HomeMy WebLinkAbout02 0311 02
cc: 1~~:D ¿ 3/11 )b:J.
C~~ p~
STATE OF WASHINGTON
COUNTY OF JEFFERSON
IN THE MATTER OF REVISIONS AND
ADDITIONS TO THE COUNTY'S UNIFIED
DEVELOPMENT CODE RELATING TO
THE SITING AND APPROVAL OF
MAJOR INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENTS
)
)
)
)
)
ORDINANCE NO. 02-0311c-O2
WHEREAS, the Board of Jefferson County Commissioners ("the BoCC") has, pursuant to the
Growth Management Act, as codified at Chapter 36.70A RCW, adopted development regulations known
as the Unified Development Code or "UDC;"
WHEREAS, the BoCC has determined that Jefferson County should lay the groundwork for
certain possible future events, particularly the siting of a Major Industrial Development, as that term of art
is defined in the Growth Management Act;
WHEREAS, the County of Jefferson has worked closely with the City of Port Townsend with
respect to generating a process and rules for the possible future siting of a Major Industrial Development
at a location in the unincorporated portions of the County; and
WHEREAS, the text amendments to the UDC made part of this Ordinance have undergone the
proper process and substantive review [described in more detail below] and are thus compliant with the
Growth Management Act;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of County Commissioners that they
approve the following revisions and additions to the UDC; and
BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED that the BoCC makes the following Findings of Facts with
respect to these amendments to the text of the UDC:
1. This matter was formally brought before the Planning Commission on August 1, 2001, as a BoCC of
County Commissioners-initiated Unified Development Code (UDC) text amendment pursuant to
RCW 36.70.640.
2. These UDC amendments were also known as application number MLAOl-00413.
3. The BoCC-initiated amendment was jointly developed by staff of the Jefferson County Department of
Community Development and the City of Port Townsend Building and Community Development
Department with input from the Joint Growth Management Steering Committee (JGMSC), which is
composed of elected officials from Jefferson County, the City of Port Townsend, and the Port of Port
Townsend.
4. This cooperation between the City of Port Townsend, the only extant urban growth area or UGA in
Jefferson County at the present time, and the County arises, in part, from Countywide Planning Policy
#3, paragraph 5, which states that "[i]ncorporated UGA's will coordinate with the County to assure
joint review for addressing those development activities of a regional nature, such as ... ... ... or large
industrial complex." This dovetails with the consultation requirements laid out in RCW 36.70A.365.
Ordinance No. 02-0311-02
Revisions & Additions to the UDC Relating to Siting and Approval of Major Industrial
Developments
5. The JGMSC discussed the proposed amendments to the UDC at public meetings on the following
dates: November 28,2000; April 12, July 12, August 30, October 4, and November 29,2001; and
February 6, 2002. Each of these meetings included a public comment period.
6. The purpose and intent of the text amendments relating to Major Industrial Developments is to
establish a process for reviewing and approving proposals to authorize siting of specific major
industrial developments outside urban growth areas pursuant to RCW 36.70A.365 and the Jefferson
County Comprehensive Plan (policy EDP 6.1).
7. That Comprehensive Plan policy states that Major Industrial Developments in Jefferson County shall
be Conditional Uses.
8. The applicable state statute, codified at RCW 36.70A.365, states that final approval of Major
Industrial Developments shall be considered an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map
designating the area as an Urban Growth Area.
9. The specific permit process and proposal review guidelines for any proposed Major Industrial
Development will be guided and controlled by numerous other provisions of the UDC.
10. The purpose and intent of the text amendments relating to Development Agreements is to amend
Section 8.11 of the UDC, which establishes the mechanism under which Jefferson County may enter
into Development Agreements as authorized by RCW 36.70.B.170.
11. Among other items, Section 8.11 of the UDC reiterates that Development Agreements are a mandatory
element of any Major Industrial Development proposal.
12. County planning staff initially presented the proposed Code amendments to the Planning Commission
at the August 1, 2001 meeting.
13. The Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing on August 15, 2001. The Executive
Director of the Economic Development Council of Jefferson County and other business leaders in the
community were invited to testify and did so.
14. In a letter dated and sent September 7,2001, staff notified the Washington State Office of Community
Development (ODC), as required by WAC 365-195-620, of the intent to amend the DOC. Staff also
notified other State agencies on September 14, 2001 per the list provided by OCD.
15. The Planning Commission deliberated on this issue at their regularly scheduled meetings on
September 5 and September 19, 2001.
16. A vote to recommend a text amendment was postponed at the conclusion of the September 5 meeting
in order for staff of the Department of Community Development to research and develop definitions of
terms proposed for inclusion in the text amendment related to appraisal of property.
17. In preparation for the September 19 meeting, staff presented the Planning Commission with a
preliminary staff recommendation that included topics beyond the appraisal of property. These topics
were debated at the September 19 meeting. During the meeting, a member of the Planning
Commission introduced a written summary of additional topics and recommendations for discussion at
the September 19 meeting. The Planning Commission took no action on these recommendations. No
specific motions were introduced relative to them. Some of the topics had been raised and debated
previously. A motion to continue the discussion at a subsequent meeting was rejected.
18. The Planning Commission voted to recommend a proposed set of UDC amendments to the BoCC of
County Commissioners ("BoCC") on October 17, 2001.
Page 2 of 7
Ordinance No. 02-0311-02
Revisions & Additions to the UDC Relating to Siting and Approval of Major Industrial
Developments
19. The Planning Commission transmitted its recommendation to the BoCC together with a set of
Findings and Conclusions and a minority report on November 7, 2001 in preparation for the BoCC's
regular agenda on November 13, 2001.
