By virtue of
their high Productivity and diversity, riparian environments are critical to both aquatic
and upland ecosystems and deserve special protection under any set of development
regulations. Too often, the discussion of what constitutes an adequate buffer has focused
exclusively on riparian functions that maintain in-channel fish habitat and has neglected
wildlife habitat considerations and measures necessary to protect iraportant ecological
functions and processes within the riparian forest itself that sustain these systems. In this
regard, WDFW's Management Recommendations for Washington's Priority Habitats
(Knutson and Naef 1997) provides the most applicable standards for Jefferson County,
designed to protect both fish and Wildlife habitats, as well as the ecosystem processes that
sustain these habitats. This document surveys over 1500 scientific studies and relates
them to Washington's unique geography. A recent law review concluded that this
document constitutes Best Available Science and deserves consideration under local
GMA planning. It is not clear how the County used this important work in their drafting
of the UDC, or whether it was used at all. In brief, Jefferson County has failed to clearly
document how Best Available Science was used in the development of their FWHA
protection standards.
Channel Migration Zones - The importance of protecting channel migration zones
(CMZs) along rivers and streams is now well established; the State's new forest practices
regulations and Shoreline Management Act guidelines include explicit recognition and
protection of CMZs. There is brief mention of increasing buffer widths "where there is
evidence of a migrating stream or river channel" under section 3.6.8.g(7), but then only at
the discretion of the Administrator when (and iff) site-level information is available. As
currently written, default standards call for buffer width measurements from the edge of
the ordinary high water mark (3.6.8.g(5)i.). This is a major deficiency in the proposed
UDC. Default FWHA protection standards should require buffer width measurements
from the edge of the CMZ when present. Furthermore, bank stabilization should not be
allowed within CMZs under any circumstances.
Marine Shorelines - There is no discussion of FWHA buffer requirements along marine
shorelines and it is not clear how the proposed UDC standards will harmonize with
standards proposed under the County's draft Shoreline Master Program update, which are
themselves inadequate. In a review of the scientific literature, Desbonnet et al. (1995)
observed that many of the same functions provided by riparian forests along streams are
also important along marine shorelines (e.g. bank stabilization, shade, organic material
inputs, pollutant removal, etc.) so there is no scientific basis for the exclusion of marine
shorelines from the regulatory scope of the UDC. Until more is known about the values
and functions of riparian forests along marine shorelines conservative standards are
wan'anted, especially given the intensity of land use typical along developed marine
shorelines (e.g. residential development with failing onsite septic systems).
Stream Crossings - While the UDC states that all stream crossings should be discouraged
(section 3.6.8.e(1)), it does not define a strategy or framework to determine how new
roads will be routed across the landscape to avoid stream crossings. As a result, this is a
hollow statement with little likelihood of influencing development of the road network
and minimizing impacts to streams. The requirement that all stream crossings be capable
of passing fish and 100-year flood flows is an important provision that should not be
compromised as this planning process moves forward. Finally, the provisions requiring
downstream passage of large woody debris (LWD) should be strengthened. The
cumulative effects of debris removal at stream crossings throughout watersheds has not
yet been quantified but are likely significant given the density of stream crossings in most
areas and the importance of LWD in the high-energy river and stream environments of
the Pacific Northwest. Abundant LWD is critical to the routing and storage of sediment,
the alteration of flow hydraulics, and the creation and maintenance of complex,
productive fish habitat. In headwater non fish-bearing streams, LWD is no less important
for storing sediment and organic materials, and attenuating flows, with direct benefits to
downstream fish-beating waters. Section 3.6.8.e(1)iv. should be strengthened to read: "In
addition, all crossings shall allow for downstream transport of large woody debris." In
rare circumstances where downstream public safety concerns prohibit the manual passage
of LWD at stream crossings, the County should stockpile LWD for use in local stream
restoration projects and language enabling this role needs to be inserted into the UDC.
Bank Stabilization - While the state Shoreline Management Act exempts bank armoring
to protect single-family residences along shorelines of the state (Type 1 waters), the
County has authority to prohibit inappropriate development where bank stabilization
would be required and this role should be more explicitly defined in the UDC (see
comments below on GHAs). The armoring of stream banks, typically accompanying the
removal of streamside vegetation, destabilizes stream channels resulting in excessive bed
scour, incision, and the loss of productive fish habitat. The armoring of marine bluffs and
shorelines also contributes to habitat loss and degradation through eliminating sediment
recruitment sources and altering beach substrates critical to the maintenance ofnearshore
habitats. Section 3.6.8.e(4) should explicitly prohibit bank stabilization except where
existing homes are threatened, and in these instances it should be allowed only after
alternatives (building relocation, government purchase, bioengineering) have been
thoroughly evaluated.
3. Protection of Geologically Hazardous Areas:
Buffer Widths - The proposed standard buffer width for geologically hazardous areas
(GHAs) of 30 feet is unchanged from the Interim Critical Areas Ordinance adopted May
9, 1994 and is totally inadequate. There are numerous sites in east Jefferson County (e.g.
Discovery Bay) where coastal erosion has resulted in the loss of homes or necessitated
emergency shoreline armoring with attendant loss of critical nearshore marine habitat.
Under the draft UDC standards, at the discretion of the County Administrator, minimum
buffer widths may be increased but this provision requires site-level information that is
typically unavailable before development takes place, a slide occurs, and geo-technical
engineers are hired to recommend bank armoring as a solution (see comments above on
the impacts of bank armoring). This approach needlessly pits the interests of public
safety against environmental protection. A conservative approach is required that
mandates minimum building/impervious surface setbacks from the top of all unstable or
potentially unstable slopes equal to 1.5 times the slope height. Only minor vegetation
removal should be allowed within this buffer (<15% removal of stems over a ten-year
period).
Geotechnical Review - Site-specific geotechnical review is necessary to ensure that all
landslide hazard areas are accurately delineated and default buffer widths are adequate.
As suggested by geologist Len Palmer during the recent Jefferson County Shoreline
Master Program update planning process, geotechnical analysis should be required for all
development proposals within a horizontal distance equal to 2 or 3 times the slope height
of landslide hazard areas, measured from the top of slope.
Drainage Control- Under no circumstances should there be allowance for tight line
drains over marine bluffs (section 3.6.7.b(2)iii.). With adequate marine shoreline buffers
to protect landslide hazard areas (see above), there should be no need for such measures.
This practice is common in areas where waterfront property owners are seeking to
prevent natural bluff erosion, which is critical to beach sediment replenishment and
supply important in maintaining nearshore marine environments. We lack a precise
understanding of how this practice impacts groundwater flows that are likely important
for baitfish spawning in the upper intertidal zone (Pentilla 2000).
