COM 1078.001 2018-2020 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

through a full rezone process. The Director agreed to that. And also, they agreed to develop a master plan, but something that would have to be done as a condition of these rezone amendment requests and something that would ultimately be implemented through Plan Approval. And also, throughout the meeting and even before the meeting, it was very clear that the driving force from the applicants was getting to hearing at the PC in August or September and getting to the County Council as quickly as possible. So ultimately, at the end of that meeting we were unable to come up with an agreement based on what we needed to feel comfortable moving forward and the applicants' desire to really move this forward very quickly. After the meeting, the applicant sent an email with an updated,site plan and a draft transect plan, which was submitted to you in the applicant's August 3rd transmittal, and it's what they called a master plan. They thought this would satisfy the requirement for a master plan. In our initial request, we asked, we were very clear on what the components of a master plan, the minimum requirements for the components of a master plan would entail; they, thought that these two maps essentially would constitute that. They also requested that that the -Design Center complete and expedite review by the end of July 2020. So they got this to us on the-4.6th; it would have given the Design Center about two weeks to review the two', --documents they provided:. On July 21 St the Director responded to the applicants' request, determining that the updated site -plan and draft transect map did not meet the minimum requirements that, we laid out ahead of time to warrant Design Center review, and asked them to- submit a draft master plan more consistent with the CDP requirements with the intent to reach more mutually acceptable outcome as was requested by the Commission at their June meeting. Instead, theapplicant was -very clear that anything that was going to take more time was unacceptable and requested that we" -conduct today's meeting to have the PC consider updated draft favorable recominendations,and associated conditions for both rezone amendments that were supplied toyou in their August 3 rd submittal. So at this point I think we have, we,are going to .44y out some next steps. There are a couple of options that the -Commission. ha& As the partieswere.,unable to come to an agreement on how to move forward 'With'a favorable,,recommendation-that -you requested, the Commission has the following options to consider: The first is to forward an unfavorable recommendation to the County Council -either based on the Director's recommendation or for other reasons that the Commission may articulate; or, the second is',. -to forward a favorable recommendation to the County Council, providing appropriate justification, as well as recommended conditions of approval, that can be a favorable recommendation that's based on what the applicant has submitted or it can be, you know, other reasons that the Commission may have to move this forward, and appropriate conditions. The applicant has submitted those; he; body of a favorable recommendation, as well as conditions, proposed conditions of approval: Should the Commission desire to forward a favorable recommendation to the County Council based on those, the Planning Department would like to propose amendments to some of those conditions as proposed to ensure they are consistent with agency recommendations that we received to this point, as well as to make sure they are consistent with our standard condition language. With all that, I want to say, so we had some discussion about Mr. Van Pernis's email, there were the two transmittals, a letter from the Planning Department and a transmittal from the applicants, and the finally, yesterday you should have received an email from the Pacific Resource Partnership 14 DRAFT