Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Findings of Fact PHMPR UDC Reg_07-11-16 JEFFERSON COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION 621 Sheridan Street Port Townsend, WA 98368 (360) 379-4450 Planning Commission Recommendation for MLA08-00188 Pleasant Harbor Master Planned Resort UDC Text Amendment For Title 17 Article II Development Regulations & Title 18 Code Amendments Recommendation with Findings and Conclusions To: Board of County Commissioners, Chair Kathleen Kler Department of Community Development, Director Patty Charnas Interested Parties of Jefferson County From: Jefferson County Planning Commission Date: July 11, 2016 Attached: Proposed text The Planning Commission is pleased to submit our UDC Text Amendment recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners for review. The Planning Commission has worked diligently to review and deliberate the application for an amendment to the Unified Development Code (UDC) Title 17 Article II – Development Regulations for the Pleasant Harbor Master Planned Resort, and relevant code amendments to Title 18 regarding master planned resorts. On June 15, 2016, the Planning Commission made a motion to accept and forward to the Board of County Commissioners (BoCC) the attached version of Title 17 Article II, the Pleasant Harbor Master Planned Resort 01/10/2018 7-11-16 Pleasant Harbor UDC Text Amendment Recommendation to BoCC Page 2 development regulations, with minor amendments to Title 18 of the Unified Development Code. The motion carried by a vote of six (6) in favor, one (1) opposed, and one (1) abstained. On June 29, 2016, the Planning Commission developed findings of fact and conclusions based upon growth management indicators as required under JCC 18.45 and other general guidance on required findings, and therefore do hereby declare the following findings and conclusions in support of our recommendation: A. Required findings as per Jefferson County Code (JCC) Title 18.45.080(1)(b)(i-iii): 1. 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? The circumstances related to the proposed amendment and/or the area in which it is located have substantially changed since the adoption of the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan. For example, 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 unused and undeveloped since operations as a campground stopped in September of 2007. 2. 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? The assumptions upon which the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan is based are still valid, as well as the assumptions under which the Comprehensive Plan Amendment to re-designate the site from Rural Residential to Master Planned Resort. 3. Does the proposed amendment reflect current, widely held values of the residents of Jefferson County? The Planning Commission could not agree as a whole on this finding, and therefore, wish to be silent on this point. B. Additional required findings as per Jefferson County Code (JCC) Title 18.45.080(1)(c)(i-viii): 1. Is growth and development as envisioned in the Comprehensive Plan occurring faster or slower than anticipated, or is it failing to materialize? Growth is occurring slower than anticipated due to the current population projections which are less than 2004 Comprehensive Plan Update estimates. 2. Has the capacity of the county to provide adequate services diminished or increased? 01/10/2018 7-11-16 Pleasant Harbor UDC Text Amendment Recommendation to BoCC Page 3 The level of services provided by the County can be maintained at 2004 levels due to the decrease in demand based on population projections. 3. Is there sufficient urban land, as designated and zoned to meet projected demand and need? There is sufficient land available for development in the Port Hadlock/Irondale UGA – in fact, there is a surplus. 4. Are any of the assumptions upon which the plan is based no longer found to be valid? 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. 5. 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? 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. 6. Are there changes in circumstances which dictate a need for amendment to the Comprehensive Plan? 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. 7. Do inconsistencies exist between the Comprehensive Plan and the GMA or the Comprehensive Plan and the Countywide Planning Policies for Jefferson County? The Planning Commission finds no inconsistencies between GMA, the Comprehensive Plan, the County-wide Planning Policies and the proposed development regulations. C. The Record In addition to the guidance provided by GMA, the Countywide Planning Policies, the Jefferson County Code, and the Comprehensive Plan, the Planning Commission finds: 01/10/2018 7-11-16 Pleasant Harbor UDC Text Amendment Recommendation to BoCC Page 4 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? The record contains an application for a UDC Text Amendment, 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, as well as a record of the current and on-going negotiations between the Port Gamble S’Klallam Tribe, the Developer and Jefferson County based upon the April 18, 2016 government to government meeting. 2. Can assertions in the record be confirmed by information from other sources? Yes, assertions in the record can be confirmed by information from other sources. 3. Is the decision we are about to make based on the record? Yes, this UDC Text Amendment recommendation is based on the record. 4. Does the decision we are about to make, so far as we know, satisfy legal criteria? The Planning Commission could not agree as a whole on a finding and/or conclusion on whether or not the decision satisfies legal criteria, and therefore, wish to be silent on this point. 5. Is the decision we are about to make limited to the specific request at hand? Yes, this UDC Text Amendment recommendation is specific to the application to amend the UDC Title 17 Article II Pleasant Harbor Master Planned Resort Development Regulations (MLA08-00188). D. Additional Findings and Conclusions The Planning Commission could not agree as a whole on whether or not there were additional findings of fact or conclusions of law pertinent to this decision, and therefore, wish to be silent on this point. E. Recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners We recognize that our recommendation will be reviewed and considered by the Board of County Commissioners, who will, based upon these findings and conclusions, determine whether or not a change to the Planning Commission recommendation is necessary (JCC 18.45.090(4). On June 29, 2016, The Jefferson County Planning Commission made a motion to instruct Staff to prepare the Planning Commission’s final recommendation, submit that recommendation with associated findings and conclusions to the Planning Commission Chair for signature, and then forward said recommendation to the 01/10/2018 7-11-16 Pleasant Harbor UDC Text Amendment Recommendation to BoCC Page 5 BoCC for consideration. The motion carried by vote of three (3) in favor, one (1) against, and one (1) abstained. __________________________________________ ____________________ Cynthia Koan, Planning Commission Chair Date 01/10/2018