MEETING: Untitled Meeting at Mon, Jan 27, 12:00 AM

County Sources

Packet Contents

AI Information

Jefferson County Planning Commission and Board of County Commissioners Joint Special Meeting Summary (2025-01-27)

Meeting Opening and Roll Call

Metadata

  • Time Range: 00:00:15.217–00:00:56.943
  • Agenda Item: Meeting Opening/Roll Call
  • Categories: operations

Topic Summary

The joint special meeting between the Jefferson County Board of County Commissioners (BOCC) and the Planning Commission was called to order by an unnamed BOCC Chair, followed by Planning Commission Chair Hall. A roll call was conducted for the Planning Commissioners present: Christopher Wellen, Cynthia Cohen, Mike Schultz, Richard Ho, Lee Richard, Kevin Copeland, Andrew Schwartz, and Aren Strong. The BOCC portion was called to order first, followed by the Planning Commission portion.

Key Discussion Points

  • An unnamed BOCC Chair called the BOCC portion of the meeting to order (00:00:22.844).
  • Planning Commission Chair Hall called the Planning Commission meeting to order (00:00:36.129).
  • A roll call established the attendance of eight Planning Commissioners (00:00:46.439).

Public Comments

  • No public comment on this topic. The Chair noted there were some in the room but none online and subsequently closed the public comment period (00:01:07.533–00:01:23.570).

Supporting Materials Referenced

  • No supporting materials referenced.

Financials

  • No financial information discussed.

Alternatives & Amendments

  • No alternatives discussed.

Outcome, Vote, and Next Steps

  • Decision: Meeting was formally called to order and roll was taken.
  • Vote: Not applicable.
  • Next Steps: Proceeded to the next agenda item.

2024 Planning Commission Work Summary and 2025 Plan Update

Metadata

  • Time Range: 00:01:30.326–05:08.817
  • Agenda Item: Discussion and Potential Action on Annual Work Plan
  • Categories: planning, operations, ordinances

Topic Summary

Joel Peterson, a planner for Jefferson County Community Development (DCD), introduced the joint workshop, noting its purpose is to review the Planning Commission’s 2024 work, discuss upcoming 2025 projects, and facilitate open dialogue between the DCD/Planning Commission and the BOCC. The 2024 work included the annual amendment cycle, concurrent work on the 2025 periodic updates, and significant time spent on the Short-Term Rental (STR) and Flood Damage Prevention ordinances. The DCD emphasized the importance of face-to-face time and coordination, highlighting that the Planning Commission is tasked by the BOCC to represent the public.

Key Discussion Points

  • Joel Peterson (DCD Planner) introduced the meeting, noting it is an annual workshop started four years prior to "complete the circle" in planning by involving the Planning Commission, DCD, and BOCC (00:01:43.385).
  • The legal structure positions the Planning Commission to represent the public and work with the planning department (DCD), forming the "planning agency" (00:02:23.797).
  • Joshua [Unattributed Staff] stated the meeting would cover a summary of last year's work by Joel Peterson, followed by back-and-forth discussion with commissioners and staff (00:03:15.608).
  • Joel Peterson summarized 2024 work, which included the annual amendment cycle concurrent with 2025 periodic updates (00:05:08.283).
  • Joel Peterson also noted significant time spent on the Short-Term Rental ordinance and the Flood Damage Prevention ordinance (00:05:27.240).
  • The Planning Commission reviewed the Comprehensive Plan vision statement (00:05:33.891) and started outreach for the update in Brinnon and Quilcene to determine the best communication methods (00:05:49.613).
  • Joel Peterson reported meeting attendance: 17 regular meetings held, 7 canceled, and 1 special meeting held out of 24 possible regular meetings (00:06:19.423). Seven canceled meetings is "about on par with what we've done in years past" (00:06:43.714).

Public Comments

  • No public comment on this topic.

Supporting Materials Referenced

  • Joel Peterson mentioned a handout summarizing meetings and financials of 2024 was passed out (00:05:08.817). (Document not provided for analysis.)

Financials

  • No financial information discussed beyond general acknowledgment of grant funding being used (00:19:14.215).

