Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout109Michelle Farfan From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Attachments: David W. Johnson < djoh nson @co jefferson.wa.us > Friday, June 03, 2016 8:44 AM Cynthia Koan; Gary Felder; Kevin Coker; Lorna Smith; Mark Jochems; Matt Sircely; Richard Hull; Tom Giske njohnson@ptleader.com; David W. Johnson Guidance to create findings PHMPR DR_PC Findings How to Decide Worksheet.docx; Planning Commission Required Findings.docx ln anticipation of completing your recommendation to the BoCC, attached is the Guidance to create findings document originally provided to you in March. Please study it as part of your homework assignment. These findings will need to be completed after you decide on a recommendation. I have include staff suggested findings that you may choose to adopt to help expedite the process. David Wayne Johnson - LEED AP - Neighborhood Development Associate Planner - Port Ludlow Lead Planner Department of Community Development Jefferson County 360.379.446s Mission: To preserve and enhance the quality of lfe in Jffirson County by promoting a vibrant economy, sound communities and a healthy environment. 5f, SAVE PAPER - Pleqse do not print this e-moil unless obsolutely necessory All e-mail may be considered subjed to the Publb Records Act and as such may be disclosed to a third-party requestor. feffutson County Depertment of Communlty Oe*lopffi*ntffi SNUAREMNffi W ' ,.,,?r Burtdlng strrtr Hcrr. tlt tl*rHr, !L ilr.t b*mi4 $!r ilt{a I tlojl+ t{t(} I drl{ho..tltrwms 1 LEE$ NE JEFFERSON COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 621 Sheridan Street, Port Townsend, WA 98368 (s60) 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 ffi 1 '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: I. I move that the Jefferson County Planning Commission recommend aporoval/denial/aporoval 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 setforth in JCC 18.45.050 (4)(b)(i) through U)@)(vii), as well as the following:" INOTE: 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 (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 Sugqested Findinq: Y es. 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' Supplementfor Planning Commission MLA08-00188 Pleasqnt Harbor MPR Page 2 of 8 unused and undeveloped since operations as a campground stopped in September of 2007. Planninq Commission Findinq: (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 descibe why] Staff Sugqested 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. Planninq Commission Findinq (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 Findinq: 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. nnr Commission Findi "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 (4)(c)(i) through (4)(c)(viii)] (not applicable since the proposal is not a sife specific amendment to the comprehensive plan) ' H ow t o D ecide' Supplement for P I anning Commiss ion MLA08-00188 Pleasant Harbor MPR Page 3 of8 b) Jcc 18.45.050(4XbXi) through (aXbXvii) 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 Findinq: GroMh is occurring slower than anticipated due to the current population projections which are less than 2004 Comprehensive Plan Update estimates Planninq Commission Findinq: ii) Has the capacity of the county to provide adequate services diminished or increased? [Answer and describe why] Staff Suqqested Findinq: The level of services provided by the County can be maintain at2004levels dues to the decrease in demand based on population projections Plannino Com mission Findinos: 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. Ianni Commission Findi 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' Supplementfor Planning Commission MLA08-00188 Pleasant Harbor MPR Page 4 of 8 Staff Suqqested Findinq: No. There is no evidence that the assum ptions 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 [Vlaster 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 Statement? [Answer'yes' or'no' and describe why] Staff Suqqested 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 current Comprehensive Plan Vision Statements. Planninq Commi ssion 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 Suqqested Findinq: 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 5 of8 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 Findinq: 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 GI\IA, 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 Suqqested 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 Finding: 2) Can assertions in the record be confirmed by information from other sources? [Answer'yes' or'no' and describe why] Planning Commission Finding 'How to Decide' Supplement for Planning Commission MLA08-00188 Pleasant Harbor MPR Page 6 of 8 Staff Suggested Finding: Yes. 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 describe why] Staff Suggested Finding: Yes. 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' Supplement for Planning Commission MLA08-00188 Pleasant Harbor MPR Page 7 of8 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 Plonning Commission recommendationfor MLA08-00188 Pleasant Harbor Master Planned Resort Development Regulations, to be presented to the Board of County Commissioners. ' H ow t o D ec i de' Supp I em ent for P I anning C omm is s ion MLA08-00188 Pleqsant Harbor MPR Page I of8 Pleasant Harbor Phase !l Planning Commission Actions January 201,6 Summary of Planning Commission actions: 1. Hold a Public Hearing and take testimony - (held January 6,2OL6l.. Record held open until February 3,2OL6. 2. Accept Port Gamble S'Klallam Tribes request for 60 days to complete consultation with County - (January 20,2OL6l. Tribe will advise the County on how to proceed after Tribal Council meeting on February 8,2OL6. 