Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutFinal 2022 PC DCD Long-Range Annual Report MMC, BAB, JP Jefferson County Planning Commission and Community Development Long-Range Planning Annual Report—2022 January 25, 2023 2 | P a g e Washington Planning Enabling Act RCW 36.70.040 Department—Creation—Creation of commission to assist department. When such [planning] department is created, the board shall also create a planning commission which shall assist the planning department in carrying out its duties, including assistance in the preparation and execution of the comprehensive plan and recommendations to the department for the adoption of official controls and/or amendments thereto. To this end, the planning commission shall conduct such hearings as are required by this chapter and shall make findings and conclusions therefrom which shall be transmitted to the department which shall transmit the same on to the board with such comments and recommendations it deems necessary. 3 | P a g e Jefferson County Planning Commission and Community Development Long-Range Planning Annual Report—2022 I. Introduction Richard Hull, Chair, Jefferson County Planning Commission Brent A. Butler, Director, Community Development Department II. The Planning Commission (PC) a. 2021-2022 Planning Commission Officers and Subcommittees, b. Photo Introductions of PC and Staff III. PC Revitalization and Support Goals IV. Major Accomplishments 2021-2022 a. Temporary Housing Facilities Recommendations b. Legal Lot of Record Recommendations c. Mineral Resource Land Overlay Recommendations V. Planning Commission Subcommittees VI. Annual PC Retreat--Strategic Planning with Community Development a. Planning Commission Priority Ranking exercise b. Priority Ranking Results and Emphasis Areas i. County Administration of Class IV General Forest Practices—Lorna Smith ii. Housing Perspectives—Kevin Coker iii. Housing Perspectives—Matt Sircely VI. Calendar of Known Upcoming Items a. Annual Amendment Cycle c. Revisiting Shoreline Master Program d. Comprehensive Plan Periodic Review 2023-2025 VII. Planning Commission Budget 2022 4 | P a g e I. Introduction 5 | P a g e II. Jefferson County Planning Commission 2022 II.a. 2022 Planning Commission Officers & Subcommittees Chair: Richard Hull (Reelected) Vice Chair: Matt Sircely (Reelected) Sub Committees: Housing: Matt Sircely Kevin Coker Chris Llewellyn Stock Plans: Kevin Coker Matt Sircely Arlene Outreach: Arlene Alen Mike Nilssen Matt Sircely 6 | P a g e II.b. Photo Introductions of PC, Management & Staff Jefferson County Planning Commission 2022 District One Arlene Alen Kevin Coker Cynthia Koan 7 | P a g e District Two LD Richert Matt Sircely, Vice Chair Lorna Smith District Three Richard Hull, Chair Chris Llewellyn Mike Nilssen 8 | P a g e Community Development Management & Staff Brent Butler, Director, Community Develpment Josh Peters, Deputy Director, Community Development Helena Smith, Assistant Planner, PC Secretary (2022) Joel Peterson, Associate Planner, PC Liaison Bryan Benjamin, Associate Planner 9 | P a g e III. PC Revitalization and Support Goals 2021-2022 Goals: 1. Assist Chair of Planning Commission to manage training of members: Short Course on Local Planning & Ethics training. 2. Provide ancillary materials to the Planning Commission well in advance of discussion—at least by Thursday or Friday in advance of the Wednesday meeting. More time if it’s substantial amount of material or complex. These reports, white papers, and other preparatory background reading materials have been helpful to the Planning Commission and will be transmitted along with regular business materials. 3. Create alignment between needs of County with efforts of the Planning Commission, to achieve County work. Add clarity about statutory requirements and emergency needs of the County regarding work the Planning Commission is doing. 4. Consider Planning Commission subcommittee formation as a way to accomplish more in- depth investigation of issues. Review subcommittees for alignment of purpose and establish expectations for records & reporting to full committee. 5. Revitalize Planning Commission: to align with and receive training that is aligned with needs. Develop work plans with DCD in annual Planning Commission retreats. a. Enliven the Work Plan—solidify DCD Work Plan goals, develop alignment, and focus on strategies to implement the plan. b. Report back to the Work Plan—how our work relates to the specific Plan goals and how we account for what we’re accomplishing. c. Align with the Comprehensive Plan in our work. d. Report annually to Board of County Commissioners. 6. Empower the Planning Commission with meaningful involvement and valued work. Avoid appearance of “rubber-stamping” projects, and provide Planning Commissioners with the questions to pursue. 7. Create meaningful work materials to improve how Community Development presents and defines the work to be done in Planning Commission review and recommendations. Articulate what is statutorily required and what inquiries are needed by Planning Commission and public. 