Alternatives & Amendments

  • No alternatives discussed.

Outcome, Vote, and Next Steps

  • Decision: Informational summary of 2024 work provided.
  • Vote: Not applicable.
  • Next Steps: Transitioned to discussing the 2025 work plan and coordination.

2025 Comprehensive Plan Periodic Update Schedule and Outreach

Metadata

  • Time Range: 00:07:04.232–00:19:14.215
  • Agenda Item: Comprehensive Plan Periodic Update and Critical Area Ordinance Update
  • Categories: planning, land use, ordinances

Topic Summary

The main focus for 2025 is the Comprehensive Plan Periodic Update, which is entering an extensive public outreach phase. This work is being done concurrently with a Critical Area Ordinance (CAO) update. Planning staff outlined a three-stage update timeline, with public meetings scheduled from March through May, focusing on draft materials. Staff also detailed coordination with various Community-Based Organizations (CBOs) funded by Department of Commerce grants to assist with specialized elements like climate resiliency and diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI).

Key Discussion Points

  • Joel Peterson stated the 2025 work includes the Comprehensive Plan periodic update, extensive public outreach, developing draft materials with consultants, and a concurrent Critical Area Ordinance (CAO) update (00:07:04.232–00:07:59.178).
  • A hearing for the Short-Term Rental ordinance is scheduled for the next Planning Commission meeting on February 5th, with BOCC recommendations expected by the end of February (00:08:08.053).
  • Joel Peterson noted annual maintenance includes three revolving Planning Commission seats becoming available on March 17th, with advertising starting next month (00:08:35.015).
  • The Comp Plan update is broken into three stages: developing information (Jan-Mar), public outreach/open houses (Mar-May), and BOCC review (anticipated starting May-June/July) (00:09:35.796–00:10:25.866).
  • Public open houses are scheduled: Port Hadlock (WSU Extension Center, focused on the Urban Growth Area/UGA), Brinnon Community Center (March 5th), Gardner Community Center (March 19th), and Quilcene School (March 26th) (00:10:49.279–00:11:30.807).
  • The term for the Port Hadlock/Irondale UGA is still being finalized with the Prosecuting Attorney’s office, with acronyms like "PHUGA" being discussed (00:11:51.882–00:12:41.286).
  • Carolyn (BOCC) complimented the outreach artwork and update materials (00:13:25.599).
  • Joel Peterson highlighted the 2025 update web page and dedicated email for comments (00:14:02.793).
  • CBOs funded by Commerce grants include: Bayside Housing and Services, FutureWise (for Quileute and Home Tribes outreach), and Puget Sound Partnership (00:15:06.396).
  • Engage Jefferson County and the Climate Action Committee are helping develop the new climate element required in the comprehensive plan, which includes investigating diversity, equity, inclusion, and areas of disadvantaged populations potentially facing disparate climate impacts (00:15:37.314).
  • Other unfunded outreach partners include the Housing Solutions Network, Jefferson Trails Connection, and Jefferson Land Trust (00:16:17.642).
  • The CAO update is being run concurrently with the Comp Plan update to allow more time, specifically in areas like tree height measurement for buffers (00:18:30.364).
  • The project grant funding ends June 30th, 2025, but the legislative deadline for Comp Plan updates has been extended to the end of December for Jefferson County (00:19:14.215–01:00:05.837).

Public Comments

  • No public comment on this topic.

Supporting Materials Referenced

  • Reference to a Public Participation Plan that the board endorsed on October 9th was made (00:18:03.542). (Document not provided for analysis.)

Financials

  • Grant Funding: The project grant funding (presumably from the Department of Commerce) ends June 30th (00:19:14.215).
  • Contract Extension: Discussed need for a contract extension or amendment beyond June 30th, potentially including an increase in funds (00:20:12.904–00:20:30.628). Staff is being "conservative in our budget" (00:20:42.258).

Alternatives & Amendments

  • Noted that running the CAO concurrently, rather than waiting until the Comp Plan is done, is a strategic choice to give more time for specific regulatory discussions (00:18:30.364).

