Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout77_2025-1014 Applicant Response to Staff Report October 14, 2025 Via Email Jefferson County Hearing Examiner c/o George Terry Community Development Director Jefferson County RE: Pleasant Harbor Master Planned Resort—Application for Preliminary Plat Approval Case No. SUB2023-00025 Applicant Response to Staff Report and List of Conditions Dear Hearing Examiner: We represent the applicant, Pleasant Harbor Marina & Golf Resort LLP (“Applicant”). Through this letter we state our agreement with the findings and conditions in the County Staff Report, as amended, (“Staff Report”), with the following clarifications and supplements. A. Section 1--Project Description The Project Description in the Staff Report includes a list of recreational amenities provided by the Applicant that it intends to build. It is important to distinguish between the recreational amenities that the Applicant intends to build and the minimum recreational amenities that must be built. The Development Agreement entered into between the County and the Applicant identify the minimum required recreational amenities that must be provided for the project to function as master planned resort. The Applicant has, during its marketing efforts and communications with the County, indicated a desire to include additional recreational amenities beyond those identified in the Development Agreement including, but not limited to, a go-kart track and hockey rink. We provide this distinction because the Applicant’s ability to move on to subsequent phases of residential development is dependent upon including the minimum recreational amenities in the first phase of development. The DA and applicable development regulations do not require any additional amenities be built. B. Section 4--Project Background 1. Property was Previously Development and Used as an RV Campground Exhibit 75 2 | Page While not entirely relevant to the land division application, we do think it is important to note that the project area is not “virgin” land. The project was historically developed and used for a 504-unit RV Park and campground. The RV facility included supportive infrastructure included, but not limited to, a lodge, showers, power, street lights, paved roads, and restroom facilities connected to septic systems located throughout the site. The following photo shows the RV Campground in 1979 and the following plan shows a site plan: Exhibit 75 3 | Page C. Section 7.B –Development Standards and Regulations Staff Finding B.27 Residential Building Setbacks and Building Footprints The Applicant did not, as the County notes, include building footprints for the residential lots. The master planned development regulations impose a minimum 10-foot separation between buildings. The DA also imposes several design elements that advocated against setting arbitrary building footprints. For example, and without limitation, the Vegetation Management Plan incorporated as part of the DA requires preservation of significant trees where possible. See Appendix L of the DA. Setting building footprints at this early stage could undermine design elements of the DA by pre-establishing allowed building areas that are better determined on a lot- by-lot basis as they are created. The Applicant has no objection to identifying building footprints as a condition to final plat approval. D. Section 7.C—Critical Areas Standards and Shoreline Management Programs Staff Finding C.40 Although not required by the DA, the Applicant has already installed the data loggers to monitor seawater intrusion and has been gathering water data since May of 2023. The Applicant Exhibit 75 4 | Page will have a robust baseline of pre-development conditions and seasonal fluctuations to assess future monitoring results against. Staff Findings C. 44, 45, 46 and 51 The Applicant clarifies that the images from the County Interactive Mapping service that are included in its findings are advisory only and does not act as a substitute nor does it override the site-specific assessments prepared by the Applicant’s Geotechnical Engineer. The County website for Interactive Mapping expressly disclaims “any warranty of any kind for this information, express or implied, as to the accuracy, completeness . . .” among other things. It also states that is not to be used “as a substitute for specific advice from a licensed professional.” The Geotechnical Report identified areas of moderate erosion potential and concluded that the “the project sites are generally stable”. The engineers also did not identify any “landslide feature s in the upland area behind the [shoreline] bluff.” The Geotechnical Report concluded the shoreline bluff was subject to waive erosion and recommend a 100 ft setback from the top of the slope for all buildings, roadways and infrastructure facilities. Staff Findings