The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About132Michelle Farfan From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Attachments: David W. Johnson < djohnson@cojefferson.wa.us> Monday, June 20, 2016 l-0:43 AM njohnson@ptleader.com; Cynthia Koan;Gary Felder; Kevin Coker; Lorna Smith; Mark Jochems; Matt Sircely; Mike Nilssen; Richard Hull;Tom Giske David W. Johnson GMA findings for Pleasant Harbor Recommendation PHMPR DR_PC Findings How to Decide Worksheet.docx Attached is the guidance document to help the Planning Commission develop findings for the PC Recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners. 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 lfe in Jefferson County by promoting a vibrant economy, sound communities and a healthy environment. 5rl SlVf PAPER - Pleose do not print this e-mqil unless obsolutely necessory All e-mail may be considered subject to the Publr? Records Act and as such may be dsclosed to a third-party requestor, Jpfferso$C€ur1ty Departman! of Comrnunity Sewlopmenl S,..;.UAR E '.,"':, ',",, ,L. Brtt€r Burldlng 5tffts Hrr{. tll lllrr&brti*iltSrc6* {$*ltia l tad.lt6"aat{ | dcdtlo.l.rlrsus 1 LEE$ NB ffi JEFFERSON COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 621 Sheridan Street, Port Townsend, WA 98368 (360) 37e-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 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: l. I move that the Jffirson County Planning Commission recommend aooroval/deniol/approval with conditions or modi.fications 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. Deliberations-discussion of proposal and develop findings then cal! 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 G)@)(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 (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 descibe why] Staff Suooested Findino: 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' Supplementfor Planning Commission MLA08-00188 Pleasant Hqrbor MPR 2. Page 2 of I 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 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 Residentialto 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 Suqsested 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:" [NOTE: JCC 18.45.080 (4)(c)(i) through G)@Oiii)] (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 3 of I b) Jcc 18.45.050(4xb)(i) 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 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 Sussested Findins: The level of services provided by the County can be maintain at2004levels 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? [Answer'yes' or'no' and descibe why] Staff Susqested Findinq: Yes, for the reasons indicated above under i) and ii) there is sufficient land available for development in the Port Hadlock/lrondale 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' Supplementfor Planning Commission MLA08-00188 Pleasant Harbor MPR Page 4 of8 Staff Suqoested 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 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 Susqested Findins: 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 Suqoested Findi ng: 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. Planninq Commission Findinq: 'How to Decide' Supplement for Planning Commission MLA08-00188 Pleasant Harbor MPR Page 5 of I 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 Findino: No. Staff finds no inconsistencies between GMA, the Comprehensive Plan, the County-wide Planning Policies and the proposed development regulations. Plan n inq 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 proposa!? [Answer and descibe why] Staff Suqoested Findi ng: A Final Supplementa! 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 descibe why] Staff Suggested Finding: Yes. Planning Commission Finding: 'How to Decide' Supplementfor Planning Commission MLA08-00188 Pleosant Harbor MPR Page 6 of 8 3) Is 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? fAnswer'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 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 motion and call for a vote (one of the following): a. ln favor - Yea b. Opposed - Nay c. Abstain - I 3. ' H ow to Decide' Supplement for P lanning C ommiss ion 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 Planning Commission recommendationfor MLA08-00188 Pleasant Harbor Master Planned Resort Development Regulations, to be presented to the Board of County Commissioners. 'How to Decide' Supplement for Planning Commission MLA08-00188 Pleasant Harbor MPR Page 8 of8