HomeMy WebLinkAbout2023 UDC Docket ver. 3-1-23 winnowed 3-15-23 (0002)Draft Work Product--Subject to Change
UDC Amendments Deferred from 2018 Docket to Future Work Plan ver. 2023-03-10 2024 Work Plan
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39 M JCC 18.15.255 JCC 18.15.255 (3)(a) references an outdated portion of the On-site Sewage Code.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 18.15.020(2)(c) 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 segregations
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 Ch. 18.20 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