20. The BoCC decided at its November 13, 2001 regular agenda meeting to schedule a public hearing for
after the JGMSC meeting scheduled for November 29,2001.
21. On November 13, 2001, the Responsible Official for review under the State Environmental Policy Act
(SEP A), Director of Community Development AI Scalf, issued a Determination of Significance and
Notice of Adoption of Existing Environmental Documents for this proposal per WAC 197-11-360,
600,630 and 965. The SEPA threshold determination was published in the newspaper of record and
distributed to State agencies and other interested parties.
22. At the November 29, 2001 JGMSC meeting, City of Port Townsend City Manager David Timmons
presented a list of City Council concerns related to the proposed UDC amendments and associated
draft Interlocal Agreement between Jefferson County and the City of Port Townsend regarding the
processing of applications for industrial development.
23. The BoCC held a duly noticed public hearing on the proposed UDC amendments related to Major
Industrial Developments on December 11, 2001.
24. OCO, in a letter dated December 11, 2001, provided comments to the BoCC on the proposed UOC
amendments. The BoCC discussed the OCD comments after the December 11, 2001 public hearing
and made policy decisions based in part on the nature of the OCD comments. In particular, the BoCC
directed staff to simplify and clarify the permit process such that "final approval," as referenced in the
relevant RCW, would not require a Comprehensive Plan amendment process as outlined in UDC
Section 9.
25. Certain comments that OCD made in its December 11, 2001 letter regarding the interplay of
Development Agreements and Major Industrial Developments have been adopted into the UDC
language that is being adopted through this Ordinance, particularly the request of OCO that the
amendments to the UDC make clear that the County should not finalize any Development Agreement
until such time as the full project review has occurred, i.e., after the Hearing Examiner has granted the
M.LD. applicant his/her or its Conditional Use Permit.
26. In a similar vein, the amendatory language being adopted here makes it clear, as was suggested by
OCD, that that final approval of any proposed Major Industrial Development occurs only when the
Hearing Examiner has granted the Conditional Use Permit AND the BoCC, acting in its legislative
capacity, have approved the parallel Development Agreement.
27. In a similar vein, the County has enacted what amounts to a limit on the number of Major Industrial
Developments that it can approve and site, since all of the language adopted here through this
Ordinance must be reauthorized by the BoCC when five M.LD's are approved or five years have
transpired. Such a limit on the number of M.LD's was specifically suggested by OCO in its
December 2001 letter.
28. The BoCC directed staff after the December 11,2001 public hearing to address five specific points
and submit another version of the proposed UDC amendments for the BoCC's consideration.
29. The County's planning staff, also known as DCD, submitted the revised version on January 16,2002
in preparation for the BoCC's regular agenda on January 22,2002.
Page 3 of 7
Ordinance No. 02-0311-02
Revisions & Additions to the UDC Relating to Siting and Approval of Major Industrial
Developments
30. The BoCC discussed the proposed ordinance at its January 22, 2002 regular agenda meeting and
agreed during that regular meeting to a City of Port Townsend request, as expressed in a January 18,
2002 letter to Commissioner Dan Titterness from City Council Member Joe Finnie, to delay any
dispositive action until after the February 6, 2002 meeting of the JGMSC and a second public hearing
on the topic before the BoCC.
31. On January 31, 2002, the City of Port Townsend submitted a draft set of comments regarding the
proposed UDC amendments and a draft Interlocal Agreement to the BoCC for consideration prior to
the February 6, 2002 JGMSC meeting. The City comments were later finalized in a communication
sent to the County just prior to the JGMSC meeting on February 6.
32. On February 6, 2002, members of the JGMSC discussed the proposed UDC amendments and the
Interlocal Agreement concerning the siting of Major Industrial Developments. Agreements in
principal among the elected officials were reached on at least ten issues.
33. In a letter to the BoCC dated February 13, 2002, City of Port Townsend Mayor Kees Kolf summarized
the results of the inter-governmental negotiations at the February 6, 2002 JGMSC meeting and
submitted a revised version of the Interlocal Agreement.
34. County and City administration continued to negotiate final details of the Interlocal Agreement and
address City comments on the proposed UDC amendments. The BoCC directed staff at its February
19,2002 regular agenda to create another draft of the proposed UOC amendments that addressed
concerns of the City and members of the public.
35. Staff submitted a revised version of the proposed UDC amendments to the BoCC on February 25,
2002 in preparation for a public hearing before the BoCC on that same day.
36. On February 25, 2002, the BoCC held a second duly noticed public hearing on the proposed UDC
amendments authorizing a permitting process for Major Industrial Developments.
37. Three members of the public spoke at the February 25th hearing, all of whom were not opposed to the
enactment of this Ordinance but instead proposed possible "tweakings" to the language of the UDC
text amendments.
38. After deliberation and directing changes to the proposed UDC amendments to address a set of City of
Port Townsend concerns as expressed in a letter to the BoCC dated February 25, 2002 from City
Attorney John Watts, the BoCC voted three in favor and none opposed to adopting the subject UDC
amendments.
39. On February 25, 2002, the BoCC, after directing staff to make minor changes to the document, voted
three in favor and none opposed to adopt the Interlocal Agreement with the City of Port Townsend
regarding the review of applications for industrial development.
40. The Interlocal Agreement was immediately executed (in multiple copies) by BoCC Chair Richard
Wojt and forwarded to the Clerk for the Port Townsend City Council. The City Council of the City of
Port Townsend authorized their City Manager to execute the Interlocal on behalf of the City at a
public meeting of the City Council on March 4, 2002.
