The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About046PiZtug79-445o 6zr Sheri&n St. Port Townsend WA 98368 Jefferson County Planning Commission MEETINGAGENDA Tli-Area Community Center March 2,2ot6 F:36o379-445r plancomm@co je0ferson.wa.us o callto order/Roll call e Approval ofAgenda r Staff Updates o Commissioner Announcements Toplc Brinnon Master Plan Resort o Dates for Short C,ourser Commissioner termso Motion on tableo continue discussion o Letter from Poft Gamble S'klallam tribe Speaker Open Discussion Wlrcnthe Cholr recognlzapu to sryoh pleose beginfu stdtngyow namc and oddtess. Pleose be owore thotthe absetver comment perld ls -. i An optionol time priod dedicoted a listening tothe pubtig rct o question ond on*,ter session. The Phnning Cornmission is not requircd to provlde respurse; ii Wred ot the Clplr's dlscretlott when there ls tlme; iii llot o publtc heorlng - colmmenls mode durlrq thls tlfie wlll not be poft ol ony heoring reard; iv Moy be structured with a threerninute per person time limil o Summary of toda/s meeting o Follow-up action items o Agenda ltems for March 16th meeting at 6:30 pm atthe Tri-Area Community Center o Thank you forcoming and participating in your government at workl @ JEF'F'ERSON COI]NTY DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 621 Sheridan Street, Port Townsend, WA 98368 (360) 3794450 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 1 'HOW TO DECIDE'Supplement for Planning Commission ForTitle 17 & 18 IIDC Amendment take a motion, s€cond, dlscusslon? Recommendation (one of the following): 1) Approve 2) Deny 3) Approve with conditions or modifications PC Motion Examples to commence discussion: l. I move that the Jefferson County Planning Commission recornmend aoproval/denial/approval with conditions or modilications of the proposed daelopment regulationsfor 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 Hullon February 3, 2016. 2.Dellberatlons-{iscussion of proposal and develop findlngs then call for a vote, or discuss, call for a vote and then develop the findings. "For all proposed amendments, fhe planning commission shall develop findings and conclusions and a recommendation which consider the growth management indicators set forlh in JCC 18.45.050 (4)(b)(0 through (4)(b)(vii), as well as the following:" [NOTE: brt from JCC 18.45.080 (1)(b). The indicators mentioned in .050 will be introduced and addressed later in this worksheet.l a) Requlred findings; adapted from JGC 18.45.080 (lXbXi-iii) : (il 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] Statf Suoqested Findinq: Yes. Since adoption of the Comprehensive Plan a site specific Comprehensive Plan amendment to re{esignate the subject property from Rural Residential to Master Planned Resort zoning (MLA06{0087) was approved by the Board of County Commissioners on January 14,2OO8. The site has remained 'How to Decide' Supplementfor Planning Commission MLA08-00188 Pleasant Harbor MPR Page 2 of8 unused and undeveloped since operations as a campground stopped in September of 2007. Planninq Commission Finding: (ll) 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? fAnswer'yes' or'no' and descibe why] Staff Suooested Findino: 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 redesignate the site from Rural Residential to Master Planned Resort are stillvalid. Planninq Commission Finding: (iii) Does the proposed amendment reflect current, widely held values of the residents of Jefferson County? [Answer'yes' or'no' and descibe why] Staff Suggested 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 re@mmend approvalof a formal site-specific proposal to amend the comprehensive