4. Stormwater Management Standards:
The UDC proposes to rely exclusively on the Department of Ecology's (DOE)
Stormwater Management Manual (SMM) that prescribes structural Best Management
Practices (BMPs, e.g. stormwater detention ponds) which have been shown to be
inadequate for the prevention of degradation to stream ecosystems (May 1996, Beyerlein
and Brascher 1999, Booth 2000). A large number of studies conducted in urbanizing
Pacific Northwest watersheds over the last two decades illustrate the negative physical,
chemical, and biological consequences of development on stream and wetland
ecosystems ( see May 1996 and Morley 2000 for a review). With the expansion of
development, increases in impervious surfaces and the loss of natural vegetation alter
basin-wide hydrologic regimes, modifying .the frequency, magnitude, and duration of
peak flows (Booth 1991, May 1996). The loss of forest and soil water retention
capacities also reduces groundwater recharge and, ultimately, summer baseflows in small
streams (Hartley and Lucchetti 2000). These development-induced hydrologic changes
have well documented negative impacts on the quality and quantity of salmon habitat
(Moscrip and Montgomery 1997, Booth and Jackson 1997, Homer and May 1999).
Researchers have consistently noted demonstrable negative stormwater impacts to stream
channels in watersheds with greater than 10% effective impervious area and less than
65% native forest cover underscoring the need for a watershed approach (Schueler 1994,
Booth 2000). These thresholds offer watershed managers tangible and defensible
standards with which to limit and condition development. Until an effective means to
monitor impervious surfaces and forest cover by sub-basin has been developed, Jefferson
County should take a precautionary approach by limiting impervious surfaces, requiring
runoff infiltration and dispersion, and requiring forest cover retention on a all parcels (not
just those adding less than 5,000 sq. ft. of impervious area) within a watershed context,
following the approach proposed for Kitsap County.
5. Land Use Exemptions:
Agriculture - The exemption for existing and ongoing agriculture from the ESA
protection standards is a major weakness in the UDC. Since the stated purposes of the
UDC include minimizing environmental impacts of development, encouraging land use
decision-making in accordance with the public interest, and protecting public health, this
exemption is clearly not justified. Agriculture constitutes a major source of non-point
source pollution in the County and across Washington State. Water temperature .
monitoring by the Port Gamble S'Klallam Tribe and others in Chimacum Creek clearly
implicates agriculture in frequent, severe violations of water quality standards (Rubin and
Bahls 1996). In addition, the code exempts stormwater management, irrigation, and
drainage ditch maintenance, which also cannot be justified.
Planned Rural Residential Developments - Responsible stewardship of native ecological
communities should be a primary goal of the planned rural residential development
(PRRD) process. Towards this end, golf course developments should not escape full
SEPA review under the proposed PRRD standards (section 3.6.13.4). Furthermore, golf
courses should not count towards the reserve track requirements; land developers should
be encouraged to locate reserve tracks around sensitive natural features to increase and
augment buffers required under ESA protection standards. As specified under section
3.6.13.11.b, certain development standards should not be modified or altered as part of a
planned rural residential development (PRRD); these include regulations related to
shorelines, ESA districts, non-conforming structures, drinking water, and wastewater
disposal. However, stormwater management standards should also not be negotiable
with PRRD developers. As detailed above, excessive stormwater runoff from improperly
managed areas outside designated sensitive areas can have deleterious effects on stream
ecosystems and trigger landslides. Proper stormwater management standards should be
adhered to under all PRRDs regardless of where the development activity occurs on the
landscape.
Additional Exemptions - In addition numerous other small exemptions exist within the
Code which compromises its protective standards for environmentally sensitive areas.
For example, "ongoing and existing activities (such as lawn and garden maintenance)"
should not be allowed within FWHAs or their buffers (section 3.6.8.d(3)).
6. Monitoring, Enforcement, and Assurances:
Compliance and Effectiveness Monitoring - A major shortcoming of the UDC is the lack
of a monitoring program to determine if'protection standards are being adhered to over
time and whether they are sufficient for preventing harm to sensitive natural features.
This need is particularly acute given the inadequacies of the protection standards outlined
above. To date, Jefferson County has invested no resources in evaluating compliance and
effectiveness of its development codes, and though the County maintains open permit
files it has refused access by Tribal staff to its permit-tracking database to enable such
evaluation (Warren Hart, personal communication). Questions that: need to be evaluated
include: Are projects being completed/built as permitted? Are ESA buffers being
maintained over time? Are Habitat Management Plan provisions being adhered to? How
many variances are issued over time and for which requirements?
Enforcement and Assurances - The allowance for voluntary correction of violations
before formal enforcement actions are taken is important for buildh~g trust and
understanding of development codes, and enabling due process. However, the need for
landowner fairness and due process should be balanced with assurances for the protection
of critical fish and wildlife habitat. The current draft UDC does not achieve a reasonable
balance in this regard. One mechanism to encourage rule compliance and guarantee
protection of environmentally sensitive areas would require parties conducting permitted
activities in or adjacent to ESAs to post bond for two years, with the value tied to the
resource value/risk in question. There are parallels for such a mechanism within the
UDC itself(maintenance bonds for road improvements). Performance guarantees for the
protection fish and wildlife habitats would likely dramatically improve compliance with
the requirements of the UDC.
. References:
Bahls, P. and M. Ereth. 1994. Stream typing error in Washington water type maps for
watersheds of Hood Canal and the southwest Olympic Peninsula. Point No Point
Treaty Council Technical Report 94-2. Kingston, WA.
Bahls, P., and J. Rubin. 1996. Chimacum watershed coho salmon habitat restoration
assessment. Port Gamble S'Klallam Tribe, Kingston, WA.
Beyerlein D., and J. Brascher. 1999. Traditional alternatives: will more detention work?
salmon in the City Conference Papers, sponsored by the American Public Works
Association, Washington Chapter p. 45-8.
Booth, D. B. 1991. Urbanization and the natUral drainage system --impacts, solutions,
and prognoses. Northwest Environmental Journal 7:93-118.
Booth, D. B. 2000. Forest cover, impervious-surface area, and the mitigation of
urbanization impacts in King County, Washington.
Booth, D. B., and C. J. Jackson. 1997. Urbanization of aquatic systems - degradation
thresholds, stormwater detention, and the limits of mitigation. Water Resources
Bulletin 33: 1077-1090.
Desbonnet, A. L., P. Pogue, D. Reis, J. Boyd, J. Wills, M. Imperial. 1995. Development
of coastal vegetated buffer programs. Coastal Management 23: 91-109.
FEMAT (Forest Ecosystem Management Team). 1993. Forest ecosystem management:
an ecological economic and social assessment. Report of the Forest Ecosystem
Management Team, U.S. Government Printing Office 19993-783-071. U.S. GPO for
the USDA Forest Service; USDI Fish and Wildlife Service, Bureau of Land
Management, and National Park Service; UDC NOAA National Marine Fisheries
Service; and US Environmental Protection Agency.