3. Close Public Hearing record (February 3, 2016) 4. Begin deliberations (February 3,2}t6l 5. Develop findings under JCC 18.45.080(b) 5. Develop recommendation to the BoCC for denial, approval, or approval with conditions for Title 17 Article ll Pleasant Harbor Master Planned Resort that include findings developed under #5 18.45.090 Amendments to GMA implementing regulations. (3) Planning Commission Review. The planning commission shall hold a public hearing on any amendment(s) to the implementing regulations and shall make a recommendation to the board of county commissioners using the site-specific criteria set forth in JCC 18.45.080(1)(b) and (1)(c), as applicable. 18.45.080 Final docket - Planning commission and board of county commissioners review. (b) Required Findings - Generally. 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(4Xb)(i) through ( XbXvii), as well as the following: (i) Whether 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; (ii) Whether the assumptions upon which the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan is based are no longer valid, or whether new information is available which was not considered during the adoption process or any annual amendments of the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan; and (iii) Whether the proposed amendment reflects current widely held values of the residents of Jefferson County. (c) Additional Required Findings - Formal Site-Specific Amendments. ln addition to the required findings set forth in subsection (fXb)of this section, in orderto recommend approvalof a formalsite-specific proposalto amend the Comprehensive Plan, the planning commission must also make the following findings: (Not applicable - not an amendment to the Comp Plan) (i) The proposed site-specific amendment meets concurrency requirements for transportation and does not adversely affect adopted level of service standards for other public facilities and services (e.9., sheriff, fire and emergency medical services, parks, fire flow, and general governmental services); (ii) The proposed site-specific amendment is consistent with the goals, policies and implementation strategies of the various elements of the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan; (iii) The proposed site-specific amendment will not result in probable significant adverse impacts to the county's transportation network, capital facilities, utilities, parks, and environmental features that cannot be mitigated, and will not place uncompensated burdens upon existing or planned service capabilities; (iv) ln the case of a site-specific amendment to the Land Use Map, that the subject parcels are physically suitable for the requested land use designation and the anticipated land use development, including, but not limited to, the following: (A)Access; (B) Provision of utilities; and (C) Compatibility with existing and planned surrounding land uses; (v)The proposed site-specific amendment will not create a pressure to change the land use designation of other properties, unless the change of land use designation for other properties is in the long-term best interests of the county as a whole; (vi) The proposed site-specific amendment does not materially affect the land use and population growth projections that are the bases of the Comprehensive Plan; (vii) lf within an unincorporated urban growth area (UGA), the proposed site-specific amendment does not materially affect the adequacy or availability of urban facilities and services to the immediate area and the overall UGA; (viii) The proposed amendment is consistent with the Growth Management Act (Chapter 36.704 RCW), the County-Wide Planning Policy for Jefferson County, any other applicable inter-jurisdictional policies or agreements, and any other local, state or federal laws. (d) Recommendation. The planning commission's findings and conclusions shall include a recommendation to the board of county commissioners that the proposed amendment(s) be denied, approved, or approved with conditions or modifications. 18.45.050 Compilation of preliminary docket. (Not applicable - the proposal is not part of a period assessment or change to the Comp Plan - consistency with the Comp Plan will be determined under the findings required under JCC 18.45.080(b)) (4) Planning Commission Periodic Assessment - Recommendations. (a) Periodic Assessment - Timelines. The planning commission shall review, and if necessary, recommend revisions to the Comprehensive Plan during the periodic assessment in accordance with RCW 36.70A.130. The planning commission shall complete its assessment of the Comprehensive Plan by November 1st of the year prior to the assessment. Any amendments recommended by a majority vote of the planning commission shall be forwarded to the administrator by March 1st of the year in which the periodic assessment is conducted. The administrator shall place all such recommended amendments on the preliminary docket to be considered during the final docket selection process set forth in JCC 18.45.060. (b) Criteria Governing Planning Commission Assessment. The planning commission's periodic assessment and recommendation shall be based upon, but shall not be limited to, an inquiry into the following growth management indicators: (i) Whether growth and development as envisioned in the Comprehensive Plan is occurring faster or slower than anticipated, or is failing to materialize; (ii) Whether the capacity of the county to provide adequate services has diminished or increased; (iii) Whether sufficient urban land is designated and zoned to meet projected demand and need; (iv) Whether any of the assumptions upon which the plan is based are no longer found to be valid; (v) Whether changes in county-wide attitudes necessitate amendments to the goals of the plan and the basic values embodied within the Comprehensive Plan Vision Statement; (vi) Whether changes in circumstances dictate a need for amendments; (vii) Whether inconsistencies exist between the Comprehensive Plan and the GMA or the Comprehensive Plan and the County-wide Planning Policy for Jefferson County. [Ord. 2-05 S 1]