HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Agenda Packet 03-20-2019Jefferson County Planning Commission
MEETING AGENDA
Tri-Area Community Center
March 20, 2019
P: 360-379-4450
621 Sheridan St. F: 360-379-4451
Port Townsend WA 98368 plancomm@co.jefferson.wa.us
Deliberation, Potential Action and Regular Business
5:30pm Welcome (chair) and Overview Presentation
•Call to Order/Roll Call
•Approval of Agenda
•Approval of previous Meeting Minutes, if available
5:35pm Observer Comment
See Observer Comment Conduct, below.
6:00pm Regular Business
•MLA19-00009 Review and deliberate on the draft UDC amendments relating to
amending development regulations
o Planning Commission motion and vote on MLA19-00009
o Review and approve GMA findings for recommendations to the Board of
County Commissioners and authorize Chairman to execute transmittal letter
for MLA19-00009
•Update on Annual Amendment Docketing Process
•Discuss Potential Updates to Bylaws7:30pm
Adjournment
Thank you for coming and participating in your government at work!
Observer Comment Conduct: When the Chair recognizes you to speak, please begin by stating your name
and address. Please be aware that the observer comment period is …
1) An optional time period dedicated to listening to the
public, not a question and answer session. The Planning
Commission is not required to provide response;
2) Offered at the Chair’s discretion when there is time;
3) Not a public hearing – comments made during this time
will not be part of any hearing record;
4) May be structured with a three-minute per person time
limit.
621 Sheridan St.
Port Townsend WA 98368
P: 360-379-4450
F: 360-379-4451
plancomm@co.jefferson.wa.us
Jefferson County Planning Commission MEETING MINUTES
Tri-Area Community Center
February 21, 2018
Page 1 of 2
Please note, these minutes are intended to provide a summary of meeting decisions and except for motions made, should not be relied upon for specific statements from individuals at the meeting. If the reader would like to hear specific discussion, they should visit Jefferson County’s website at: https://wa-jeffersoncounty.civicplus.com/580/Planning-Commission and listen to the audio file (to assist in locating information, time stamps are provided along the left side of the page). Call to Order at 5:30 pm
ROLL CALL
District 1 District 2 District 3 Staff Present Coker: Present Koan: Present Vacant: Jochems: Present Sircely: Excused Smith: Present Hull: Excused Nilssen: Excused Giske: Present Patty Charnas, DCD Director Nicole Allen, DCD Office Coordinator
Facilitator: Cynthia Koan Approval of Agenda: Agenda approved (0:01:18) Approval of Minutes: Minutes for February 7, 2018 approved. Public in Attendance: 15 COMMISSIONER ANNOUNCEMENTS 0:03:47 – Jochems Announced that county farmers plan to hold a meeting on Thursday, March 1 from 6-8 pm at the Chimacum Grange regarding the Comp Plan. 0:04:50 – Coker Announced that the Port Townsend Home Show will occur Saturday, March 3 from 9-5 pm at Blue Heron Middle School. DIRECTOR UPDATES 0:07:16 – Charnas Gave updates about: consultant helping with the Comp Plan; Planning Manager recruitment; Planning Commission vacancies, and 2018 meeting dates. A Planning Commission vacancy is open in District 1 and terms are expiring for existing planning commissioners in Districts 2 & 3. It was recommended that expiring Planning Commissioners indicate their interest in being reappointed in a letter soon.
PUBLIC COMMENT (first opportunity) 0:15:55 – 0:20:50 The Chair opened the floor to public comment on topics not related to the agenda items and one person spoke. DISCUSSION 0:53:57 – Giske A discussion on the Pleasant Harbor Master Planned Resort (MPR) occurred. Topics included the preparation of a Planning Commission comment letter on the development agreement; on the timing of development regulation adoption relative to the agreement; on tribal treaty rights and affected tribes; on Hood Canal shellfish resources; and on environmental impact statements. Giske read into the record a proposed letter to be addressed to the Board of County Commissioners. Planning Commission members discussed the different points.
621 Sheridan St.
Port Townsend WA 98368
P: 360-379-4450
F: 360-379-4451
plancomm@co.jefferson.wa.us
Jefferson County Planning Commission MEETING MINUTES
Tri-Area Community Center
February 21, 2018
Page 2 of 2
MOTIONS 0:13:34 Motion to approve proposed Planning Commission meeting dates for 2018. Moved: TG; Seconded: LS. Yay: 5; Nay: 0; Abstained: 0. Motion carried. 0:53:21 Motion to enter into discussion in this meeting and future meetings regarding Pleasant Harbor Master Planned Resort. Moved: TG; Seconded: MJ. Yay: 4; Nay: 1; Abstained: 0. Motion carried. PUBLIC COMMENT (second opportunity) 1:41:40 – 2:05:24 The Chair opened the floor to public comment on topics related to the agenda and nine people spoke.
FOLLOW-UP ITEMS 2:06:48 – Koan The Planning Commission will continue to discuss the Pleasant Harbor MPR Development Agreement at the 03/07/18 meeting. Next Planning Commission meeting is scheduled for 03/07/18 at 5:30 pm at the Tri-Area Community Center. Adjourned at 7:37 pm These meeting minutes were approved this ____________ day of ___________________________, 2019. __________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________ Michael Nilssen, Chair Nicole Allen, PC Secretary/DCD Office Coordinator
621 Sheridan St.
Port Townsend WA 98368
P: 360-379-4450
F: 360-379-4451
plancomm@co.jefferson.wa.us
Jefferson County Planning Commission MEETING MINUTES
Tri-Area Community Center
May 2, 2018
Page 1 of 1
Please note, these minutes are intended to provide a summary of meeting decisions and except for motions made, should not be relied upon for specific statements from individuals at the meeting. If the reader would like to hear specific discussion, they should visit Jefferson County’s website at: https://wa-jeffersoncounty.civicplus.com/580/Planning-Commission and listen to the audio file (to assist in locating information, time stamps are provided along the left side of the page). Call to Order at 5:34 pm
ROLL CALL
District 1 District 2 District 3 Staff Present Coker: Present Koan: Present Vacant: Jochems: Present Sircely: Present Smith: Excused Hull: Present Nilssen: Present Giske: Excused Patty Charnas DCD Director Austin Watkins, DCD Planning Manager Joel Peterson, DCD Lead Associate Planner Nicole Allen, DCD Office Coordinator
Facilitator: Cynthia Koan Approval of Agenda: Agenda approved (0:01:29 Part 1) Approval of Minutes: 04-18-18 and 04-19-18 minutes approved
Public in Attendance: 8
COMMISSIONER ANNOUNCEMENTS 0:02:22 Part 1 – Nilssen Expressed gratitude for Joel’s patience, follow-up and direction concerning his efforts on the Comp Plan.
DIRECTOR UPDATES 0:03:58 Part 1 – Charnas Presented Gary Felder, former Planning Commission member, with certificate of appreciation.
PUBLIC COMMENT 0:08:23 – 0:12:15 Part 1 The Chair opened the floor to public comment and two people spoke.
DISCUSSION & MOTIONS0:12:15 – 2:52:40 Part 1 Reviewed “Working List of Proposed Edits to the Public Review Draft for Deliberation” 0:00:00 – 2:18:35 Part 2 of the draft Comp Plan and Code update and offered motions as described in attached “Motions Matrix.”
FOLLOW-UP ITEMS2:18:35 Part 2 – Koan None. Next Planning Commission meeting is scheduled for 05/09/18 at 5:30 pm at the Tri-Area Community Center. Adjourned at 11:00 pm These meeting minutes were approved this ____________ day of ___________________________, 2019.
Michael Nilssen, Chair Nicole Allen, PC Secretary/DCD Office Coordinator
621 Sheridan St.
Port Townsend WA 98368
P: 360-379-4450
F: 360-379-4451
plancomm@co.jefferson.wa.us
Jefferson County Planning Commission MOTIONS MATRIX
2018 Draft Comprehensive Plan and Code Updates
May 2, 2018
ID
#: Page Line
Sponsoring
Committee
Member:
Motion:
Yay Nay Abstain
1 1-14 8 Hull Move to approve line 8 as written with the addition of “if designated” at the end of “aquaculture resources” and updated reference to page 2-14. 6 0 0
2 1-31 9 Coker Move to approve line 9 as written. 6 0 0
3 1-31 10 Coker Move to approve deletion of “build green” and replace with “Built Green Washington.” 6 0 0
4 1-31 11 Koan Deferred
5 1-33 12 Coker Move to approve line 12 as written. 6 0 0
6 1-59 13 Sircely Move to approve line 13 as written. 6 0 0
7 1-82 14 Hull Move to add Policy LU-P-15.3 as written minus the word “Jefferson County Clean Water District.” 6 0 0
8 1-83 15 Hull Withdrawn.
