HomeMy WebLinkAbout033JEFFBRSON COT]NTY
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
621 Sheridan Street, Port Townsend, WA 98368
(360) s7e-4450
Guidance to Create Findings and Recommendation for
Develop ment Regulations
Pleasant Harbor Master Planned Resort MLA08-00188
Proposed Amendments to:
Title 17 & 18 Jefferson County Unified Development Code
February 3, 2016
1
'HOW TO DECIDE' Supplement for Planning Commission
For Title 17 & 18 UDC Amendment
Make a motion, second, discussion?
Recommendation (one of the following):
1) Approve
2) Deny
3) Approve with conditions or modifications
PC Motion Examples to commence discussion:
1. I move that the Jefferson County Planning Commission recommend
approval/denial/aporoval with conditions or modifications of the proposed development
regulations for the Pleasant Harbor Master Planned Resort MLA08-00188.
2.Deliberations-discussion of proposal and entering findings & conclusions
"For all proposed amendments, the planning commission shall develop findings
and conclusions and a recommendation which consider the growth management
indicators set forth in JCC 18.45.050 (4)(b)(0 through @)(b)(vii), as well as the
following:"
INOTE: text from JCC 18.45.080 (1)(b). The indicators mentioned in .050 will
be introduced and addressed later in this worksheet.l
a) 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? [Answer'yes' or'no' and describe why]
Staff Findinq: Yes. Since adoption of the Comprehensive Plan a site specific
Comprehensive Plan amendment to re-designate the subject property from Rural
Residential to Master Planned Resort zoning (MLA06-00087) was approved by the
'How to Decide' Supplementfor Planning Commission
MLA08-00188 Pleasant Harbor MPR Page 2 of 9
Board of County Commissioners on January 14,2008. The site has remained unused
and undeveloped since operations as a campground seized in
Planninq Commission Findinq:
(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based no longer valid; or is new information available which was not considered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? [Answer'yes' or'no' and describe why]
Staff Findinq: No. There is no evidence that the assumptions under which the
Comprehensive Plan were based are no longer valid. The Goals and Policies under the
Land Use and Rural element of the Comprehensive Plan for Master Planned Resort
development are stil! valid. The assumptions under which the Comprehensive Plan
Amendment to re-designate the site from Rural Residential to Master Planned Resort
are still valid.
Planninq Commission Findinq:
(iii) Does the proposed amendment reflect current, widely held values of the
residents of Jefferson County? [Answer'yes' or'no' and describe why]
Staff Findinq: Yes. ln terms of requiring development regulations to construct
infrastructure and buildings for a Master Planned Resort, the proposed amendment
does reflect widely held values of the residents of Jefferson County.
Planninq Commission Findinq:
'How to Decide' Supplementfor Planning Commission
MLA08-00188 Pleasant Harbor MPR Page 3 of9
"ln addition to the required findings set for in [the subsection above], in order to
recommend approval of a formal site-specific proposal to amend the comprehensive
Plan, the planning commission must also make the following findings:"
[NOTE: JCC 18.45.080 U)@Q through @(c)(vii\] @ot applicable since the
proposal is not a site specific amendment to the comprehensive plan)
b) Jcc 18.45.050(4xb)(i) throush (a)(b)(vii)
lnquiry into the Growth Management lndicators
i) ls grovuth and development as envisioned in the Comprehensive Plan occurring
faster or slower than anticipated, or is it failing to materialize? [Answer and descibe
whvl
Staff Findinq: Growth is occurring slower than anticipated due to the current population
projections which are less than 2004 Comprehensive Plan Update estimates.
Planninq Commission Findinq:
ii) Has the capacity of the county to provide adequate services diminished or
increased? [Answer and describe why]
Staff Findinq: The level of services provided by the County can be maintain a|2004
levels dues to the decrease in demand based on population projections.
Planning Commission Findings:
iii) ls there sufficient urban land, as designated and zoned to meet projected demand
and need? [Answer'yes' or'no' and describe why]
'How to Decide' Supplementfor Planning Commission
MLA08-00188 Pleasant Harbor MPR Page 4 of 9
Staff Findinq: Yes, for the reasons indicated above under i) and ii) there is sufficient
land available for development in the Port Hadlock/lrondale UGA - in fact, there is a
surplus.
Planninq Commission Findinq:
iv) Are any of the assumptions upon which the plan is based no longer found to be
valid? [Answer'yes' or'no' and describe why]
Staff Findinq: No. There is no evidence that the assumptions under which the
Comprehensive Plan were based are no longer valid. The Goals and Policies under the
Land Use and Rural element of the Comprehensive Plan for Master Planned Resort
development are still valid. The assumptions under which the Comprehensive Plan
Amendment to re-designate the site from Rural Residential to Master Planned Resort
are also still valid.
Planninq Commission Findinq:
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? [Answer'yes' or'no' and describe why]
Staff Findinq: No. There is no evidence that County-wide attitudes regarding
amendments to the Unified Development Code (UDC) to address development of a
Master Planned Resort, or that the goals and policies regarding Master Planned
Resorts as a land use have changed. The proposed amendment to the UDC is
consistent with the current Comprehensive Plan Vision Statements.
Planninq Commission Findinq:
vi) Are there changes in circumstances which dictate a need for amendment to the
Comprehensive Plan? [Answer'yes' or'no' and describe why]
'How to Decide' Supplementfor Planning Commission
MLA08-00188 Pleasant Harbor MPR Page 5 of 9
Staff Findino: Yes. With the adoption of the site-specific Comprehensive Plan
amendment (MLA06-00087) to re-designate the project site from Rural Residential to
Master Planned Resort zoning, new language specific to the Pleasant Harbor MPR will
need to be included in the upcoming Comprehensive Plan periodic update. No
amendment to the Comprehensive Plan as a result of the adoption of the proposed
development regulations is required.
Planninq Commission Findinq:
vii) Do inconsistencies exist between the Comprehensive Plan and the GMA or the
Comprehensive Plan and the Countywide Planning Policies for Jefferson County?
[Answer'yes' or'no' and descibe why]
Staff Findinq: No. Staff finds no inconsistencies between GMA, the Comprehensive
Plan, the County-wide Planning Policies and the proposed development regulations.