Outcome, Vote, and Next Steps

  • Decision: Informational update on the 2025 Comprehensive Plan schedule and partner engagement.
  • Vote: Not applicable.
  • Next Steps:
  • - DCD/Planning Commission: Hold hearing on STR ordinance February 5th.
  • - DCD/Planning Commission: Begin broader public outreach (open houses) in March.

Critical Areas Ordinance (CAO) and Housing Policy Development

Metadata

  • Time Range: 00:21:17.469–00:44:09.730
  • Agenda Item: Next steps for Critical Areas Ordinance and Rural Housing Work Plan
  • Categories: ordinances, land use, housing

Topic Summary

The discussion centered on the next steps for the Critical Areas Ordinance (CAO) update and the challenge of developing policy to increase rural housing density while maintaining "rural character" and balancing environmental codes (septic/water). Planning staff affirmed that the CAO proposals, currently being incubated with consultants and Washington Fish and Wildlife, should be ready around the May/June timeframe but potentially sooner. A Planning Commissioner (Kevin Copeland), chair of the Housing Subcommittee, presented ideas for creatively addressing housing through clarification of current code definitions and utilizing a "home plan" concept certified by the Conservation District to accommodate more Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs). The conversation included the complexity of state preemption regarding ADUs and the Hearings Board precedent set in San Juan County.

Key Discussion Points

  • Matt [Unidentified Speaker] asked for the next step on critical areas (00:21:17.469). Joel Peterson stated DCD is working with consultants and Washington Fish and Wildlife on proposals, with tangible material anticipated around the time of the goals and policies update (early February was mentioned, then corrected to May/June comp plan timeframe) (00:21:27.732–00:22:15.486).
  • Joshua [Unattributed Staff] clarified the CAO discussion will begin after the STR discussion, anticipating a longer process (March/April timeframe) (00:22:22.572). The CAO is part of the 2025 periodic update review (00:22:43.450).
  • Richard Ho (Planning Commissioner) initiated discussion on overcoming bottlenecks for rural cluster housing and proactive measures (00:23:21.879).
  • Joel Peterson noted the DCD grant for "middle housing" is focused on the urban growth area (Port Hadlock) and doesn't explicitly fund rural cluster housing concepts (00:24:06.695).
  • Kevin Copeland (Planning Commissioner), Chair of the Housing Subcommittee, described their approach to housing by creatively utilizing current codes and clarifying definitions (e.g., what constitutes a "kitchen") (00:25:19.029).
  • Kevin Copeland proposed a "farmstead" model allowing a main house, ADU, and Accessory Housing Unit (AHU), provided the site can treat water/wastewater and stormwater; this would use a Conservation District-certified "Homestead Plan" for compliance (00:27:19.211–00:28:14.968).
  • Greg [Unidentified Speaker] raised the risk of losing the current affirmative right to one ADU per single-family house, referencing San Juan County’s experience and the new low-intensity on-site septic code/Public Health change (120 gallons per day capacity for ADUs) (00:29:42.769).
  • Joel Peterson noted state legislation regarding ADUs has historically focused on urban areas and the legislature seems to protect the rural category (00:32:15.283). He has found no specific answer on how to increase density without violating the GMA, suggesting the need for an "irrefutable argument" (00:33:19.446).
  • Joshua [Unattributed Staff] explained that the Hearings Board ruling against Clallam County’s ADU expansion put other counties "on notice," creating reticence to be on the "leading edge" (00:36:58.612–00:37:20.436).
  • Joshua [Unattributed Staff] noted many other planning directors across Washington state were "amazed" that Jefferson County has allowed ADUs on every rural parcel for 25 years (00:37:23.810).
  • Joshua [Unattributed Staff] offered to take questions/theories from the Planning Commission Housing Subcommittee to county planning director colleagues across the state (00:43:04.667).

Public Comments

  • No public comment on this topic.

Supporting Materials Referenced

  • Reference made to findings by the Hearings Board regarding ADU policy in Clallam County (00:33:48.209).

Financials

  • Limited discussion; reference to a grant for middle housing (00:24:07.001).