41. The Interlocal Agreement reflects a high level of cooperation at all ranks between this County and the
City of Port Townsend and that universal cooperation should be lauded.
Page 4 of 7
. 02-0311-02
OrdInance No.
Revisions & Additions to the UDC Relating to Siting and Approval of Major Industrial
Developments
42. As a result of negotiation between the County and City elected officials, a "bright line" of 40 acres
was selected for an industrial development proposal to be processed as a Major Industrial
Development outside of an urban growth area in Jefferson County.
43. Therefore, pursuant to UOC §3.8.3(a), any proposal must immediately require for operation 40 or
more acres, including acreage for required buffers, before it can be considered a proper applicant for a
Major Industrial Development site in the unincorporated portions of Jefferson County.
44. Many, if not all, of the concerns expressed by the City of Port Townsend and citizens with respect to
earlier drafts of the UDC amendments have been addressed or considered by the BoCC prior to the
adoption of these amendments to the UDC.
45. By way of example, certain topics, including cost-benefit and cumulative impacts analysis and
assurance devices such as bonds, are addressed by the language of the existing Conditional Use Permit
criteria listed in UDC §8.8.5 [i.e., (10) The conditional use has merit and value for the community as a
whole, and (12) The public interest suffers no substantial detrimental effect. Consideration shall be
given to the cumulative effect of similar actions in the area.] and 8.8.12 (Assurance Device).
46. In order to guide the Hearing Examiner when he or she considers the criteria listed in the prior Finding
with respect to an application for a Major Industrial Development, subsection 3.8.3(b)(i) and (ii) of the
UDC were added per direction from the BoCC. The phrase "merit and value for the community as a
whole" now will involve consideration for the number of jobs created.
47. The requirement now is that the number of jobs per net acre of development that will be created by
any proposed Major Industrial Development shall be typical for the type of industry proposed. The
phrases "negative effects" and "cumulative effects of similar actions in the area" involve consideration
for the number and relative locations of Major Industrial Developments permitted in Jefferson County
and their subsequent or anticipated impacts.
48. In order to address comments regarding the cumulative impact of multiple Major Industrial
Developments in Jefferson County over time, subsection 3.8.8 was added per direction from the
BoCC. UDC § 3.8 states that the UDC provisions which govern the review and siting of the Major
Industrial Developments must be re-authorized upon the earlier occurrence of one of two events,
either the approval of five (5) Major Industrial Developments or the passage of five years from the
date of adoption, whichever occurs first.
49. Pursuant to Unified Development Code Section 9.9.3, the BoCC, as the Planning Commission
previously has done, enters the following findings related to the applicable criteria contained at UDC §
9.8.1(b):
(1) The circumstances related to the proposed amendment have not substantially changed. This
proposal is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and requires no amendment to the
Comprehensive Plan.
(2) The assumptions upon which the Comprehensive Plan was based continue to be valid. This
proposal is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and requires no amendment to the
Comprehensive Plan.
(3) Based upon public testimony the proposed amendment appears to reflect current widely held
values of the residents of Jefferson County.
Page 5 of 7
Ordinance No. 02-0311-02
Revisions & Additions to the UDC Relating to Siting and Approval of Major Industrial
Developments
50. Creation of a process for the siting of Major Industrial Developments provides another potential
economic engine for making the economy of Jefferson County more vibrant and more resistant to
national economic downturns.
51. The elected officials from the Port of Port Townsend (a distinct municipal corporation) and the City of
Port Townsend are 'on board' and approve of the adoption of this Ordinance precisely because it
creates another opportunity for economic growth in this County.
52. These UDC text amendments have been the subject of sufficient and detailed comment and analysis
by the citizens of this County and thus adoption of these amendments pursuant to the GMA has been
the subject of "early and continuous" public participation, as that statute requires.
53. These UDC text amendments have been the subject of peer review by the County's Planning
Commission as is required by the GMA and the Planning Enabling Act of 1963.
54.
These UDC text amendments have been the subject of a SEPA-driven review.
55.
The County's UDC, including these text amendments, is and will be compliant with all aspects of
the GMA.
56.
Adoption of these text amendments to the UDC promotes the health, welfare and general well-
being of the citizens of Jefferson County and is enacted by the BoCC, acting as the County
Legislature, pursuant to the privileges granted to them by the GMA and the general "police power"
granted to legislatures.
Section 1:
Language of the revisions and additions to the UDC:
The attached Exhibit "A" are hereby adopted and reflect the precise revisions and additions to the text of
the UDC that is being included in the UOC by the adoption of this Ordinance.'
Section 2:
Severability:
If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase or section of this Ordinance or its application to any
person or circumstances is held invalid, the remainder of this Ordinance or its application to other persons
or circumstances shall be fully valid and shall not be affected.
Section 3:
Effective Date:
This Ordinance becomes effective upon adoption by the Board of County Commissioners.
Page 6 of 7
0 d' N 02-0311-02
r mance o.
Revisions & Additions to the UDC Relating to Siting and Approval of Major Industrial
Developments
Section 4:
Automatic Expiration unless reauthorized:
This Ordinance, pursuant to UDC Section 3.8.8, which is enacted as part of this Ordinance, automatically
expires and becomes null and void upon the occurrence of certain events described in that UDC Section
unless before those events occur the Jefferson County Board of County Commissioners reauthorize and
readopt this Ordinance (or a similar Ordinance) by a majority vote.
Approved and adopted this
11th day of March, 2002.
,\\ T Y c;] '.1
<;) , .
" « r.,;:-;l .: .
"<:.:~V'~ ~.'~/;) ."~'~l' ~ ". ,'(.í '
/!ro .c", ..., I. ,
. \.1" , , ,I '
......' , , .'