Hartley, D. and G. Lucchetti. 2000. Memorandum to Tri-County ESA Stormwater
Group on forest retention, runoff response, and implications for salmonids.
Homer, R. R., and C. W. May. 1999. Regional study supports natural land cover
protection as leading best management practice for maintaining stream ecological
integrity. Comprehensive Stormwater & Aquatic Ecosystem 1999 conference papers.
Knutson, K. L. and V. L. Naef. 1997. Management recommendations for Washington's
priority habitats: riparian. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Olympia,
WA. 181 p.
May, C.W. 1996. Assessment of cumulative effects of urbanization on small streams in
the Puget Sound lowland eCOregion: implications for salmonid resource management.
University of Washington, Dept. of Civil Engineering, Ph.D. dissertation, 383 p.
Seattle, WA.
Morley, S.A. 2000. Effects of urbanization on the biological integrity of Puget Sound
lowland streams: restoration with a biological focus. University of Washington, M.S.
thesis. Seattle, WA.
Moscrip, A. L. and D. R. Montgomery. 1997. Urbanization, flood frequency, and
salmon abundance in Puget Sound lowland streams. Journal of the American Water
Resources Association 33(6): 1289-1297.
Pentilla, D. E. 2000. Impacts of overhanging shading vegetation on egg survival for
summer spawning surf smelt, Hypomesus, on upper intertidal beaches in northern
Puget Sound, Washington. Draft report, Washington Dept. offish and Wildlife,
Marine Resources Division, La Conner, Washington.
Schueler, T.R. 1994. The importance of imperviousness. Watershed Protection
Techniques 1(3): 100-111.
Spence, B. C., G. A. Lomnicky, R. M. Hughes, and R. P. Novitzki. 1996. An ecosystem
approach to salmonid conservation. TR-4501-96-6057. Man-Tech Environmental
Research Services Inc., Corvallis, OR.
JOE & JOY BAISCH
3485 DOSEWALLIPS ROAD
BRINNON, WA 98320
(360) 796-4886
December 12, 2000
Jefferson County Board of Commissioners
P.O. Box 1220
Port Townsend, WA 98368
Public Comment - Uniform Development Code
Commissioners Harpole, Huntingford and Wojt:
We have reviewed the (UDC) draft dated November 1~,,2000. We are unsure if this is
the final draft; however, no other draft has been made available so we have worked with
the assumption that this was the final version.
We bring to your attention items in chapter 4:
4.17. (1) - The restriction of hours should be removed and an exemption for remote rural
communities other than the West End should be granted if the criteria required in the
Comprehensive Plan LNP6.1.10 are met. Many delivery companies have rural mutes that
are either at the beginning or end of their schedule thereby making a time frame
impractical. A service that requires meeting the varied schedules of workers may find it
necessary to meet after the normal workday or before.
4.17. (w) - Home businesses and cottage industries should be allowed to be.c0mbined
since multiple family members may each conduct a separate entity. LNP6.1.7 allows for
more than one home business and LNP6.2.9 allows for only one cottage industry per
premises but no restriction is identified in the Comp Plan that restricts a combination of
these two categories.
4.20. (d) - Home business and cottage industry_ restrictions on ANY % of space should
be deleted. The Comp. Plan goals and policies are silent on such restrictions. This then is
arbitrary and subjective and unenforceable.
4.20. (f) - This should be deleted completely for the same rationale stated in 4.17. (w)
4.21.1. (a) - 4.211. (b) - 4.21.2. (b) - Each restriction as to the number of rooms in ail
three sections should be deleted since the Comp. Plan and its goals and policies are
silent on any such restrictions. The standard should be the performance standards of the
property
December 12,2000
Jefferson County Board of Commissioners
UDC hearing testimony
Page two
for utilities, parking and those items in LNP6.1.10 and LNP6.2.12. The standards
identified for exceptions are arbitrary and given the required threshold of historical
designations, this can only be met by city of Port Townsend properties. Rural Jefferson
County residents have no opportunity to meet this criteria.
We urge your cooperation in correcting these areas in the UDC's chapter 4.
Unfortunately, our complete review of all the changes and revision items has not been
completed. We would urge you to postpone the adoption of the UDC until the Planning
Commission and public have had an opportunity to complete this review. The process
we feel, could be completed by February 1,2001 if both the public and Planning
Commission were allowed to finish with this current document. This date would still
meet the required deadlines by the County.
bmitted,
Paul Heinzinger
P.O. Box 213
Nordland, WA. 98358
12 December 2000
SEAWATER INTRUSION
Upon arriving at the Public Hearing yesterday 11 Dec. 2000 1 was given a paper entitled
"Staff Suggested Revisions to the Public Hearing Draft". I had attempted to obtain this
paper on Friday 8 Dec. 2000 at the Permit Center. I was told that it was in printing and
would not be completed until yesterday. Nancy ran me a copy of the paper from the
counter copy but upon arriving home I found that the copier had omitted all of the odd
pages. This paper contains a major change in Section 3.6.5.(3) Seawater Intrusion. The
original (3) had been crossed out and a completely new (3) had been inserted that
completely changes the meaning of Seawater Intrusion Areas. In addition a new
protection standard had been inserted in 3.6.5.d.(10). Both of these changes represent
significant changes in addressing Seawater Intrusion.
How can the board say the public has had sufficient notice when notice of this substantial
change wasn't even distributed until just hours before the public hearing? Numerous
Marrowstone residents went to the "BOCC Public Meetings to discuss the UDC" where
this subject was discussed in detail by Mr. Christensen and Mr. Alverez. What was
placed in the UDC at that time represented what Mr. Christensen had presented.
Sometime early last week before 6 December 2000 this material was changed and not
presented to the public until yesterday.
The subject of Seawater Intrusion has been a concern of the Marrowstone Island residents
for a long time and certainly does not represent the position advocated by Mr.
Christensen in his paper "Briefing Paper on Seawater Intrusion" dated 1 November 2000.
In addition a number of island residents attended a staff question and answer meeting on
a recent Saturday where this specific subject was discussed in detail and at that time we
were told that position advocated by Mr. Christensen was what was going to be put in the
UDC. Also it was stated that Mr. Alverez worked with Mr. Christensen in developing
this paper and concurred.
Does this constitute a new method of getting around giving due notice before a Public
Hearing???? This is notification that sufficient notice has not been given to properly
address a subject of this magnitude with the attention it requires.
Olympic
Environmental Council
P.O. Box 1906, Port Townsend, WA
Fax (360)379-8442
98368
12-11-00
Jeff. Cnty. Board of County Commissioners
Port Townsend, WA.