Alternatives & Amendments

  • Kevin Copeland suggested creating a "bunkhouse" without a kitchen (not a dwelling) to utilize the 50-gallon capacity of some soils for farm workers (00:31:13.693).
  • Heidi [Unidentified Speaker] noted several pieces of state legislation supporting flexibility for housing and land use, two of which are supported by the Washington Association of Counties (00:34:57.060).

Outcome, Vote, and Next Steps

  • Decision: Continued support for the Planning Commission Housing Subcommittee to develop rural housing regulations.
  • Vote: Not applicable.
  • Next Steps:
  • - DCD/Consultants: Continue internal work on CAO proposals, likely for a May/June public presentation.
  • - Kevin Copeland/Housing Subcommittee (PC): Finalize housing policy draft for review by George/Joel by February 5th.
  • - Joshua [Unattributed Staff]: Carry rural housing theories to the Washington State Association of County Planning Directors spring conference.

Port Hadlock UGA Development and Infrastructure

Metadata

  • Time Range: 00:45:35.967–00:59:15.034
  • Agenda Item: Port Hadlock Urban Growth Area (UGA) Opportunities for Affordable Housing
  • Categories: housing, infrastructure, planning, land use

Topic Summary

Planning Commissioner Schultz asked for an update on leveraging the Port Hadlock UGA as an opportunity for affordable housing, arguing single-family homes alone will not solve the crisis. Staff confirmed that development is dependent on the completion of the sewer infrastructure, which is expected to be available around May–July 2025. Habitat for Humanity is anticipated to submit an application for a 136-unit development in February near the county library. Discussion also addressed the difficulty for local developers to profit from multi-family/middle housing given the small economy of scale, leading to a need for external funding or assistance.

Key Discussion Points

  • Mike Schultz (Planning Commissioner) emphasized the UGA as an opportunity to address affordable housing, stating, "we’re not going to single-family home our way out of the housing crisis" (00:45:50.453).
  • Heather [Unidentified Speaker] noted that full development cannot occur until the sewer is installed (00:46:24.500).
  • Heather [Unidentified Speaker] reported that Brent [Chief Strategy Officer] ran design charrettes in 2024 to gather community input on where and what kind of middle housing is desired (00:47:01.822).
  • Joshua [Unattributed Staff] confirmed sewer availability for the Port Hadlock UGA is expected in the May, June, or July timeframe of 2025 (00:48:49.414).
  • Joshua [Unattributed Staff] announced that Habitat for Humanity is anticipated to submit an application in February for their 136-unit development near the county library (00:49:17.067).
  • To enable Habitat’s project, DCD staff made sure provisions for "unit lot subdivision" were added to the urban code, mimicking Port Townsend and Port Angeles (00:49:24.834).
  • Mike Schultz raised the difficulty of the development model for the county, noting the lack of "homegrown multifamily developers" (00:51:13.126).
  • LD [Unidentified Speaker] stated development often only "pencils out" with "other assistance money" because necessary infrastructure is usually not in place (00:52:07.841).
  • LD [Unidentified Speaker] noted that Port Hadlock does not have many large parcels available for rezoning (00:52:47.486).
  • Joel Peterson noted that sewer availability means unused reserve drain field areas on commercial and residential parcels (e.g., behind the Olympic Peninsula Gateway Center/Ghibli Center, and properties near Farino's Pizza) could become buildable land (00:55:01.034).
  • Mike Schultz recalled purchasing the airstrip property for Habitat’s density project (00:56:09.140).
  • LD [Unidentified Speaker] emphasized that lack of infrastructure (water, fire flow) is the bottleneck for development in areas like Lammers Road, making Port Hadlock and Black Point, where infrastructure is coming, better starting points (00:57:15.648).
  • LD [Unidentified Speaker] used an example of a developer in another city gaining 36 apartments (up from 27) by negotiating two regulations that were "killing the project" (12-foot height requirement, commercial on first level), but noted development stopped there because the regulations were not broadly changed: "we're planning ourselves out of housing" (00:58:27.471–00:59:15.034).

Public Comments

  • No public comment on this topic.

Supporting Materials Referenced

  • Not specifically referenced, but discussion relied on the Port Hadlock UGA plan and infrastructure projects.

Financials

  • No specific financial figures were discussed, but the need for infrastructure investment was recognized.