ð" . I . ,\
S:ßAt: ~..\. " .,."'." Y , .
- '\I'."! "
~. ',,""'-'.', :;','
. , " .-/' ",
,~ . " """""':"'" ¡ .,." ",
. ""","" . >'
A TTÉST;--': . '
cr~~lc~
Clerk of the Board
(Excused Absence)
Glen Huntingford, Member
JÞ~
Dan Titterness, Member
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
J)cwJ aD. 3)h o2-
Jefferson County prosec~ey
Page 7 of 7
ORDINANCE NO. 02-0311-02
EXHIBIT A
AMENDMENTS TO THE
JEFFERSON COUNTY UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE
SECTION 2: DEFINITIONS
SECTION 3: LAND USE DISTRICTS
SECTION 6: DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
SECTION 8: PERMIT APPLICATION AND REVIEW PROCEDURES/SEPA
IMPLEMENT A TI 0 N
SECTION 9: COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND GMA IMPLEMENTING
REGULATIONS AMENDMENT PROCESS
Final Additions and Line-InjUne-Out Amendments Related To Major Industrial Developments
Adopted by the Board of County Commissioners on February 25, 2002 after two BOCC public hearings on
the topic: December 11, 2001 and February 25, 2002.
ADDITIONS TO UDC
Major Industrial Development
A master planned location for a specific manufacturing, industrial, or commercial business that: (a)
requires a parcel of land so large that no suitable parcels are available within an urban growth area; or
(b) is a natural resource-based industry requiring a location near agricultural land, forest land, or
mineral resource land upon which it is dependent. A major industrial development shall not be for
the purpose of retail commercial development or multi-tenant office parks. (if. RCW 36.70A.365(1)
3.8 Major Industrial Development
1. Purpose and Intent. The purpose and intent of this section is to establish a process for reviewing and
approving proposals to authorize siting of specific major industrial developments outside urban growth
areas pursuant to RCW 36.70A.365 and the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan, "Major industrial
development" means a master planned location for a specific manufacturing, industrial, or commercial
business that: (a) requires a parcel of land so large that no suitable parcels are available within an urban
growth area; or (b) is a natural resource-based industry requiring a location near agricultural land, forest
ORDINANCE NO. 02-0311-02
UDC AMENDiHE1\TS FOR "AiID ':' EXHIBIT A
PC{ge 2
land, or mineral resource land upon which it is dependent. The major industrial development shall not be
for the purpose of retail commercial development or multi-tenant office parks
2. Application Requirements and Approval Process. Major industrial development applications shall be
processed as Type III conditional use permits under this Code, requiring an open record hearing before
the Hearing Examiner, Additionally, a development agreement between the County and the applicant
(and other parties, as necessary) is a mandatory element of a major industrial development application and
shall be processed per Section 8.11. The open record public hearing before the Hearing Examiner shall, in
an effort to consolidate the application review process, serve as the public hearing required before
approval of a Type III permit and before adoption of a development agreement via ordinance or
resolution. The development agreement shall not be adopted by the Board of County Commissioners
until the Hearing Examiner approves the conditional use permit application, RCW 36.70A.365(3) states
that fmal approval of a major industrial development shall be considered an adopted amendment to the
comprehensive plan designating the major industrial development site on the land use map as an urban
growth area. If an application for a major industrial development in Jefferson County is approved as a
conditional use by the Hearing Examiner, the conditional use approval in combination with the required
Board of County Commissioners' adoption of the development agreement via ordinance or resolution
shall be considered "fmal approval," the result of which shall amend the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map,
Final approval of an application for a major industrial development and the corresponding amendment to
the land use map shall not be considered an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan for the purposes of
RCW 36.70A.130(2) and may be considered at any time. Section 9.4 of this Code, the standard process
for amending the Comprehensive Plan, does not apply,
3. Approval Criteria. A major industrial development may be approved outside an urban growth area in
Jefferson County under this section if the following criteria are met, in addition to other applicable
regulations of this Code not specifically referenced herein:
a,
The proposal must require for operation forty (40) or more acres, including acreage for
required buffers;
b.
The proposal satisfies all the conditional use approval criteria listed in UDC 8.8.5;
1.
%en reviewing the project's "merit and value for the community as a whole," per
UDC 8.8,5(10), consideration shall be given to the number of jobs created. The
number of jobs per net acre of development, not including the required buffers, shall
be typical for the type of industry proposed.
11.
%en analyzing the potential "negative effects" and "cumulative effects of similar
actions in the area," per UDC 8.8.5(12), consideration shall be given to the number
and relative locations of major industrial developments permitted in Jefferson
County and their subsequent or anticipated impacts;
c.
A development agreement is included in the application pursuant to UDC 8,11;
d.
New infrastructure is provided for and/or applicable impact fees are paid;
e.
Transit-oriented site planning and traffic demand management programs are approved and
implemented and the general development standards related to traffic as contained in UDC
6.2.5 are met;
f,
Buffers are provided between the major industrial development and adjacent non-urban
areas and managed according to an approved Landscape Plan, per UDC 6.13
Landscaping/Screening, except that buffers for major industrial developments shall be fifty
(50) feet of Screen-B landscaping for road frontages and 100 (one hundred) feet of Screen-
A landscaping for interior lot lines along any portion adjacent to a non-urban area,
ORDINANCE NO. 02-0311-02
UDC AAfENDME1\TS FOR ':?vlID ':' EXHIBIT A
Pa,ge 3
including rural residential districts and designated resource lands, except as may be varied
by the Administrator under 6.13.2.b;
g,
Bulk and dimensional standards for major industrial development urban growth areas are
satisfied pursuant to Table 6-1 of this Code;
h.
