Skip to content

01/20/24 01 PM: Planning Updates: Brent Exit, Rentals, Septic, Housing Strategies

Planning Updates: Brent Exit, Rentals, Septic, Housing Strategies

Jefferson County planning session discussed work plan priorities, Brent's part-time transition, short-term rental regulations via public meetings, septic/pit privy reforms, commission appointments, outreach best practices, rural tiny home clusters, and Black Point Industrial Park progress. No actions or votes; next steps include meetings, proposals to Planning Commission.

Work Plan Updates and Brent's Departure

Metadata

  • Time Range: PART 1 00:55:09–01:00:46
  • Categories: planning, personnel, operations

Summary

Discussion on current work plan priorities including legislation to improve statutes for implementation, land capacity analysis tied to the city's 2025 update, and preparations for consumer service in 2025. Staff provided update on planner Brent's status: full-time as chief strategy officer ends end of March, transitioning to part-time (up to 69 hours/month) through September by mutual agreement. Brent's work items include short-term rental process as board-directed priority ahead of broader housing proposals.

Key Discussion Points

  • Current legislation with Commissioner Dean aims to fix problematic statute requirements to reduce risk from outside parties like FutureWise (speaker unclear).
  • Emphasis on timing alignment with city processes but defending work plan load (speaker unclear).
  • Concern raised that Brent's short-term rental regulations may not align with existing work plan and could be a "big deal" for community due to housing conflicts (unnamed commissioner).
  • Public meetings on short-term rentals starting soon to gauge scope before regulatory changes (staff).

Public Comments

No public comment on this topic.

Supporting Materials Referenced

No supporting materials referenced.

Financials

No financial information discussed.

Alternatives & Amendments

No alternatives discussed.

Outcome, Vote, and Next Steps

  • Decision: No action taken; updates provided, timeline uncertain, subject to change.
  • Vote: None.
  • Next Steps: Continue short-term rental meetings; develop proposals while Brent tapers off; no specific deadlines or owners specified.

Short-Term Rental Regulations

Metadata

  • Time Range: PART 1 00:58:52–01:05:11
  • Categories: planning, land use, ordinances

Summary

Focus on regulating short-term rentals in unincorporated areas only, with 543 unique properties identified (76 primitive per service provider). Public meetings planned to assess community concerns like tourism impacts, mortgage dependencies, and long-term rental competition (e.g., teachers unable to find rentals). Approach to start with meetings for scope before code changes, potentially weaving into broader housing discussion.

Key Discussion Points

  • Pressure to act following Los Angeles example; many rentals near Port Townsend (Commissioner Dean).
  • Questions on primitive rentals (cabins) and barriers to long-term housing (unnamed speaker).
  • County DCD capacity limits; environmental health lacks resources for enforcement like health impact assessments (staff).
  • Public input needed on scope, e.g., tourism vs. mortgage needs (staff).

Public Comments

No public comment on this topic.

Supporting Materials Referenced

No supporting materials referenced.

Financials

No financial information discussed.

Alternatives & Amendments

No alternatives discussed.

Outcome, Vote, and Next Steps

  • Decision: No action taken; proceed with public meetings.
  • Vote: None.
  • Next Steps: Hold geographically dispersed public meetings soon; assess approaches for regulatory changes; no specific deadlines.

Septic Systems and Pit Privies (Outhouses)

Metadata

  • Time Range: PART 1 01:05:11–01:11:48
  • Categories: infrastructure, environmental health, planning

Summary

Debate on permitting pit privies (outhouses) vs. drain fields, noting they outperform in some soils, cost less, but banned since late 1980s/1990s due to high regulation/enforcement risks in maritime climate with variable water tables. County has cost-share program for septic repairs/replacements (income-based, up to 100%). Statewide septic sludge disposal crisis highlighted; seeking DOH study funding.

Key Discussion Points

  • Outhouses legal with high proof threshold (expensive); risks to wells if poorly sited (staff).
  • Examples: neighbors fined $40k for non-compliant systems; farms out of compliance (Chris).
  • Environmental health prioritizes human/environmental health; hard to enforce seasonally (staff on state Board of Health).
  • Ties to housing density, farm worker housing; Randy Marx to address Planning Commission (staff).

Public Comments

No public comment on this topic.

Supporting Materials Referenced

No supporting materials referenced.

Financials

  • Septic replacement/repair cost-share up to $20k-$40k (income-dependent, potentially 100%).

Alternatives & Amendments

  • Alternatives: Permit with setbacks (e.g., acres from streams/wells); blackwater treatment systems.

Outcome, Vote, and Next Steps

  • Decision: No action taken; defer to Board of Health and environmental health.
  • Vote: None.
  • Next Steps: Randy Marx speaks at first Planning Commission meeting; continue state funding push (e.g., Olympia trip next Wednesday).

