The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2023 UDC Docket ver. 3-1-23 reducedDraft Work Product--Subject to Change UDC Amendments Deferred from 2018 Docket to Future Work Plan ver. 2023-03-10 Item #Type of Change Code Section Description 8 M 18.10.030 Add definition for “Cumulative Effects of similar actions in the area” as used in 18.15.610. See 18.25.100(3)(aa), and discussion on review page 8. 10 18.10.190 Add definition for Standing. Cf. 18.05.085(3). 23 M 18.15.040 Table 3-1 Generally, change "marijuana" to "Cannabis" to match state statute. Old entry: Fix awkward adjective "recreational" reference in "Marijuana recreational producer", "Marijuana recreational processor", "Marijuana recreational retailer". Remove altogether or write as "Marijuana producer (recreational)". Performance standards are awkwardly in alphabetized list under "Recreational" at 18.20.295. Move to "M". 30 M 18.15.1124 Clarify standards used for FAA regulations with document cite. 31 M 18.15.1132 Ground transportation facilities—provide regulation cite. 38 M 18.15.225 The JCC stillAmend references to the appellant examiner for the Reasonable Economic Use Variance process. Does this mean that we would still use the appellant examiner process in these instances? Should this be docketed? Or has it already been? 18.15.225 Notice. 39 M JCC 18.15.255 JCC 18.15.255 (3)(a) references an outdated portion of the On-site Sewage Code. I believe it and should reference WAC 246-272-22501. 47 M 18.15.572 Review possibly awkward construction between 18.15.470 "Article VI-L Remote Rural Overlay Districts for the West End Planning Area and the Brinnon Planning Area" and 18.15.572 "Article VI- O Small-Scale Recreation and Tourist (SRT) Overlay District" -- which is referring only to Brinnon Subarea Plan. Rename Article VI-O to include "Brinnon Subarea Plan" or address all SRT in one area. See also Article VII -- Subarea Plans; 18.15.580 Brinnon Subarea Plan. 52 S 18.18 Code Interpretation 6/10/2009 explaining transitional and urban zoning and lot combinations. Review interpretation for possible code text that is more expository. 59 S 18.18.100(2)(g)UGA sign regulations differ from 18.30.150(8)(d) and may be impermissible restraint on speech. Generally, need to review sign code across UDC for compatibility between 18.18, 18.20 and 18.25. Review for compliance with "strict scrutiny" standard. 69 S 18.20.295 (4)(g)18.20.295 (4) (g) – Recreational Marijuana: site development standards require all have “Type A” landscape screening from adjacent parcels. This is not appropriate for retail. Add text here about administrative options to adapt different performance standards. 70 S 18.20.140 JCC 18.20.140 needs requirements for General Institutional Uses. 71 M 18.20.150 (1)(c)Update RCW reference. 72 M 18.20.160 (5)(c)+Revise release of moratorium and add the one acre provision 18.20.160 (5)(c) (assessor allows one-acre site allowing to remain under forestry tax category.) 73 M 18.20.160 (5)The text of RCW 76.09.060 and JCC 18.20.160(5) are conflicting. The text needs to be updated to coincide with one another. [Forest Practices Act, conversion harvest and development moratorium.] 77 M 18.20.200 Include marijuana operation in prohibition list for home businesses. 184 & 79 18.20.295; 18.15.040 Table 3-1 Change the word “marijuana” to “cannabis” throughout the UDC sections to implement Second Substitute House Bill (2SHB) 1210, Chapter 16, Laws of 2022. 81 M 18.20.295 (3)(b)Add USE in "Allowed as conditional discretionary (C(d)) use with a cottage industry permit…" 84 M 18.20.350(3)(j)(v)“Cumulative effect” or “cumulative impact” undefined [use definition from State references - RCW or WAC]. 92 S 18.30.050 Table 6-1 *JCC 18.30.050 Table 6-1 at Minimum rear and Side Setbacks...add footnote "20" *Footnote 20. "If a development proposal depends on two or more lots or parcels to be considered as one site for purposes of complying with the provisions of this title or of any other provision of Jefferson County Code, the department may require a the applicant to record a covenant to the benefit of the county that requires the retention of the lots under common ownership and control for the duration that the use is maintained on the site." *Area of Impervious Surface Coverage. Change to include pervious pavement in the calculation. *Note 15 re: stormwater requirements on parcel < one acre, show it's minimized, demonstrate house is comparable to neighborhood (gross floor area). 101 S 18.30.100 Table 6-3 Investigate parking stall size standards for compact vehicles. 