Environmental protection including noise, air and water quality has been addressed and
provided for, per requirements of this Code (UDC 3.6.4 et seq. and other applicable
sections) and other mitigative measures as appropriate through review under the State
Environmental Policy Act per chapter 43.21C RCW and UDC 8.10;
1.
Provision is made to mitigate adverse impacts on designated agricultural lands, forest lands,
and mineral resource lands via interior lot lines buffers per 3.8.3.c above and od1er case- or
site-specific measures as determined through State Environmental Policy Act review;
j.
The plan for the major industrial development is consistent with d1e provisions to protect
environmentally sensitive areas as presented in Section 3.6.4 el seq. of this Code;
k.
Appropriate and suitable measures are established for the environmental remediation
and/ or restoration of the site in the case of future abandonment of the industrial or
commercial operation, as determined through environmental review of the application and
commensurate with the impacts of the specific use permitted;
l.
If phasing of development (per 3.8.6.a below) is contemplated by the applicant, the overall
project plan, including general timelines for construction but illustrating building footprints
and projected uses in lieu of design details to be submitted with future building permit
applications, must be presented in the original application such that the overall plan is
established through the conditional use permit and a development agreement; and
m. For major industrial development applications made pursuant to 3.8.1(a), above, the County
has determined and entered findings that land suitable to site the major industrial
development is unavailable within the urban growth area according to the current inventory
of developable land within urban growth areas. Priority shall be given to applications for
sites that are adjacent to or in close proximity to the urban growth area. For applications
under 3.8.1(a) or (b), the County must also find that the proposal is appropriately deemed
as a major industrial development and should not be more appropriately categorized as
some other type of land use application. The Approving Authority may use discretion in
considering specific major industrial developments proposed for specific land use districts
based on the nature of the proposed use and activity.
4. Conditional Use Requirements. Major industrial developments shall comply with UDC 8.8 Conditional
Uses, including provisions on the use of the property before the final decision (8.8.7), the effective period
of the permit and the expiration (8.8.8), modification to the permit (8.8.9), the validity of the permit when
there is change in ownership of the land (8.8,10), permit suspension or revocation (8.8.11), and the
requirement of an assurance device and/or additional conditions at County discretion (8.8.12 and 8,8,6).
5. Final Approval. Pursuant to RCW 36,70A.365(3), final approval of an application for a major industrial
development shall be considered an adopted amendment to the Comprehensive Plan designating the major
industrial development site on the land use map as an urban growth area. The urban growth area
associated with a major industrial development shall be a limited urban growth area intended for the
specific major industrial development and not to absorb future population and other goals of mixed-use
urban growth areas, A decision of approval by the Hearing Examiner regarding the conditional use
permit, in combination with the Board of County Commissioners' adoption via ordinance of the
associated development agreement, shall be considered "final approval." Final approval of an application
ORDINANCE NO. 02-0311-02
UDC Aí\1ENDlvlEl\¡TS FOR "MID '; EXHIBIT A
P",ge4
for a major industrial development shall not be considered an amendment to the comprehensive plan for
the purposes ofRCW 36.70A.130(2) and may be considered at any time,
Phasing of Development, Expansion, Future Use of Land, Abandonment of Site, and Reverting
to Previous Land Use District.
6.
a.
The County recognizes that economic and other considerations may necessitate that
business plans for a major industrial development be characterized by phasing of
development (i.e., a portion of the overall site plan is constructed first, followed at a later
date by the next portion or rest of the site plan, depending on economic and other factors).
The major industrial development urban growth area established in the original application
process would delineate the overall site plan, For phasing of development to be
approvable, the overall project plan, including general timelines for construction but
illustrating building footprints and projected uses in lieu of design details to be submitted
with future building permit applications, must be presented in the original application. Per
UDC 8.8.8, the proponent must ftIe for the building permits or other necessary permits
associated with the first phase of the development within three (3) years of the effective
date of the conditional use permit, unless the permit approval provides for a greater period
of time,
Expansion of the major industrial development beyond the boundaries of the original site
plan and established urban growth area would require the full permit approval process
described in this section of the Code.
b.
c.
Future use of the land is determined and bound by the original application and
development agreement. Per UDC 8,8,10, no other use is allowed without approval of an
additional conditional use permit. A future application for a major industrial development
that utilizes the same land area within the previously established urban growth area is
approvable if the required Code and statutory criteria are met. Final legislative approval
following conditional use approval would be unnecessary in this case, as the urban growth
area is already established on the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map. If the dimensions of the
urban growth area must be modified, that process would be undertaken pursuant to UDC
9.4.
d,
The owners oEland zoned and used for major industrial development and/ or the
conditional use permittee and/or other entity as appropriate for particular circumstances
shall be responsible for appropriate and suitable environmental remediation and/or
restoration of the site in the case of abandonment of the industrial or commercial
operation. The responsible part shall be identified in the development agreement and/or
conditional use permit. The responsibility for appropriate and suitable environmental
remediation and/or restoration will be determined through environmental review of the
application and commensurate with the impacts of the specific use permitted, An
environmental remediation and/or restoration plan shall be established in the development
agreement and conditional use permit approval.