10 | P a g e IV. Major Accomplishments 2021-2022 Temporary Housing Recommendations ORDINANCE NO. 05-0613 22 An Ordinance Adopting Development Regulations for the Siting, Establishment, and Operation of Temporary Housing Facilities for Unsheltered and Unhoused Individuals and Families in Unincorporated Jefferson County; Repealing and Replacing Ordinance 08-1213-21 Legal Lot of Record Recommendations ORDINANCE NO. 09-1003-22 An Ordinance Related to Determination of the Legal Status of Lots, Standards for Nonconforming Lots, Site Development Review, Boundary Line Adjustments; Amending Chapter 18.10 and 18.35 of the Jefferson County Code; Adopting a New Chapter 18.12 of the Jefferson County Code; Adopting a New Article VII in Chapter 18.40 JCC; and Miscellaneous Other Amendments to Chapter 18.40 JCC Mineral Resource Land Overlay (MRLO) Recommendations (To be heard by BoCC early 2023) Miles Sand & Gravel Company (Applicant) requests an amendment to the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Map to include additional land adjacent to an existing Mineral Resources Land overlay, which would allow the Applicant to seek additional project-specific approvals for sand and gravel extraction and processing. 11 | P a g e V. Planning Commission Subcommittees Affordable Housing Subcommittee Formation in 2018 Matt Sircely, Kevin Coker, Chris Llewellyn The JCPC Affordable Housing Subcommittee was formed by a vote of the commission in response to public comments during the 2018 Comprehensive Plan Periodic Update Cycle. The subcommittee worked with the intention of achieving consistency with our Comprehensive Plan and all provisions of the Growth Management Act. Several priorities were developed for consideration: Develop regulations for Boardinghouses. The boardinghouse framework can be applicable to worker housing in many areas by helping people live in or near their respective zones of employment. Plan infrastructure serving communities such as public water resources in rural areas. The provision of public services helps to maintain aspects of affordability for some, and can facilitate the continuation of longstanding housing solutions in localized zones. [Environmental Public Health] Proactively re-examine health-related requirements to explore more ecologically advanced, often more affordable solutions around the management of greywater, solid waste, and human waste. Code updates allowing innovative designs may increase affordability, and also create pathways for new integrated systems that benefit the environment—such as water conservation or carbon sequestration. Such considerations may require specific updates to statewide rulemaking. Our report also postulated that adaptations of county policies can be applied to specific zones to guide ecologically-advanced, low-impact development projects. For example, some Critical Areas protections may be applicable outside of critical areas. In particular, updated PRRD (Planned Rural Residential Development, or cluster development) code and revised Farmworker Housing regulations might benefit from consideration of enhanced ecological performance standards as a way to strengthen proposals and/or offer targeted incentives. Underlying our proposals is the notion that lower-impact housing solutions can assist with maintaining the character of rural areas by incorporating diversities of incomes essential for supporting rural uses of working lands. Likewise, designated urban and industrial areas can benefit from low-impact housing proposals and related incentives. Non-profits and community organizations are excellent choices as avenues for administration and verification of project goals. Many local organizations have beneficial experience and existing affordability models, and affordable housing advocates point out that codification of housing affordability over time is essential to prevent 12 | P a g e runaway pricing. Members of the subcommittee note that new development on private or commercial lands does not necessarily need to add to the overall service demand — some practices can even contribute elements of essential services, such as renewable energy. Likewise, new development does not necessarily need to adversely impact overall soil health, water quality, or the capacity to sequester carbon. Zone-specific incentives can drive developments to achieve low-impact, and even net-positive results around a certain goal. Integrated pathways to affordable housing solutions, tailored to each specific zone, can aid the localized goals and policies as established in our Comprehensive Plan. Stock Plans Subcommittee Formation in April, 2022 Kevin Coker, Matt Sircely, Arlene Alen Purpose Statement: The Board of County Commissioners’ purpose for prioritizing the development of preapproved plans commonly referred to as stock plans is to reduce residential housing construction costs. The Department of Community Development (DCD) sought the Planning Commission’s assistance in selecting designs to accommodate community needs. The DCD Director requested inclusion of universal designs to accommodate those community members who are 8 years of age or younger, 80 or older and persons with disabilities largely because single family housing is not required to adhere to the Americans with Disabilities Act’s (ADA) accessibility requirements. The DCD Director also requested easier to build and less costly designs out of recognition of the need for “low” and “moderate” income households to build their own homes by furnishing their own labor (sweat-equity). Target Audience: The target audience for these plans are three-fold. 1) For those who might not be able to own a home without an opportunity to build it themselves. 