C.60 and 65 Figure 11 in the Staff Report is based upon a conceptual layout for the golf course prior to the current design centered on using the already cleared land from the former RV campground. The Figure 11 conceptual layout depicts possible intrusion in the wetland buffer for Wetland D and C. The conceptual layout in Figure 11 does not reflect the current proposed fairway location in the current plan of subdivision. The Applicant has designed the fairway locations (and allocated sufficient land area in the relevant golf course tracts) so they can be constructed outside the buffers of the Wetlands. Please see, for example, Sheet 21 of the civil plan set which shows a fairway layout design that maintains a 150’ buffer from Wetland D (40’ more than what is required by Code). The reference sheet also shows the proposed buffer averaging for Wetland C which reduces the minimum 80’ buffer on the previously disturbed side of Wetland C to 60’ and increases the buffer to 100’ on the side of the Wetland that has more significant and mature vegetation. Likewise Civil Sheet 16 depicts the planned location of the fairway in between Wetland B and C which has been relocated to provide greater separation from Wetland C. E.Section 7.D—Infrastructure and Utilities Staff Findings D.81 and D.82--Stormwater The Applicant has made adequate provision for stormwater facilities within the plan of subdivision. The plan of subdivision allocates sufficient land area for stormwater facilities needed to address anticipated stormwater generation. Even if additional stormwater facilities are needed there remains sufficient space within the plan of subdivision to accommodate additional Exhibit 77 5 | Page stormwater facilities should the need arise based upon site design. For example Staff Finding D.81, states that Basin 3 is not clearly characterized in the Drainage Report. That is a correct statement, and was not fully characterized because proposed development in that area was removed from the current plan of subdivision. Basin 3 could still be used for stormwater management if the need arises. Similarly, Staff Finding D.82, states that no stormwater treatment is described for Kettle B. The Applicant does not plan on using Kettle B for stormwater retention from developed portions of the project site. While there are lots and tracts within the drainage basin including Kettle B, stormwater generation form development in those areas, if any, can be accommodated without using Kettle B. For example, stormwater facilities can be located in golf course tracts between development and Kettle B in Basin 3 as detailed design demands. Also please note that the use of Kettle B for water storage is mentioned in the EIS’s and was shifted to Kettle C to preserve the natural occurring wetland at the bottom of Kettle B (Kettle C does not contain a wetland). This was done at the request of local tribes that had indicated that one of the reasons they were important was because of the presence of freshwater. This does make some of the documentation confusing. There are no plans to use Kettle B to manage stormwater. Findings D.87--Transportation This Finding mentions sidewalks along 101. The lines that appear to be sidewalks are the drainage along the shoulder of the road. Finding D.94 In the Applicant’s view, the County road standards are directed to rural settings and do not reflect road design requirements for urban settings. This is not surprising given that the County’s regulatory authority includes unincorporated areas of the County the majority of which is outside of designated UGAs. The Pleasant Harbor MPR is an urban environment by definition and an environment focused on recreation and outdoor enjoyment. The Applicant has proposed reduced road widths as a traffic calming measure in its preliminary plat and to reduce impervious surface coverage consistent with its obligations under the DA. The Applicant intends to request a deviation with submission of its construction plans for the road network. The preliminary plan of subdivision does, however, leave sufficient room to increase road widths as necessary to meet applicable standards based upon the County’s review and decision on deviation requests. Findings D. 102-104 Transportation Roads The Applicant agrees with the findings. It is important to also note that easement requirement in Code is intended to accommodate growth around subdivisions. As growth occurs around established subdivisions road networks within subdivisions may require expansion to meet added traffic demand. The MPR is a self-contained community on an isolated peninsula. The Exhibit 75 6 | Page road network within the MPR will not be used as a through-way to other areas of the County. The Applicant believes this further justifies reduction of the easement size in addition to those findings made by the County. Finding 107—Pedestrian