9 1-83, 1-84 16 Coker Move to strike Policy LU-P-16.8 due to redundancy. 6 0 0
10 1-85 17 Koan Move to approve line 17 as written. 6 0 0
11 1-88 18 Koan Move to add language to current policy LU-P-20.2 as written on line 18, amended to say, “Continue the ongoing planning discussions with the City of Port Townsend regarding infrastructure and boundaries of the Glen 6 0 0
621 Sheridan St.
Port Townsend WA 98368
P: 360-379-4450
F: 360-379-4451
plancomm@co.jefferson.wa.us
Jefferson County Planning Commission MOTIONS MATRIX
2018 Draft Comprehensive Plan and Code Updates
May 2, 2018 Cove Light Industrial/Commercial District and examine alternative solutions, such as Large On-Site Sewage Systems (LOSS).”
12 1-109 19 Coker Deferred.
13 1-110 20 Hull Move to approve line 20 as written. 1 4 1
14 1-116 21 Coker Policy LU-P32.1 & 32.2 add “NEW” to the end.
15 2-11 23 Sircely Move to approve line 23 as written. 6 0 0
16 2-23 24 Hull Move to delete NR-P-8.7. 1 4 1
17 2-23 25 Coker Move to approve line 25 as written, noting updated reference to NP-P-8.6. 6 0 0
18 2-24 26 Sircely Move to approve line 26 as written. 6 0 0
19 2-24 27 Coker Withdrawn.
20 2-24 28 Hull Motion dies for lack of 2nd.
21 2-24 29 Koan Move to approve line 29 as written and add it to the language of policies ED-P-4.1 through 4.3. 5 0 1
22 3-12 31 Sircely Move to approve line 31 as written. 6 0 0
23 3-14 32 Coker Move to approve line 32 as written, amended to say “community land and housing trusts” and change “RV Parks” to “Residential Parks.” 5 1 0
24 3-14 33 Koan Deferred.
621 Sheridan St.
Port Townsend WA 98368
P: 360-379-4450
F: 360-379-4451
plancomm@co.jefferson.wa.us
Jefferson County Planning Commission MOTIONS MATRIX
2018 Draft Comprehensive Plan and Code Updates
May 2, 2018
25 3-15 34 Koan Move to approve line 34 as written, amended to say “for a period of 40 years” after the words, “housing units.” 3 3 0
26 3-16 35 Coker Withdrawn.
27 4-8 38 Koan Move to approve as written, amended to read, “Work collaboratively with public and private groups and individuals and tribes to develop a financially sustainable, high quality, diversified open space system, including trail network linkages, that preserves and enhances significant environmental resources and features.” 6 0 0
28 4-9 39 Koan Move to approve line 39 as written. 6 0 0
29 4-9 40 Koan Move to approve line 40 as written. 1 4 1
30 4-11 41 Koan Move to approve line 41 as written. 5 0 1
31 4-12 42 Hull Withdrawn.
32 5-12 44 Giske Move to approve line 44 as written. 6 0 0
33 5-25 45 Coker Move to approve combining 7.2 and 7.3 in the following way: “Evaluate all options and consider different scenarios, including retreat to deal with the impacts of sea level rise and storm surge in Jefferson County.” 5 1 0
34 5-26 46 Koan Move to add, “Preserve and protect” at the beginning of the title and replace the word “unique” with “distinctive” land forms to the end of EN-G-9. 4 1 1
35 5-26 47 Jochems Move to adding back EN-P-9.11, which was formerly ENP 7.7. “Encourage protection of unique geologic sites, conditions, and values, including 6 0 0
621 Sheridan St.
Port Townsend WA 98368
P: 360-379-4450
F: 360-379-4451
plancomm@co.jefferson.wa.us
Jefferson County Planning Commission MOTIONS MATRIX
2018 Draft Comprehensive Plan and Code Updates
May 2, 2018 locations of unique scientific interest, such as fossil locations and special mineral and rock locations.”
36 5-26 & 27 48 Coker Move to approve line 48 as written. 6 0 0
37 5-27 49 Coker Move to strike 10.1 6 0 0
38 5-29 50 Coker Move to strike EN-P-12.8 6 0 0
39 5-30 51 Koan Move to approve line 51 as written. 5 0 1
40 5-31 52 Hull Move to strike EN-P-15.7 & 15.8 6 0 0
41 5-31 53 Giske Move to approve line 53 as written. 0 4 2
42 5-32 54 Hull Move to approve line 54 as written. 4 2 0
43 5-33 55 Giske Motion dies for lack of a 2nd.
44 6.1 57 Koan Move to approve line 57 as written. 6 0 0
45
6-6 58 Koan Move to approve line 58 as written, amended to strike “Growth Management Act requires the” and “of a comprehensive plan to” and make “include” “includes.” The rest of the first paragraph stays intact; the second proposed paragraph is stricken. Correct the word “improvedments.” 6 0 0
46 6-19 59 Koan Move to approve line 59 as written. 6 0 0
47 7-12 61 Koan Move to approve line 61 as written. 1 3 2
48 7-20 62 Coker Move to approve line 62 as written. 6 0 0
621 Sheridan St.
Port Townsend WA 98368
P: 360-379-4450
F: 360-379-4451
plancomm@co.jefferson.wa.us
Jefferson County Planning Commission MOTIONS MATRIX
2018 Draft Comprehensive Plan and Code Updates
May 2, 2018
49
7-20 63 Koan Move to approve line 63 as written amended to strike “a cooperative study” and amended to add “non-motorized facilities and multi-purpose trails” instead of “non-motorized multi-purpose trails.” 6 0 0
50 7-20 64 Coker Withdrawn.
51 7-22 65 Coker Move to strike ED-P-3.4 5 0 1
52 7-22 66 Koan Withdrawn.
53 7-22 67 Coker NOTE: Staff to review line 67.
54 7-22 68 Koan Move to approve line 68 as written amended to say, “…enhancement of non-motorized facilities.” 6 0 0
55 7-23 69 Koan Move to approve line 69 as written, amended to say, “as well as recreational tourism.” 3 2 0
56 7-23 70 Koan Move to approve line 70 as written. 5 0 1
57 7-23 71 Koan Move to approve line 71 as written. 5 0 1
58 7-23 72 Koan Withdrawn.
59 7-25 73 Koan Motion dies for lack of a 2nd.
60 8-29 75 Coker Move to approve line 75 as written. 6 0 0
61 8-39 76 Coker Move to approve line 76 as written. 6 0 0
62 p.7 78 Nilssen Note: change “mitigation fees” to “impact fees” or other appropriate term or include definition.
621 Sheridan St.
Port Townsend WA 98368
P: 360-379-4450
F: 360-379-4451
plancomm@co.jefferson.wa.us
Jefferson County Planning Commission MOTIONS MATRIX
2018 Draft Comprehensive Plan and Code Updates
May 2, 2018
63 Xvi 2 Koan Move to approve line 2 as written, amended to read “wisely growing” instead of “smartly growing” and omitting “focusing in-fill within existing.” 2 3 1
64 Xvi 3 Koan Note: Staff to review.
65 Xvii 4 Koan Move to approve line 4 as written. 5 0 1
66 Vision 5 Koan Withdrawn.
67 Definitions 6 Koan Withdrawn.
1 All Goals 2 Koan Move to approve line 2 as written. 2 2 2
2 TOC 3 Koan Move to approve line 3 as written.
3 Relocation 7 Koan Move to approve line 7 as written. 5 0 1
4 Relocation 8 Koan Move to approve line 8 as written. 5 0 1
5 3-1 15 Koan Move to approve line 15 as written.