OEC offers the following suggetions prior to the adoption of the UDC The citizens are poorly
served without an adopted code. Jefferson County was required to have a code within six months
after adoption of the comp plan; we are now at 18 months and and over a quarter of a million
dollars in just the last six months and without adequate review by the planning commission and the
citizens. It is imperative that we adopt a code consistent with our Comprehensive Plan and the
Growth Management Act. We have brought you a bibliography of the "best available science" and
a proposal to hold some parts of the proposed document in reserve.
Best Available Science: we assert that designated critical areas overlay all other land uses and must
be given primary consideration in any planning or permitting. We propose that the county develop
a method to review and update permitting in concurance with best science. We are submitting a
bibliography of the most current "best available science" so that the implementation of this code
reflects the appropriate minimum requkements for protection of critical areas including channel
migration zones and habitat for wildlife species. We support the staffs recommendation of the
inclusion of sea water intrusion considerations and we encourage the use of best management
practices to prevent sea water intrusion. The county should have a comprehensive ground water
characterization study which includes hydraulic continuity with surface and sea water.
We incorporate by reference the comments submitted by the Washington Environmental Council
that were provided during the official review period.
We recommend that the following sections be put in reserve for more thorough review:
Sec. 4.35 Small-Scale Recretion and Tourist Uses: the characterization of small-scale tourist related
actiivities actually seems to meet the definition of low density sprawl which is to be avoided
hccording to comp plan policy. This section should be put in reserve so that planning groups in
e county can review the impacts to their rural residential areas and make recommendations to the
Planning Commission and the BOCC. There must be an effective public process so that tax
payers concur with the impacts and costs - there is no more expensive land use than low density
sprawl. The Community Planning Department must implement a system to prevent cumulative
impacts of development which contribute to the loss of habitat and critical areas.
~ee Section 8:Administrative a?thority: the broad authority given is without precedent in this state.
w.e .su.ggest. the BOCC adopt the recommendations of the Planning Commission concerning
.aanumstrat~ve approval. The flexibility in standards under the proposed administrative authority
~s unpredictable, requires invasive monitoring, is not consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, is
not economical, is arbitrary and capricious, and allows piecemeal changes and exceptions which
degrade existing land use designations.
Planned Rural Clusters: this clustering proposal must designate that the open space tracts and
affordable housing are held in perpettfity. As currently written it appears that within 20 years we
will no longer need affordable housing. All open space including golf courses must be held in
perpetuity. The restrictions establishing open space must be enforceable and must be defined in
and enforced through the UDC.
Olympic
Environmental
P.O. Box 1906, Port Townsend, WA 98368
Fax (360)379-8442
Council
OEC views code adoption as a requirement to move forward. We need clarity, consistency and
public process all of which must be the hall mark of such a document as it is refined and
improved. Without a UDC we cannot amend our comprehensive plan. And we cannot afford the
costs involved with an "interim" designation.
Thank you for your attention,
Julie Jaman
Board, Olympic Environmental Council
]2-12-00
..¢/-II'Ji fEIlflE
marine diesel
2730-B Washington Street
Port Townsend, WA 98368
(360) 379-8344
To: The Board of County Commissioners
JeffErson County
Port Townsend WA.
Subject: UDC approval. Written testimony
Gentleman:
I would like to submit comments on the UDC draft of 11-16-00. I have been on the EDC
board now tbr fbur years. I was also on the team that created the original dratt of the
economic component of the comprehensive plan. Presently I am on an EDC sub-
committee to review the UDC. The time line you have created tbr the final review is not
realistic. We are quite aware of the time your staff'has spent on this document. 1
encourage you to slow the process and allow another 60 days betbre approval. There are
many board members concerned about the implementation of this document. The
wording of the document is subject to a wide variety of interpretations. We would ~e the
time to submit a verity of scenarios to the planning department, and have the planning
department pick a site fbr each. We would like to be convinced that it is possible to
attract business here. I would also like to remind you that the broader the economic base,
the less likely you will need to raise taxes.
Thank you for your time,
Mark Jochems, Owner
Shoreline Marine Diesel Inc.
To: Jefferson County Board of Commissioners
Richard Wojt, Dan Harpole, and Glen Huntingford
Re: Unified Development Code
December 12, 2000
The emphasis of this letter and my testimony tonight is to ask you, the Board of County Commissioners, our elected officials, to delay
the adoption of the current draft of the UDC. After studying this document, and after attending many of the planning commission
meetings that were held to review former drafts, it is quite apparent to me that this document is not ready to be introduced as the code
to which all land use activity in the county is to be governed. Section by section and page by page, this document introduces so many
layers of regulation that if passed, the already daunting task of residential and economic development will be virtually impassible.
It was stated in yesterday's public hearing that the land available for positive economic development in Jefferson County accounts for
only one-one-thousandth of one-per-cent of all the lands in Jefferson County. Most of that land is within the city limits, is
predominantly tourist and service related development, and is reaching the point of development saturation. Some areas, which are
currently moving or are on hold for mb-area planning, would, if approved, open up more available land for economic development in
reasonably compact areas throughout the county. There has not yet been an affirmative decision made on any of these areas, which
include Glen Cove, the Tri-Area, and the Brinnon-Quilcene area. In an article in last weeks paper, it was noted that the planning
department staff warns that if the UDC is not adopted by the 18th of December, due to limited staffing resources, progress could be
delayed on the further study of the sub-area plans and the UGA. With all due respect to the planning department, this statement seems
less of a concern and more of a threat. And when you consider the overly regulatory nature of the UDC, this statement is even more
unnerving. If you pass this current draft of the UDC, I am afraid that, given the bureaucratic nature of politics in Jefferson County, and
the not so clear time frame for the adoption of any UGA or sub-area plans, we will be forced to deal with the ove~urdening
regulations of the UDC for economic development options throughout the county.
Does the UDC address the need for the promotion of economic development in the form of family wage jobs for the young families of
Jefferson County? I believe not. As stated earlier, if you consider the layering affects of the different regulatory sections of the UDC,
there will not be any opportunity for businesses who wish to relocated and bring jobs to our county, or for businesses that are currently
here that wish to expand. When you take into consideration the different overlay maps and districts that would govern under Section
3.6, especially the Environmentally Sensitive Areas, and then you apply the regulations under the Shoreline Management Act and the
Stormwater Manual, along with the provisions under Section 6 on Development Standard, and then look at lots on non-conformity
which are mentioned throughout the UDC which take some of our only economically productive lands and revert them back to rural
residential zoning, I believe that you would be hard pressed to find any land at all that could be developed to support any form of
family wage based employment oppommity.