Alternatives & Amendments

  • Discussion on repurposing reserve drain field areas for development (00:55:01.034).

Outcome, Vote, and Next Steps

  • Decision: Informational, focused on the need for sewer completion to unlock UGA development.
  • Vote: Not applicable.
  • Next Steps: Habitat for Humanity application expected in February; sewer project completion anticipated May-July 2025.

Balancing Growth, Rural Character, and Food Security

Metadata

  • Time Range: 00:59:22.874–01:14:27.994
  • Agenda Item: Balancing Rural Character, Housing Growth, and Agricultural Land Preservation
  • Categories: land use, planning, housing, environment

Topic Summary

Planning Commissioner Strong, a farmer, raised a critical concern about the balance between accepting housing growth and preserving the rural nature of the county, specifically agricultural land, which serves as a food source and water filter. She noted immense pressure from developers on her large farm parcel, stressing the need to protect the rural lifestyle and the middle class who rely on affordable recreation. Other commissioners agreed on the need for balance, confirming that proposals (like the clustering ideas from the Housing Subcommittee) are specifically designed to meet the Growth Management Act’s (GMA) rural character definition by clustering development and preserving the ecosystem. Staff reiterated that Urban Growth Areas (UGAs) are key tools for concentrating density to preserve less developed rural areas.

Key Discussion Points

  • Aren Strong (Planning Commissioner) asked, "How much housing do we want to accept in this county?" and stressed the need to preserve her farm (650 acres down to 50 acres) for food production, clean water filtering, and the rural lifestyle (00:59:22.874–01:01:24.219).
  • Aren Strong emphasized the need to preserve large hunks of land and spoke of providing affordable recreation (horse boarding) for middle-class people (01:04:31.331).
  • Kevin Copeland noted the subcommittee's housing approach aims to legalize existing farmworker housing and associated structures in a manner that also protects the environment by addressing septic and stormwater on-site (01:05:30.569–01:06:14.159).
  • Joshua [Unattributed Staff] commented that the conversation must balance development with conservancy, food security, and ecosystem health, finding "nexus points" (01:10:10.785).
  • Aren Strong suggested conceptualizing development on large parcels that preserves orchards and pastures while allowing multi-unit structures (01:10:51.890).
  • Kevin Copeland confirmed the rural housing proposal is focused on clustering and density of only "three to five" units per acre where appropriate, directly following the GMA’s rule character definition to preserve the natural environment (01:12:46.626).
  • Matt [Unidentified Speaker] asked about the allocation of growth numbers between urban and rural areas (01:13:31.658).
  • The discussion confirmed the current population projection is 5,900 people by 2045 (01:15:38.515), with an allocation breakdown of 80% urban and 20% rural (01:13:56.980). This translates to approximately 1,400 people allocated to the rural areas (01:15:57.071).
  • Joel Peterson noted DCD is struggling with how to achieve housing typologies needed for different income bands, requiring more density in the UGA (01:16:07.071).

Public Comments

  • No public comment on this topic.

Supporting Materials Referenced

  • References to the Growth Management Act (GMA) and RCW definitions of rural character (01:12:46.626).

Financials

  • No financial information discussed.

Alternatives & Amendments

  • No alternatives discussed.

Outcome, Vote, and Next Steps

  • Decision: Informational exchange reaffirming the importance of balancing growth and agricultural preservation within the Comp Plan process.
  • Vote: Not applicable.
  • Next Steps: Continued reliance on UGA development to house the majority of projected growth. Subcommittee housing proposal copy to be provided by February 5th.

Wildfire Protection and Resiliency Planning

Metadata

  • Time Range: 01:16:43.894–01:24:28.850
  • Agenda Item: Community Wildfire Protection Plan (CWPP) and Other Coordinated Efforts
  • Categories: public safety, environment, planning

Topic Summary

The conversation shifted to the importance of factoring in community wildfire protection and climate resiliency strategies into development planning. The county is undertaking a Community Wildfire Protection Planning process and submitting a grant application for a Community Wildfire Defense Grant (estimated at $1 million). Commissioners noted that emphasizing infill development within the UGA (as seen in Bend, Oregon) can be a better fire prevention strategy. The discussion identified the need to coordinate wildfire defense with water resource planning (fire flow) and the impending Wildland-Urban Interface (WUI) code update.