JEFFERSON COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
621 Sheridan Street | Port Townsend, WA 98368
360-379-4450 | email: PlanComm@co.jefferson.wa.us
http://www.co.jefferson.wa.us/580/Planning-Commission
1 - DRAFT
DRAFT
To: Board of County Commissioners
From: Planning Commission
Date: March 2_, 2019
Subject: Planning Commission recommendations on proposed amendments to the Unified
Development Code, Title 18 relating to Planning Commission Review of Development
Regulations – MLA19-00009
Honorable Commissioners Dean, Sullivan, and Brotherton:
The Jefferson County Planning Commission is pleased to transmit to the Board of County Commissioners
our recommended draft ordinance modifying Title 18 JCC relating to Planning Commission Review of
Development Regulations. The findings and recommendations presented in this transmittal, were
approved with a unanimous vote of the Planning Commission on March 20, 2019. This report
summarizes the process and the work product related to the proposed ordinance.
Process
On January 28, 2019, the Jefferson County Board of Commissioners (BoCC) referred this
proposed Unified Development Code (UDC) amendment to the Planning Commission for review, public
hearing, and recommendation. Currently, Jefferson County Code (JCC) 18.45.090 provides a process to
amend all sections of the UDC including those that implement the goals and policies of the County’s
Comprehensive Plan (development regulations) and those that address administrative processes and
procedures (procedural issues). The amendment process, as currently written, requires all amendments,
whether substantive development regulations or procedural issues, to be brought before the Planning
Commission for a review and recommendation to the BoCC. Under Washington state laws and
regulations, development regulations are the controls placed on development or land use activities.
Development regulations do not include ordinances or regulations that addresses administrative
processes and procedures related to land use planning, interim or emergency ordinances, moratorium
ordinances, or remand actions from state administrative boards or courts of law.
Consistent with the Growth Management Act (GMA) and Planning Enabling Act (PEA), Jefferson
County has established public participation processes relating to the development of comprehensive
plans and their associated development regulations (Local Review Process). This Local Review Process
requires that development regulations to be brought before the Planning Commission for a public hearing,
review, and a recommendation to the BoCC. Neither the GMA nor the PEA require that procedural issues
be considered by the Planning Commission. The limited time afforded for important work of the Planning
Commission should be focused on review of development regulations, not procedural issues. In addition,
more expeditious changes to procedural issues will enable DCD to be more responsive to customer
needs without impacting compliance with the GMA or the PEA. Accordingly, the BoCC directed DCD to
work with the Planning Commission to amend the UDC to separate the review of procedural issues from
the review of development regulations.
To accomplish the separation, the proposal will rename the UDC’s “implementing regulations” to
“development regulations” to be consistent with state law and similarly situated Washington counties. The
proposed amendments require compliance with JCC Chapter 18.45 Comprehensive Plan and GMA
Implementing Regulations, which require a Planning Commission public hearing and recommendation to
the Board of County Commissioners.
PC Recommendations
Ordinance Modifying Title 18 JCC – MLA19-00009
To Board of County Commissioners
2 - DRAFT
If adopted by the BoCC this proposal will treat procedural or non-development regulation
amendments as a Type V legislative process without Planning Commission review or hearing. The BoCC
will hold its own public hearing, deliberate on the proposal, and take legislative action on the proposal.
Public Hearing
The Planning Commission held a public hearing, accepting verbal and written testimony, on the proposed
draft UDC amendments MLA19-00009 on March 6, 2019. The comment period was February 20 until
March 8, 2019. No verbal testimony or written comments were received.
Proposed Amendments to Unified Development Code
1. Summary of Proposed Amendments
1. JCC 18.05.050 Planning Commission – Duties and responsibilities (1) & (2) to remove “land use
ordinances” and include “development” to specify which regulations are required for Planning
Commission review.
2. JCC 18.10.040 D Definitions – to enhance definition to “development regulations.”
3. JCC 18.40.040 Project permit application framework – to amend Table 8-1 to clarify the types of
amendments, and Table 8-2 Action Types – Process to clarify the role of the Planning
Commission in amendment review.
4. JCC Chapter 18.45 Comprehensive Plan and GMA Implementing Regulations – to replace
“implementing” with “development.”
5. JCC 18.45.010 Amendments – Purpose and introduction – to include “Development Regulations”
in the amendment process, as Type V legislative process without Planning Commission review.
6. JCC 18.45.090 Amendments to GMA implementing regulations – to replace “implementing” with
“development,” and include a revised definition of development regulations.
Note: only code sections with proposed changes are listed below, not the entire code section.
2. Duties and Responsibilities
18.05.050 Planning commission – Duties and responsibilities.
The duties and responsibilities of the planning commission shall be as follows:
(1) The planning commission shall review the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan and other planning
documents to determine if the county’s plans, goals, policies, development regulations are promoting
orderly and coordinated development within the county. The commission shall make recommendations
concerning this to the board of commissioners.
(2) The planning commission shall review development regulations of the county and make
recommendations regarding them to the board of commissioners.
PC Recommendations
Ordinance Modifying Title 18 JCC – MLA19-00009
To Board of County Commissioners
3 - DRAFT
3. Defintions (underlines are additions and strikethroughs are proposed deletions)
18.10.040 D definitions.
“Development regulation or regulations” means the controls placed on development or land use
activities, including, but not limited to, zoning ordinances, critical areas ordinances, shoreline master
programs, official controls, planned unit development ordinances, subdivision ordinances, and binding
site plan ordinances together with any amendments thereto. A development regulation does not include a
decision to approve a project permit or project permit application, as defined in RCW 36.70B.020, even
though the decision may be expressed in a resolution or ordinance of the legislative body of the county
(RCW 36.70A.030(7). However, for the avoidance of doubt, a development regulation does not include
ordinances or regulations that address administrative processes and procedures related to land use
planning, interim or emergency ordinances, moratorium ordinances, or remand actions from state
administrative boards or courts of law.
4. Amendment Process (underlines are additions and strikethroughs are proposed deletions)
Chapter 18.45
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND GMA DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS AMENDMENT PROCESS
18.45.090 Amendments to GMA development regulations.
18.45.010 Amendments – Purpose and introduction.
(1) Purpose. The purpose of this chapter is to establish procedures for amending the Jefferson County
Comprehensive Plan, and Development Regulations, defined for the purposes of this chapter as including
the plan text and/or the Land Use Map. The Growth Management Act (GMA, Chapter 36.70A RCW)
generally allows amendments to comprehensive plans no more often than once per year, except in
emergency situations. This chapter is intended to provide the following:
(3) Planning Commission Role. The Jefferson County planning commission is an advisory body that shall
make recommendations to the county commissioners on all Comprehensive Plan matters, including
amendments to the plan text and Land Use Map, development regulations and subarea plans.
18.45.090 Amendments to GMA development regulations. (underlines are additions and
strikethroughs are proposed deletions)
(1) Initiation. The text of the County’s development regulations (RCW 36.70A.030(7)), may be amended
at any time, provided the amendment is consistent with the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan and
Land Use Map. When inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan and Land Use Map, the amendment
shall be processed concurrent with any necessary plan amendments using the process and timelines for
plan amendments set forth in this chapter. Proposed amendments, changes, or modifications to
development regulations may be initiated as follows:…
PC Recommendations
Ordinance Modifying Title 18 JCC – MLA19-00009
To Board of County Commissioners
4 - DRAFT
(2) Notice.
(a) Proposed amendments to the development regulations pursuant to subsection (1) of this section
which must be processed concurrently with an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan and Land Use
Map shall be processed and noticed in the same manner as plan amendments consistent with this
chapter.
(b) Notice of any hearing on amendments to the development regulations generated by DCD staff, the
board of county commissioners or the planning commission outside of the annual Comprehensive Plan
amendment process shall be given by one publication in the official newspaper of the county at least 10
days prior to the date of the hearing and by posting a copy of the notice of hearing in the Jefferson
County Courthouse.
(3) Planning Commission Review. The planning commission shall hold a public hearing on any
amendment(s) to the development regulations and shall make a recommendation to the board of county
commissioners using the site-specific criteria set forth in JCC 18.45.080(1)(b) and (1)(c), as applicable.
(b) If after applying the criteria set forth in JCC 18.45.080(1)(b) and (1)(c), as applicable, the board of
county commissioners concludes that a change in the recommendation of the planning commission is
necessary, the change shall not be incorporated until the board conducts its own public hearing using the
procedures set forth under JCC 18.40.310. The hearing shall be noticed by one publication in the official
newspaper of the county at least 10 days prior to the date of the hearing, and by posting copies of the
notice of hearing in the Jefferson County Courthouse. The notice and public hearing for proposed
amendments to development regulations may be combined with any notice or public hearing for proposed
amendments to the Comprehensive Plan or for other actions of the board of county commissioners.