Under certain circumstances, it may be deemed appropriate by the County that the major
industrial development urban growth area, or a portion thereof, revert to the previous land
use district, or in rare cases change to another land use district. A change to the
Comprehensive Plan land use map shall be considered as a Comprehensive Plan amendment
application during the annual amendment cycle as governed in Section 9 of this Code,
7. Urban Growth in Adjacent Nonurban Areas. RCW 36.70A requires that development regulations are
established to ensure that urban growth will not occur in nonurban areas adjacent to major industrial
developments. Jefferson County rural land use districts are characterized by rural densities (i.e., one
dwelling unit per five or more acres for rural residential and less dense for resource lands). In order to
ensure that these controls remain effective, it should be noted that proximity to a major industrial
e,
ORDINANCE NO. 02-0311-02
UDCA"fvlENDAlE]\¡'TS FOR '~"IID': EXHIBIT A
Pa.ge 5
development urban growth area or development or extension of infrastructure shall not provide a basis
for a Comprehensive Plan amendment to change the land use district for property adjacent to a major
industrial development to a land use district with greater development density or more intensive uses.
8. Re-authorization of UDC 3.8 after initial period of implementation. In order to ensure that the
standards contained in Section 3.8, as applied to applications for major industrial developments, result in
acceptable and desirable impacts to the physical and cultural landscape of Jefferson County, the County
ComITÚssioners shall, upon the occurrence of five approved major industrial developments or the passage
of five years from the date this section was adopted, whichever occurs first, hold a public hearing and take
action to reauthorize, modify, suspend or delete Section 3,8 of the UDC Any amendments for the UDC
proposed by the County Commissioners as a result of that public hearing shall be processed pursuant to
Section 9 of the UDC
ORDINANCE NO. 02-0311-02
UDCAMENDAfEI,TS FOR "MID'; EXHIBIT A
Page 6
Note: exlùbit C does not include year 2001 amendments to Table 6,
;'¡'è':Wi""i,jRlIl'llt:II\dÜ~¡:¡~i¡"i'i;!¡;:¡;~; ;j< !IIbfi<i"~'i',èWGA,ëiC;;,
e
0
.. ;r. ~ ~
'~ 'ä: ij¡ ~ ~
~ - - ~ ¡,¡ ",.g E ~
g g ë 1;; ]¡ ë 11 ~ :;; § - .. ::¡
'7 "7 ~ - ~ ::¡ ë ë '; '; '8~ ~ ~ ~ :Ë ~ ~
~ ~ :œ ::¡ ... t; .'l .'l g> g ,g:g ¿¡ "i' gj'W g¡ -6 ::¡
,g ,g ~ s g> < c> C> ~ ,S¡ Su - ~ "'0 'g e Q:
¡¡ ¡¡ ~ ~ :§ ~ :::: ~ - ~ :ês ~ 5 ~~ : ;:, .;
'¡:'c E I! 0 => => => I! e,ellC e:;:.co>.c ¡; -e:
:l :l 8 .¡¡ ]j ~ ~ ~ .¡¡ 8 ~ $ ~ ,!:! ~ê. :S' :£ ~
Development Standard AG AG CF RF IF RR RR RR RVC CC NC GC RI lUC LI HI PPR
20 5 1:5 1:10 1:20
Maximum Density (DU/Acre) 1/20 1/5 1/80 1/40 1/20 1/5 1/10 1/20 None NIA NIA NIA N/A NIA NIA NIA NIA
Minimum lot Area NONE SPECIFIED. lOT SIZES SHALL BE SUFFiCIENT TO MEET THE PUBLIC HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION STANDARDS CONTAINED
iN JEFFERSON COUNTY REGULATIONS. ABILITY TO SUBDiViDE is REGULATED BY THE MAPPED DEVELOPMENT DENSITY.
Minimum Front or Road Setbacks (feet)
Minor Collector & Locai Access 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 25 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20
Major Collector 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30
Minor Arterial 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 30 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35
Principal Arterial 50 50 50 50 50 50' 50 50 35 35 35 35 35 35' 35 35 50
Special Setback from A SPECIAL SETBACK IS REQUIRED FROM THE ADJACENT RESOURCE LAND OR USE AS SPECIFIED IN SECTION 3.5.
Resource lands
Minimum Rear and Side Setbacks (feet) 5 5 52 52 5' 5' 5' 5' 5'.' 5'.' 5"< 5" 1()3.' 10'.' 10"< 20" 20
Maximum Building Dimensions
Building Height (feet) 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 ~~dC 35
Area of Impervious Surlace 10 10 10 10 10 25 25 25 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 10
Coverage (%)
Total Building Size (sq.ft.) SUBJECT TO DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH ON,SITE SEPTIC AND WATER None None
~,
'To implement the intent of LNG 19.0 of the Comp"hen"ve Plan to pm"" the fo,," omridor and "" canopy m the ,outhem portion of the Glen Cove/Tri-A"a. tho sotback fmm tho right-of-way of SR 20 ,hall be 50 foot on mh "de of the highway (comprisod of, 30' buff" and, 20' ",back fmm the buff,,).
fot now dmlopmcnt. fmm the in""ocrion of Old Fort Towmend Ro,d ,nd SR 20 to tho incotponuod bound,')' ofthc City ofPon Towm,nd.
'Empt if ,ub"" to the spcci~ "tback. "gui"d fmm ,dJacent resource I,nds ., spocifiod in Secrion 3.5.
3Speci~ Roar and Side Setback,
. Whorom, residenrial uso" pmposod to ,but, commorcial use or zonc. and vice vona, tho sotback shall br thirty-five (35) f,ot
. Whmm a r"idential uso i, pmposod to abut, light indu"rial uso or zone. and vico vetS,. the sotbaok shall be hventy-fivo (25) feot. unless othe",viso specified ;0 this Codo.
. WhCtCvor a re,idenc~ use i, pmposod to abcta he",- industrial use or zone. 'nd vico """. tho setback shall be one hundrod (100) foot, unlm othe",viso 'peClfied in this Code.