Plan, the planning commission must also make the following findings:" INOTE: JCC 18.45.080 (4)(c)(i) through H)G)Uiii)] (not applicahle slnce the proposal is nof a sife speclflc amendmentto the comprehensive plan) 'How to Decide' Supplemmtfor Planning Commtssion MLA08-00188 Pleasant Harbor MPR Page j of8 b) Jcc {8.45.050(4XbXi) throush (aXbXvii) lnquiry into the Growth Management lndicators: i) ls growth 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 Sugoested Findinq: Growth is occuning slower than anticipated due to the cunent population projections which are less than 2004 Comprehensive Plan Update estimates. Planning Commission Findinq: ii) Has the capacity of the county to provide adequate services diminished or increased? [Answer and descibe why] Staff Suoqested Findino: The levelof services prcvided by the County can be maintain al2O0d. levels dues to the decrease in demand based on population projections. Planninq Commission Findings: iii) ls there sufficient urban land, as designated and zoned to meet projected demand and need? fAnswer'yes' or'no' and describe why] Staff Suosested Findino: Yes, for the reasons indicated above under i) and ii) there is sufficient land available for development in the Port Hadlock/lrondale UGA - in fiact, there is a surplus. Plannino Commission Finding: iv) Are any of the assumptions upon which the plan is based no longer found to be valid? [Answer les'or'no'and describe why] 'How to Decide' Supplementfur Planning Commission MLA08-00188 Pleosant Harbor MPR Page 4 of8 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 stillvalid. The assumptions under which the Comprehensive Plan Amendment to re{esignate the site from Rural Residential to Master Planned Resort are also stillvalid. 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 Statement? [Answer !es'or'no'and describe why] Staff Suoqested Findinq: 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 cunent Comprehensive Plan Vision Statements. Planninq Commission Finding: vl) Are there changes in circumstances which dictate a need for amendment to the Comprehensive Plan? [Answer !es'or'no' and describe why] Staff Suooested Findino: Yes. With the adoption of the site-specific Comprehensive Plan arnendment (MLA06-00087) to redesignate 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. Planninq Commission Findinq: 'How to Decide' Supplement for Planning Commission ML408-00188 Pleasant Harbor MPR Page 5 of8 vll) 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 Suqslgqted Findino: No, Staff flnds no inconsistencies between GMA, the Comprehensive Plan, the County-wide Planning Policies and the proposed development regulations, Planninq Commission Findings: c) The Record 1) ln 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? fAnslrrer and describe whyJ Staff Suggested Findinq: A Final Supplemental 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, Planninq Commission Findinq: 2) Can assertions in the record be confirmed by information from other sources? [Answer !es' or'no' and descibe why] Staff Suggested Finding: Yes. Planning Commission Finding: 'How to Decide' Supplementfor Planning Commission MLA08-00188 Pleasant Harbor MPR Page 6 of? 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 ane about to make, so far as we know, satisfy legal criteria? [Answer'yes' or'no' and descibe why] Staff Suggested Finding: Yes. Planning Commission Finding 5) ls the decision we are about to make limited to the specific request at hand? fAnswer'yes' or 'no' and descibe why] Staff Suggested Finding: Depends on whether additional recommendations are included beyond the recommendation to either accept, deny or accept with mod ifications or cond itions. 