Planninq Commission Findinqs:
c) Attorney General Advisory Memo on Takings, December 2006
1)Does the regulation or action result in a permanent or temporary physical
occupation of private property?
Staff Findinq: No
Planninq Commission Findinq
2) Does the regulation or action deprive the owner of all economically viable
uses of the property?
Staff Findinq: No
Planninq Commission Findinq,
'How to Decide' Supplement for Planning Commission
MLA08-00188 Pleasant Harbor MPR Page 6 of 9
3) Does the regulation or action deny or substantially diminish a fundamental
attribute of private property?
Staff Findinq: No
Planninq Commission Findinq:
4) Does the regulation or action require a property owner to dedicate a portion
of property or to grant an easement?
Staff Findinq: No
Planninq Commission Findinq
5) Does the regulatory action have a severe impact on the landowner's
economic interest?
Staff Findins: Yes. The adoption of the development regulations is necessary for the
applicant to realize the economic investment made in the project to date as well as
future economic interest for their property.
Planninq Commission Findinq:
d) The Record
1) !n addition to the guidance provided by GMA, the County-Wide Planning
Policies, the Jefferson County Code, and the Comprehensive Plan, what else
is in the record with respect to this proposal? [Answer and describe why]
Staff Findinq: A Final Supplemental Environmental lmpact Statement (FSEIS) with
associated project descriptions, maps, technical reports, findings, conclusions and
mitigation measures, appendices, public and regulatory agency comments and
response to comments. Also records of public meetings and hearings, background on
Phase 1 Comprehensive Plan approval,
' H ow t o Decide' Supplement for P lanning Commission
MLA08-00188 Pleasant Harbor MPR Page 7 of 9
Planninq Commission Finding:
2) Can assertions in the record be confirmed by information from other sources?
[Answer'yes' or'no' and describe why]
PC Response:
3) ls the decision we are about to make based on the record? [Answer'yes' or
'no' and describe whyl
PC Response:
4) Does the decision we are about to make, so far as we know, satisfy legal
criteria? [Answer'yes' or'no' and describe why]
PC Response:
5) ls the decision we are about to make limited to the specific request at hand?
[Answer'yes' or'no' and describe why]
PC
Are there any additional findings of fact or conclusions of law pertinent to this decision?
3.
'How to Decide' Supplementfor Planning Commission
MLA08-00188 Pleasant Harbor MPR
Repeat motion and call for a vote (one of the following)
a. In favor - Yea
Page 8 of 9
PC Response:
b. Opposed - Nay
c. Abstain - I
PC Motion Example following decision of whether to approve the Pleasant Harbor Master
Planned Resort Development Regulations:
2. I move that the Planning Commission direct the Chair, Cynthia Koan, to sign the Planning
Commission recommendationfor MLA08-00188 Pleasant Harbor Master Planned Resort
Development Regulations, to be presented to the Board of County Commissioners.
'How to Decide' Supplement for Planning Commission
MLA08-00188 Pleasant Harbor MPR Page 9 of 9
Procedures to develop Findings and Conclusions 12-01-2010
1. Begin with a motion, second, and call for discussion
Recommendation (one of the following):
1) Approve
2) Deny
3) Approve with conditions or modifications
2. Deliberations Growfh Management lndicators - ls there a reason to make this change?
IJCC 18.45.090 goes to.080 and then to.050]
not applv.
A) JCC 18.45.080(1)(b) "Required Findings-Generally. For allproposed amendments,
the planning commission shall develop findings and conclusions and a
recommendation which consider the growth management indicators set forth in JCC
18.45.050(4)(b)(i) through (4)(b)(vii), as wellas fhe following":
i) Have there been changes in circumstances related to the proposal since the
adoption of the Comp Plan?
ii) Are the Comp Plan assumptions stillvalid with respect to the proposal?
iii) Does the proposal reflect current widely-held values of Jefferson County
residents?
B)JCC18.45.050 (4Xb) "Criteria Governing Planning Commission Assessment. The
planning commission's periodic assessmenf and recommendation shall be based
upon, but shall not be limited to, an inquiry into the following growth management
indicators:"
i)Whether growth and development as envisioned in the Comprehensive Plan is
occurring faster or slower than anticipated, or is failing to materialize;
ii) Whether the capacity of the county to provide adequate services has
diminished or increased;
iii) Whether sufficient urban land is designated and zoned to meet projected
demand and need;
iv) Whether any of the assumptions upon which the plan is based are no longer
found to be valid;
I
v) Whether changes in county-wide attitudes necessitate amendments to the
goals of the plan and the basic values embodied within the Comprehensive
Plan Vision Statement;
vi) Whether changes in circumstances dictate a need for amendments;
vii) Whether inconsistencies exist between the Comprehensive Plan and the
GroMh Management Act or the Comprehensive Plan and the County-wide
Planning Policy for Jefferson County.
C) Attorney General Advisory Memo on Takings, December 2006
1. Does the regulation or action result in a permanent or temporary physical
occupation of private property?
2. Does the regulation or action deprive the owner of all economically viable uses of
the property?
3. Does the regulation or action deny or substantially diminish a fundamental
attribute of private property?
4. Does the regulation or action require a proper$ owner to dedicate a portion of
property or to grant an easement?
5. Does the regulatory action have a severe impact on the landowner's economic
interest?
3. The Record*
1) ln addition to the guidance provided by GMA, the County-Wide Planning
Policies, the Jefferson County Code, and the Comprehensive Plan, what else
is in the record with respect to this proposal?
2) Can assertions in the record be confirmed by information from other
sources?
3) ls the decision we are about to make based on the record?
4) Does the decision we are about to make, so far as we know, satisfy legal
criteria?
5) ls the decision we are about to make limited to the specific request at hand?
4. Repeat motion and vote
*The record consists of documents generated; information gathered at public meetings and
information about the meetings-who, what, when, number of people; interactions with state
agencies or consulting firms, et cetera; and findings from PC and Board (personal
communication, David Alvarez, 2009)
Griteria for Evaluation of Proposed Amendment-Required Findings
8.1 Planning Commission and Board of County Commissioners Review of
Growth Management lndicators and Required Findings
18.45.090 (3) Planning Commission Review. The planning commission shall hold a public
hearing on any amendment(s) to the implementing regulations and shall make a
recommendation to the board of county commissioners using the site-specific criteria set forth in
JCC 18.45.080(1)(b) and (1Xc), as applicable.
