Jefferson County planners brief commissioners on draft master plan, UDO update and development review process

Jefferson County planning staff told the county’s Planning & Zoning Commission that a final revised draft of the county master plan will be made public and distributed to commissioners, and walked members through how the master plan, the Unified Development Order (UDO) and development review work together.

The training session, presented by planning staff and consultants, laid out the “5Ws + H” of the master plan and implementation steps and described the typical life cycle of a development application from pre‑application meeting to site‑development or improvement plan and pre‑construction meeting. “You will receive a hard copy of the final revised draft of the master plan after this meeting,” said Mitch, Planning Director, noting the draft will be posted on the county’s Envision Jefferson County site the following day.

Why it matters: staff described the master plan as a 20‑year, non‑regulatory guide that informs zoning, subdivision regulations and the UDO. The plan sets vision, goals and a future land‑use framework that staff and the commission will use when evaluating rezonings, subdivisions and development plans. “The master plan serves as a foundation for policy making and guiding the county’s growth in a responsible manner over the next 20 years,” Mitch said.

Key points from staff: - Master plan vs. zoning: staff repeatedly emphasized the master plan is guidance, not law. Zoning and the UDO are regulatory tools enacted by ordinance and used to implement the master plan’s goals. - UDO revision: county staff said a contract has been approved to rewrite the UDO; the new document will be a full replacement rather than piecemeal changes because current language is dated and lacks some modern regulatory tools. - Development life cycle: Rachel, planning staff, summarized the procedural steps applicants typically follow: pre‑application meeting, design revisions, staff report and public hearing, commission recommendation to county council, submission of site development or improvement plans, technical plan review and a pre‑construction meeting before work begins. - Staff recommendations: planners explained why many applications arrive to the commission with staff recommendations for approval—applications that clearly fail to meet code typically stall or do not proceed to formal hearing.

Staff emphasized practical responsibilities of the commission: commissioners are volunteer residents who do not need professional planning credentials but must apply adopted policies and the UDO consistently and without bias. Mitch said planners and legal counsel provide technical support and that commissioners should rely on staff for guidance on local regulations and procedural questions.

A consultant selection question from a commissioner prompted staff to confirm the county chose the planning firm House of Levine through a request‑for‑proposals process and subsequent interviews. “We entered into a contract with House of Levine,” a staff member said. The consulting team will lead a special presentation of the draft master plan at a May 15 special meeting where commissioners will be asked to prepare a recommendation to the county council.

Ending: Staff asked commissioners to submit agenda questions ahead of meetings when possible, and to take part in periodic targeted trainings. The commission closed the session after the presentation and a short Q&A about implementation tools and next steps.