The health and well being of county depends on the diversity of its citizens. Young and old, rich and poor, we are all-important parts
of what makes a community a good community. The current draft of the UDC will make it extremely difficult for family wage earners
to stay here. Wage earners with young school age children provide an important part to the equation of diversity in a community. If
you adopt the UDC in its present form, opportunities for good paying jobs and tax base stabilization through appropriate business
recruitment into our area will be lost at the expense of the diversity of our county. We need to have a living community in as much as
a livable community.
I urge you to not adopt the November 16~ Draft of the UDC, but to instead, work with the different citizen advisory boards, groups,
and chambers throughout the county who have been working hard to find a way to make the UDC a sensible and practical document
that we can all live with. It is not responsible to play eleventh hour politics with a document that could cause or contribute to
economic hardship for all of the residence of Jefferson County. My wife and I were attracted to Jefferson County by its physical
beauty and by what we saw, and still see as a county having oppommities for responsible growth. Please be responsive to the needs of
all our county citizens and allow for more thoughtful deliberation, consideration, and revision to this current draft of the UDC.
Sincerely,
Mark L. Grant
Vice President, Port Hadlock/Tri-Area Chamber of Commerce
President, Grant General Contracting, Inc.
Derek Stacey Thompson
2600 Center Road
Chimacum, Wa 98325
Phone: (360) 732 4421
e-mail: stace~olympu.s.net
December 12, 2000
Board of Commissioners
Jefferson County
1820 Jefferson Street, P.O. Box 1220
Port Townsend, Wa 98368
Dear Sirs:
The process by which the draft Unified Development Code was developed is faulty in
two important ways. First, considering the significance and far reaching consequences of
this ordinance, there has been insufficient opportunity for public comment. I have been
told that some people will always complain about the number and nature of hearings.
That may be, but it in no way diminishes the validity of these complaints.
Secondly, the schedule was compressed to the point that the Planning Commission did
not have sufficient time to complete the review and discussion of the draft Unified
Development Code. It is my view that the timetable programmed the Planning
Commission to fail. Was it deliberate? The Planning Commission provides an important
citizen review and discussion of development ordinances. The Planning Commission
was encouraged by planning staff and one county commissioner to focus only on the
more "important" aspects of the draft UDC. To do so would have forced the
Commission to forgo review and discussion of most of the document. An inadequate and
incomplete review would have been a disservice to the Board of County Commissioners,
the Planning Staff and the citizens of Jefferson County. In the end, the Planning
Commission had completed so little of its work that they were forced to conclude that
they were not able provide a report to the Board of County Commissioners.
I urge you not to approve the Uniform Development Code until the Planning Commission
and Citizens have had sufficient opportunity to comment on this important document.
Sincerely,
People for a Liveable Community
PO Box 667
Port Townsend, WA 98368
Official Comment for the UDC Public Hearing Process
Jefferson Board of County Commissioners
Jefferson Courthouse
Port Townsend, WA 98368
Dec. 12, 2000
Dear Commissioners,
People for a Liveable Community wants to formally encourage the BOCC to adopt the
UDC on Dec. 18, 2000.
· The Board made a top priority of funding and finishing the UDC work this year.
· No money is budgeted for working on the UDC in 2001. In fact, the Planning
Department is being cut 10%. $141,960 have already been paid to Earth Tech.
County planning staff has committed hundreds of hours to the process. Make these
tax dollars count. Pass the UDC now. There is no guarantee that funds will be
available next year.
· The Planning Commission can continue reviewing the document and make
recommended changes in 2001. The Commission is not being stifled. In my opinion,
3 members of the Planning Commission consistently slowed the process of review.
They made speeches for months, about not having enough time, instead of efficiently
DOING the review. I attended over half of the UDC Planning Commission meetings
and witnessed their filibustering, first hand.
· The UDC is fairly easy to amend. Adopt now, and improve the document over time.
· The Western Washington Growth Management Hearings Board was quite shocked to
learn, at the Sept. 2000 hearing held in Port Townsend, that our County STILL has no
adopted UDC, 2 ½ years after adoption of our Comprehensive Plan. It is time to
comply with state law.
In addition, PLC has the following specific comments regarding the UDC:
1)
Please set aside section 4.35 "Small Scale Recreation and Tourist Related
Businesses" for further, future consideration. Place it in reserve. The UDC
expands cottage industry and home business options. Let these act as business
incubators while section 4.35 goes through more careful review and consideration.
Here are the problems with the current language on 4.35:
According to Earth Tech and County Planners, no other County in Washington State
has adopted a provision regarding small-scale recreation/tourist businesses in rural
residential zones. If Jefferson County wants to break ground, do so with a defensible
provision.
· Please tum to page 21, Chapter 2 of the UDC, and read the definition of"sprawl, low
density". It describes a pattern of development which section 4.35 will encourage.
· Repeatedly, our Comprehensive Plan calls for "predictability" in land use regulations.
Provision 4.35 means that rural residents would have no ability to predict what type
of commercial operation might be sited next to their home.
· In a formal meeting Dec.7th between A1 Scalf, Warren Hart, and People for a
Liveable Community, Director A1 Scalf admitted that this provision appears to be an
end-run around the GMA.
· At the same meeting, Scalf also agreed that the provision as written could well
politicize conditional use permit decisions on small scale business applications
because a) no criteria are spelled out, b) nor are there any guidelines for evaluating
cumulative impact and c) no guidelines to evaluate at what point clusters of small
scale tourist related businesses on residential rural lands becomes low level sprawl.
· The provision provides no definition for what "relies on a rural location or setting"
means in real terms. PLC finds it inappropriate to consider mini golf or mechanical
amusement parks as businesses which rely on rural locations. In fact, those
businesses are most often found in urban settings. Our land use tables preclude
libraries in rural residential zoning, but would allow the noise and impact of an
amusement park? This section has not been thoroughly analyzed and reviewed for
potential impacts.
· This provision, as written, would allow hotels and cabins in a quantity which really
constitute major resorts, rather than small-scale, family-run type operations. The
multiplication of number of hotel units per 10 acres of land is not in keeping with
encouraging "small scale" businesses.
· As written, 4.35 converts every rural residential parcel, 5 acres or larger into a
potential commercial site. On main highways, it converts every lot of record into a
potential commercial site. This constitutes "anti-zoning". It works against the heart
of GMA.
· IN SUMMARY, please set aside section 4.35 for now. Put it on reserve. Next year,
hold discussions and then public hearings in each planning area, so that rural residents
may determine what level of impact they are willing to accommodate next to their
homes.
2)
3)
Conditional Use Permits: the current wording allows the Planning Administrator to
make conditional use decisions without going to a public hearing. This is a broad,
new power. It will further politicize the planning department. To protect the public
interest, please ADD: A public hearing shall be required if 5 or more comment
letters (pro and/or con) on a single project are received by the Communi ,t'y
Development Department~ within the comment period.