8.1.1 Required Findings for All Proposed Amendments--18.45.080(1Xb)
(b) Required Findings - Generally. For all proposed amendments, the planning commission shall
develop findings and conclusions and a recommendation which consider the growth management
indicators set forth in JCC 18.45.050(4XbXi) through ( )(b)(vii), as well as the following:
(i) Whether circumstances related to the proposed amendment and/or the area in which it is
located have substantially changed since the adoption of the Jefferson County Comprehensive
Plan;
Planninq Commission: Since adoption of the Comprehensive Plan. a residential parcel was
intensivelv develooed under a Conditional Use Permit for a transit center. The LAMIRD chanqed
verv little. but has some redevelopment of the qas station with an illuminated siqn and a proposal
bv UPS for a small expansion to their packaoe transfer facility.
Staff Findinq: Since adoption of the Comprehensive Plan, a residential parcel was intensively
developed under a Conditional Use Permit for a transit center. The LAMIRD changed very little,
but has some redevelopment of the gas station with an illuminated sign and a proposal by UPS for
a small expansion to their package transfer facility. The Fire District installed a
readerboard/changing message sign in Chimacum in the commercialzone. The sign may not be in
compliance with some parts of the Sign Code because it is close to residences across the street.
,
(ii) Whether the assumptions upon which the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan is based are
no longer valid, or whether new information is available which was not considered during the
adoption process or any annual amendments of the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan; and
Plannino Commission: There is no indication that assumptions upon which the Comp Plan is based
are no lonqer valid.
Staff Findinq: The Comprehensive Plan documents a rural vision in the 2004 periodic update,
and further community discussion will be solicited in the next periodic update regarding rural
character and rural aesthetics. Economic development is a key component of the Comprehensive
Plan, and is encouraged as infill, limited to commercial zones, and buffered from residentialzones,
(iii) Whether the proposed amendment reflects current widely held values of the residents of
Jefferson County.
Plannino Commission: Residents of Jefferson Countv want to have input reoardinq what happens
in their neiqhborhood. and the public's values chanqed in reqard to usinq Conditional Use Permit
review on a site bv site basis to allow chanqinq messaoe siqns in aoprooriate areas.
Staff Findinq: There is no indication that residents no longer connect to the rural character of
Jefferson County.
8.1.2 Criteria Governing Planning Commission Assessment -- 18.45.050(4XbXi)
through (aXbXvii)
(b) Criteria Governing Planning Commission Assessment. The planning commission's periodic
assessment and recommendation shall be based upon, but shall not be limited to, an inquiry into the
following growth management indicators:
(i) Whether growth and development as envisioned in the Comprehensive Plan is occuning faster
or slower than anticipated, or is failing to materialize;
Plannino Commission: Our current GMA planninq estimate for 20 vears is actuallv less than the
2004 estimate for this vear.
Staff Findinq: Annual compounded Countywide total growth rate envisioned in the 2004
Comprehensive Plan was 1.78oh. However, current population planning projections for 2010-2036
is 0.97% (Grovvth Manaqement Planninq Population Proiections, Resolution 38-15). Our current
GMA planning estimate for 20 years is actually less than the 2004 estimate for this year.
(ii) Whether the capacity of the county to provide adequate services has diminished or increased;
Planninq Commission: Because the planned oopulation in the 2004 Comprehensive Plan has not
materialized, the levels of service in the 2004 plan can qenerally be maintained at the same level
to accommodate the next 20-vear pooulation oroiection.
Staff Findinq: Because the planned population in the 2004 Comprehensive Plan has not
materialized, the levels of service in the 2004 plan can generally be maintained at the same level
to accommodate the next 20-year population projection.
(iii) Whether sufficient urban land is designated and zoned to meet projected demand and need;
Planninq Commission: finds that it is not aoolicable.
Staff Findinq: There is a surplus of residential parcels in the county. See also Comprehensive
Plan AppendixL: Proposed lrondale/Poft Hadlock UGA: DWELLING UNIT & POPULATION
HOLDING CAPACIW ANALYSIS, January 21,2009.
This 2009 report used an annual growth rate of 2.75o/o. The document analyzes the UGA capacity
at urban densities by accurately differentiating developed, underdeveloped, and vacant residential
lands, factoring actual mapped criticalareas and buffers, and taking into account actual projected
needs for public lands and right-of-way. lt uses the planning factor of 2.2 persons per household.
By applying a 75o/o density yield rate (market capture) it demonstrates a total theoretical holding
capacity in the lPH UGA of 5,065 persons. Since lhe 2024 population projection was 4,906, it
seems unlikely that we will need to increase capacity, but supports that we could increase
population allocation to the UGA due to its underutilized capacity. However, low-density growth
that foregoes and interferes with urban density development and redevelopment before sanitary
sewer availability, would not be favorable.
(iv) Whether any of the assumptions upon which the plan is based are no longer found to be valid;
Plannino Commission: Other than information beinq dated to 2004. the qoals and policies still
remain valid. Our Land Use and Rural Element. and the current economic development strateqies
of farmino/aqriculture. tourism. still reflects Jefferson Countv as beino characterized as a rural
countv.
Staff Findinq: Other than information being dated to 2004, the goals and policies still remain
valid. Our Land Use and Rural Element, and the current economic development strategies of
farming/agriculture, tourism, still reflects Jefferson County as being characterized as a rural county
(v) Whether changes in county-wide attitudes necessitate amendments to the goals of the plan and
the basic values embodied within the Comprehensive Plan Vision Statement;
Plannino Commission: amendments are not necessitated. so the item does not apolv.
Staff Findinq: Changes in county-wide attitudes are not evident. The rapid evolution of electronic
signs can quickly take hold in communities without strong place-based design guidelines. Rapid
advances in electronic signs is outpacing the impact considerations of local regulations (Ihq
Requlation of Siqnaqe: Guidelines for Local Reoulation of Diqital On-Premise Sions, M.