103 S 18.30.130 (8)(b)Pruned and trimmed as necessary—see Wuthrich v. King County, No. 92555-5 and note for JCC 18.30.050. 104 M 18.30.150 (8)(d)Harmonize with UGA sign code at JCC 18.18.100. 106 M 18.30.150 (8)(d)Removed time limits for political signs. JCC 18.30.150 regarding time limits for political signs-- Reed v. City of Maguire U.S. Supreme Court applies strict scrutiny to any regulation based on content. Remove the political time limits so they are not regulated differently from real estate signs, et cetera. JMP (jmp) MRSC 7/28/22 New information Re: Reed v. City of Maguire for on & off-premisis sign regulation: https://mrsc.org/Home/Stay-Informed/MRSC-Insight/July-2022/On-Off-Premises-Sign- Regulations-Clarified.aspx. Intermediate scrutiny standard. 107 M 18.30.150 (6)(r)*(r) need height standard referencing "urban residential" zone too.For UGA development standard review 118 S 18.35.470 Make the condominium-ization – JCC 18.35.470 – language clearer with consideration for possible eaffects on ADU’s. no text yet 119 S 18.35.670 The plat alteration section (JCC 18.35.670) is kind of left hanging without a final “what to do”. We should work on adding this. Should include final steps including such as taxes being paid, number of copies for final, signature blocks, etc. Please let me know if you’d like me to work on this section. needs more discussion & process improvement 121 M 18.40.030 (5)Edit sentence "Project review conducted pursuant to…" for clarity.not sure what the problem is 129 M 18.40.130 (2)Review text and revise for clarity. Looks like cut/paste from RCW and not completely in context. 133 S 18.40.230 Aaland: In first paragraph, changed the provision to combine the notice of application with threshold determination from “may” to “shall” combine to conform with 18.40.780(1)(c) needs more process work 133 S 18.40.230 [Note: this is part of a larger issue of noticing before appeal period runs out. 133 S 18.40.230 Staff: Noticing timeframes in JCC 18.40.230 do not agree with those specified in JCC 18.40.330(2)(b) and (3) - SEPA notice cannot be combined for noticing as specified in JCC 18.40.230 in case of SEPA appeal (due to SEPA appeal noticing timeframes). See also 18.40.780 (1)(c) which says threshold determination and hearing notice "shall" be combined. This creates a problem to couple the two, because the hearing is noticed without allowing the appeal period to run out, and any appeal would be omitted from the hearing notice. 135 S 18.40.330(6)Added a new (6) explicitly eliminating certain SEPA appeals. [Evaluate this change further.] 142 S 18.40.640 See Code Interpretation, David Goldsmith (no date, 2016). Administrative Road Setback Variances shall be subject to Article IX, 18.40.640 Variance Types -- Review Process, as a distinct variance in addition to other types of variances provided in the code. Refer also to 18.30.050 Table 6-1 footnote #6, "...the administrator may reduce the minimum road setbacks if the strict application of such setback would render a legal lot of record unbuildable under the provisions of the code." 18.40.650(5) that condition is not caused by applicant. Clarify that the application will be evaluated under variance criteria. Ensure consistent and equitable review for all applicants. 143 S 18.40.760(3)(a)(i)Add more detailed “cumulative impact” language 144 S 18.40.810 (8)Deleted requirement to mail notice of appeal ten days prior to hearing. 147 S 18.40.030 Additional language to determine project review type. 149 M 18.40.530 Define vague terms in Approval of Conditional Uses—“cumulative effect”, “similar actions”, “in the area”. 150 M 18.40.650 Review variance approval criteria, “cumulative impact” language with other sections, & Shoreline Master Program (SMP). 155 S 18.45 18.45 does not make a clear distinction between an annual amendment cycle and the periodic review. The schedule for a periodic review simply refers to the annual amendment cycle. Therefore, to handle the scope of a periodic review, DCD has to pass a Resolution to defer annual amendments so that we’re not “trying to change a flat tire while the car is travelling”. A periodic review of the CP Comprehensive Plan needs to allow DCD to establish a work plan with its own schedule. 158 S 18.50.060(6)*Notice considered served three days after posting 18.50.060 *Enforcement: Notice and Order – service by mail, change postmark date to “3 days after postmark” 159 S 18.50.110(1)(d)Civil and criminal penalties—when fines accrue, postmark date to “3 days after postmark”. Correct fine/imprisonment amounts/times for misdemeanor. 