Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2022 09 15 Planning Commission Recommendation1 Planning Commission Recommendations for Legal Lot of Record Ordinance Adopted September 15, 2022. Criteria for Evaluation of Proposed Amendment—Required Findings 1.1. JCC 18.45.090 Findings for Board-Initiated UDC Amendment (1) Initiation. The text of the county’s adopted Comprehensive Plan implementing regulations (also referred to within this code as “development regulations”) may be amended at any time, provided the amendment is consistent with the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan and Land Use Map. When inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan and Land Use Map, the amendment shall be processed concurrent with any necessary plan amendments using the process and timelines for plan amendments set forth in this chapter. “Implementing regulations” means the controls placed on development or land use activities by the county, including, but not limited to, this Unified Development Code, the Jefferson County Shoreline Master Program, or any other official controls required to implement the plan (see RCW 36.70A.030). Proposed amendments, changes, or modifications may be initiated as follows: (a) When consistent with the plan, at any time at the direction of the board of county commissioners or by the planning commission pursuant to RCW 36.70.550; (b) When inconsistent with the plan, under the process and time lines for Comprehensive Plan amendments by any interested person consistent with this chapter; or (c) Immediately following or concurrent with an amendment or amendments to the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan, the implementing regulations shall be amended to be consistent with the plan and Land Use Map. 1.2. Planning Commission and Board of County Commissioners Review of Growth Management Indicators and Required Findings JCC 18.45.090 requires the following: (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 (1)(c), as applicable. 2 1.2.1. Required Findings for All Proposed Amendments—JCC 18.45.080(1)(b) JCC 18.45.080(1)(b) requires specific findings by the Planning Commission when reviewing development regulation amendments. The following lays out the review requirements and the staff findings responding to these requirements: (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(4)(b)(i) through (4)(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; Staff Finding: No new circumstances related to the proposed amendment have substantially changed since the adoption of the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan. The affordable housing crisis is a concern for members of the public and for the County, but legal status determination of lots throughout the County is required for establishing development eligibility. The ordinance balances conformance with GMA and the Comprehensive Plan with reasonable economic use of property for development of a residence. No affordability impacts are expected given the County’s surplus in land available for residential development. (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 Staff Finding: There is no indication that assumptions upon which the Comprehensive Plan is based are no longer valid. The Comprehensive Plan documents housing goals and policies that support the amendment proposal. (iii) Whether the proposed amendment reflects current widely held values of the residents of Jefferson County. Staff Finding: Public comment has indicated the need to recognize a particularized and sensitive analysis of when lots should be restricted from future development and when a lot or plat should be able to continue developing. The proposed amendment reflects the results of such analysis and responds to a widely held value of the County’s residents. 3 1.2.2. Criteria Governing Planning Commission Assessment—JCC 18.45.050(4)(b)(i) through (4)(b)(vii) Relevant to the adoption is the periodic assessment requirements of JCC 18.45.050(b). The following lays out the review requirements and the staff findings responding to these requirements: (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 occurring faster or slower than anticipated, or is failing to materialize; Staff Finding: Annual compounded Countywide total growth rate envisioned in the 2004 Comprehensive Plan was 1.78%. However, current population planning projections per the 2018 Comprehensive Plan for 2010-2036 is 0.97% (Growth Management Planning Population Projections, Resolution 38-15). Even with a slower growth rate, there is a shortage of housing and a lack of affordable, attainable housing. (ii) Whether the capacity of the county to provide adequate services has diminished or increased; Staff Finding: Levels of service in the 2018 Comprehensive 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; Staff Finding: There is a surplus of residential parcels in the county. See: Proposed Irondale/Port Hadlock UGA: DWELLING UNIT & POPULATION HOLDING CAPACITY ANALYSIS, January 21, 2009 (iv) Whether any of the assumptions upon which the plan is based are no longer found to be valid; Staff Finding: The Comprehensive Plan accurately represents the current analysis of legal lot of record determination processes in the County. 4 (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; Staff Finding: Changes in county-wide attitudes are not evident. (vi) Whether changes in circumstances dictate a need for amendments; Staff Finding: The emergency moratorium (ordinance no. 06-1011-21 and ordinance no. 09-1210-21) responded to three development permit applications affecting pre-1971 plats in the rural county, raising residential density in rural areas without public process. These amendments respond to the GMA requirements for public participation in projects creating increased densities and to the state requirements of determining legal eligibility for development prior to approval of development permits. (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] Staff Finding: There are no inconsistencies between the proposed amendment and the Comprehensive Plan or GMA. 1.3. Findings on The Record 1.3.1. 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?  AGLO 1974 No. 7 - Jan 17 1974: APPLICABILITY OF CHAPTER 271, LAWS OF 1969, 1st EX. SESS., TO CERTAIN PREVIOUSLY PLATTED AREAS  AGO 1996 No. 5 - Feb 29 1996: Effect of 1969 Platting Act on land platted before enactment  AGO 1998 No. 4 - Mar 3 1998: Effect of Growth Management Act on option of counties to require resubdivision of lands platted before 1937  Geospatial analysis of potential impacts to land use and environmentally critical areas, conducted by the Department of Community Development as presented in the Legal Lot of Record project StoryMap: https://www.co.jefferson.wa.us/1601/StoryMap 5 2. Planning Commission Recommendations The Planning Commission’s findings and conclusions shall include a recommendation to the BoCC that the proposed amendment(s) be denied, approved, or approved with conditions or modifications. The Planning Commission approved the draft ordinance with the following comments, conditions, or modifications.  The Planning Commission proposed change to language of the ordinance in the definitions section, changing the definition of Lot, buildable in JCC 18.10.120 to include the following language: “‘Lot, buildable,’ means: (1) a lot that is a legal lot of record, as determined by the director pursuant to Chapter 18.12 JCC and applicable law, and (2) has site development review approval pursuant to JCC 18.40.440 et seq. A guaranteed right to development of a lot can only be established once a development permit application or building permit application vests pursuant to JCC 18.40.320.”  The Planning Commission noted a section of the ordinance, JCC 18.40.460(4), that included a reference to site plan approval advance determination application. This was an error and should have instead referred to a site development review application. The Planning Commission recommended removal of the reference to the site plan approval advance determination and replacing it with the corrected reference to the site development review application.  The Planning Commission recommended that the Board of County Commissioners continue outreach and engagement for these proposed regulations. The planning commission is concerned that all affected property owners have not been fully informed.