Triantafillou & A.C. Weinstein, Univ. of Cincinnati/Cleveland State Univ. 8 pp. No date.). The City
of Port Townsend prohibits readerboard/changing message signs. The definition of "rural
character" is not finite, and may change through time. Rural Character might also be aptly applied
to communities with disorganized visual landscapes and conflicting zoning guidelines. The
development and design standards for communities should match how people perceive their
environment. Does it have visual quality, feel good, increase safety, and create comfortable street
environments that people want to connect to? ls it an environment that will attract economic
development? ls it a streetscape that promotes active use? From Planning Commission
discussions, it can be postulated that current County-wide attitudes may be more attentive to these
considerations than in the past.
(vi) Whether changes in circumstances dictate a need for amendments;
Planninq Commission: This code chanoe does not necessitate a chanqe. and this item is not
relevant.
I
(vii)Whether inconsistencies exist between the Comprehensive Plan and the GMA or the
Comprehensive Plan and the County-wide Planning Policy for Jefferson County. [Ord. 2-06 $ 1]
Plannino Commission: The oroposal is consistent with the adiacent LAMIRD and the conditional
use permit review orocess can allow the public to appropriatelv evaluate specific impacts.
Staff Findinq: There are inconsistencies between the proposed amendment and the
Comprehensive Plan regarding community design.
8.2 Time, Place and Manner Findings
8.2.'l Does the regulation serve an important governmental interest?
Yes.
8.2.2 ls the govemment interest served by the regulation unrelated to the suppression of a particular
message?
Yes
8.2.3 ls the regulation narrowly tailored to serve the government's interest?
Yes
8.2.4 Does the regulation leave open ample alternative means for communicating messages?
Yes
8.3 Takings Findings
Staff Findinq: Outside of the cunent amendment proposal, there has been an installation of a
readerboard/changing message sign at the E. Jefferson Fire & Rescue building in Chimacum and
a permit application for an electronic sign in Port Ludlow. The last sign code change was dictated
by a change in circumstances, namely legal precedence. The Court stopped the County's
enforcement of parts of the sign code because of free speech issues with language in the old sign
code.
8.3.1 Does the regulation or action result in a permanent physical occupation of private property?
No.
8.3.2 Does the regulation or action require a property owner to dedicate a portion of property or to grant
an easement?
No
8.3.3 Does the regulation or action deprive the owner of all economically viable uses of the property?
No
8.3.4 Does the regulatory action have a severe impact on the landowner's economic interest?
No
8.3.5 Does the regulation or action deny a fundamental attribute of ownership?
No
8.5 Findings on The Record
8.5.1 ln addition to the guidance provided by GMA, the County-Wide Planning Policies, the Jefferson
County Code, and the Comprehensive Plan, what else is in the record with respect to this proposal?
The 2014 Siqn Code public process and deliberations are part of the record. alonq with this hearinq
Drocess.
8.5.2 Can assertions in the record be confirmed by information from other sources?
All assertions are documented in the record.
8.5.3 ls the decision we are about to make based on the record?
Yes
8.5.4 Does the decision we are about to make, as far as we know, satisfy legal criteria?
Yes
ls the decision we are about to make limited to the specific request at hand?
No, the decision is mindful of all instances in the Countv.
Planning Gommission Recommendation
The planning commission's findings and conclusions shall include a recommendation to the board of
county commissioners that the proposed amendment(s) be denied, approved, or approved with
conditions or modifi cations.
Motion: To accept the alternate proposed text #2 [include heading, title, date]
REPEAT THE MOTION AND VOTE
Yay 5
Nay 2
Abstain 1
Note
During our discussion of this issue it was noted that the representation of several types of public
facilities is inadequate in the use table. lt is recommended that Jefferson Transit Authority consider
rezoning to Essential Public Facility.
JEFFERSON COUNTY
STATE OF WASHINGTON
In the matter of Amending the Unified
Development Code, JCC 18.30.150
Signs, to Update Design Standards for
Changing Message Signs
Ordinance No. 01-0201-16
)
)
)
)
WIIEREAS, RCW Chapter 36.70A, et seq., also known as the Growth Management Act
(GMA), requires that counties planning under the GMA adopt development regulations
that are consistent with and implement their comprehensive plans; and
WIIEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners for Jefferson County, a municipal
corporation of the State of Washington, (hereinafter "the Board") constitutes the
legislative body for Jefferson County; and
WHEREAS, Jefferson County adopted a GMA-derived Comprehensive Plan (CP) on
August 28, 1998 via Resolution No. 72-98 and completed its required seven-year update
of said Comprehensive Plan via Ordinance No. 17-1213-04 on December 13, 2004; and
WHEREAS, the Unified Development Code (UDC) was originally adopted on
December 18, 2000 as a development regulation required by the Growth Management
Act (GMA), to be effective January 16,2001; and
WHEREAS, for proper citation in courts of law the UDC has been codified within the
Jefferson County Code (JCC) at Title 18; and
WHEREAS, the Board now amends Title 18 by the adoption of this ordinance and
makes the following findings of fact:
l. On September 7,2015, Jefferson Transit Authority submitted a revised site plan and
rendering of a proposed sign for sign building permit BLD14-00015, whose project
description is "8'x 32" (22 sq.ft.) sign by the main entrance of proposed Jffirson
Transit Facility offFour Corners Road" to the Department of Community
Development (DCD).
2. The revised proposal included placement of an electronic readerboard/changing
message sign at the transit facility-a split-zoned parcel of Rural Residential l:10 &
Rural Residential 1:5-at 63 Four Comers Road, which also is neighbored by rural
residential parcels.
3. The proposal was found to be inconsistent with Jefferson County Code
18.30.150(6)(c): "Changing message signs are allowed only in rural commercial and
Page 1
rural industrial zones and must be directed away from adjacent propeny zoned
residential or open space, including properties across a public right-of-way."
4. The Board of County Commissioners discussed the sign code in open session on
October 12,2015.
6. As part of the motion to approve their Consent Agenda for October 12,2015,the
Board directed DCD to evaluate alternate approaches to regulating electronic signs
and to proceed with an amendment to Title 18 JCC allowing a readerboard/changing
message sign for public purpose facilities in zones other than rural commercial and
rwal industrial.