(5) Transmittal to State. The administrator shall transmit a copy of any proposed amendment(s) to the
development regulations at least 60 days prior to the expected date of final action by the board of county
commissioners, as consistent with Chapter 36.70A RCW. The administrator shall transmit a copy of any
adopted amendment(s) to the implementing regulations to OCD within 10 days after adoption by the
board.
PC Recommendations
Ordinance Modifying Title 18 JCC – MLA19-00009
To Board of County Commissioners
5 - DRAFT
5. Project permit application framework. (underlines are additions and strikethroughs are proposed
deletions)
18.40.040 Project permit application framework.
Table 8-1. Permits – Decisions
Project permit application framework.
Table 8-1. Permits – Decisions
Type I (1) Type II Type III Type IV Type V
Minor amendments to
planned rural residential
developments (PRRDs)
under JCC 18.15.545
Cottage industries under
JCC 18.20.170
Shoreline substantial
development permits for
secondary uses, and
conditional and variance
permits under the
Jefferson County
Shoreline Master
Program (SMP)
Amendments to
development
regulations
Road access permits
under JCC 18.30.080
Discretionary conditional
use permits under JCC
18.40.550(2) [i.e., listed
in Table 3-1 in JCC
18.15.040 as “C(d)”]
unless Type III process
required by administrator
Conditional use permits
under JCC 18.40.550(3)
(i.e., uses listed in Table
3- 1 in JCC 18.15.040 as
“C”)
Master plans for master
planned resorts
Sign permits under JCC
18.30.150
Minor variances under
JCC 18.40.670(1)
Major variances under
JCC 18.40.670(2)
Amendments to the
Unified Development
Code
1 If not categorically exempt pursuant to SEPA, Type I projects shall be subject to the notice requirements of JCC 18.40.150 through
18.40.220 and Article X of this chapter (the SEPA integration section).
Table 8-2. Action Types – Process
PC Recommendations
Ordinance Modifying Title 18 JCC – MLA19-00009
To Board of County Commissioners
6 - DRAFT
Project Permit Application Procedures (Types I-IV) Legislative
Type I Type II Type III Type IV Type V
Recommendation
made by:
Project
planner
Project planner Project planner N/A Planning commission1
Final decision
made by:
Administrator Administrator Hearing examiner Board of county
commissioners
Board of county
commissioners
Notice of
application:
No Yes Yes No N/A
Open record
public hearing:
No Only if administrator’s
decision is appealed,
open record hearing
before hearing
examiner
Yes, before hearing
examiner, prior to
permit decision by
the hearing
examiner
No Yes, before planning
commission to make
recommendation to
board of county
commissioners1
Closed record
appeal/final
decision:
No No No N/A Yes, or board of county
commissioners could
hold its own hearing
Judicial appeal: Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes2
1Type V land use actions are subject to review and recommendation by the planning commission, except for utility plans, ordinances or regulations that address procedural issues related to land use planning, interim or
emergency ordinances, moratorium ordinances, or remand actions from state administrative boards or courts of
law.
2Pursuant to RCW 36.70A.250 and 36.70A.280, the Western Washington Growth Management Hearings Board
(WWGMHB) is authorized to hear and determine petitions alleging that the county is not in compliance with the requirements of Chapter 36.70A RCW, Chapter 90.58 RCW as it relates to the adoption of the Shoreline Master
Program, or Chapter 43.21C RCW as it relates to plans, development regulations, or amendments, adopted
under RCW 36.70A.040 or Chapter 90.58 RCW. Direct judicial review may also be obtained pursuant to RCW
36.70A.295.
Required Findings
In support of this recommendation for the Comprehensive Plan and UDC amendments, the Planning
Commission enters the following findings and conclusions: (staff suggested)
I. Required findings; adapted from JCC 18.45.080 (1)(b)(i-iii)
(i) Have circumstances related to the proposed amendment and/or the area in which it is
located substantially changed since the adoption of the Jefferson County Comprehensive
Plan?
The Planning Commission finds that the Comprehensive Plan’s implementing regulations
(Title 18, Jefferson County Code / Unified Development Code) require amendments to
ensure consistency with State Law and other County jurisdictions, improve usability, and
implement process improvements. Circumstances have changed in that new information
and limited resources create a compelling need to requiring these amendments.
(ii) Are the assumptions upon which the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan is based no
longer valid; or is new information available which was not considered during the
adoption process or any annual amendments of the Jefferson County Comprehensive
Plan?
The Planning Commission finds that new information relating to defining and amending
development regulations is available, which were not considered during recent
amendments to the Comprehensive Plan, but will more easily implement certain goals and
policies of the Comp Plan.
PC Recommendations
Ordinance Modifying Title 18 JCC – MLA19-00009
To Board of County Commissioners
7 - DRAFT
(iii) Does the proposed amendment reflect current, widely held values of the residents of
Jefferson County?
The Planning Commission finds the proposal reflects currently widely held values of a fair,
responsive, and efficient permitting process, reflected in Comprehensive Plan Goal LU-G-
14 and Policy LU-P-14.1 “Develop and maintain implementing regulations and internal
policies that ensure that development applications are processed in a timely, fair, and
predictable manner.”
II. Required Findings from JCC 18.45.050(4)(b)(i) through (4)(b)(vii)
Growth Management Indicators
i) Is growth and development as envisioned in the Comprehensive Plan occurring faster or
slower than anticipated, or is it failing to materialize?
The Planning Commission does not have recent data to support a finding that
development is occurring faster or slower than anticipated in the Comprehensive Plan.
The Comprehensive Plan was adopted in December 2018 and no new data is available yet;
however, growth occurred slower than anticipated during the last Comprehensive Plan
periodic review and update cycle.
ii) Has the capacity of the county to provide adequate services diminished or increased?
The Planning Commission finds that the capacity of the County to provide adequate
services has not diminished or increased relating to this proposal.
iii) Is there sufficient urban land, as designated and zoned to meet projected demand and need?
The Planning Commission finds there is sufficient urban land as designated and zoned to
meet projected demand and need.
iv) Are any of the assumptions upon which the plan is based no longer found to be valid?
The Planning Commission finds that all assumptions in the Comprehensive Plan are valid.
v) Are there changes in the county-wide attitudes? Do they necessitate amendments to the
goals of the Comprehensive Plan and the basic values embodied within the Comprehensive
Plan Vision Statement?
The Planning Commission finds that the county-wide attitudes have not changed since the
last updated adoption of the Comprehensive Plan in December 2018.
vi) Are there changes in circumstances which dictate a need for amendment to the
Comprehensive Plan?
The Planning Commission finds that changes in circumstances, and new information
require the proposal, which updates the Comprehensive Plan’s implementing development
regulations, but not the Comp Plan goals and policies.
PC Recommendations
Ordinance Modifying Title 18 JCC – MLA19-00009
To Board of County Commissioners
8 - DRAFT
vii) Do inconsistencies exist between the Comprehensive Plan and the GMA or the
Comprehensive Plan and the Countywide Planning Policies for Jefferson County?
The Planning Commission finds that there are no inconsistencies between the
Comprehensive Plan, GMA, and County-wide Planning Policies.
III. Additional Findings from JCC 18.45.080(1)(c)(i-vii)
I. The proposed site-specific amendment meets concurrency requirements for transportation and
does not adversely affect adopted level of service standards for other public facilities and services
(e.g., sheriff, fire and emergency medical services, parks, fire flow, and general governmental
services);
The Planning Commission finds that this is not applicable to the proposal. The proposal is
not site-specific.
II. The proposed site-specific amendment is consistent with the goals, policies and implementation
strategies of the various elements of the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan;
The Planning Commission finds that the proposal, while not a site-specific amendment is
consistent with the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan. The proposal clarifies
definitions, and the process to amend code, which is consistent with Comprehensive Plan
Goal LU-G-14 and Policy LU-p-14.1.
III. The proposed site-specific amendment will not result in probable significant adverse impacts to
the county’s transportation network, capital facilities, utilities, parks, and environmental features
that cannot be mitigated, and will not place uncompensated burdens upon existing or planned
service capabilities;
The Planning Commission finds that the proposal does not result in probable significant
adverse impact county’s transportation network, capital facilities, utilities, parks, and
environmental features.