18.50.110(4) 162 S 15.05.030 Code versions auto-adopted by resolution but does not update in Title 15. Udate versions. Add Residential Code Appendix Q for Tiny Home standards to the list, along with Wildland Urban Interface code from WAC [19.27.560] as "(7)" referencing WAC 51.55. 163 S 18.40.310 Reconsideration. Review Pierce County's code provisions. 5- day request time period and 10-day response period is limiting. 164 S 18.30 Clarify meaning of no minimum lot size in Table 6-1, Ch. 18.30. Does not make small lots "noncomforming" in terms of SMP. 165 18.20.020(2)(g) Clarify when a shipping container can be remodeled into ADU. Differentiate between a "road ready" vehicle typically receiving a state-plan or self-certified insignia from the Washington State Department of Labor and Industries with a dwelling that is converted from something else such as a shipping container, shed or other open framed building and the conversion takes place on the site where it will be used. Truck storage container different from shipping container? deferred 166 18.40.180 "A notice of application shall not be required for Type I project permits that are categorically exempt under SEPA, unless a public comment period or an open record predecision hearing is required. A notice of application shall be required for all Type II and Type III projects, regardless of whether such projects are exempt from SEPA. [Ord. 8-06 § 1] deferred 168 18.40.330 and Article III Public Notice Requirements Chapter 18.40, No protocol identified for re-noticing projects when the project has changed. i.e. SEPA now required when it wasn't before, example timeline:Type III project notice period ends, proponent changes project adding additional parking triggering SEPA, how to (or should?) re-notice provide comment period again and allow SEPA appeal to be consolidated at Type III hearing. added 2018 169 JCC 18.40.800 and 18.40.750(3)(g) duplicate language added 2018 170 18.15 and check 18.05 Text amendment in the description of Inholding Forest to match Comprehensive Plan. Remove vesting sentence.added 9-24-18 171 18.45.040 (b)(v)reference error: current text is "(1)(c) and (1)(d)", should be "(1)(b) and 1(c)"added 1/18/19 172 18.40.720 (4) reference error: cites Ch. 42.17 RCW which has morphed to Ch 42.17A Campaign disclosure and contribution. Possibly reference should be Ch. 42.56 RCW Public Records Act.added 2/12/19 173 18.20.060 & 18.10 Code section is written too narrowly for dogs and cats. Animal shelters and animal welfare facilites exist for other animal species. Refer to PRE19-00011 Discovery Bay Ranch Animal Shelter and attorney challenge that 18.20.060 does not apply, but only can do "livestock management" under Ag Code 18.20.030. Misses opportunity to provide CUP and protection from nuisance provisions of Title 6 - Animal Control. added 4/29/19 174 Update based on passge of SB 1377 relating to density bonuses for affordable housing on property owned by a religious organization.added 8/1/2019 175 18.40.570 Revise to differentiate between minor and major amendment. added 8/1/2019 176 18.30.040 (4)Repeal. It is no longer relevant.added 8/1/2019 177 JCC 18.40.810 Standard of Review not "de novo". added 3/28/2022 178 JCC 18.20.295-.230; Ch. 18.15; Ch. 18.18; Ch. 8.60 LCB Board Action: Approved proposal for expedited rule making (CR 105) to replace every use of the term “marijuana” with the term “cannabis” throughout Title 314 WAC. added 4/27/2022 179 18.22 Seismic source information NEHRP referenced but not EES seismic data added 5/18/2022 180 18.35 Administrative Lot Certification process should be repealed.added 5/18/2022 182 s 18.25.280 18.39.160 JMP (email): I find that our Shoreline Master Program is much more thorough regarding the County’s ability to require on-site archaeological monitoring during excavation than our development standards in 18.30.160. Nonetheless, I am considering the UDC sufficient to require on-site archaeological monitoring while excavating in areas considered high risk for cultural artifacts or human remains based on written evaluation by a qualified archaeologist. (JCC 18.30.160(1)). [Note: in the Discovery Bay PRRD project, I added archaeological survey, and monitoring where required to the project, as a SEPA mitigation in a MDNS—among several other mitigating requirements—because the application did not adequately address it. In the current case, [sewer construction], standards described in the applicant’s SEPA Checklist comport with the SMP (the jurisdiction where the highest risk occurs).] However, I notice different procedural requirements between SMP at JCC 18.25.280 and Development standards at JCC 18.30.160. Namely: 1. 