2) For persons with disabilities, who can rely upon a greater community of friends and families to contribute sweat equity to construct their home. 3) For community members who own land and others looking to purchase land but cannot currently afford the full costs of construction, design and planning. 13 | P a g e Outreach Subcommittee Formation December, 2022 Arlene Alen, Mike Nilssen, Matt Sircely Purpose Statement of Outreach Committee Here in Jefferson County, we have a very actively engaged public citizenry, and yet members of the public rarely use their opportunity to add their comments to the Planning Commission record. Members of the Planning Commission are willing to assist the Department in finding new pathways for engaging the public, utilizing both digital outreach formats and physically printed materials. -Matt Sircely Committee Objectives Provide easier access to Planning Commission and education about community access to county planning projects. Increase public awareness and participation from Jefferson County citizens. Strategy: Create a stronger, dynamic, and more community-engaging presence of the Planning Commission on the web. Develop best practices for Planning Commission and Community dialogue. 14 | P a g e VI.a Annual PC Retreats Annual retreats provide an opportunity for the Planning Commission and Community Development to align work plans, conduct training, provide and receive feedback, and make any operational changes such as procedures or edits to bylaws. Community Development held a two-day retreat with the Planning Commission in February, meeting both in Quilcene and Brinnon. During these meetings it was decided that meeting and planning in the Fall of each year would provide an opportunity for dovetailing our annual planning with budgetary planning in DCD and timing with the Spring Annual Comprehensive Plan Amendment Cycle. A second Planning Commission Retreat was held in September to conduct that yearly planning and bring recommendations to the Board of County Commissioners. 15 | P a g e PC Work Planning with Community Development Priority Ranking exercise placed the full working list of projects into four quadrants: High Urgency & High Importance, High Urgency & Low Importance, Low Urgency & High Importance, and Low Urgency & Low Importance. These initial results provide direction on items that need data collection and development, deferment, put in the queue for future work, or consideration for current work plan. Ranking items on full working list yielded 18 (highlighted) items in the High Importance/High Urgency quadrant. 16 | P a g e As a second prioritization approach, the full project list was put into Project Categories, and run through a forced-prioritization exercise where no two items within a Project Category could have the same rank. This yielded the priority list, presented below. VI.b. Prioritization & Emphasis areas, Planning Commission All Planning Commission members were present at a November 2, 2022 project ranking meeting. The Planning Commission ranked all DCD projects within each of the categories shown below. Top choices in these rankings were supported by further discussion. All choices were approved unanimously. Project Categories Comprehensive Plan (CP) Updates 1. 2023 Annual CP amendment cycle 2. LAMIRD review (boundaries & policies) 3. Chimacum Commons Subarea Plan 4. UGA review (land use designations & policies) 5. Tribal Element 6. CP annual assessment report—progress on Actions 7. Gateway Subarea Plan (SR 20 & Mill St.) 8. 2025 periodic CP review Unified Development Code (UDC) Updates 1. UGA development regulations review 2. Assume jurisdiction from DNR over Class IV General FPA (conversions) 3. LAMIRD development regulations review 4. UDC amendment docket (identified needs for revision, e.g. CAO clarifications) Housing – CP/UDC Amendments 1. Farmworker housing (amendment to existing regulations) 2. Boardinghouse ordinance (amendment to Co-housing in Table 3-1 JCC 18.15.040) 3. Planned Rural Residential Development (PRRD) review and updates 4. Housing facilities ordinance (amendment to Co-housing in Table 3-1 JCC 18.15.040) 5. Inclusionary zoning (especially in UGA) 6. Short Term Rental Ordinance 7. Camping ordinance (i.e. “glamping”/glamor camping businesses, short-term rental of outdoor accommodations on private property). 