IV. In the case of a site-specific amendment to the Land Use Map, that the subject parcels are
physically suitable for the requested land use designation and the anticipated land use
development, including, but not limited to, the following:
a. Access;
b. Provision of utilities; and
c. Compatibility with existing and planning surrounding land uses;
The Planning Commission finds that this criteria is not applicable to the proposal.
V. The proposed site-specific amendment will not create a pressure to change the land use
designation of other properties, unless the change of land use designation for other properties is
in the long-term best interests of the county as a whole;
The Planning Commission finds that the proposal will not create pressure to change the
land use designation of other properties. The proposal clarifies definitions and processes
to amend development and non-development regulations.
VI. The proposed site-specific amendment does not materially affect the land use and population
growth projections that are the bases of the Comprehensive Plan;
The Planning Commission finds that the proposal does not materially affect the land use
and population projects that are the bases of the Comprehensive Plan. The proposal
PC Recommendations
Ordinance Modifying Title 18 JCC – MLA19-00009
To Board of County Commissioners
9 - DRAFT
clarifies definitions and processes to amend development and non-development
regulations, and is not related to population growth projections in any way.
VII. If within an unincorporated urban growth area (“UGA”), the proposed site-specific amendment
does not materially affect the adequacy or availability of urban facilities and services to the
immediate area and the overall UGA;
The Planning Commission finds that this criteria is not applicable to the proposal.
VIII. The proposed amendment is consistent with the Growth Management Act
(Chapter 36.70A RCW), the County-Wide Planning Policy for Jefferson County, any other
applicable inter-jurisdictional policies or agreements, and any other local, state or federal laws.
The Planning Commission finds that the proposal, while not a site-specific amendment is
consistent with the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan, GMA, the Jefferson County
county-wide Planning Policies, and other applicable regulations, rules, or statutes. The
proposal clarifies definitions and processes to amend development and non-development
regulations,
[end of required findings]
Recommendation
Based upon formal deliberation concerning these proposed amendments reviewed under MLA19-00009,
the Planning Commission submits these findings and recommendations for consideration by the Board of
County Commissioners to accept and approve the proposed UDC text amendments.
The Planning Commission wishes to thank the Board for the opportunity to work in our communities and
bring forward these recommendations. We look forward to working with the Board on the implementation
projects that follow from the Comprehensive Plan’s goals and policies.
Transmitted File Location
The transmitted files that accompany these finding and recommendations are located in the Community
Development Laserfiche repository, accessible with the following web link: http://test.co.jefferson.wa.us/weblinkexternal/browse.aspx?dbid=0
Sincerely,
____________________________________
Michael Nilssen
Planning Commission Chair
1 | P a g e
JEFFERSON COUNTY
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
621 Sheridan Street | Port Townsend, WA 98368
360-379-4450 | email: dcd@co.jefferson.wa.us
http://www.co.jefferson.wa.us/260/Community-Development
Staff Report and Recommendation on UDC Amendment
Chapter 18.45.090 Comprehensive Plan and GMA
Implementing Regulations Amendment Process
To: Jefferson County Planning Commission
From: David Wayne Johnson, Associate Planner
Department of Community Development (DCD)
Date: February 25, 2019
Re: Proposed Unified Development Code (UDC) amendments to Jefferson County
Code (JCC) Chapters 18.05, 18.10, 18.40, and 18.45 and proposed
amendments to the Planning Commission Bylaws regarding the scope and
definition of development regulations (MLA19-00009/ZON19-00004).
Executive Summary
On January 28, 2019, the Jefferson County Board of Commissioners (BoCC)
referred this proposed Unified Development Code (UDC) amendment to the Planning
Commission for review, public hearing, and recommendation. Currently, the Jefferson
County Code (JCC) 18.45.090 provides a process to amend all sections of the UDC
including those that implement the goals and policies of the County’s Comprehensive
Plan (development regulations) and those that address administrative processes and
procedures (procedural issues). The amendment process, as currently written, requires
all amendments to be brought before the Planning Commission for a review and
recommendation to the BoCC. While the BoCC considers the Planning Commission
recommendation, only the BoCC can adopt amendments. For reasons discussed more
fully below, there is a compelling need to separate the approval process for development
regulations from the approval process for procedural issues. The proposal below outlines
how Staff proposes to accomplish this separation.
Under Washington state laws and regulations, development regulations are the
controls placed on development or land use activities. Development regulations do not
include ordinances or regulations that addresses administrative processes and
2 | P a g e
procedures related to land use planning, interim or emergency ordinances, moratorium
ordinances, or remand actions from state administrative boards or courts of law.
Consistent with the Growth Management Act (GMA) and Planning Enabling Act
(PEA), Jefferson County has established public participation processes relating to the
development of comprehensive plans and their associated development regulations
(Local Review Process). This Local Review Process requires that development
regulations to be brought before the Planning Commission for a public hearing, review,
and a recommendation to the BoCC. Neither the GMA nor the PEA require that procedural
issues be considered by the Planning Commission. The limited time afforded for
important work of the Planning Commission should be focused on review of development
regulations, not procedural issues. In addition, more expeditious changes to procedural
issues will enable DCD to be more responsive to customer needs without impacting
compliance with the GMA or the PEA. Accordingly, the BoCC directed DCD to work with
the Planning Commission to amend the UDC to separate the review of procedural issues
from the review of development regulations.
To accomplish the separation, DCD proposes amending the UDC’s definition of
development regulation to be consistent with state law, which defines development
regulation as:
“Development regulation or regulations” means the controls placed on
development or land use activities by Jefferson County, including, but not
limited to, this Unified Development Code (which among other provisions
includes zoning, planned rural residential development (PRRD),
subdivision, binding site plan and critical areas regulations), the Jefferson
County Shoreline Master Program, and any other official controls
implementing the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan. A development
regulation does not include a decision to approve a project permit
application, as defined in RCW 36.70B.020, even though the decision may
be expressed in a resolution or ordinance of the Jefferson County board of
commissioners.
JCC 18.10.040. Current definition.
Staff proposes the following definition:
“Development regulation or regulations” means the controls placed on
development or land use activities, including, but not limited to, zoning
ordinances, critical areas ordinances, shoreline master programs, official
controls, planned unit development ordinances, subdivision ordinances,
and binding site plan ordinances together with any amendments thereto. A
development regulation does not include a decision to approve a project
permit or project permit application, as defined in RCW 36.70B.020, even
though the decision may be expressed in a resolution or ordinance of the
legislative body of the county (RCW 36.70A.030(7)). However, for the
3 | P a g e
avoidance of doubt, a development regulation does not include ordinances
or regulations that address administrative processes and procedures
related to land use planning, interim or emergency ordinances, moratorium
ordinances, or remand actions from state administrative boards or courts of
law.
Amendments to the UDC meeting the above exception to the definition of
development regulation or regulations, such as a procedural amendment, would be
processed as a Type V legislation action, with BoCC review, BoCC public hearing, and
BoCC action. The Planning Commission would not review procedural issue amendments.
The proposal will rename the UDC’s “implementing regulations” to “development
regulations” to be consistent with state law and similarly situated Washington counties.
Implementing regulations is a term of art that does not exist under state law.
The proposal requires an update to Section 3 and 10 of the Planning Commission’s
Bylaws. The proposal also includes updates to 18.05.050, Planning Commission Duties
and Responsibilities to accurately reflect their role in developing and amending
development regulations.
Benefits
The proposal has several benefits. First, it will save Planning Commission time and
resources to focus on substantive comprehensive planning and their associated
development regulations, such as updates to the Critical Areas Ordinance and Shoreline
Master Program. Second, it will reduce the timelines for amendments located within the
UDC that are not development regulations. For example, currently a minor procedural
amendment must go through both Planning Commission and BoCC review and public
hearings prior to adoption. This amendment will save at least 60 days per non-
development regulation UDC amendment. Third, it will save substantial DCD staff
resources in preparing for and conducting Planning Commission review and hearings on
these non-development regulation UDC amendments. Finally, it reduces risk for the
County, as the procedural issue amendment will no longer require 60-day notice to the
Washington State Department of Commerce.