7. DCD introduced the Board-sponsored amendment proposal to the Planning
Commission on October 7,2015, as Unified Development Code (uDC) Amendment
application MLAI 5-00063.
8. Pursuant to JCC 18.45,090(3), the planning commission shall hold a public hearing
on any amendment(s) to the implementing regulations and shall make a
recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners.
9. On October 21,2015, DCD issued aNotice of lntent to Amend the Unified
Development Code (Title 18) relating to the Sign Code, and made available to the
public all records to date associated with MLA15-00063.
I 0. DCD also provide d a l4-Day Notice of a Public Hearing to be held before the
Jefferson County Planning Commission on November 4,2075.
I l. The proposed amendment to Title 18 was subject to analysis under the rules of
Chapter 197-ll WAC State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA). Through the SEPA
Responsible Official, DCD adopted existing environmental documents for review of
the proposal, reviewed the proposal countywide and cumulatively for probable
significant adverse environmental impacts, and on October 21,2015, issued a
prelirninary Mitigated Determination of Nonsi gnifi cance (MDNS) threshold
determination. The SEPA analysis is documented in the October 29, 2015 Staff
Report.
12. On October 29,2015, Department of Community Development (DCD) transmitted
the Staff Report & SEPA Environmental Review: Proposal to Amend Unified
Page 2
5. The Board of County Commissioners initiated a proposed amendment to the
implementing regulations pursuant to JCC 18.45.090.
Development Code JCC 18.30.150 Sign Code; Integrated Growth Management
Act/State Environmental Policy Act Analysis, Environmental Review of a Non-
Project Actiontothe Planning Commission with evaluation of the proposal and
additional recommendations for revising the sign code.
13. Conclusions in the staff report did not find consistency between the proposal, as
presented, and the Comprehensive Plan goals and policies; although areas of
uncertainty were examined, mitigating measures were discussed, and suggested
changes to the original proposal were offered.
14. The staffrecommendations included a narrower definition of govemment entities
and to include a conditional use permit processes to review elecfionic sign permit
applications.
15. The Planning Commission held a duly noticed public meeting on November 4,2015
and received written and verbal public comments on the proposal. Approximately
half of the testimony was regarding a sign proposal for Port Ludlow, which also
would not comply with the current sign code found in Title 18 because of the
proposed sign's proximity to residential and open space. After the Hearing Record
was closed, the Planning Commission began deliberation on the sign code proposal.
16. On December Znd,2015, DCD distributed a sunmary document Preparationfor
December 2nd Planning Commission Meeting, Update Reportfor MI-415-00063,
Proposed Amendment to Title 18 JCC JCC /,8. j0.150 Sign Code. November 30,
201 5, Revised December I , 201 5 to assist the Planning Commission with evaluating
different code arnendment language options and the resulting effect in its
application, in order to facilitate deliberations on the proposals.
17. The document described immediately above compared original application language,
original DCD proposed text, alternate proposed text #1 after the Planning
Commission hearing, and alternate proposed text#Z after the Planning Commission
hearing.
18. Modifications to the proposed code amendment language were made during
deliberations to be responsive to public comment and to address ways of reducing
overall impacts from electronic signs.
19. On December 2,2015, the Planning Commission deliberated and completed findings
of fact and recommendations for consideration by the Board of County
Commissioners in their final legislative action. The Planning Commission voted
favorably 5-2 with one abstention on the motion "To accept the Altemate Proposed
Text#2 after Planning Commission Public Hearing, in document Preparationfor
December 2d Planning Commission Meeting, Update Reportfor MILll5-00063,
Proposed Amendment to Title 18 JCC JCC 18.30.150 Sign Code. November 30,
2015, Revised December l, 2015."
Page 3
20. ln the December 2,2015 Planning Commission meeting, the Planning Commission
presented findings of fact based on Required Findings of JCC 18.45.080(1XbXi)
through (iii); Growth Management Indicators JCC 18.45.050(4XbXi) through (vii);
Time, Place and Manner Findings; Takings Findings; and Findings on the Record, as
follows:
Required Findings, JCC 1 8.45.080(1 )O)
(i) Whether circumstances related to the proposed amendment and/or tle area in
which it is located have substantially changed since the adoption of the Jefferson
County Comprehensive Plan;
Planning Commission Findine: Since adoption of the Comprehensive Plan, a
residential parcel was intensively (sic) developed under a Conditional Use Permit for
a transit center. The LAMIRD changed very little, but has [seen] some
redevelopment of the gas station with an illuminated sign and a proposal by UPS for
a small expansion to their package transfer facility.
(ii) Whether the assumptions upon which the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan
is based are no longer valid, or whether new information is available which was not
considered during the adoption process or any annual amendments of the Jefferson
County Comprehensive Plan; and
Plannine Commission Findine: There is no indication that assumptions upon which
the Comp Plan is based are no longer valid.
(iii) Whether the proposed amendment reflects current widely held values of the
residents of Jefferson County.
Planning Commission Findine: Residents of Jefferson County want to have input
regarding what happens in their neighborhood, and the public's values changed in
regard to using Condifional Use Permit review on a site by site basis to allow
changing message signs in appropriate areas.
JCC I 8.45.050(4XbXi) through (a)@)(vii), Growth Management Indicators
(i) Whether growth and development as envisioned in the Comprehensive Plan is
occurring faster or slower than anticipated, or is failing to materialize;
Planning Commission Finding: Our current GMA planning estimate for 20 years is
actually less than the 2004 estimate for this year.
(ii) Whether the capacity of the cor:nty to provide adequate services has diminished
or increased;
Page 4
-
Planning Commission Finding: Because the planned population in the 2004
Comprehensive Plan has not materialized, the levels of service in the 2004 plan can
generally be maintained at the same level to accommodate the next 2O-year
population projection.
(iii) Whether sufficient urban land is designated and zoned to meet projected demand
and need;
Planning Commission Findine: This indicator is not applicable to our review.
(iv) Whether any of the assumptions upon which the plan is based are no longer
found to be valid;
Plannine Commission Finding: Other than information being dated to 2004, the
goals and policies still remain valid. Our Land Use and Rural Element, and the
current economic development strategies of farming/agriculture, tourism, still
reflects Jefferson County as being characterized as a rural county.