'\"oftmr' ",mmercial use i, pmposed to ,but ,n ;odustrial uso Ot zone, and ';ro """. the ",baok ,hall be hvon~' (20) foot. unl", othe",viso spocificd m this Codo.
ORDINANCE NO. 02-0311-02
UDCAAfENDi\JE1\iS FOR "MID':' EXHIBIT A
Pa.ge 7
Section 8.1: Types of Project Permits (Table 8.1)
4.
Project Permit Application Framework.
TABLE 8-1: PERMITS - DECISIONS
Type 11 Type II Type III Type IV Type V
Allowed uses not requiring ClasÛfication of unnamed and Reasonable economic use variances Final plats under Section 7 Special use permits under
notice of application (e,g,. "yes" discretionary uses under Section 3.2 under Section 3.6.4(h) Section 3,3.5
uses listed in Table 3-1. building
permits. etc.)
Minor amendments to planned Release of six-year 1'1' A PRRDs under Section 3.6.13 and Final PRRDs under Jefferson County Comprehmsil"
rural residential developments moratorium for an individual major amendments to PRRDs under Section 3.6.1.~ Plan amendments under
(PRRDs) under Section single-family residence under Section 3.6.13.15(c) Section 9
3.6.13,15 Section 4,16
I lame businesses approved Cottage industries under Section Shoreline substantial development Amendments to development
under Section 4,20 4.17 permits for secondary uses. and regulations including
conditional and variance permits amendments to this UDC and
under the Jefferson County the Land Use Districts Map
Shoreline Master Pmgram (SMP)
Temporary outdoor use permits Short subdivisions under Section Plat alterations and vacations under Amendments to the Jefferson
under Section 4.3R 7.4 Section 7. 1.3 (d) County SMP
Stormwater managemcnt Binding site plam under Section 7.5 Long subdivisions under Section 7.5 Subarea and utility plans and
permits under Section 6.7 amendments thereto
Road access permits under Administrative conditional use Discretionary conditional use Development Agreements
Section 6,R permits under Section 8.8.4(a) [i.e., permits under Section 8.8.4(b) [i.e., and amendments thereto
listed in Table 3-1 as "C(a)"] listed in Table 3-1 as "C(d)"[ under Section 8.11
Sign permits under Section 6.15 Discretionary conditional use Conditional use permits under
permits under Section R.8.4(b) li,e,. Section 8.8.4(c) (i.e., uses listed in
listed in Table 3-t as "C(d)"] Table 3-1 as "C")
Boundary line adjustments Minor variances under Section Major variances under Section
under Section 7,2 8,9.4(a) 8.9.4(b)
l'vfinor adjustments to approved Shoreline substantial development Wireless Telecommunications
preliminary short plats under permits for primary uses under Permits under Section 4,13 and
Section 7,3,7 Jefferson County SMP Ordinance 06-0712-99
Minor amendments to Wireless Telecommunications Maior industrial development
approved preliminary long plats Permits under Section 4.13 and conditional use approval under
under Section 7.4,8 Ordinance 06-0712-99 Section 3.R
Site plan apprO\'al adnnce
determinations under Section
R.7
Exemptions under the Jefferson
County SMP
Revisions to permits issued under the Jefferson County SMP
ORDINANCE NO. 02-0311-02
UDC .AMEI\'DME1\'TS FOR '~'vIID ':' EXHIBIT A
P~ge 8
1.
Purpose. This Section establishes the mechanism under which Jefferson County may enter into
development agreements as authorized by RCW 36.70B.170. A decision to enter into a development
agreement shall be made on a case-by-case basis. A development agreement may be appropriate for
large, complex or phased projects, or projects which were not contemplated by existing development
regulations or existing application procedures.
Development Agreements - General Requirements.
a. Discretion to Enter Development Agreement. A development agreement is an optional device
that may be used at the sole discretion of the County. except a development agreement shall be
required for applications for Master Planned Resorts in accordance with Section 3.4.3.b of the UDC
and major industrial developments in accordance with Sections 3,8.2 of the UDe.
b, Who May Enter. The property owner(s) and the County shall be parties to a development
agreement, provided that if a proposed development is within an adopted municipal UGA, the
applicable town or city shall also be a party to the agreement. The following may be considered for
inclusion as additional parties in a development agreement: contract purchasers, lenders, third-party
beneficiaries and utility service providers,
c. Content of Development Agreements. A development agreement shall be prepared by the
applicant and shall set forth the development standards and other conditions that shall apply to and
govern the development, use and mitigation of the property subject to the agreement,
d. When Development Agreements May Be Approved. A development agreement may be entered
into prior to, concurrent with or following approval of project permits for development of the
property.
e. Consistency with Unified Development Code. The development standards and conditions set
forth in a development agreement shall be consistent with the applicable development regulations set
forth in the Unified Development Code, except in the case of a Master Planned Resort (which
requires a Site-Specific Comprehensive Plan Amendment), where adopted standards may be modified
by the development standards contained in the agreement, so long as all project impacts have been
adequately mitigated. However, the minimum requirements related to the protection of
environmentally sensitive areas in Section 3.6.4 et. seq. may not be varied by adoption of any
development agreement.
Development Standards to be Addressed in Development Agreements.
a. A development agreement shall include, but need not be limited to, one or more of any of the
following types of development controls and conditions:
(1) Project elements such as permitted uses, residential and non-residential densities, scale and
intensity of uses and/or building sizes;
(2) :Mitigation measures, development conditions and other requirements pursuant to
environmental review under RCW 43,21;
(3) Design standards such as maximum heights, setbacks, drainage and water quality
requirements, screening and landscaping and other development features;
(4) Roads, water, sewer, storm drainage and other infrastructure requirements;
(5) Affordable housing;
(6)
(7)
2.