Key Discussion Points

  • Heidi [Unidentified Speaker] noted the county is developing a Community Wildfire Protection Plan (CWPP) and submitting an application for a large, $1 million Community Wildfire Defense Grant (01:16:43.894).
  • Heidi [Unidentified Speaker] referenced a Sightline Institute article (regarding Bend, Oregon) that emphasized shifting from UGA expansion to infill development within the existing UGA as a fire prevention/defense strategy (01:17:16.693–01:18:20.259).
  • Matt [Unidentified Speaker] suggested any rural housing proposal should include a high bar for engagement on fire defense, such as community water tanks (01:18:35.310).
  • The impending Wildland-Urban Interface (WUI) code, which sets standards for defensible space and construction, needs to be anticipated (01:19:17.517).
  • Joshua [Unattributed Staff] noted the challenge is coordinating isolated projects like the CWPP, the Coordinated Water System Plan (CWSP), and the WUI code into cohesive planning strategies for fire flow and neighborhood defense (01:20:07.199–01:20:54.374).
  • Aren Strong emphasized the need for better county-wide evacuation planning, noting the availability of water from the Quilcene Rivers for firefighting (01:23:07.548–01:24:09.136).
  • Heidi [Unidentified Speaker] confirmed that evacuation planning is one of the "three legs of the stool" for the Community Wildfire Defense Grant (01:24:09.643).

Public Comments

  • No public comment on this topic.

Supporting Materials Referenced

  • Reference to a Community Wildfire Protection Plan (CWPP) and a Community Wildfire Defense Grant (01:16:43.894).

Financials

  • Grant Funding Estimate: $1 million Community Wildfire Defense Grant (01:16:43.894).

Alternatives & Amendments

  • No alternatives discussed.

Outcome, Vote, and Next Steps

  • Decision: Informational item highlighting the intersection of planning and public safety.
  • Vote: Not applicable.
  • Next Steps: Continue work on the CWPP and grant submission. Ensure WUI standards and fire flow are considered in development regulations.

Port Hadlock UGA Stormwater Infrastructure Constraints

Metadata

  • Time Range: 01:25:01.990–01:30:37.386
  • Agenda Item: Stormwater Infrastructure in Port Hadlock UGA
  • Categories: infrastructure, planning, environment

Topic Summary

Staff raised stormwater management as the next major infrastructure constraint (after the sewer system) that needs to be funded and addressed in the Port Hadlock UGA, particularly for middle housing and redevelopment projects. While the area has good soils for infiltration, the UGA lacks a centralized municipal stormwater collection and conveyance system common in urban areas. The high cost of required stormwater measures (like pervious surfaces or shared ponds) presents a barrier to developers. The Comprehensive Plan includes policies to consider a fee structure, and there may be state funding available for this infrastructure.

Key Discussion Points

  • Joshua [Unattributed Staff] pointed out that even with the sewer, the lack of a centralized stormwater collection/conveyance system (like cities have) is a constraint for urban-style middle housing densities in Port Hadlock (01:25:20.975–01:26:39.912).
  • The Habitat project can infiltrate on-site due to its size (old airstrip property), but smaller redevelopment projects in "downtown" Port Hadlock do not have that luxury (01:26:25.768).
  • Matt [Unidentified Speaker] suggested exploring smaller, shared infrastructure like a "shared pond" (01:26:58.219).
  • Joel Peterson confirmed that the Stormwater Management Manual for Western Washington (guidance adopted by the county) offers many urban options (01:27:15.576).
  • The Comprehensive Plan already contains a goal/policy to consider a fee structure or payment system for stormwater as development occurs (01:28:07.754).
  • LD [Unidentified Speaker] suggested that porous/pervious surfaces could likely handle most stormwater issues because good soils are present, avoiding the need for extensive conveyance systems (01:29:04.761).
  • Matt [Unidentified Speaker] noted that nearly half a billion dollars is budgeted at the state level for stormwater, suggesting potential available funding (01:29:40.853).