(v) Whether changes in county-wide attitudes necessitate amendments to the goals of
the plan and the basic values embodied within the Comprehensive Plan Vision
Statement;
Planning Commission Findine: Amendments are not necessitated, so the item does
not apply to this review.
(vi) Whether changes in circumstances dictate a need for amendments;
Plannine Commission Findine: This code change does not necessitate a change to
the Comprehensive Plan, and this item is not relevant to the review.
(vii) Whether inconsistencies exist between the Comprehensive Plan and the GMA
or the Comprehensive Plan and the County-wide Planning Policy for Jefferson
County.
Planning Commission Findine: The proposal is consistent with an adjacent LAMIRD
and the conditional use permit review process can allow the public to appropriately
evaluate specific impacts.
2l.T\e Planning Commission also made the following Time, Place and Manner
Findings with respect to the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and its
parallel provision in the State Constitution:
A. Does the regulation serve an important governmental interest?
Plannine Commission Finding: Yes, the regulation serves an important
governmental interest.
Page 5
-
B. Is the government interest served by the regulation unrelated to the suppression of
a particular message?
Plannine Commission Finding: Correct, the govemment interest served by the
regulation is not related to suppression of any message.
C. Is the regulation narrowly tailored to serve the government's interest?
Plannine Commission Finding: Yes, the regulation is narrowly tailored.
D. Does the regulation leave open ample alternative means for communicating
messages?
Plannins Commission Finding: Yes, ample altemative means for
communicating messages are left open by the regulation.
22.T1rc Planning Commission also made the following findings regarding the
substance of the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution (and parallel state
constitutional provision) that no "iaking" of private property occur without'Just
compensation:"
A. Does the regulation or action result in a permanent physical occupation of
private propefi?
Planning Commission Finding: No, the regulation does not result in any
physical occupation of private property.
B. Does the regulation or action require a property owner to dedicate a portion of
property or to grant an easement?
Plannine Commission Finding: No, the regulation does not require any
dedication or easement of private property.
C. Does the regulation or action deprive the owner of all economically viable
uses of the property?
Plannine Commission Findine: No, the regulation does not deprive the owner of
all economically viable uses of a property.
D. Does the regulatory action have a severe impact on the landowner's economic
interest?
Planning Commission Findins: No, the regulation does not have a severe impact
on a landowner's economic interest.
E. Does the regulation or action deny a fi.rndamental attribute of ownership?
Page 6
Plannins Commission Finding: No, the regulation does not deny a firndamental
attribute of ownership.
-
23.The Planning Commission also made these findings based on the record created
before it:
A. In addition to the guidance provided by GMA, the County-Wide Planning
Policies, the Jefferson County Code, and the Comprehensive Plan, what else is in
the record with respect to this proposal?
Planning Commission Finding: The 2014 Sign Code public process and
deliberations are part of the record, along with the hearing process of this
proposed amendment.
B. Can assertions in the record be confirmed by information from other sources?
Plannine Commission Finding: All assertions are documented in the record.
C. Is the decision we are about to make based on the record?
Planning Commission Findinq: Yes, the recommendations are based on the
record.
D. Does the decision we are about to make, as far as we know, satisff legalcriteria?
Planning Commission Findine: Yes, the recommendations, as far as we know,
satisfy le gal criteria.
E. Is the decision we are about to make limited to the specific request at hand?
Plannine Commission Findine: No, the recommendation is mindful of all
instances and applications in the County.
24. On December 4,2015, the Planning Commission Chair transmitted the formal letter
of findings in Planning Commission Recommendations for Proposed Text
Amendment to JCC 18.30.150 Signs, Mllll5-00063 to the Board of County
Commissioners.
25.The Planning Commission recommendation provides the following:
a. It focuses on govemment entities that are in close proximity (100 feet) to a
Limited Area of More Intensive Rural Development (LAMIRD) as a way
to consider higher intensities of use by govemment entities near the
LAMIRD and to reduce the countywide application of electronic message
signs in rural areas outside of more intensively developed areas. The
recomrnendation applies a conditional discretionary use permit process for
review of these proposals.
Page 7
b. It allows consideration of changing message signs, for instances when an
electronic sign is within 200 feet of residential or open space zones, by
evaluating site-specific conditions under a conditional use permit for
protecting neighboring properties from nuisance issues, rather than a
blanket prohibition of the signs.
26. On December 8,2015, DCD Staffmet with the Board of County Commissioners
during the County Administrator's Briefing Session. During the discussion in the
briefing, additional text changes were proposed by staff and the Board regarding the
following:
a. Increase the distance from a government entity sign placement from 100
feet to 150 feet to a LAMIRD, in the event that the state recommends the
maximum 50-foot road setback for a sign that is adjacent to a LAMIRD
but across a 100-foot wide state right-of-way.
b. Add master planned resort and urban commercial to the list of
commercial areas allowed for changing message signs.
c.Speciff a Type III CUP process (Hearing Examiner decision) for
governmental entities to remove any perception of appearance of faimess
issues; and retain the Type II Conditional Discretionary Use Perrnit
process (C(d) for non-governmental entities.
27. On January 4,2015, DCD Staff met with the Board during the County
Administrator's Briefing Session to discuss the applicability of JCC 18.30.150 Sign
Code to Title 17, the development regulations which govem land use and land
- development within the Port Ludlow Master Planned Resort. It was found that JCC
18.30.150 Sign Code does apply to Title 17.
28. The Board concurs with certain revisions proposed by staff in the December 8, 2015
briefing session, and finds that MLA15-00063 (sign code amendment) is consistent
with the Growth Management Act, the County Comprehensive Plan, County-wide
planning policies.
29. Since proposed revisions to the sign code have been made by staff and the Board
since the Planning Commission public hearing without the opporrunity of public
input as the GMA requires, the Board finds that an additional public hearing is
warranted.
30. Such a public hearing before the County Commissioners has been conducted prior
to adoption of this Ordinance.