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 motlon and call for a vote (one of the following): a. ln favor - Yea b. Opposed - Nay c. Abstain - I 3. 'How to Decide' Supplemmtlor Planning Commission MUl08-00188 Pleasant Harbor MPR Page 7 of8 Ce^rf.QsLfl .4c a2- o .-+-- $*-ootre- V*J^.r-qr*-v&-Cinu*o.- 'e-- G-or(?.e Px+ tsa\d- ? I ?*tt6 csu,^^^*.f Grn<.- -= ta a-U* o Ct J,-^s- 6{ E4( I (ot rrtlrt e*-): 6 Co d€lroJ* e,r4...,J.- R- (^, 6'^9-., * ${f- T.u-,rad ,s Tcrbr- & q d?&- Z6vL, eLL TvuA Qv",ae^^5f f *oe,t .* /"0.-( 6T. u-.r4 ;.,tk{t- {*} -( h4*&! V'' t' U\,., ->Jefferson County Planning Commission MEETINGNOTES Date: P:960:379-445e Fi 360-379-4451 plancomm@co jefferson.wa.us 6er Sheriilan St. Port Torusend lffA 98368 Discussion To ic:e L;o Speaker Name 6 Speaker Name Speaker Name Public Comment Speaker Name Speaker Name 9e-e- &a t"- comment Period open Time $:O6 PM Speaker Name Comment Period Close Tlme 8;(u Closine Business Follow-up Work ltems for DCD Staff:4ue- A^:C+ o,\- ho<b PM Next Meetingr Adjournment Time 8'Vr PM u! Page z of z It [^a;- [-A"kk\^.- 5[rt4 yhrLLC \-C Trcb *-. Le-b{..r : w-d F, ,-l}^jtq tp Je< fi,r"d ak r -T.-r(*c C* c<t74i.sr^- 6-,^- te-$-a-s = [*\5 [4""],e \ \ h-tt" u-Lt prrt't' Z b6 z - \^5 - 5 a[rn oh-- J. fl<- ce4t -- $tM-b 1+ 6^f L.*ttt"- s v,ecl F-'*c tbj[- 6 ( OJu'TR ,- t tf, h^^^4ff0 % t(qft,tr* t- l,g Ct rr-,-rc-r\'-lt WurTE r A,.,t--t- il1* k^- k-eui(."- b < LLo**gLyn^- qaLtar,- **ZU*: W.i-r -- &;=; +"r Q,L\"I-^'+' Dok( = ,W* Vu+iw-, ? ?oE \rurTp \*ug v5. Ltl v;-d{ utt*, .-C"-tL^*-*- ",(d,-(.cb urd+\ dr,\- A.(rJ t e.^- }ts^"L b,.^t i^^- ,h-U V,J;) t- La c tMJ*: Ett-- Co[Lw TGt- t4r,;h".i5 - 5 c(ors tw, -T,ih-"-@I e-r Fbr 1 I + --[wra- 6LProeiL:4ar I Jefferson County Planning Commission) 6zr Shcridan St. Port Townsend WA 98368 NOTES Date: Pt360,:379-4450 F:360-379-4451 plancomm@co jefferson.wa.us Opening Business G:A,Callto Order: RollCall: Kevin Coker Cynthia Koan Gary Felder Staff Present: PM Public in Attendance: 7 ? T Mark Jochems Matt Sircely Lorna Smith qt i_PO-+ ?Richard Hull Tom Brotherton Tom Giske lndicoteP-Present;AU-Absent&Unexcused;orAE-Absent&Excused(osnotedWChoit);Noteonyloteorrivols;Quorum=5 }lud<j U'u^*360^,w^- -?LnL|p Fla, ttuApproval of Agenda: Approvalof Minutes: Staff Upelates Speaker Name Update r 14* I- Nay Abstained # I 6v\- Speaker Name Update Motions Description of Motion Moved Mf lnitiols Yay r&g Seconded l^s Time lnitiols #-{ -16 Nay 0 De (.4Je1 Abstained #_ PM Page r of z (.3 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 recommendationfor MLA08-00188 Pleasant Harbor Master Planned Resort D*elopment Regulations, to be presented to the Board of County Commissioners. 'How to Decide' Supplementfor Planning Commbsion MLA08-00188 Pleasant Harbor MPR Page 8 of 8 6zt Sheridan St. Port Townsend WA 98368 Jefferson County Planning Commission REGUI.ARMEETING Tri-Area Community Center March 2,2ot6 P: g60-379-445o F:36o379-449r plancomm @co jefferson.wa.us NOTICE OFADIOURNMENT a 2D bDate: I VSTime Approved Cynthia Koan, Chair I efferson County Planning Commission 6zr Sheritlan St. Port Townsend WA 98368 Jefferson County Planning Commission REGUI-ARMEETING Tri-Area Community Center March z,2ot6 p:360-379-4450 F:36o-379-445r plancomm@oo jefferson.wa.us Audience Sign-in Sheet Name:Organization/Street Address:Clty: Do you wish to speak during Observer Comment? Yes No Maybe -rJf-.=,:-, B^t\)o 4 ,l 14 Wyx\q.n K Ro^ Sh.,*\r ?,rrna Alf-f'^ lG^&bl< st lct,t llraTruh X X g\-H\q TEtru llppL (\p\r N(vE rsi (t+Jolvlrr+ Ese(uWtz \cn ta-ejg r T\tsv",g x Ao "'{ 0o-l,n lo 6rcho,^[l,r'r r.,t o v-x