Note: this recommendation was made by the Planning Commission, but not
incorporated by the Planning Staff. Please make this change.
PIRD's: hold the line on bonus densities in the new clustering ordinance. Under
pressure from developers, the numbers keep jumping up, from one UDC draft to
another.
-- Require affordable housing to remain so, in perpetuity, to receive the bonus.
- Require that reserve tracks (environmentally sensitive areas, open space,
agricultural lands, golf courses, etc.) be protected in perpetuity. Otherwise we
will be granting density bonuses with no long-term advantage to the public. As
an example, in September, the Western Washington Hearings Board mentioned how
odd it was that the Bailey's Comp. Plan Amendment was passed last year, with no
guarantee to the County that they would preserve the golf course in perpetuity.
Rectify this problem, now and into the future, by protecting reserves in perpetuity, in
the UDC.
-- Consider increasing the number of affordable housing units required to get a
density bonus.
-- Perhaps grant a greater bonus in direct proportion to the number of affordable units
designated in the project, to increase motivation to build affordable units.
-Disallow golf courses in agricultural lands. You need only look at Sequim and the
Dungeness Valley to see how golf courses displace farmland.
4)
In the Use Tables, Light Industrial Zones: please remove mini-storage as a permitted
use. Instead, grandfather the existing storage businesses. Prevent the infill of our
limited light industrial lands with mini-storage. Such businesses provide too few
living wage jobs relative to the space they occupy.
5)
Stream Buffers: We encourage you to be assertive in your attempts to help salmon
recover. Washington State uses buffers of 250'. Adopt that standard. Human
activity along streams has devastated salmon runs. Help turn this crisis around. Be
bold. Be visionary.
6) We support the Staff's last minute inclusion of salt-water intrusion language. We
prefer BMP's be added now. Please adopt the text submitted by Colette Kostelec.
We have appreciated the many opportunities for public input. We compliment the
County Planning Staff. Thank you for your time and attention.
Sincerely,
Freida Fenn
People for a Liveable Community
1033 Old Blyn Highway, Sequim, WA 98382
360/683-1109 FAX 360/681-4643
December 12, 2000
Jefferson County
Board of Commissioners
PO Box 1220
Port Townsend, WA 98368
Re: Proposed Jefferson County Uniform Development Code (UDC)
Dear County Commissioners:
Below are our comments to the proposed UDC. While this draft represents an improvement over
current code, it does not contain the level of environmental protection needed to restore salmon to
fishable levels in country streams and rivers. Also of concern is continuing negative impacts to
shellfish and wildlife populations, all of which Jamestown S'Klallam Tribal members depend on
both culturally and economically.
Stronger development standards are needed now. We recommend these standards be adopted
now as an interim measure; with the technical comments from Port Gamble S'Klallam Tribe and
Jamestown S'Klallam Tribe and others be incorporated at a future date into a environmentally
stronger final rule.
Mineral Resource Lands District (MRL), section 3.6.3.f- the MRL should exclude mineral
extraction in geological hazard or frequently flooded areas.
ESA-we support protection of Environmentally Sensitive Areas (ESA). In an earlier draft of the
UDC, the ESA was defined as a 300 ft zone. The current draft has dropped this definition in
favor of the designated buffer. The 300ft zone should be restored. For example, the streamside
buffers (Table 32) are the minimum buffers necessary to create fish habitat in streams. These
buffers are inadequate for many species of wildlife. The 300 ft zone allows areas with high
wildlife diversity or use to receive additional protection.
We disagree with the blanket exemption for agriculture. Agriculture is a primary factor for the
destruction of salmon habitat and as such plays a key role in habitat restoration. The streamside
buffers should be applied to agriculture with provisions that encourage their participation in
CREP or state programs. The conservation district is the local agricultural expert in this arena.
A hearings examiner may hear variance requests for development in ESA's (section 3.6.4.i and j).
There is no prohibition on environmental degradation due to development; instead the section
uses unenforceable language such as "minimize" or "minimum feasible." This is a large loophole
for developers; all they have to do is show the best economic benefit with modest environmental
protection and the heatings examiner will be required to rule in their favor. Section 4.6.4.j
should read: "The proposed variance will result in no impairment to the ESA's functional
characteristics, vegetation, fish and wildlife resources, and hydrological conditions."
is the lack of qualified or available personnel to review and enforce habitat management plans
and geotechnical reports. This remains a problem, and compromises the ability of the Jefferson
County to enforce its UDC.
Geologically Hazardous Areas (GHA), clearing and grading- there are two problems with this
section, first restricting cleating in GHA's to the dry season offers little environmental protection
(3.6.7.3.i.A). We recommend that prior to any clearing, the applicant demonstrate with a
geotechnical report that their cleating operations will not degrade other types of ESA's. Second,
as it is written, the applicant can first clear their land and then submit a project application. This is
not protective; no cleating should be allowed prior to project approval.
Fish and Wildlife Habitat Areas (FWHA)- Streamside buffers are a contentious issue. The
buffers listed in Table 32 would be barely adequate to create in-channel fish habitat if they were
measured from the edge of the 100-year floodplain or Channel Migration Zone. As currently
defined from Ordinary High Water Mark, they are inadequate. The buffers are also inadequate to
protect many wildlife species, as outlined in WDFW Management Recommendations for Priority
Habitat. Rivers and streams create floodplains through channel movement and sediment
deposition during floods. The buffer should start at the edge of channel activity; instead the
buffer starts at the edge of a bank (whether that bank is 10 years or 1000 years old). Channels
and their floodplains are dynamic; our regulations should recognize this and protect citizens by
not allowing development in these areas and in the buffers surrounding these areas.
A very important absence in FWHA buffers is marine shorelines. Why were saltwater shorelines
and lakes greater that 20 ac removed from 3.6.8.a.27 Jefferson County's Shoreline Management
Plan is in draf~ form; it is unclear how development will be regulated on marine shorelines.
Bank stabilization is a major contributor to the decline of fish habitat over the past 40 years (see
section 3.6.8.4). Encouraging bioengineering solutions is a good first step. Allowing building
only in stable areas (ie not on floodplains, atthe top of unstable shorelines, etc.) is ultimately the
answer. The UDC falls short of the second objective. Currently the standard buffer for GHA is
30f~. In some areas, marine shorelines have eroded greater than 30fi, necessitating bank
stabilization projects. As a society we poorly account for development costs to the environment;
yet it is this development that has contributed to the decline of salmon. Over the long nm, the full
cost to taxpayers and the environment is much lower if we stay out of sensitive areas. This
section should clearly require a county permit for any bank stabilization project.