Staff Analysis
The following law, code, or documents were reviewed in preparation for the proposed
amendments:
1. Revised Code Washington – RCW 36.70 Planning Enabling Act; RCW 36.70A
Growth Management Act & RCW 36.70B Local Project Review.
2. Development Regulation definition and process for Kitsap, Snohomish, and Skagit
counties.
3. County Wide Planning Policies of Jefferson County, Washington.
4. Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan.
4 | P a g e
5. Unified Development Code of Jefferson County.
6. Resolution No. 54-97 Planning Commission.
7. By-Laws of the Jefferson County Planning Commission.
1. The proposal is consistent with applicable state law, such as the GMA, the PEA, and
Local Project Review.
As discussed below, the GMA, the PEA, and Local Project Review provide a
process for developing and amending development regulations. This Local Review
Process requires that Planning Commission review, hold a public hearing, and provide a
recommendation to the BoCC. The BoCC then holds for their own review, public hearing,
and final adoption on the proposed development regulations. The statutory definition and
application of development regulation does not include “ordinances or regulations that
addresses procedural issues related to land use planning, interim or emergency
ordinances, moratorium ordinances, or remand actions from state administrative boards
or courts of law.” Accordingly, the proposed amendment is consistent with applicable
state law.
The Revised Code of Washington (RCW) 36.70 (Planning Enabling Act), 36.70A (Growth
Management Act) & 36.70B (Local Project Review) are sections of Washington State Law
that define and control how Jefferson County controls land use development. Applicable
sections of the RCW related to the proposed code amendments are as follows:
(underlined for emphasis):
RCW 36.70.020 (Planning Enabling Act)
Definitions
(4) "Commission" means a county or regional planning commission.
(11) "Official controls" means legislatively defined and enacted policies, standards,
precise detailed maps and other criteria, all of which control the physical development of
a county or any part thereof or any detail thereof, and are the means of translating into
regulations and ordinances all or any part of the general objectives of the comprehensive
plan. Such official controls may include, but are not limited to, ordinances establishing
zoning, subdivision control, platting, and adoption of detailed maps.
RCW 36.70.040 (Planning Enabling Act)
Department—Creation—Creation of commission to assist department.
By ordinance a board may, as an alternative to and in lieu of the creation of a planning
commission as provided in RCW 36.70.030, create a planning department which shall be
organized and function as any other department of the county. When such department is
created, the board shall also create a planning commission which shall assist the planning
department in carrying out its duties, including assistance in the preparation and
execution of the comprehensive plan and recommendations to the department for the
adoption of official controls and/or amendments thereto. To this end, the planning
commission shall conduct such hearings as are required by this chapter and shall make
5 | P a g e
findings and conclusions therefrom which shall be transmitted to the department which
shall transmit the same on to the board with such comments and recommendations it
deems necessary.
RCW 36.70.545 (Planning Enabling Act)
Development regulations—Consistency with comprehensive plan
Beginning July 1, 1992, the development regulations of each county that does not plan
under RCW 36.70A.040 shall not be inconsistent with the county's comprehensive plan.
For the purposes of this section, "development regulations" has the same meaning as set
forth in RCW 36.70A.030.1
RCW 36.70.550 (Planning Enabling Act)
Official controls
From time to time, the planning agency may, or if so requested by the board shall, cause
to be prepared official controls which, when adopted by ordinance by the board, will
further the objectives and goals of the comprehensive plan. The planning agency may
also draft such regulations, programs and legislation as may, in its judgment, be required
to preserve the integrity of the comprehensive plan and assure its systematic execution,
and the planning agency may recommend such plans, regulations, programs and
legislation to the board for adoption.
RCW 36.70.640 (Planning Enabling Act)
Official controls—Board may initiate
When it deems it to be for the public interest, the board may initiate consideration of an
ordinance establishing an official control, or amendments to an existing official control,
including those specified in RCW. The board shall first refer the proposed official control
or amendment to the planning agency for report which shall, thereafter, be considered
and processed in the same manner as that set forth in RCW regarding a change in the
recommendation of the planning agency.
RCW 36.70A.030 (Growth Management Act)
Definitions
(7) "Development regulations" or "regulation" means the controls placed on development
or land use activities by a county or city, including, but not limited to, zoning ordinances,
critical areas ordinances, shoreline master programs, official controls, planned unit
development ordinances, subdivision ordinances, and binding site plan ordinances
together with any amendments thereto. A development regulation does not include a
decision to approve a project permit application, as defined in RCW 36.70B.020, even
though the decision may be expressed in a resolution or ordinance of the legislative body
of the county or city.
RCW 36.70B.020 (Local Project Review)
Definitions
(4) "Project permit" or "project permit application" means any land use or environmental
permit or license required from a local government for a project action, including but not
1 This definition is quoted below.
6 | P a g e
limited to building permits, subdivisions, binding site plans, planned unit developments,
conditional uses, shoreline substantial development permits, site plan review, permits or
approvals required by critical area ordinances, site-specific rezones authorized by a
comprehensive plan or subarea plan, but excluding the adoption or amendment of a
comprehensive plan, subarea plan, or development regulations except as otherwise
specifically included in this subsection.
2. The UDC refers to “implementing regulations”, not “development regulations”, which is
not a GMA or PEA term. This proposed amendment changes “implementing regulations”
to “development regulations”.
JCC 18.45.090 refers to “implementing regulations.” The RCW does not define
“implementing regulations,” it only defines “development regulations.” Implementing
regulations is a term of art to that refers to all regulations that “implement” the
Comprehensive Plan goals and policies. By this definition, “development regulations” are
implementing regulations, since they implement the land use rules that control the
physical development of the County. DCD proposes to change “implementing regulations”
to “development regulations” to be consistent with state law and surrounding jurisdictions.
3. The proposed amendment is consistent with the Jefferson County Comprehensive
Plan.
The Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan states, “[t]he Unified Development Code
(UDC) provides detailed regulations for implementation of these goals and policies” (page
xvii). An example of Comp Plan goals and policies that would require implementing
regulations, but are not development regulations are as follows:
Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan – Land Use Element
Permit Processing Goal LU-G-14 Ensure responsive, fair, and efficient permit
processing.
▶ Policy LU-P-14.1 Develop and maintain implementing regulations and internal policies
that ensure that development applications are processed in a timely, fair, and predictable
manner.
▶ Policy LU-P-14.2 Ensure that permit review and requests for additional information are
fair, consistent and balanced with the needs of the applicant and the public interest at
large.
▶ Policy LU-P-14.3 Implement and maintain a land use and building permit enforcement
program that encourages voluntary compliance as the first course of action, but is
protective of the community’s life, safety, and environmental health.
This goal and associated policies are consistent with and support the proposed
amendment as the proposal is procedural in nature and does not affect substantive
development regulations or official controls over property. Regulations must control and
direct the physical development of property, as well as be within the traditional sphere of
7 | P a g e
land use regulations, such as zoning or critical areas ordinances for them to be
considered a development regulation. The proposed amendment will streamline the UDC
amendment process for procedural issues, allowing DCD to bring these proposed
amendments directly to the BoCC for review, public hearing, and action. Accordingly, the
proposed amendment is consistent with the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan.
4. The proposed amendment requires modifications relating to the Planning
Commission’s duties, responsibilities, and bylaws. Proposed changes are consistent with
state law and similarly situated Washington counties.
The Planning Commission as part of the “Planning Agency,” “shall assist the
planning department in carrying out its duties, including assistance in the preparation and
execution of the comprehensive plan and recommendations to the department for the
adoption of official controls” (RCW 36.70.040). Those “controls” being defined as
“development regulations,” do not include “process and procedure regulations.”
Therefore, “process and procedure regulations” do not need review by or require
recommendations from the Planning Commission. The proposed code and bylaw
amendments more clearly define “development regulations” and the role of the Planning
Commission in the review and recommendation of those regulations.
Accordingly, the proposed amendments to the UDC relating to development
regulation are consistent with state law and similarly situated Washington counties.
5. The proposal is exempt from State Environmental Policy Act Review.
The proposal is exempt from SEPA review under WAC 197-11-800(19)(b) “[t]ext
amendments resulting in no substantive changes respecting use or modification of the
environment.” Alternatively, this proposal is exempt from SEPA review under WAC 197-
11-800(19)(a) “[r]elating solely to governmental procedures, and containing no
substantive changes respecting use or modification of the environment.”