17 | P a g e Housing – Non-CP/UDC Amendments 1. Stock building plans 2. Identify other grant opportunities for Housing (e.g. CHIP grant) 3. Multifamily or Historic tax exemptions 4. C-Pacer financing program 5. Affordable housing study (leading to CP amendment to Housing Element) Other Important DCD Projects 1. Community Wildfire Protection Plan 2. Emergency Management/Climate Change Planning 3. Countywide Planning Policies (CPPs) update 4. Quinault Nation engagement—land use 5. Coordinated Water System Plan update 6. Standard Operating Procedures—repeal, review, and update 7. Fee Review—update and review all department fees 8. Code Enforcement—code & implementation review 9. Ongoing grants (FCAAP, SLR) 10. Glen Cove/Tri-Area Special Study review 11. Information overhaul—file storage, application forms, customer guidance, & website After deliberation on the prioritized projects, the Planning Commission highlighted the following three focus areas to present to the Board of County Commissioners. VI.B.i Focus Area: County Administration of Class IV-General Forest Practices Applications (FPAs), Also Known as Conversions. (Project Category: Unified Development Code (UDC) Updates) Class IV-General Forest Practices Applications: Consideration of Assuming Permit Authority by Jefferson County, Lorna Smith. Current Situation: Currently, timber harvest on private lands in Jefferson County that exceeds a minimal amount (i.e. greater that 5000 board feet of timber) is regulated by Washington Department of Natural Resources (DNR) and requires obtaining one of four classes of permits from the DNR. Such activities may also be subject to SEPA review. Although the County can comment on these permits, there is no requirement that the harvester adhere to County requirements that would ordinarily apply for development including, but not limited to buffers, critical areas protections, and other development regulations and permit submittal requirements that the County would otherwise apply to development. 18 | P a g e Under RCW 76.09.240 :(1) (b) and WAC- 222-16-15 Jefferson County, as a County with a population of under 100,000, and that is planning under RCW 36.70A.040, may opt to adopt regulations to oversee certain forest practices activities: Class I, II, III and IV in UGAs and/or “Forest Practices classified as Class IV outside urban growth areas designated under RCW 36.70a.110, involving either timber harvest or road construction or both on (A) Forestlands that are being converted to another use or (B) Lands which under RCW 76.09.070 are not to be reforested because of the likelihood of future conversion to urban development. Benefits of County assuming jurisdiction: A number of Counties and jurisdictions currently have Class IV Forest Practices authority. These include Snohomish, King, Kitsap, and Chelan Counties, among others. The benefits to Jefferson County are much tighter control over the imposition of land-use controls where forest lands are converted to other uses such as subdivisions. Lacking such controls, fewer buffer trees may be left in place and other landscape retention requirements and critical areas protections might not be met. Jefferson County’s Comprehensive Plan and development regulations provide a much higher degree of protection and ability to preserve community character and natural areas. Drawbacks of County assuming jurisdiction: Cost of personnel time for permit review and ability to make site visits to ensure compliance. Based on the potential benefits the Planning Commission is proposing that Jefferson County consider creation and adoption of a program, including appropriate regulations, to assume jurisdiction over Class IV timber harvest permits. References: State Regulations: https://app.leg.wa.gov/wac/default.aspx?cite=222-16-050 https://app.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=76.09.240 Local Government Regulation Examples: King County: https://kingcounty.gov/depts/local-services/permits/permits-inspections/land-use-permits/forest.asp Snohomish County: https://snohomishcountywa.gov/1707/Forest-Practices Kitsap County: https://www.kitsapgov.com/dcd/Pages/Timber-Harvest--Tree-Removal.aspx Clallam County https://clallam.county.codes/CCC/31.04.215 Chelan County https://www.co.chelan.wa.us/files/community- development/documents/apps_form/Current_Planning/criteria_sheet_ccc_15_70_forest_practices.pdf Mason County https://library.municode.com/wa/mason_county/codes/code_of_ordinances?nodeId=TIT11FOPR General Analysis of Forest Land Conversion, Washington State: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/252376471_Study_4_Forest_Land_Conversion_in_Washingt on_State 19 | P a g e VI.B.ii Focus Area: Housing -- Perspectives from Kevin Coker (Project Area: Housing – Non-CP/UDC Amendments) Planning Commission wishes to emphasize the importance of working on the following Housing issues, combining priority items #1-#4 on “Planning Commission Ranking Exercise” prioritization list: 1. Farmworker Housing (amendment to existing regulations) 2. Boarding House Ordinance (amendment to Co-housing in Table 3-1 JCC 18.15.040) 3. Planned Rural Residential Development (PRRD) review and updates 4. Temporary Housing facilities ordinance edits (also considering edits for permanent supportive housing) VI.B.iii Focus Area: Housing -- Perspectives from Matt Sircely 1. Firstly, boardinghouse code is an opportunity for modernization and adaptation to expand applicability to more zoning classifications. The boardinghouse framework can be applicable to worker housing in many areas by helping people live in or near to their respective zones of employment. 