Monitoring-where is the monitoring program to determine if the code is being followed
(compliance) or the regulations adequate to protect the resource (effectiveness)? If a variance is
extended or a habitat management plan developed in an ESA, Jefferson County should require a
performance bond be posted for a given period to assure the applicant follows their plan.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment.
Best Regards,
Cc: Ann Seiter, Natural Resources Director Jamestown S'Klallam Tribe
JetTerson C;ounty Democrc~flc Central C;ornrnlt~ree
~Tefferson County Board of Commissioners
County Court House
Port Townsend, WA
December 11, 2000
bear commissioners:
The ~Tefferson County Democratic Central committee (,TCD¢¢) wishes to enter this letter
into the record in the Uniform Development Code (UbC) public hearing process. By a
unanimous vote the 3¢b¢¢ urges the Board of County commissioners to adopt the UD¢ as an
official county ordinance upon the completion of the hearing process. You have been urged
by some to delay your decision and by others to pass the UD¢ as an Emergency ?nterim
Ordinance. We believe delay would be irresponsible given the length and depth of the public
process up to this point. And if adopted as an Emergency Interim Ordinance, that action
may preclude public challenges while allowing changes by the B0¢¢ at will. We do not feel
either of these courses of action would serve the community. We need the guidance and
certainty of this ordinance to implement the Comprehensive Plan after nearly ten years of
process and delay.
While there may be flaws in the proposed ordinance, there will always be opportunities to
fine tune the document as it proves its strengths and weaknesses. We support changes to
the specific sections of the UD¢ as may be deemed necessary to the effectiveness and
continuity of the document, by the BOCC. However, we do not support delaying its adoption
in any case.
We feel that the current BOC¢ and Planning Commission have already done the difficult and
detailed work on this ordinance and are much better suited to its timely adoption than would
be likely under a new BOCC dynamic. History tells us that passing on the responsibility for
closure of these processes tends to result in further delays, huge cost overruns, and legal
actions that further cost the county money and staff resources. We sincerely believe
there is no better time for full adoption of the UDC than now, and urge you to do what you
have promised the people you would do. Please adop~' the UDC os an official ordinance.
Patience ;. Rogge
Chairwoman
December 12, 2000
Jefferson County Board of County Commissioners
Richard Wojt, Chair
Glen Huntingford
Daniel Harpole
Re: 12-12-00 Public Hearing on the Draft Jefferson County Unified Development Code
The following comments are directed toward the possible revision of UDC Section 6.5
and Table 6-1 as regards Rural Village Center building and lot sizes.
Table 6-1 identifies a maximum commercial building size as 20,000 square feet
regardless of lot size or the number of businesses within the building. Although this
restriction was intended to prevent the siting of K Mart type businesses, it also stops
multiple use buildings and viable grocery stores. It is recommended that language be
adopted to allow a 40,000 square foot building so long as no single business occupied
more than 20,000 square feet or is a grocery store.
Table 6-1 regulates the subdivision of commercial property by the mapped
development density. Current rules appear to limit minimum lot size for subdivision to
a minimum of 3 acres. If this is in fact true, the rule does not allow the concentration
of commercial uses in Rural Village Centers with inefficient and excessive land area
requirements.
In summary, the changes to commercial building and lot size would promote the goals of
the GMA by concentrating business near the center of Rural Village centers.
Yours very truly
Russell I. Tillman
Colette M. Kostelec, P.E.
P.O. Box 2085
Port Townsend, WA 98568
Phone & Fax: (360) 379-3115
kostelec~olypen, com
December 12, 2000
Jefferson County Board of County Commissioners
1820 Jefferson Street
Port Townsend, WA 98368
RE: UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE
Dear Commissioners,
I strongly urge you to adopt the Unified Development Code (UDC) now.
When I joined the Planning Commission over two years ago it was my specific intent to help the
County draft and adopt development regulations to implement the County's recently adopted
Comprehensive Plan. No one has been more frustrated than me over the lack of progress to that
end in the last two years. But finally, after many months and more money spent than I care to
think about, we finally have a product that allows us to move forward. Do not stifle this progress
by refusing to adopt the UDC or by adopting it only as an "emergency" interim ordinance.
The UDC is not perfect - it never will be. You have been hearing comments that the Planning
Commission hasn't had time to thoroughly review and deliberate upon the draft UDC. The
Planning Commission did conduct a public process. We had five workshops in which staff and
the consultant walked us through the major highlights and issues needing consideration. We
took public comment at two hearings and held four meetings for deliberation. The lack of
serious deliberation on the part of the Planning Commission had less to do with time availability
and more to do with the lack of ability of the Planning Commissioners to stay focused on the
major issues. Instead we wasted considerable time getting bogged down in minutia and
complaining about the lack of time available. Even after submittal of our recommendations to
the BOCC, we could have continued meeting to review more sections of the draft UDC. Instead,
the Planning Commission failed to pass a motion to continue that effort.
Will the UDC be a better document for additional Planning Commission deliberation? To me
that's questionable, since the one major issue that I was able to get the Planning Commission to
agree to in their recommendations to you regarding Conditional Discretionary permit processing
was not accepted. But I understand that that is the difference between an advisory Planning
Commission and a legislative Board of County Commissioners.
No further Planning Commission deliberation or public process will ever allow you to abdicate
your responsibility to adopt development regulations. You have had the oppommity to hear and
read and digest staff and public comments made on the various drafts of this document over the
last six months. You must stick to the commitment you made to this County to follow through
with implementation of the Comprehensive Plan by adopting the UDC.
I have attached to this letter suggestions regarding changes to the draf~ UDC, some of which can
be made prior to its adoption and some of which recommend placing certain sections on reserve
status for further work. I hope you give these comments serious consideration.
Please, do the right thing. Do the job we pay you to do. Adopt the UDC now. Thank you.
Sincerely,
Colette M. Kostelec, P.E.
SUGGESTED REVISIONS TO UDC
Submitted by Colette M. Kostelec
December 12, 2000
The Small Scale Recreation and Tourist Uses Section of the UDC (Section 4.35) should
be put on reserve status. Although this is a concept that has been approved by the State
Legislature, it has not been adequately developed in the draft UDC. No other county in
the state has implemented this land use concept - we don't have to be the first.
The lack of criteria upon which to determine whether a use truly "relies on a rural
location and setting" and the lack of limitations to how many of these uses can be located
in any one area, essentially results in all of the County's rural residential lands greater
than 5 acres being open for commercial development. That is unacceptable.
A citizens advisory committee should be formed with members from every Planning
Area to discuss how, when, where and what sort of small scale recreation and tourist uses
are appropriate. Their recommendations can then be brought forward to the Planning
Commission and BOCC for review and approval as a Comprehensive Plan amendment.
With this UDC we are adopting new regulations allowing for cottage industries and home
based businesses in rural residential areas. Let's start with that and continue to work on
the applicability of small scale recreation and tourist uses in Jefferson County.