6. Staff submitted the proposal for Washington State Department of Commerce review.
Washington law requires a 60-day notice and review period for development
regulation amendments. On February 6, 2019, DCD submitted a request for expedited
review of the proposal to the Washington State Department of Commerce.
Summary of Amendments
Summary of Proposed Code Amendments
The following sections of the UDC are proposed for amendment:
1. JCC 18.05.050 Planning Commission – Duties and responsibilities (1) & (2) to
remove “land use ordinances” and include “development” to specify which
regulations are required for Planning Commission review.
8 | P a g e
2. JCC 18.10.040 D Definitions – to enhance definition to “development regulations.”
3. JCC Chapter 18.45 Comprehensive Plan and GMA Implementing Regulations –
to replace “implementing” with “development.”
4. JCC 18.40.040 Project permit application framework – to amend Table 8-1 to
clarify the types of amendments, and Table 8-2 Action Types – Process to clarify
the role of the Planning Commission in amendment review.
5. JCC 18.45.010 Amendments – Purpose and introduction – to include
“Development Regulations” in the amendment process, as Type V legislative
process without Planning Commission review.
6. JCC 18.45.090 Amendments to GMA implementing regulations – to replace
“implementing” with “development,” and include a revised definition of
development regulations.
Proposed Planning Commission Bylaw Amendments:
1. Amendment to Section 3: “The planning commission shall review land use
ordinances and regulations development regulations of the county and make
recommendations in cooperation with DCD regarding them to the board of
commissioners.”
2. Amendment to Section 10: “Comprehensive Plan Changes, Zoning Changes, By-
Law Changes, Unified Development Code development regulation changes and
other site-specific approvals shall be by the affirmative vote of not fewer than (5)
five members - a majority of the total membership.
Amendments to the By-Laws are not subject to a public hearing or public comment and
can be made at any time by the Planning Commission per Section 16 – Amendments of
the Planning Commission By-Laws.
Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends the Planning Commission review the proposal, conduct a public
hearing on March 6, 2019 to take public testimony and take written comments, deliberate
and make a recommendation to the BoCC.
1 | P a g e
DRAFT
Chapter 18.45
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND GMA IMPLEMENTING DEVELOPMENT
REGULATIONS AMENDMENT PROCESS
Sections:
18.45.010 Amendments – Purpose and introduction.
18.45.020 Annual amendments – Consideration of cumulative effects.
18.45.030 Exceptions to the annual amendment process.
18.45.040 Applications for Comprehensive Plan amendment.
18.45.050 Compilation of preliminary docket.
18.45.060 Review of preliminary docket – Adoption of final docket.
18.45.070 Final docket – DCD review and recommendation – SEPA review.
18.45.080 Final docket – Planning commission and board of county commissioners review.
18.45.090 Amendments to GMA implementing development regulations.
18.45.010 Amendments – Purpose and introduction.
(1) Purpose. The purpose of this chapter is to establish procedures for amending the Jefferson County
Comprehensive Plan, and Development Regulations, defined for the purposes of this chapter as including the
plan text and/or the Land Use Map. The Growth Management Act (GMA, Chapter 36.70A RCW) generally
allows amendments to comprehensive plans no more often than once per year, except in emergency
situations. This chapter is intended to provide the following:
(3) Planning Commission Role. The Jefferson County planning commission is an advisory body that shall
make recommendations to the county commissioners on all Comprehensive Plan matters, including
amendments to the plan text and Land Use Map, implementing development regulations and subarea plans.
18.45.090 Amendments to GMA implementing development regulations.
(1) Initiation. The text of the cCounty’s adopted Comprehensive Plan implementing development regulations
(RCW 36.70A.030(7)), (also referred to within this code as “development regulations”) may be amended at any
time, provided the amendment is consistent with the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan and Land Use
Map. When inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan and Land Use Map, the amendment shall be processed
concurrent with any necessary plan amendments using the process and timelines for plan amendments set
forth in this chapter. “Implementing Development regulationsRegulations” means the controls placed on
development or land use activities, including, but not limited to, zoning ordinances, critical areas ordinances,
shoreline master programs, official controls, planned unit development ordinances, subdivision ordinances, and
2 | P a g e
DRAFT
binding site plan ordinances together with any amendments thereto. A development regulation does not include
a decision to approve a project permit or project permit application, as defined in RCW 36.70B.020, even
though the decision may be expressed in a resolution or ordinance of the legislative body of the county. A
development regulation does not include ordinances or regulations that address procedural issues related to
land use planning, interim or emergency ordinances, moratorium ordinances, or remand actions from state
administrative boards or courts of law. including, but not limited to, this Unified Development Code, the
Jefferson County Shoreline Master Program, or any other official controls required to implement the plan (see
RCW 36.70A.030). Proposed amendments, changes, or modifications to development regulations may be
initiated as follows:
(a) When consistent with the plan, at any time at the direction of the board of county
commissioners or by the planning commission pursuant to RCW 36.70.550;
(b) When inconsistent with the plan, under the process and time lines for Comprehensive Plan
amendments by any interested person consistent with this chapter; or
(c) Immediately following or concurrent with an amendment or amendments to the Jefferson
County Comprehensive Plan, the implementing regulations shall be amended to be consistent
with the plan and Land Use Map.
(2) Notice.
(a) Proposed amendments to the implementing development regulations pursuant to subsection
(1) of this section which must be processed concurrently with an amendment to the
Comprehensive Plan and Land Use Map shall be processed and noticed in the same manner as
plan amendments consistent with this chapter.
(b) Notice of any hearing on amendments to the implementing development regulations
generated by DCD staff, the board of county commissioners or the planning commission outside
of the annual Comprehensive Plan amendment process shall be given by one publication in the
official newspaper of the county at least 10 days prior to the date of the hearing and by posting
a copy of the notice of hearing in the Jefferson County Courthouse.
(c) Any additional notice required by state or local law (e.g., statutory notice requirements for
amendments to the Shoreline Master Program), or deemed appropriate by the administrator,
shall be paid for by the applicant.
3 | P a g e
DRAFT
(3) Planning Commission Review. The planning commission shall hold a public hearing on any amendment(s)
to the implementing development regulations and shall make a recommendation to the board of county
commissioners using the site-specific criteria set forth in JCC 18.45.080(1)(b) and (1)(c), as applicable.
(4) Board of County Commissioners Review. The board of county commissioners shall consider the proposed
amendments at a regularly scheduled meeting.
(a) If after applying the criteria set forth in JCC 18.45.080(1)(b) and (1)(c), as applicable, the
board of county commissioners concludes that no change in the recommendation of the
planning commission is necessary, the board may make a final determination on the proposed
amendment(s) and adopt the amendments as recommended by the planning commission.
(b) If after applying the criteria set forth in JCC 18.45.080(1)(b) and (1)(c), as applicable, the
board of county commissioners concludes that a change in the recommendation of the planning
commission is necessary, the change shall not be incorporated until the board conducts its own
public hearing using the procedures set forth under JCC 18.40.310. The hearing shall be
noticed by one publication in the official newspaper of the county at least 10 days prior to the
date of the hearing, and by posting copies of the notice of hearing in the Jefferson County
Courthouse. The notice and public hearing for proposed amendments to implementing
development regulations may be combined with any notice or public hearing for proposed
amendments to the Comprehensive Plan or for other actions of the board of county
commissioners.
(5) Transmittal to State. The administrator shall transmit a copy of any proposed amendment(s) to the
implementing development regulations at least 60 days prior to the expected date of final action by the board of
county commissioners, as consistent with Chapter 36.70A RCW. The administrator shall transmit a copy of any
adopted amendment(s) to the implementing regulations to OCD within 10 days after adoption by the board.
(6) Appeals. All appeals to the adoption of any amendment(s) to the implementing regulations shall be filed with
and processed by the Western Washington Growth Management Hearings Board in accordance with the
provisions of Chapter 36.70A RCW. [Ord. 2-06 § 1]
Chapter 18.05
18.05.050 Planning commission – Duties and responsibilities.
The duties and responsibilities of the planning commission shall be as follows:
4 | P a g e
DRAFT
(1) The planning commission shall review the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan and other planning
documents to determine if the county’s plans, goals, policies, land use ordinances and development regulations
are promoting orderly and coordinated development within the county. The commission shall make
recommendations concerning this to the board of commissioners.
