HomeMy WebLinkAbout60_Response Letter_2025-0131
January 31, 2025
Via Email:
Cristina Haworth, AICP
RE: Permit No: SUB2023-00025 (Preliminary Plat Application for Pleasant Harbor
Master Planned Resort).
Response to REVISED Technical Review Comments
Dear Cristina:
Thank you for your letter dated August 16, 2024 in which you revised the list of comments
the applicant needs to address to secure preliminary plat approval. Pleasant Harbor agrees that
development of the resort is governed by the Development Agreement (“DA”), among other
relevant documents as outlined in Section 3.2 of the DA. To the extent your letter suggests that
we are trying to evade meeting applicable components of the DA, that is wrong.
The County’s view that each application it files must demonstrate how it meets every
component of the DA is, however, incorrect. The reason is, as we pointed out during our meeting
(and to the Kitsap County Superior Court in the prior LUPA proceeding), is that some DA
requirements have no application to certain permits. For example, and without limitation,
Ordinance No. 10-0128-02 and JCC 17.80.020(6)(b) required that “[c]onstruction of buildings
within the Pleasant Harbor MPR boundaries shall strive to preserve trees that have a diameter of
10 inches or greater at breast height (dbh).” This is not a requirement that must be met at
preliminary plat approval because preliminary plat approval does authorize the “construction of
buildings”. (emphasis added). Preliminary plat is a “a neat and approximate drawing of a proposed
subdivision showing the general layout of streets and alleys, lots, blocks, and other elements of a
subdivision consistent with the requirements of this chapter.” RCW 58.17.020. Rather, this
requirement, by its plain terms, is limited to the building permit application stage when an actual
building footprint had been designed and proposed. I could provide additional examples of DA
requirements but that would belabor the point.
Exhibit 60
2 | P a g e
Comment 1—Plan Corrections: The markups have been addressed in the revised plan set. We
would appreciate the courtesy of being able to review the County’s proposed conditions of
approval before the application is conveyed to the Hearing Examiner. The conditions should be
limited to those needed for final plat approval.
Comment 2—Plan Set Inconsistent. The inconsistencies have been corrected.
Comment 3—Conservation Easement. The location of the conservation easement is noted.
Comment 4—Setbacks. The building setback is depicted. We disagree that pedestrian paths are
prohibited in the setback. The pedestrian paths are not “structures” as defined in JCC 17.65.040.
Moreover, the comment ignores the intent of the setbacks. The purpose of the setbacks was to
provide a visual barrier from US 101 and Hood Canal of the buildings. A pedestrian path through
these vegetated areas does not undermine that purpose.
There are no minimum lot size requirements imposed in the MPR. Therefore, there is no need to
calculate buildable area. We are comfortable with the lots and tracts as they have been outlined at
this preliminary level. Lot and tract adjustments may be made at final plat approval as site
infrastructure is fully designed as is customary consistent with state law and applicable County
regulations.
Comment 5—Vegetation Management.
a. Blending of Buildings.
The preliminary plat application outlines the general layout where lots and roads will be
located. It does not authorize construction of buildings. Per the plain terms of the
ordinance condition “buildings must be constructed and placed in a such a way that they
blend into the terrain and landscape with park like greenbelts between buildings”. The
County says “not enough information has been provided to determine compliance with this
requirement” without specifying what else is required. Clearly, actual building design is
premature at this early stage. Addressing how buildings will be constructed to blend in
like building height, materials, architectural features and landscaping are more
appropriately addressed during building permit review when building plans (including
grade, elevation, and design) are actually prepared. The lot layout leaves room for building
design that can satisfy this requirement.
b. Tree Preservation.
As noted above, the tree preservation requirement is not applicable to preliminary plat.