Page 8
31. On January 77,2015, through adoption of the Consent Agenda by the Board, the
publication of a public hearing was thereby approved, and scheduled to be held
during their regular session on February 1,2016-
32. On January 20,2016, a Notice of lntent to Amend the Unified Development Code
and aNotice of Public Hearing at the Board of County Commissioners on February
1,2016, at 10: I 5 a.m. was published in the paper of record, and established a 1 0-day
comment period pursuant to JCC18.40.230.
33. The Board of County Commissioners concurs with the Planning Commission's
written findings of fact as detailed in the their December 4,2015letter Planning
Commission Recommendations for Proposed Text Amendment to JCC 18.30./,50
Signs, MLA|5-00063,and incorporates and adopts the Planning Commission's
Required Findings of JCC 18.45.080(lXbX, through (iii); Growth Management
lndicators JCC 18.45.050(4XbXD through (vii); Time, Place and Manner Findings;
Takings Findings; and its Findings on the Record.
34. The Board of County Commissioners incorporates the findings augmented by audio
recordings of Planning Commission meetings October 7, 20 I 5 ; November 4, 2Al 5 ;
and December 2,2015; and Board briefing sessions on December 8, 2015 and
January 4,2016.
35. The proposed sign code is consistent with the following sections of the County's
Comprehensive Plan:
Land Use and Rural Element:
Goal: LNG 4.0: Establish and maintain the size and configuration of the County's
Rural Village Centers and provide for the development of appropriately scaled
commercial uses.
Policy LNG 4.2: Encourage a variety of commercial, retail, professional, tourist-
related, community service, cottage industry, and residential uses, including
duplexes, triplexes and assisted living facilities, within the designated boundaries of
Rural Village Centers (RVC) at a scale appropriate to protect the rural character of
the natural neighborhood.
Policy LNG 4.6: Ensure visual compatibility of Rural Village Center commercial
infill development with the surrounding rural area, through the creation and
implementation of community based "rural character" design and development
standards. Uses within Rural Village Centers shall be scaled and sized to preserve
the natural character ofthe neighborhood.
Page 9
36
Rural Aesthetics: Preserving views of natural beauty is key to maintaining rural
character. Development activities should at the least be buffered from view to
provide visual relief.
Rwal Character: The size and scope of commercial developments should be
consistent with the small town, rural and agricultural character.
Numerous federal and state cases have discussed the parameters of how local
governments may regulate the time, place and manner of the expression of
protected free speech. These cases (and the summaries of their holdings) assisted
the County in formulating this sign code:
a. Metromedia- 453 U.S. at 507-08,and 511-12. U.S. Supreme Court.
Regulating the size, height and location of commercial signs is
constitutional for promoting traffic safety and community aesthetics. For
the same reasons, Billboards may be banned.
Collier vs. the City of Tacoma. 854 P2nd. 1046 (Washington 1993).
Time limits on political signs are permissible to advance aesthetic
interests.
c.National Advertising CO. v. Citv of Denver. 912 F.2nd 405 (10s Circuit
Court)
Offpremise signs may be banned.
Hill v. Colorado. 530 U.S. 703. 719-21 (2000) U.S. Supreme Court.
A sign code is not content-based simply because an official must review
the content of the sign to determine which provisions of the code apply.
e.Taxpayers v. Vincent. U.S. Supreme Court.
Signs are content based if speech is regulated to favor some speech or
viewpoints at the expense of others.
b.
d.
Page 10
f.G.K. Travel v. Ciqv of Lake Oswego.436 F. 3d 1064 (9s Circuit Court)
2006.
Exemptions from code requirements for certain categories of signs (for
instance public signs, legal notices, hospitals, etc) are not content-based,
and instead are based on certain types ofspeakers, and not the speech.
Linmark Associates Inc.. v. Townshio of Willineboro.43l U.S. 85 (1977)
U.S. Supreme Court
Local government may not prohibit temporary real estate signs in
residential areas as it unduly restricts the flow of information.
South Suburban Housing Center v. Greater South Suburban Bd. of
Realtors.935 F.2'd 868 Oe Circuit Court) 1991.
Restictions on the size, placement and number of realty signs were upheld
to protect aesthetics of community.
Reed v. Town of Gilbert (,Arizona). 135 S. Ct.2218 (issued 611812015).
g.
h.
1.
37
Sign regulations must be content-neutral or the sign regulations will not
survive "strict scrutiny", thereby making the regulation unconstitutional.
On February 1,201,6, the Board of County Commissioners held a public hearing on
the proposed sign code amendments. Testimony was heard from four citizens who
spoke in favor of the proposed amendment.
Following the public hearing, the Board deliberated on the proposal and voted on a
motion to adopt the amendment as written. The motion was ca:ried by the Board
with a vote of two in favor, with the third member on an excused absence.
38
39 Adoption of this sign code by the Jefferson County Board furthers and promotes the
health, welfare and general safety of the citizens of this county and is hereby
enacted pursuant to the general police power granted by the State Constitution to all
local govemments.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of County Commissioners for
Jefferson County, Washinglon, in regular session assembled, as follows:
Page 1 1
ta>
Section One: Jefferson County Code ("JCC") Section 18.30.150(6)(c) is hereby
amended to read as follows:
(c) Changing message signs are allowed only in rural commercial, rural industrial, urban
commercial, and master planned resort commercial zones and must be directed away
from adjacent properly zoned residential or open space, including properties across a
public right-of-way; except that changing message signs which are also governmental
signs, as defined elsewhere in this code, are allowed in other zoning designations not
listed here, through a Conditional Use Permit (C) process, if the parcel where the
proposed changing message sign would be built, installed or placed is owned by a
municipal corporation or other public entity, and the sign is placed or installed within 150
feet of the logical outer boundary of a LAMIRD. No changing message sign may be
located closer than 200 feet from adjacent property zoned residential or open space, as
measured from the sign location to the nearest property line of the residential or open
space zoned property; provided that a changing message sign may be closer than 200 feet
to a residential or open space zone with review and approval through a conditional
discretionary use permit process (C(d) if proposed by a non-governmental entity, or with
review and approval through a Conditional Use Permit (C) process if proposed by a
govemmental entity as described above.