18.30.160(1) “Significant archaeological data or artifacts must be recovered before work begins or resumes on a project. No application will be delayed more than 10 working days for such an inspection.” In the SMP at 18.25.280(2)(d) “The county shall prohibit any use or development that poses a threat to a HACSE resource. Alternatively the county shall require the development to be postponed to allow for: (i) Coordination with potentially affected tribes and/or the State Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation; and/or (ii) Investigation of public acquisition potential; and/or (iii) Retrieval and preservation of significant artifacts. 2. The SMP gives the UDC Administrator authority to revise the procedural requirements. (JCC 18.25.280(3)(d)). But this is not explicitly stated in JCC 18.30.160. 7/27/2022 183 S 18.40.500 & Ch. 18.18 18.40.500 This article shall apply to each application for a conditional use permit. Only those uses indicated by a “C(a),” “C(d)” or “C” opposite the use in Table 3-1 in JCC 18.15.040 will be considered for a conditional use permit. [Ord. 8-06 § 1] Need to include use table of 18.18. 18.40.530 "Approval criteria for all conditional uses. (1) The county may approve or approve with modifications an application for a conditional use permit (i.e., uses listed in Table 3-1 in JCC 18.15.040 as “C(a),” “C(d)” or “C”) if all of the following criteria are satisfied:" 7/28/2022 184 18.35.040(1 - 4)Review and update exemptions to reflect current state statute and things like road segragations and lot certifications (if not part of the Legal Lot of Record changes). May involve adding exemptions. 8/24/2022 185 Ch. 18.20 Add provisions for Boarding Housing -- Background with David Wayne J. and Kevin Coker.8/31/2022 186 18.15.150(3) 18.10.010 Forest Resource Lands setback in 18.15.150 applies the setback to lands "adjacent". 1) When there is an intervening road right of way, should the setback still apply across the road? Compare with "functionally isolated" concept with SMP & CAO. Forest setback is for safety--providing deference to forestry practices which may be felling tall trees. 2) "Adjacent" definition at 18.10.010 includes areas on the other side of a road. Should it be changed to "abutting" to specify properties that have a common boundary? Does that adequately address the safety issue? See written DCD guidance (2021?) on the application process when forest setbacks are involved. jmp 8/31/2022 187 Ch 18.30 Email to Customer re: Fire Wise Planning. "As an emerging issue, and exacerbated by climate change, additional planning for fire safety has become necessary, particularly in residential areas surrounded by forest lands or other areas with heavy fuel loads. This is referred to as the wildland interface. You have likely seen news stories from California where power companies have had to do rolling blackouts for fire mitigation in areas with high winds, dry conditions, and heavy fuel loads in case a power line is blown down. The conventional term and program is called Fire Wise Planning. There is additional information about this on the County website at the Emergency Management Department https://www.co.jefferson.wa.us/950/Dept-of-Emergency- Management. See “Wildfire Preparedness” under the heading “Wildfire Information and Conditions” Our region is experiencing changes to climatic conditions in terms of precipitation amounts and timing. Mitigative measures for climate change may need to include more wildfire planning in the future." 9/2/2022 188 jmp 18.18.160 Sewer service are (entire UGA) and phased implementation areas need to be defined more clearly. The phasing plan reference to 2008 GSP needs to be updated to the most recently adopted GSP (2020?) Significance: can we allow urban densities to be developed on temporary septic systems? We once said "Yes", but Hearings board had trouble with that. Need to research this again in light of City of Manchester, et cetera, for the specific conditions that allowed them to be on septic rather than a sewer extension. Consider shadow platting in service area for future condition. 11/23/2022 189 bab Consider temporary use permit for living in an RV while constructing a home.3/1/2023 190 dwj Title 17 Amend Title 17 to preclude timber harvest in Open Space Zone -- move to 2024 3/1/2023