The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutPC Agenda 03-02-2016Jefferson County Planning Commission MEETING AGENDA Tri-Area Community Center March 2, 2016 P: 360-379-4450 621 Sheridan St. F: 360-379-4451 Port Townsend WA 98368 plancomm@co.jefferson.wa.us 6:30 pm OPENING BUSINESS • Call to Order/Roll Call • Approval of Agenda • Staff Updates • Commissioner Announcements 6:45 pm DISCUSSION & ACTION Topic Speaker Brinnon Master Plan Resort Open Discussion • Continued discussion on a motion to accept the proposed development regulations as written. • Call for a vote on motion to accept. • Create Findings for Recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners. 8:00 pm OBSERVER COMMENT When the Chair recognizes you to speak, please begin by stating your name and address. Please be aware that the observer comment period is … i An optional time period dedicated to listening to the public, not a question and answer session. The Planning Commission is not required to provide response; ii Offered at the Chair’s discretion when there is time; iii Not a public hearing – comments made during this time will not be part of any hearing record; iv May be structured with a three-minute per person time limit. 8:15 pm CLOSING BUSINESS • Summary of today’s meeting • Follow-up action items • Agenda Items for March16th meeting at 6:30 pm at the Tri-Area Community Center 8:30 pm ADJOURNMENT • Thank you for coming and participating in your government at work! JEFFERSON COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 621 Sheridan Street, Port Townsend, WA 98368 (360) 379-4450 Guidance to Create Findings and Recommendation for Development Regulations Pleasant Harbor Master Planned Resort MLA08-00188 Proposed Amendments to: Title 17 & 18 Jefferson County Unified Development Code March 2, 2016 ‘How to Decide’ Supplement for Planning Commission MLA08-00188 Pleasant Harbor MPR Page 2 of 8 ‘HOW TO DECIDE’ Supplement for Planning Commission For Title 17 & 18 UDC Amendment 1. Make a motion, second, discussion? Recommendation (one of the following): 1) Approve 2) Deny 3) Approve with conditions or modifications PC Motion Examples to commence discussion: 1. I move that the Jefferson County Planning Commission recommend approval/denial/approval with conditions or modifications of the proposed development regulations for the Pleasant Harbor Master Planned Resort MLA08-00188. A Motion to accept development regulations as proposed was made by Tom Brotherton and Seconded by Richard Hull on February 3, 2016. 2. Deliberations—discussion of proposal and develop findings then call for a vote, or discuss, call for a vote and then develop the findings. “For all proposed amendments, the planning commission shall develop findings and conclusions and a recommendation which consider the growth management indicators set forth in JCC 18.45.050 (4)(b)(i) through (4)(b)(vii), as well as the following:” [NOTE: text from JCC 18.45.080 (1)(b). The indicators mentioned in .050 will be introduced and addressed later in this worksheet.] a) Required findings; adapted from JCC 18.45.080 (1)(b)(i-iii) : (i) Have circumstances related to the proposed amendment and/or the area in which it is located substantially changed since the adoption of the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan? [Answer ‘yes’ or ‘no’ and describe why] Staff Suggested Finding: Yes. Since adoption of the Comprehensive Plan a site specific Comprehensive Plan amendment to re-designate the subject property from Rural Residential to Master Planned Resort zoning (MLA06-00087) was approved by the Board of County Commissioners on January 14, 2008. The site has remained ‘How to Decide’ Supplement for Planning Commission MLA08-00188 Pleasant Harbor MPR Page 3 of 8 unused and undeveloped since operations as a campground stopped in September of 2007. Planning Commission Finding: (ii) Are the assumptions upon which the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan is based no longer valid; or is new information available which was not considered during the adoption process or any annual amendments of the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan? [Answer ‘yes’ or ‘no’ and describe why] Staff Suggested Finding: No. There is no evidence that the assumptions under which the Comprehensive Plan were based are no longer valid. The Goals and Policies under the Land Use and Rural element of the Comprehensive Plan for Master Planned Resort development are still valid. The assumptions under which the Comprehensive Plan Amendment to re-designate the site from Rural Residential to Master Planned Resort are still valid. Planning Commission Finding: (iii) Does the proposed amendment reflect current, widely held values of the residents of Jefferson County? [Answer ‘yes’ or ‘no’ and describe why] Staff Suggested Finding: Yes. In terms of requiring development regulations to construct infrastructure and buildings for a Master Planned Resort, the proposed amendment does reflect widely held values of the residents of Jefferson County. Planning Commission Finding: “In addition to the required findings set for in [the subsection above], in order to recommend approval of a formal site-specific proposal to amend the comprehensive Plan, the planning commission must also make the following findings:” [NOTE: JCC 18.45.080 (4)(c)(i) through (4)(c)(viii)] (not applicable since the proposal is not a site specific amendment to the comprehensive plan) ‘How to Decide’ Supplement for Planning Commission MLA08-00188 Pleasant Harbor MPR Page 4 of 8 b) JCC 18.45.050(4)(b)(i) through (4)(b)(vii) Inquiry into the Growth Management Indicators: i) Is growth and development as envisioned in the Comprehensive Plan