Section Two. Severability: tf any portion of the new text of JCC 18.30.150 is held to be
unconstitutional or otherwise unlawful by a court of competent jurisdiction, the
remainder of JCC 18.30.150, as adopted here or as hereafter amended, shall remain valid
and in full force and effect.
Section Three. Effective Date: This Ordinance shall become effective upon adoption.
this lst day of Februaryr20l6.
oat
JEFFERSON COT]NTY
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
I ,rl j
.(
,.1
"{ourt*^-Wr*
(nN*fuea-
Carolyn Hvery A
Deputy Clerk of the Board
as to Form
David Alvarez
Deputy Prosecuting Attorney
Page 12
Kathleen Kler, Chair
Phil Johnson, Member
(Excused Absence)
David Sullivan, Member
t)zot (,
. ,'r
li
JEFFERSON COUNTY
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
621 Sheridan Street, Port Townsend, WA 98368
p6a) s7e-4450
Guidance to Create Findings and Recommendation for
Development Regulations
Pleasant Harbor Master Planned Resort MLA08-00188
Proposed Amendments to:
Title l7 & 18 Jefferson County Unified Development Code
February 3,2016
I
ffi3\wz
.(
'HOW TO DECIDE' Supplement for Planning Commission
For Title 17 & 18 UDC Amendment
1 Make a motion, second, discussion?
Recommendation (one of the following):
1) Approve
2) Deny
3) Approve with conditions or modifications
PC Motion Examples to commence discussion:
1. I move that the Jffirson County Planning Commission recommend
approval/dqial/approval with cortdittptts ounodifications of the proposed development
regulations for the Pleasant Harbor Master Planned Resort MIA08-00188
2.Deliberations-discussion of proposal and entering findings & conclusions
"For all proposed amendments, the planning commission shall develop findings
and conclusions and a recommendation which consider the growth management
indicators set forth in JCC 18.45.050 (4)(b)(i) through @)(b)(vii), as well as the
following:"
[NOTE: text from JCC 18.45.080 (1)(b). The indicators mentioned in .050 will
be introduced and addressed later in this worksheet.l
a) Required findings; adapted from JCC 18.45.080 (lxb)(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? [Answer'yes' or'no' and describe why]
PC Response
'How to Decide' Supplementfor Planning Commission
Ml-/108-00188 PHMPR Page 2 of7
(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? [Answer'yes' or'no' and describe why]
PC Response
(iii) Does the proposed amendment reflect current, widely held values of the
residents of Jefferson County? [Answer'yes' or'no' and describe why]
"ln addition to the required findings set for in [the subsection above], in order to
recommend approval of a formal site-specific proposal to amend the comprehensive
Plan, the planning commission must also make the following findings:"
[NOTE: JCC 18.45.080 @)(c)(i) through @)(c)(viii)] (not applicable since the
proposal is not a sife specific amendment to the comprehensive plan)
b) Jcc 18.45.050(4xb)(i) throush (a)(b)(vii)
lnquiry into the Growth Management lndicators
i) ls growth and development as envisioned in the Comprehensive Plan occurring
faster or slower than anticipated, or is it failing to materialize? [Answer 'yes'or 'no'
and describe whyl
PC Response
ii) Has the capacity of the county to provide adequate services diminished or
increased? [Answer'yes' or'no' and describe why]
'How to Decide' Supplementfor Planning Commission
MLAOS-OOI88 PHMPR Page 3 of7
PC Response:
PC Response
iii) ls there sufficient urban land, as designated and zoned to meet projected
demand and need? [Answer'yes'or'no'and describe why]
iv) Are any of the assumptions upon which the plan is based no longer found to be
valid? [Answer'yes' or'no' and describe why]
PC
PC Response:
PC Response:
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? [Answer'yes'or'no'
and describe whyl
vi) Are there changes in circumstances which dictate a need for amendment to the
Comprehensive Plan? [Answer'yes' or'no' and describe why]
PC Response
vii) Do inconsistencies exist between the Comprehensive Plan and the GMA or the
Comprehensive Plan and the Countywide Planning Policies for Jefferson County?
[Answer'yes' or'no' and describe why]
' H ow t o D e cid e' Supp I em en t fo r P I anning C ommis s i o n
MLAOS-00188 PHMPR Page 4 of7
PC Response
c) Attorney General Advisory Memo on Takings, December 2006
1) Does the regulation or action result in a permanent or temporary physical
occupation of private property?
PC Respon
2) Does the regulation or action deprive the owner of all economically viable
uses of the property?
PC
3) Does the regulation or action deny or substantially diminish a fundamental
attribute of private property?
PC
4) Does the regulation or action require a property owner to dedicate a
portion of property or to grant an easement?
PC Response:
5) Does the regulatory action have a severe impact on the landowner's
economic interest?
PC Response:
'How to Decide' Supplementfor Planning Commission
MLAO8.OO188 PHMPR Page 5 of7
d) The Record
1) ln addition to the guidance provided by GMA, the County-Wide Planning
Policies, the Jefferson County Code, and the Comprehensive Plan, what else
is in the record with respect to this proposal? [Answer'yes'or'no' and
describe whyl
PC Response
2) Can assertions in the record be confirmed by information from other sources?
[Answer'yes' or'no' and describe why]
PC
3) ls the decision we are about to make based on the record? [Answer'yes'or
'no'and describe whyl
PC Response:
4) Does the decision we are about to make, so far as we know, satisfy legal
criteria? [Answer'yes' or'no' and describe why]
PC Respo nse:
5) ls the decision we are about to make limited to the specific request at hand?
[Answer'yes' or'no' and describe why]
PC Response:
'How to Decide' Supplementfor Planning Commission
MLAO8.OO188 PHMPR Page 6 of 7
Are there any additional findings of fact or conclusions of law pertinent to this decision?
PC Response
3.Repeat motion and vote (one of the following):
a. ln favor - Yea
b. Opposed - Nay
c. Abstain - |
PC ltlotion Example following decision of whether to approve 013 CPA:
2. I move that the Planning Commission direct the Chair, Cynthia Kodn, to sign the Planning
Commission recommendationfor ML,408-00188 Pleasant Harbor Master Planned Resort
D ev e lopment Regula tions.
'How to Decide' Supplementfor Planning Commission
MLAOS-00188 PHMPR Page 7 of 7