The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About040Michelle Farfan From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Attachments: David W. Johnson <djohnson@cojefferson.wa.us> Thursday, February 25,20LG 4:25 PM Cynthia Koan; Gary Felder; Kevin Coker; Lorna Smith; Mark Jochems; Matt Sircely; Richard Hull; Tom Brotherton; Tom Giske David W. Johnson FW: PC Agenda 3/2/16 PHMPR DR_PC Findings How to Decide Worksheet.docx With the revised Guidance document From: Haylie Clement Sent: Thursday, February 25,2016 4:18 PM To: Pla nning Comm ission Desk <PCom missionDesk@co.jefferson.wa. us> Cc: #Pla nning Tea m <#Pla nningTea ma @co.jefferson.wa.us> Subject: PC Agenda 3/2116 Hello Planning Commissioners, Below is the link to the agenda for the March 2nd meeting. PC Asenda 03-02-2016 Also, I have forwarded a message from David Johnson. Thanks, Haylie Clement Administrative and Plannlng Clerk Jefferson County Community Development 621 Sheridan Street Port Townsend, WA 98368 Phone 360-379-4450 From: David W. Johnson Sent: Thursday, February 25,2016 1:56 PM To: Haylie Clement <HClement@co.iefferson.wa.us> Cc: David W. Johnson <d iohnson@co. iefferson.wa.us> Subject: PC member March 2,zOtG meeting PC Members, Attached is the agenda and revised guidance on how to develop findings for your recommendation to the BoCC. I included Staff Suggested Findings that the PC can just adopt to make it easier when we go through that process. There 1 is currently a motion on the table to accept the development regulations as proposed. Further discussion is call for prior to a vote on that motion. At our meeting I will report on our continuing consultation with the Port Gamble S'Klallam Tribe, issues raised at the last meeting, and process moving forward. Thanks! LetmeknowifyouhaveanyquestionspriortothemeetingonMarch2nd. lfnot,seeyouallthen David Wayne Johnson - LEED AP - Neighborhood Development Associate Planner - Port Ludlow Lead Planner Department of Community Development Jefferson County 360.379.4465 Mission: To preserve and enhance the quality of life in Jffirson County by promoting a vibrant economy, sound communities and a healthy environment. 5l SlVf PAPER - Pleose do not print this e-moil unless obsolutely necessory All e-mail may be consrdered suQ:ed to the Pubhc Records Act and as such may be disclosed to a third-party requestor. leffffson County tlepanment oI Communlty Oe*loprnant fl-"SilUARE-Nil WF/ t Betrtff grrildtng Ernrts Hrn* llltll'ldrnra.Os.l hffil!(U/{tttaa l ta0-tl$Ala I rhdrr@J.ft'm.H.6 2 NO I ffi JEFFERSON COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 621 Sheridan Street, Port Townsend, WA 98368 (360) s79-4450 Guidance to Create Findings and Recommendation for Development Regulations Pleasant Harbor Master Planned Resort MLA08-00188 Proposed Amendments to: Title 17 & l8 Jefferson County Unified Development Code March 2,2016 ,l 'HOW TO DECIDE' Supplement for Planning Commission For Title 17 & 18 UDC Amendment 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 Jffirson County Planning Commission recommend aooroval/denial/approval with conditions or modifications of the proposed development regulations for the Pleasant Harbor Master Planned Resort MLA08-00188. A tt/otion 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.l a) Required findings; adapted from JCC 18.45.080 (1XbXi-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 Suqgested Erndrng: Yes. Since ad option 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 2 of8 unused and undeveloped since operations as a campground stopped in September of 2007. Planni rq Comm ission Findrns (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 Suqqested Findinq: 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. P lan n i nq Comm issiql Frndlng (iii) Does the proposed amendment reflect current, widely held values of the residents of Jefferson County? [Answer'yes' or'no' and describe why] Staff Suqqested Findino: Yes. ln 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. Planninq Commission Findinq "ln 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:" INOTE: JCC 18.45.080 @(c)(i) through @)(c)(viii)] (not appticable since the proposal is not a sfte specific amendment to the comprehensive plan) 'How to Decide' Supplementfor Planning Commission MLA08-00188 Pleasant Harbor MPR Page 3 of 8 b) Jcc 18.45.050(4xb)(i) throush (a)(b)(vii) lnquiry into the Growth Management lndicators: i) ls groMh and development as envisioned in the Comprehensive Plan occurring faster or slower than anticipated, or is it failing to materialize? [Answer and describe whvl Staff Suqqested Findino: Growth is occurring slower than anticipated due to the current population projections which are less than 2004 Comprehensive Plan Update estimates ii) Has the capacity of the county to provide adequate services diminished or increased? fAnswer and describe why] Staff Suoqested Fi ndinq: The level of services provided by the County can be maintain at2004levels dues to the decrease in demand based on population projections. Planninq Commission Findinqs: iii) ls there sufficient urban land, as designated and zoned to meet projected demand and need? [Answer'yes' or'no' and describe why] Staff Suqqested Findinq: Yes, for the reasons indicated above under i) and ii) there is sufficient land available for development in the Port Hadlocl</lrondale UGA - in fact, there is a surplus. 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 4 of8 Planninq Commission Findinq: Planninq Commission Findinq: Staff Suqoested 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. Planninq Commission Findinq: 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 Statemenl? [Answer'yes' or'no' and describe why] Staff Suqqested Findino: No. There is no evidence that County-wide attitudes regarding amendments to the Unified Development Code (UDC) to address development of a [Vaster 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. Planninq Commission Findinq vi) Are there changes in circumstances which dictate a need for amendment to the Comprehensive Plan? [Answer'yes' or'no' and describe why] 51qff Suooested Findins: Yes. With the ad option 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. Plannino Commissio n Findinq: 'How to Decide' Supplement for Planning Commission MLA08-00188 Pleasant Harbor MPR Page 5 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 Suqqested Finding: No. Staff finds no inconsistencies between GMA , the Comprehensive Plan, the County-wide Planning Policies and the proposed development regulations. Planninq Commission Findinqs: c) The Record 1) ln addition to the guidance provided by GII/A, 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 Suoqested Findi ng: A Final Su pplemental Environmental lmpact 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' Supplementfor Planning Commission MLA08-00188 Pleasant Harbor MPR Page 6 of 8 3) ls the decision we are about to make based on the record? [Answer'yes' or 'no' and describe whyl 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 descibe why] Planning Commission Finding 5) ls 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: Repeat motion and call for a vote (one of the following) a. ln favor - Yea b. Opposed - Nay c. Abstain - | 3 'How to Decide' Supplementfor Planning Commission MLA08-00188 Pleasant Harbor MPR Page 7 of 8 Staff Suggested Finding: Yes. PC ttlotion Example following decision of whether to approve the Pleasant Harbor Master Planned Resort Development Regulations: 2. I move thot the Planning Commission direct the Chair, Cynthia Koan, to sign the Planning Commission recommendationfor Ml-408-00188 Pleasant Harbor Master Planned Resort Development Regulations, to be presented to the Board of County Commissioners. ' H ow t o D e c i de' S up p I eme nt for P I anning C omm is s i o n MLA08-00188 Pleqsant Harbor MPR Page 8 of 8