Circulation The Staff Report states that the connection between the marina and the golf resort must be provided as part of Phase 1 of the development. We believe that is a typo. The phasing map in Amendment 2 to the Development Agreement shows that improvements as part of the Phase 2 improvements as part of Black Point Road. It is possible that a portion of this pathway will be started with the US 101 improvements as of Phase 1, however, complete connectivity is not required until Phase 2. F. Utilities Sewer and Water Finding D. 118 Staff Finding discusses the additional 14.1 acre feet from Pleasant Tides Water System. A portion of the project site is within the existing Pleasant Tides Water System service area. See Exhibit 24, Figure 4 (pdf page 13). The Pleasant Tides system was not designed to supply water to those parcels and Pleasant Tides has no desire to extend its system to service development on those parcels. In lieu of improving its system to service those parcels, Pleasant Tides elected to release 14.1 acre feet of its water rights to the Applicant. The letter from Pleasant Tides confirming their agreement to transfer the water right is included in Exhibit 24 (pdf pages 298-299). Findings D. 120 through 123 The standard for preliminary plat approval requires a demonstration that “appropriate provisions are made for . . . potable water supplies.” RCW 58.17.110; JCC 18.35.130. This standard should not be confused with providing evidence the water supply is “adequate” which is standard applied for issuance of building permits. See RCW 19.27.097. The County, via Condition 63(a) of Ordinance No. 01-028-08 requires that the Applicant use 175gpd per ERU to calculate whether the Applicant has sufficient water to begin project development. As stated in more detail in Finding 121 and Exhibit 25 the Applicant has approximately 8.5% more water than what is needed to service the allowed build out under the Development Agreement. The Water System Plan (Exhibit 24) (WSP), denotes that from a planning standpoint there is a shortage of 1.7%. This shortage, however, is based off of DOH’s requirement that WSP’s use 200gpd per ERU to calculate demand for planning purposes. Notably, WDOH’s water system planning requirements do not account for use of low flow fixtures and reclaimed water usage, both of which must be implemented by the Project. DOH does not give credit to the use of these water use reduction measures in its approval of water system plans until they are implemented and can be quantified as an actual reduction in water usage. Exhibit 75 7 | Page Finding D.129 Even though WDOE determine that saltwater intrusion is not a widespread problem on Black Point it is of great importance to the Applicant as it can have a direct and indirect effect on build-out of the project. The Applicant has made considerable effort to arrive at a design that encourages water reuse, conservation and infiltration of water back into the aquifer to minimize any potential groundwater withdrawal could have on saltwater intrusion. Likewise, the Applicant has gathered over two years of pre-construction salinity data so it can identify potential impacts and address them before they become an issue. As a further precaution, three recharge-well reserve areas have been created. They are located on sheets 11 and 18 of the preliminary plan of subdivision. Only one of the recharge reserve areas have improvements within 100’ reserve area round the well. The structure is a tee box. In the unlikely event a third recharge area is required the tee box could be relocated if necessary. G. Public Services Finding E. 158 The MOU with Jefferson County Fire District No. 4 requires use of the existing helicopter landing areas existing in the area (the closest one is just North of the resort area after US 101 crosses the Dosewallips River). The resort would only build a new helicopter pad should the need arise and in partnership with the Healthcare MOU requirement #7. The resort has left space available to accommodate a pad should the need arise. H. Archeological, Cultural, and Historic Resources Finding 161.d The Applicant confirms it agrees to install elk exclusion fencing along the westerly side of the project site. I. Conditions 1. Condition 25 We agree with this condition, but it should be clarified to require it be constructed or bonded prior to a final plat that includes the Phase 2 improvements consistent with Amendment 2 of the Development Agreement. 2. Condition 28 Exhibit 75 8 | Page The Applicant has no objection to the condition, but requests it be modified to require dedication as part of final plat approval. We believe this is consistent with the County’s intent (see Conditions 27 and 30). Sincerely, John (JT) Cooke Attorneys for Pleasant Harbor Marina & Golf Resort LLP Cc: Client (via email) Phil Hunsucker (via email) Exhibit 75