Public Comments

  • No public comment on this topic.

Supporting Materials Referenced

  • Reference to the Stormwater Management Manual for Western Washington (Department of Ecology) (01:27:15.576).

Financials

  • Budget amount: Nearly half a billion dollars budgeted at the state level for stormwater infrastructure (01:29:40.853).

Alternatives & Amendments

  • Discussed implementing pervious surfaces and shared ponds (01:29:04.761, 01:26:58.219).
  • Reference to the long-standing policy to consider a fee structure for stormwater (01:28:07.754).

Outcome, Vote, and Next Steps

  • Decision: Informational; acknowledged the need to address stormwater as part of future UGA development and capacity planning.
  • Vote: Not applicable.
  • Next Steps: Potential work on securing state funding for a stormwater system model or implementing a fee structure.

Short-Term Rentals (STR) Ordinance and Black Point Development Update

Metadata

  • Time Range: 01:30:51.242–01:37:21.945
  • Agenda Item: Short-Term Rentals, Black Point Development
  • Categories: ordinances, land use, contracts, operations

Topic Summary

The Planning Commission plans to finalize its recommendation on the Short-Term Rental (STR) ordinance, which staff estimated could impact around 400 unpermitted operations in the unincorporated county. The discussion touched on enforcement, confirming that the regulatory focus would be on "umbrella providers" like Airbnb, requiring property owners to show proof of a county permit. Staff provided a minimal update on the Black Point development, noting the process is quasi-judicial and currently administrative, waiting for the developer to submit final response materials before scheduling a public hearing with the Hearing Examiner.

Key Discussion Points

  • Joel Peterson reported that STR policy discussion "spawned many good interesting ideas" but was much more complicated than imagined (01:30:51.242).
  • Joshua [Unattributed Staff] cited a consultant's number that suggested approximately 400 unpermitted STRs are operating in the unincorporated county, in addition to the 76 that are permitted (01:31:11.654–01:31:27.761).
  • Aren Strong questioned how DCD would enforce the ordinance against those renting "under the table" (01:32:00.219).
  • Kevin Copeland noted that the draft proposal includes making the umbrella providers like Airbnb the focal point of enforcement, requiring them to verify property owners have county permits (01:34:18.615).
  • Joshua [Unattributed Staff] confirmed camping operations (e.g., Hipcamp) are not currently being addressed by the STR ordinance (01:32:49.176).
  • Joshua [Unattributed Staff] confirmed the goal is to get the STR ordinance finalized before the moratorium expires on April 7th (01:33:52.084).
  • Richard Ho (PC) asked for an update on the Black Point development, noting community interest in the process (01:35:05.666).
  • Joshua [Unattributed Staff] stated that Black Point is a quasi-judicial, administrative process with a public hearing required before a Hearing Examiner (01:36:07.474). DCD is currently waiting for the developer's responses to specific review components before the hearing can be scheduled (01:36:29.108).

Public Comments

  • No public comment on this topic.

Supporting Materials Referenced

  • Reference made to the draft STR ordinance, which is posted on the web (01:33:38.023).

Financials

  • No financial information discussed.

Alternatives & Amendments

  • No alternatives discussed.

Outcome, Vote, and Next Steps

  • Decision: Planning Commission to finalize STR recommendations. Black Point update was informational.
  • Vote: Not applicable.
  • Next Steps:
  • - Planning Commission: Hold public hearing for STR ordinance on February 5th.
  • - DCD: Schedule Black Point public hearing once developer submits pending review materials.
  • - DCD: Submit STR recommendation to the BOCC before the moratorium expires on April 7th.

Meeting Conclusion

Metadata

  • Time Range: 01:37:12.945–01:37:21.945
  • Agenda Item: Adjournment
  • Categories: operations

Topic Summary

Planning Commissioner Schultz offered thanks to the Board of County Commissioners for attending the joint meeting.

Key Discussion Points

  • Mike Schultz (Planning Commissioner) thanked the BOCC for participating (01:37:12.945).

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: Conclusion of substantive discussion.
  • Vote: Not recorded.
  • Next Steps: Meeting adjourned (implicitly). No next steps specified.