Nevertheless, the preliminary plat layout strives to preserve trees in excess of 10 inches
dbh. The Vegetation Management Plan (Appendix L) (“VMP”) rated forested areas based
on the age of trees (which roughly correlates to the size of trees). The forest areas with the
oldest growth and thus, the highest densities of trees exceeding 10” dbh are rated BP-1 and
shown Figure 13 of the VMP. The preliminary plat avoids those areas where possible. For
example, and without limitation, Tract A consists of 11 acres of open space that preserves
Exhibit 60
3 | P a g e
one of the larger groves rated BP-1 on the property. Second, when laying out roads for the
preliminary plat effort was made to track the location of the existing roadwork through the
property to further minimize impacts to forested areas. This is partly due to necessity
because, as the County is aware, terrain on the property is uneven and following the
existing road network minimizes the amount of grading required. It is also worth pointing
out that when the Ordinance was adopted the master planned resort contemplated in 18-
hole golf course. Since then, the golf course has been reduced to 9 holes which has allowed
for even greater retention of trees than what was possible when the Ordinance was initially
adopted and this condition contemplated.
PHMPR has a staff arborist on site. Although not required by the ordinance, prior to
conducting work on roads and related infrastructure to achieve final plat approval the
arborist will mark any qualifying trees that must be removed for road and related
infrastructure improvements needed to achieve final plat. This will allow for potential plan
deviations to preserve trees where possible.
Finally, the applicant is not required to preserve all trees exceeding 10” dbh. Condition
63(w) states that construction of buildings will be completed in a manner that “strives to
preserve trees” that have a 10”dbh. It does not, as the comment suggests, require
preservation to the “maximum extent possible”.
Comment 6—Building Envelopes.
The building envelope requirement in JCC 18.35.400(4)(g) does not apply. The purpose
of this requirement is to map code-required setbacks on each lot. The MPR ordinance does not
require internal lot setbacks except for any lots located within 20 feet of an exterior MPR boundary
(which have been marked). The building envelope is, therefore, the lot boundary. That does not
mean, however, that an applicant can cover the four corners of the lot with a building. Buildings
must be designed to blend into the terrain and provide green areas between buildings as well as
preserve trees 10” dbh, among other things. Setting a building pad/envelope at this stage will
arbitrarily limit development to a specific pad and may impede designs that better achieve other
design goals on a lot-by-lot basis as actual construction plans are developed and submitted to the
County including tree preservation and aesthetic considerations.
Comment 7—Geologically Hazardous Areas.
a. Geotechnical Study. PHMPR disagrees that a new geotechnical report is required. The
prior report delineated the areas deemed geologically hazardous on the property. That
has not changed. Nevertheless, Pleasant Harbor commissioned a review report from
Krazan & Associates, Inc. dated October 15, 2024 (“Krazan Review Report”). The
Krazan Review Report concludes that geologically hazardous areas from the prior
report remain unchanged.
Exhibit 60
4 | P a g e
b. Recommendations. The top of bluff along the southern property edge was located by
others and is depicted on both the preliminary plat and the preliminary civil engineering
plans. While we do not believe the cart path is prohibited in this area we have relocated
it.
c. Phasing. The Krazan Review Report concludes that Pleasant Harbor’s current
construction sequencing phases will not undermine existing potentially geologically
hazardous areas. Please note that while the Krazan Review Report references “phases”
that is not intended to deviate or establish phases that differ from those set out in the
Development Agreement. Rather, the reference was intended to identify areas that will
have ground disturbance at or around the same time for purposes of assessing impacts
to geologically hazardous areas. Any phasing of final plats will follow the approved
phasing plan in the Development Agreement.