(2) The planning commission shall review land use ordinances and development regulations of the county and
make recommendations regarding them to the board of commissioners.
(3) The planning commission shall recommend priorities for and review studies of geographic subareas in the
county.
(4) All other county boards, committees, and commissions shall coordinate their planning activities, as they
relate to land use or the Jefferson County Comprehensive 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.
(6) The planning commission shall have such other duties and powers as heretofore have been or hereafter
may be conferred upon the commission by county ordinances or as directed by resolution of the board of
commissioners, the performance of such duties and exercise of such authority to be subject to the limitations
expressed in such enactments. [Ord. 8-06 § 1]
Chapter 18.10
18.10.040 D definitions.
“Development regulation or regulations” means the controls placed on development or land use activities by
Jefferson County, including, but not limited to, this Unified Development Code (which among other provisions
includes zoning, planned rural residential development (PRRD), subdivision, binding site plan and
environmentally sensitive areas regulations), the Jefferson County Shoreline Master Program, and any other
official controls implementing the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan. A development regulation does not
include a decision to approve a project permit application, as defined in RCW 36.70B.020, even though the
decision may be expressed in a resolution or ordinance of the Jefferson County board of commissioners.
means the controls placed on development or land use activities, including, but not limited to, zoning
ordinances, critical areas ordinances, shoreline master programs, official controls, planned unit development
ordinances, subdivision ordinances, and binding site plan ordinances together with any amendments thereto. A
development regulation does not include a decision to approve a project permit or project permit application, as
5 | P a g e
DRAFT
defined in RCW 36.70B.020, even though the decision may be expressed in a resolution or ordinance of the
legislative body of the county (RCW 36.70A.030(7). However, for the avoidance of doubt, Aa development
regulation does not include ordinances or regulations that address administrative processes and
proceduresprocedural issues related to land use planning, interim or emergency ordinances, moratorium
ordinances, or remand actions from state administrative boards or courts of law.
18.40.040 Project permit application framework.
Table 8-1. Permits – Decisions
Project permit application framework.
6 | P a g e
DRAFT
Table 8-1. Permits – Decisions
Type I (1) Type II Type III Type IV Type V
Septic permits Classification of
unnamed and
discretionary uses under
Article II of Chapter
18.15 JCC
Reasonable economic
use variances under
JCC 18.15.220
Final plats
under
Chapter
18.35 JCC
Special use permits
under JCC 18.15.110
Allowed uses not requiring
notice of application (e.g.,
“Yes” uses listed in Table
3-1 in JCC 18.15.040,
building permits, etc.)
Release of six-year FPA
moratorium for an
individual single-family
residence under JCC
18.20.160
PRRDs under Article VI-
M of Chapter 18.15 JCC
and major amendments
to PRRDs under JCC
18.15.545(3)
Final PRRDs
under Article
VI-M of
Chapter
18.15 JCC
Jefferson County
Comprehensive Plan
amendments under
Chapter 18.45 JCC
Minor amendments to
planned rural residential
developments (PRRDs)
under JCC 18.15.545
Cottage industries under
JCC 18.20.170
Shoreline substantial
development permits for
secondary uses, and
conditional and variance
permits under the
Jefferson County
Shoreline Master
Program (SMP)
Amendments to
development
regulations including
amendments to this
UDC and the Land Use
Districts Map
Home businesses
approved under JCC
18.20.200
Short subdivisions under
Article IV of Chapter
18.35 JCC
Plat alterations and
vacations under JCC
18.35.030(3)
Amendments to the
Jefferson County SMP
Temporary outdoor use
permits under JCC
18.20.380
Binding site plans under
Article V of Chapter
18.35 JCC
Long subdivisions under
Article V of Chapter
18.35 JCC
Subarea and utility
plans and amendments
thereto
Stormwater management
permits under JCC
18.30.070
Administrative
conditional use permits
under JCC 18.40.550(1)
[i.e., listed in Table 3-1 in
JCC 18.15.040 as
“C(a)”]
Discretionary conditional
use permits under JCC
18.40.550(2) [i.e., listed
in Table 3-1 in JCC
18.15.040 as “C(d)”]
where required by
administrator
Development
agreements and
amendments thereto
under Article XI of this
chapter
Road access permits
under JCC 18.30.080
Discretionary conditional
use permits under JCC
18.40.550(2) [i.e., listed
in Table 3-1 in JCC
18.15.040 as “C(d)”]
unless Type III process
required by administrator
Conditional use permits
under JCC 18.40.550(3)
(i.e., uses listed in Table
3- 1 in JCC 18.15.040 as
“C”)
Master plans for master
planned resorts
Sign permits under JCC
18.30.150
Minor variances under
JCC 18.40.670(1)
Major variances under
JCC 18.40.670(2)
Amendments to the
Unified Development
Code
Boundary line adjustments
under Article II of Chapter
18.35 JCC
Shoreline substantial
development permits for
primary uses under
Jefferson County SMP
Wireless
telecommunications
permits under JCC
18.20.130 and Chapter
18.42 JCC
1 If not categorically exempt pursuant to SEPA, Type I projects shall be subject to the notice requirements of JCC 18.40.150 through
18.40.220 and Article X of this chapter (the SEPA integration section).
7 | P a g e
DRAFT
Table 8-2. Action Types – Process
Project Permit Application Procedures (Types I-IV) Legislative
Type I Type II Type III Type IV Type V
Recommendation
made by:
Project
planner
Project planner Project planner N/A Planning commission1
Final decision
made by:
Administrator Administrator Hearing examiner Board of county
commissioners
Board of county
commissioners
Notice of
application:
No Yes Yes No N/A
Open record
public hearing:
No Only if administrator’s
decision is appealed,
open record hearing
before hearing
examiner
Yes, before hearing
examiner, prior to
permit decision by
the hearing
examiner
No Yes, before planning
commission to make
recommendation to
board of county
commissioners1
Closed record
appeal/final
decision:
No No No N/A Yes, or board of county
commissioners could
hold its own hearing
Judicial appeal: Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes2
1Type V land use actions are subject to review and recommendation by the planning commission. However,
except for utility plans, ordinances or regulations that address procedural issues related to land use planning,
interim or emergency ordinances, moratorium ordinances, or remand actions from state administrative boards or
courts of law. and are not subject to review and consideration by the planning commission. 2Pursuant to RCW 36.70A.250 and 36.70A.280, the Western Washington Growth Management Hearings Board
(WWGMHB) is authorized to hear and determine petitions alleging that the county is not in compliance with the
requirements of Chapter 36.70A RCW, Chapter 90.58 RCW as it relates to the adoption of the Shoreline Master
Program, or Chapter 43.21C RCW as it relates to plans, development regulations, or amendments, adopted
under RCW 36.70A.040 or Chapter 90.58 RCW. Direct judicial review may also be obtained pursuant to RCW
36.70A.295.
1 If not categorically exempt pursuant to SEPA, Type I projects shall be subject to the notice requirements of
JCC 18.40.150 through 18.40.220 and Article X of this chapter (the SEPA integration section).
SUMMARY OF DECISION-MAKING
Type I: In most cases, administrative without notice. However, if a Type I permit is not categorically
exempt under SEPA, then, administrative with notice.
Type II: Administrative with notice. Final decision by administrator unless appealed. If appealed, open
record hearing and final decision by hearing examiner.
Type III: Notice and open record public hearing before the hearing examiner. Final decision by hearing
examiner. Appeal to Superior Court.
Type IV: Closed record decision by board of commissioners during a regular public meeting. Type IV
decisions are purely ministerial in nature (see Article IV of Chapter 18.35 JCC).
Type V: Notice and public hearing before planning commission, with planning commission
recommendation to board of county commissioners Eexcept for utility plans, ordinances or regulations that
address procedural issues related to land use planning, interim or emergency ordinances, moratorium
ordinances, or remand actions from state administrative boards or courts of law notice and public hearing
before planning commission, with planning commission recommendation to board of commissioners. Notice
and of public hearings before board of county commissioners with final legislative action by the board of county
commissioners. provided prior to final legislative decisions (see Chapter 18.45 JCC).
[Ord. 11-04 § 3; Ord. 18-02 § 2 (Exh. D); Ord. 2-02 § 1; Ord. 7-01 § 1 (Exh. B); Ord. 3-01 § 1; Ord. 11-00 §
8.1(4)]