2. Secondly, we identified the prioritization of facilities serving the community such as public water resources in rural areas, and amenities supporting the live-aboard tenants in our ports. The provision of public services helps to maintain aspects of affordability for some, and can facilitate the continuation of longstanding housing solutions in localized zones. In some cases, public and community efforts to provide services can reduce overall demand for new services. 3. Thirdly, we suggested proactively re-examining health-related requirements to explore more ecologically advanced, often affordable solutions around the management of greywater, solid waste, and human waste. Updating our code could increase affordability while also creating pathways for new integrated systems to better benefit the environment, such as by conserving water or fixing more soil carbon. Such considerations may require specific updates to statewide rulemaking. 4. Fourthly, our report also postulated that adaptations of county policies can be applied to specific zones to guide ecologically-advanced, low-impact development projects. For example, our Critical Areas Ordinance guidelines may be applicable outside of “critical areas”. In particular, updated PRRD code and revised Farmworker Housing regulations might benefit from consideration of ecological guidelines as a way to strengthen proposals and/or offer targeted incentives. Underlying our proposals is the notion that lower-impact housing solutions can assist with maintaining the character of rural areas by incorporating diversities of incomes, essential for supporting rural uses of working lands. Likewise, designated urban and industrial areas can benefit from low-impact housing proposals and related incentives. An essential part of compliance with GMA is ensuring close attention 20 | P a g e to public input and how our Comprehensive Plan delineates the functions and qualities of the separate zoning classifications. Non-profits and community organizations are excellent choices as avenues for administration and verification of project goals. Many local organizations have beneficial experience and existing affordability models, and affordable housing advocates point out that codification of housing affordability over time is essential to prevent runaway pricing. Members of the subcommittee note that new development on private or commercial lands does not necessarily need to add to the overall service demand — some practices can even contribute elements of essential services, such as renewable energy. Likewise, new development does not necessarily need to adversely impact overall soil health, water quality, or the capacity to sequester and store carbon. Zone- specific incentives can drive developments to achieve low-impact, and even positive results around a certain goal. Integrated pathways to affordable housing solutions, tailored to each specific zone, can aid the localized goals and policies as established in our Comprehensive Plan. Lower Oak Bay County Park 21 | P a g e VI. Calendar of Known Upcoming Items  2023 CP Annual Amendment Cycle (Calendar on following page.)  2023 Board Initiated Work -- Project calendars to be determined.  Completing Shoreline Master Program – Estimated to be completed in 2023.  CP Periodic Review Due June 30, 2025 Project calendar to begin in 2023 and refined with additional input from Commerce on required elements. 22 | P a g e 23 | P a g e VII. Meeting and Attendance Record (does not include subcommittee meetings) Of the 24 total possible number of regular meetings (first and third Wednesday per month), Community Development and the Planning Commission held a total of 19 meetings. Nine regular meetings were cancelled and three Special Meetings were added. One meeting was held jointly with the City of Port Townsend Planning Commission, and one was a training meeting. Meeting Record Attendance Record: Cancelled Meetings 1/19/2022 1 2/2/2022 2 2/16/2022 3 3/2/2022 4 3/16/2022 5 4/6/2022 6 7/6/2022 7 8/3/2022 8 12/21/2022 9 Special Meetings 2/26/2022 Retreat Day #2 9/15/2022 LLOR Hearing 9/17/2022 Retreat Joint Mtg. with City PC 10/19/2022 Training Completed: (Short Course on Local Planning Update) Arlene Alen Richard Hull Chris Llewellyn Michael Nilssen LD Richert Matt Sircely Lorna Smith Arlene Alen 19 Kevin Coker 16 Richard Hull 19 Cynthia Koan 19 Chris Llewellyn 17 Michael Nilssen 15 LD Richert 14 Matt Sircely 18 Lorna Smith 15 24 | P a g e Planning Commission Budget