Putting this section on reserve does not jeopardize the applicability of any other section
of the UDC and therefore is not essential to adopt at this time.
If you leave this section in the adopted UDC, you should, as a minimum, change Table 3-
1 to reflect that these uses should be full-blown conditional uses, processed as Type III
permits.
I support the staff-recommended changes dated December 7 to the Critical Aquifer
Recharge section of the UDC. However, after five years of opportunity to implement this
section of the Interim Critical Areas Ordinance, I am dismayed at the lack of commitment
by the Environmental Health Department towards a program of consistent data collection
and mapping of seawater intrusion areas and implementation of controls to prevent its
spread in Jefferson County. In an effort to make this effort easier for the county staff and
the public to understand, I would like to suggest the following simplification of how
seawater intrusion areas are classified and delineated and the following best management
practices that could be readily implemented by the County in such areas.
Susceptible Seawater Intrusion Areas include those areas within one-half mile radius
of wells demonstrating chloride concentrations greater than or equal to 50 rng/1.
Vulnerable Seawater Intrusion Areas include those areas within one-half mile radius
of wells demonstrating chloride concentrations greater than or equal to 100 mg/l or
wells demonstrating chloride concentrations between 50 and 100 rog~1 yet show a
trend towards increasing chloride levels.
-1-
SUGGESTED REVISIONS TO UDC
Submitted by Colette M. Kostelec
December 12, 2000
Where there are indications that chloride levels observed in ground water quality
analyses reflect connate water and are not related to or influenced by current coastal
saltwater bodies, such chloride levels shall not be used in determination of seawater
intrusion area boundaries. The following criteria may be used to differentiate
between connate and non-connate chloride sources: one sample will be collected fro
laboratory analysis of major cations and anions. At a minimum, the analysis will
include the following constituents: chloride, sulfate, total phosphate, nitrate + nitrite,
total alkalinity, calcium, iron, magnesium, potassium, silica, sodium, and bromide.
Evaluating the proportions of these constituents in groundwater relative to sea water
will determine whether the chloride level is a result of connate or non-connate
chloride sources.
The Jefferson County Environmental Health Division shall develop and implement a
program for:
a. procedures and regulations to collect chloride concentrations, specific
conductance readings, well location and elevation for all new wells
constructed in Jefferson County;
b. monitoring and statistical evaluation protocol for existing wells located within
Susceptible Seawater Intrusion Areas;
c. collection and statistical evaluation protocol for groundwater quality
monitoring that is being performed by Group A and Group B system
operators;
d. receiving and analyzing new data in order to continually assess the condition
of the aquifers; and
e. creating maps and updating them at least annually of Susceptible Seawater
Intrusion Areas and Vulnerable Seawater Intrusion Areas.
The Jefferson County Environmental Health Division may charge fees consistent with
the cost of delivering the program.
Vulnerable Seawater Intrusion Areas shall be considered Critical Aquifer Recharge
Areas.
The following protection standards shall apply to all Susceptible Seawater Intrusion
Areas:
a. Notice to Title of all properties identifying such properties as within an area
with potentialproblemsfrom seawater intrusion.
b. For areas where a public water supply has been installed to provide a potable
water source, all existing individual groundwater wells will be abandoned in
accordance with State Department of Health procedures.
c. Mandatory installation of a flow meter on all new wells, and as a requirement
for all future county permit approvals for sites with existing wells.
-2-
SUGGESTED REVISIONS TO UDC
Submitted by Colette M. Kostelec
December 12, 2000
o
d. Mandatory limitation on pump rate of no more than 3.5 gallons per minute on
all new wells and as a requirement for ali future county permit approvals for
sites with existing wells.
e. Mandatory upgrade to low flow fixtures for all triggering permits at sites with
existing wells.
f Prohibition on sprinkler and spray irrigation systems.
In addition to the protection standards for Susceptible Seawater Intrusion Areas, the
following protection standards shah apply to all Vulnerable Seawater Intrusion
Areas:
a. Prohibition on all subdivisions.
I strongly urge you to remove all of the footnotes from Table 3-1 that serve to mm all
existing non-conforming uses into permitted uses within the zones in which they
presently exist. That is not supported by any Comprehensive Plan goals or policies.
It is very questionable as to whether Best Available Science (BAS) has been utilized in
the development of streamside buffers (Sections 3.6.8). Given the ESA listing of salmon
and the potential impacts of that action to the County, I believe that we should take a
conservative approach to riparian buffers in the UDC. As more research is done into
BAS and the specific situations with which we are dealing in this county, these numbers
can then be modified. But, if damage is done due to inadequate protection, it will be
expensive or impossible to correct.
Section 3.6.9.c(2)iv should be deleted. This section allows waivers of the requirement to
perform a wetland delineation by putting the burden on County staffto essentially
perform such a delineation. Unless there are certified wetland specialists on staff at the
County, this responsibility should be left where it belongs - with the developer.
The changes made in the December 7 draft document regarding uses in the Airport
Essential Public Facility District (Section 3.6.11) essentially defer approval of such uses
to those allowed by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). I have not seen any
documentation from staff as to what the FAA would allow. The BOCC should review
that information carefully prior to agreeing to this staff/Port of Port Townsend
recommendation to ensure that such uses are consistent with our airport district.
Although I believe it was the intent of staff, the criteria in Section 3.6.13.10.d for
allowing bonus densities in PRRDs does not make it clear that the design elements that
provide such a public benefit as to justify the additional density must be provided in
perpetuity. Additionally, if the property is currently zoned Agriculture, the reserve tract
must be preserved for agricultural uses.
I would like to respectfully ask that you reconsider the recommendation by the Planning
Commission regarding the processing of Conditional Discretionary permits (Section
-3.
SUGGESTED REVISIONS TO UDC
Submitted by Colette M. Kostelec
December 12, 2000
8.8.4). I understand that the intent of these Cd uses was to minimize unnecessary
process. As the UDC is currently written, the Administrator is required to treat a Cd use
as administrative unless he/she thinks there might be potentially significant issues which
justify processing it as a Type III permit. A better approach (as recommended by the
Planning Commission) would be to consider these Cd uses as full-blown conditional
(Type III) uses unless the Administrator can make findings that there are no significant
issues involved and that five or fewer comments have been received based on the public
notice.
o
Although I strongly discourage you from taking such an approach, if you decide not to
adopt the UDC at this time, or adopt it only as an emergency interim ordinance, you must
also:
a. agree that no Comprehensive Plan amendments will be considered until such time
as a final UDC is adopted; and
b. commit sufficient resources (staff and money) to the work necessary to prepare a
document which will receive your eventual approval; and
c. set a timeline for completion (one that you can live with) of a final UDC.
-4-