occurring faster or slower than anticipated, or is it failing to materialize? [Answer and describe why] Staff Suggested Finding: Growth is occurring slower than anticipated due to the current population projections which are less than 2004 Comprehensive Plan Update estimates. Planning Commission Finding: ii) Has the capacity of the county to provide adequate services diminished or increased? [Answer and describe why] Staff Suggested Finding: The level of services provided by the County can be maintain at 2004 levels dues to the decrease in demand based on population projections. Planning Commission Findings: iii) Is there sufficient urban land, as designated and zoned to meet projected demand and need? [Answer ‘yes’ or ‘no’ and describe why] Staff Suggested Finding: Yes, for the reasons indicated above under i) and ii) there is sufficient land available for development in the Port Hadlock/Irondale UGA – in fact, there is a surplus. Planning Commission Finding: iv) Are any of the assumptions upon which the plan is based no longer found to be valid? [Answer ‘yes’ or ‘no’ and describe why] ‘How to Decide’ Supplement for Planning Commission MLA08-00188 Pleasant Harbor MPR Page 5 of 8 Staff Suggested Finding: No. There is no evidence that the assumptions under which the Comprehensive Plan were based are no longer valid. The Goals and Policies under the Land Use and Rural element of the Comprehensive Plan for Master Planned Resort development are still valid. The assumptions under which the Comprehensive Plan Amendment to re-designate the site from Rural Residential to Master Planned Resort are also still valid. Planning Commission Finding: v) Are there changes in the county-wide attitudes? Do they necessitate amendments to the goals of the Comprehensive Plan and the basic values embodied within the Comprehensive Plan Vision Statement? [Answer ‘yes’ or ‘no’ and describe why] Staff Suggested Finding: No. There is no evidence that County-wide attitudes regarding amendments to the Unified Development Code (UDC) to address development of a Master Planned Resort, or that the goals and policies regarding Master Planned Resorts as a land use have changed. The proposed amendment to the UDC is consistent with the current Comprehensive Plan Vision Statements. Planning Commission Finding: vi) Are there changes in circumstances which dictate a need for amendment to the Comprehensive Plan? [Answer ‘yes’ or ‘no’ and describe why] Staff Suggested Finding: Yes. With the adoption of the site-specific Comprehensive Plan amendment (MLA06-00087) to re-designate the project site from Rural Residential to Master Planned Resort zoning, new language specific to the Pleasant Harbor MPR will need to be included in the upcoming Comprehensive Plan periodic update. No amendment to the Comprehensive Plan as a result of the adoption of the proposed development regulations is required. Planning Commission Finding: ‘How to Decide’ Supplement for Planning Commission MLA08-00188 Pleasant Harbor MPR Page 6 of 8 vii) Do inconsistencies exist between the Comprehensive Plan and the GMA or the Comprehensive Plan and the Countywide Planning Policies for Jefferson County? [Answer ‘yes’ or ‘no’ and describe why] Staff Suggested Finding: No. Staff finds no inconsistencies between GMA, the Comprehensive Plan, the County-wide Planning Policies and the proposed development regulations. Planning Commission Findings: c) The Record 1) In addition to the guidance provided by GMA, the County-Wide Planning Policies, the Jefferson County Code, and the Comprehensive Plan, what else is in the record with respect to this proposal? [Answer and describe why] Staff Suggested Finding: A Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (FSEIS) with associated project descriptions, maps, technical reports, findings, conclusions and mitigation measures, appendices, public and regulatory agency comments and response to comments. Also records of public meetings and hearings, background on Phase 1 Comprehensive Plan approval, ___________________________ Planning Commission Finding: 2) Can assertions in the record be confirmed by information from other sources? [Answer ‘yes’ or ‘no’ and describe why] Staff Suggested Finding: Yes. Planning Commission Finding: ‘How to Decide’ Supplement for Planning Commission MLA08-00188 Pleasant Harbor MPR Page 7 of 8 3) Is the decision we are about to make based on the record? [Answer ‘yes’ or ‘no’ and describe why] Staff Suggested Finding: Yes. Planning Commission: 4) Does the decision we are about to make, so far as we know, satisfy legal criteria? [Answer ‘yes’ or ‘no’ and describe why] Staff Suggested Finding: Yes. Planning Commission Finding: 5) Is the decision we are about to make limited to the specific request at hand? [Answer ‘yes’ or ‘no’ and describe why] Staff Suggested Finding: Depends on whether additional recommendations are included beyond the recommendation to either accept, deny or accept with modifications or conditions. Planning Commission Finding: Are there any additional findings of fact or conclusions of law pertinent to this decision? Staff Suggested Finding: Planning Commission Finding: 3. Repeat motion and call for a vote (one of the following): a. In favor - Yea b. Opposed - Nay c. Abstain - I ‘How to Decide’ Supplement for Planning Commission MLA08-00188 Pleasant Harbor MPR Page 8 of 8 PC Motion Example following decision of whether to approve the Pleasant Harbor Master Planned Resort Development Regulations: 2. I move that the Planning Commission direct the Chair, Cynthia Koan, to sign the Planning Commission recommendation for MLA08-00188 Pleasant Harbor Master Planned Resort Development Regulations, to be presented to the Board of County Commissioners.