Planning Commission Representation and Appointments

Metadata

  • Time Range: PART 1 01:13:01–01:22:58
  • Categories: personnel, planning

Summary

Review of appointment processes emphasizing diversity in occupation, geography, experience, and renter/non-homeowner status over strict quotas. Recent District 1 vacancy had 3 qualified applicants; process improvements include online application confirmations. Current commission seen as diverse (e.g., farmer, builder, rural/urban) representing community without issue advocacy.

Key Discussion Points

  • Occupational/geographic balance important (e.g., rural farmers) (commissioner).
  • 3 per district structure works; value citizen commissioners not cross-affiliated with other boards (multiple).
  • Recent process success but glitch with lost application caught accidentally (Kate).
  • Renewing seats opens to new applicants for churn/diversity (staff).

Public Comments

No public comment on this topic.

Supporting Materials Referenced

No supporting materials referenced.

Financials

No financial information discussed.

Alternatives & Amendments

No alternatives discussed.

Outcome, Vote, and Next Steps

  • Decision: No action taken; processes affirmed as improved.
  • Vote: None.
  • Next Steps: No next steps specified.

Community Outreach and Public Engagement Best Practices

Metadata

  • Time Range: PART 1 01:22:58–01:58:10
  • Categories: planning, operations

Summary

Exchange on integrating community input into long-range planning, including roadshows, district meetings, radio (KPTZ), social media, personal networks, and visualizations (e.g., UGA renderings). Challenges: narrow/intense engagement on hot topics; need early broad input, not binary choices; track past comments. Suggestions for surveys, sticky-note boards, web portals, presentations to groups (e.g., Rotary), varied times/locations.

Key Discussion Points

  • Use community centers, Google groups; visuals communicate UGA changes better (Richard).
  • Roadshows mixed results; amplify via mavens/personal connections (multiple).
  • Honor past input (e.g., 200+ comments); strategic plan web portal had low responses initially (staff).
  • Public participation plan for 2025 update; consider consultants for best practices (Joel).

Public Comments

No public comment on this topic.

Supporting Materials Referenced

No supporting materials referenced.

Financials

No financial information discussed.

Alternatives & Amendments

  • Roadshows vs. attending existing group meetings (e.g., village councils).

Outcome, Vote, and Next Steps

  • Decision: No action taken; ideas for 2025 public participation plan.
  • Vote: None.
  • Next Steps: Develop outreach toolkit; district groups present uniform material; RFP for consultants include visualizations/surveys.

Rural Housing Strategies and Congregate/Tiny Homes

Metadata

  • Time Range: PART 1 01:58:47–02:19:37
  • Categories: housing, planning, land use, infrastructure

Summary

Housing subcommittee proposals for congregate/tiny home clusters using performance standards to reduce environmental impact (e.g., 70% less energy, 50% less materials), dividing non-permeable surface area. Ties to septic reform (black/gray water separation, outhouses); state law limits; aim for pilots/innovation per comp plan. Two approaches: complex overlay, simpler administrative version.

Key Discussion Points

  • Cluster 6 tiny structures better than large single homes on acres (Gavin/Kevin).
  • Septic drives bedroom counts; need environmental health input (multiple).
  • Performance standards for rural beauty/affordability; tribal interest (staff).
  • Risk of GMA challenges; align with new transportation/income planning rules (staff).

Public Comments

No public comment on this topic.

Supporting Materials Referenced

No supporting materials referenced.

Financials

No financial information discussed.

Alternatives & Amendments

  • Overlay vs. simplified code; pilot projects vs. full standards.

Outcome, Vote, and Next Steps

  • Decision: Advance proposals to Planning Commission for review/suggestions.
  • Vote: None.
  • Next Steps: Meet with Joel on density; involve environmental health/Board of Health (Randy Mars); fast-track possible for 2024.

Black Point Industrial Park Update

Metadata

  • Time Range: PART 1 02:20:09–02:22:28
  • Categories: planning, infrastructure, contracts

Summary

Developer (Nash) pushing 7-8 year buildout; staffing agreement resolved after negotiations, including retainer to avoid past non-payment. Subdivision application submitted but incomplete; monthly detailed invoicing with consultant (contract planner).

Key Discussion Points

  • 1,000-page development agreement nuances being addressed (staff).
  • Past money issues resolved; pass-through billing for consultant hours (staff).

Public Comments

No public comment on this topic.

Supporting Materials Referenced

No supporting materials referenced.

Financials

Developer paid off past amounts; monthly retainer/invoices.

Alternatives & Amendments

No alternatives discussed.

Outcome, Vote, and Next Steps

  • Decision: No action taken; process ongoing.
  • Vote: None.
  • Next Steps: Complete subdivision review; address agreement items.

Background Materials

Contents

AI Information