3.
Recreational uses and open space preservation;
Phasing;
ORDINANCE NO. 02-0311-02
UDCAMENDME1\7S FOR 'MID':' EXHIBIT A
Pew 9
(8) Development review procedures, processes, and standards for implementing decisions,
including methods of reimbursement to the county for review processes;
(9) Other appropriate development requirements or procedures.
b, A development agreement may obligate a party to fund or provide services, infrastructure, or other
facilities. Project applicants and governmental entities may include provisions and agreements
whereby applicants are reimbursed over time for financing public facilities.
c. Development agreements shall:
(1) Establish a process for amending the agreement;
(2) Specify a termination date upon which the agreement expires;
(3) Establish a vesting period for applicable standards; and
(4) Reserve authority to impose new or different regulations to the extent required by a serious
threat to public health and safety,
Procedures.
4.
a, A development agreement shall be initiated by a written request from the property owner to the
Administrator of the Department of Community Development. The request should describe the
project and the specific reasons why the project is suitable for a development agreement. The request
should identify the development standards set forth in Section 8.11.3 that the applicant is requesting
be included in the development agreement and any other reasonable information requested by the
County.
b. If the Administrator determines in his or her discretion that a development agreement should be
considered by the County, the property owner shall be so informed, except that development
agreements shall be required for the approval of Master Planned Resorts in accordance with Section
3.4.3.b of the UDC and for the approval of major industrial developments in accordance with Section
3.8.2 of the UDc.
5.
c, When a development agreement is being considered prior to project permit approvals, the property
owner shall provide the County with the same information that would be required for a complete
application for such project permits in order for the County to determine the development standards
and conditions to be included in the development agreement.
d. When a development agreement is being considered following approval of project permits, the
development standards and other conditions set forth in such project permits shall be used in the
development agreement without modification.
e. The county shall only approve a development agreement by ordinance or resolution after a public
hearing. The Board of County Commissioners may, in its sole discretion, approve the development
agreement. If the development agreement relates to a project permit application, the provisions of
RCW 36,70C shall apply to the appeal of the decision on the development agreement.
f. An approved and fully executed development agreement shall be recorded with the County Auditor.
Effect of Development Agreement.
a. A development agreement is binding on the parties and their successors, including a city that assumes
jurisdiction through incorporation or annexation of the area covering the property subject to the
development agreement.
b. A development agreement shall be enforceable during its term by a party to the agreement.
c. A development agreement shall govern during the term of the agreement all or that part of the
development specified in the agreement and may not, unless otherwise agreed to in the development
agreement, be subject to an amendment to a local government land use ordinance or development
ORDINANCE NO. 02-0311-02
UDCAMEI\'DMEI\iTS FOR "MID': EXHIBIT A
Page 10
d.
standard or regulation or a new local government land use ordinance or development standard or
regulation adopted after the effective date of the agreement.
Pennits issued by the County after the execution of the development agreement shall be consistent
with the agreement.
Nothing in RCW 36.70B,170 through 36.70B.200 and Section 501, Ch. 374, Laws of 1995 or this
chapter is intended to authorize the County to impose impact fees, inspection fees, or dedications or
to require any other financial contributions or mitigation measures except as expressly authorized by
other applicable provisions of state law.
e.
9.1 Amendments - Purpose and Introduction.
1. Purpose. The purpose of this Section 9 is to establish procedures for amending the Jefferson County
Comprehensive Plan, defmed for the purposes of this Section as including the plan text and/ or the land use
map,! The Growth Management Act (GMA, Chapter 36.70ARCW) generally allows amendments to
comprehensive plans no more often than once per year, except in emergency situations.! This Section 9 is
intended to provide the following:
A process whereby the county will compile and maintain a preliminary docket of proposed amendments to the
Comprehensive Plan and then select which proposed amendments will be placed on the final docket for review,
no more often than once annually;
a. Timelines and procedures for placing formal applications for amendments by interested parties (i.e.,
project proponents or property owners) on the final docket for review, no more often than once
annually; and
b. Criteria for review of the final docket by the Jefferson County Planning Commission and the
Jefferson County Board of Commissioners. This Section is also intended to provide a process for the
Planning Commission to monitor and assess the Comprehensive Plan, and based on this review to
recommend amendments (if any) to the Plan as part of a standardized amendment process.
2. Public Participation. The public participation process set forth in this Section 9 is intended to solicit
from the public suggested amendments to the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan for future
consideration, and to provide an opportunity for public comment on any proposed amendments. This is
achieved by early and continuous public involvement with broad dissemination of proposals and
alternatives, opportunity for written comments, public meetings after effective notice, provisions for open
discussion, information services, and consideration and response to public comments,
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 regulations and sub-area plans.
4. Applicability ofUDC Section 8. Amendments to the text of the Comprehensive Plan, the land use map,
and the implementing regulations are legislative, Type V decisions under Section 8 of this Code.
Accordingly, all applicable provisions of that Section apply to the decision-making process adopted in this
Section 9, regardless of whether or not they are specifically referred to herein.
1 All references in this Section to the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan are intended to include the Comprehensive Plan text, the
land use map adopted concurrently with the Comprehensive Plan and/or sub-area plans,
2 Final approval of a major industrial development processed under Section 3,8 of this Code is considered per RCW 36, 70A.365(3} to
be an adopted amendment to the Comprehensive Plan land use map desiQnatinQ the site as an urban Qrowth area, Final approval of
an application for a major industrial development shall not be considered an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan for the purposes
of RCW 36,70A.130(2) and may be considered at any time, This Section 9 does not apply,