Comment 8-_Wetlands.
a. Delineation. Please see the enclosed Wetland Verification Report prepared by Geo -
Engineers and dated October 18, 2024.
b. Establishing Buffers. Please see the enclosed Wetland Verification Report prepared by
Geo-Engineers and dated October 18, 2024 addressing applicable buffers. The buffers
have been placed on the revised preliminary plat.
c. Buffers in Conservation Easements. The updated wetland buffers are reflected on both
the preliminary plat and preliminary civil plans. The conservation easement is indicated
on both the plat and civil drawings and the easement was recorded with Jefferson
County on 2/29/2024. File number 664860. The wetland buffer easement language will
be proposed to the county for review prior to final plat and once approved it will be
recorded.
d. Buffer Encroachments. Although lot boundary may extend into wetland buffers, the
proposed residential lots impacted by the wetland buffer have been modified on the
revised preliminary plat and civil plans. Other encroachments have also been removed.
Comment 9—Recharge Wells.
Comment 10—Healthcare MOU. The US Navy will not allow float planes in the vicinity of
Pleasant Harbor. A helipad has been designated in the revised preliminary plat drawings South of
the main entrance road.
Comment 11—Appendix P, Wildlife Management Plan.
Exhibit 60
5 | P a g e
a. Report Figures. We presume you are referencing the legend on the right hand side.
These figures were based off the site plan for stormwater. The legends outline
stormwater improvements which have no bearing on the depicted wildlife corridors.
The wildlife corridor legend is shown at the top of the page in color.
b. Site Features. Amendment 1 dictates that an exclusion fence must be constructed along
the western boundary of the MPR south of Black Point Road. The fence will be
constructed as required. This is not an issue for preliminary plat approval, but is a
condition that must be met for final plat approval. PHMPR is consulting with Dylan
Bergman, wildlife biologist for the Point No Point Treaty Council about fence location.
Comment 12—Appendix S Dark Sky Standards.
1. Illumination Standards. The applicant will comply with the lighting standards in
Appendix S. A narrative of how we will comply is not required for preliminary plat
approval. The County and Hearing Examiner can condition preliminary plat approval
that all road and path lighting meet the Appendix S standards.
2. Lighting Extent. Additional detail will be provided when development permit approval
drawings are submitted.
Comment 13—Existing Wetlands. Please see response to Comment 8 above.
Comment 14—Roadway Maximum Slopes. Maximum longitudinal roadway slope is 12%.
Comment 15—Sanitary Sewer. Appropriate easements and/or tracts for development and
operation of a public sewer system and water system will be created with the final plat based on
the final configuration of as-constructed systems serving the master planned resort.
Comment 16—Setback Distance for Well. The County misinterprets the SWMM. Suitability of
stormwater infiltration ponds must take into account any drinking water wells within 500 -feet.
That requirement of the SWMM does NOT require a 500-ft setback as the County asserts. Rather,
drinking water wells are to be a minimum of 100-ft distant from stormwater infiltration ponds. See
2019 SWMM, SSC-1 Setback Criteria (p. 742).
Comment 17—Stormwater Drainage Easements. The storm system has not been fully designed.
As a result, we cannot provide easement locations on the preliminary plat and providing arbitrary
easement locations would fruitless as those locations would likely change. It is appropriate to
condition final plat approval on construction of code-compliant stormwater facilities and
identification and creation of all appropriate easements to operate the same through the MPR.
Comment 18—Geotechnical Recommendations. Please see response to Comment 7.
Exhibit 60
6 | P a g e
Comments 19-24—Roadway Widths. Please see the attached Memorandum dated October 2 2024
from Michale Read, PE with TENW for a response to Comments 19-24.
In addition to the TENW Memorandum, increasing the paved width will compromise other goals
of the MPR with no material corresponding benefit. For example, increasing the paved width will
impede the goal to preserve trees exceeding 10” dbh and will further reduce the open space
corridors and vegetated areas with the resort, among other negative impacts.
Finally, upon more detailed review it appears the reviewer compared the project against the
Jefferson County Colorado Transportation Design and Construction Manual. We were unable to
find any such manual in the Jefferson County Washington Code or website. Moreover, the
Jefferson County Colorado Transportation Design and Construction Manual contains the sections
and standards cited to in the comment letter.
Encl.
Cc: Client (w/ encl) (via email)
Exhibit 60