Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutStaff Memorandum_ Matrix Discussing Planning Commission Recommended Development Regulations with Staff Recommended RevisionsStaff Memorandum: Matrix Discussing Planning Commission Recommended Development Regulations with Staff Recommended Revisions Draft January 5, 2018 1 Discussion Item Number Code Section (final code numbering not included as sequence may change upon adoption) Planning Commission Recommended Version Staff Recommended Version Discussion General Provisions 1 17.60.030 Purpose and Intent 17.60.030 The purpose and intent of the Pleasant Harbor MPR code is to set forth development regulations that comply with and are consistent with the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan for future development within the boundaries of the Pleasant Harbor Master Planned Resort. 17.60.030 The purpose and intent of the Pleasant Harbor MPR Code is to regulate land development uses that comply with and are consistent with the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan for future development within the boundaries of the Pleasant Harbor MPR. The Pleasant Harbor MPR provides a mixture of visitor-oriented transient accommodations, secondary homes, recreation, and supporting commercial facilities. Staff modified first sentence so that purpose of code is made clearer; i.e., from “set forth development regulations” to “regulate land development uses.” Staff inserted a final sentence that describes the purpose of the Pleasant Harbor Master Planned Resort (PH-MPR). 2 New Section No language 17.60.040 Master Plan For the purposes of this Article, the Master Plan for future development of properties within the Pleasant Harbor MPR is the regulations, along with the conditions and requirements of Ordinance 01-0128-08 and Final Environmental Impact Statements, maps, mitigation measures, phasing plans and the Development Agreement between the County and the Developer. Staff recommends adding a section entitled “Master Plan” which defines what is considered the Master Plan for the PH- MPR. Language in the Planning Commission recommended version refers to a “Resort Plan.” This section will replace “Resort Plan” with Master Plan as shown. All future references to Resort Plan in the PC version have been changed to Master Plan in the staff recommended version. 3 Additional Requirements 17.60.040 In addition to the requirements of this title, the provisions of Title 15 and Title 18 of the Jefferson County Code shall apply to development in the Pleasant Harbor MPR. Applications for development within the MPR must be submitted as provided for in JCC 18.35 Article V, Binding Site Plans, and all subsequent development within the MPR area will be subject to the approved binding site plan and as specified in the terms and conditions of the Development Agreement between Jefferson County and the Developer. Deleted Staff recommends deleting this section and replacing with new/revised Requirements Section in Item 4, below, 4 17.60.060 Requirements Replaces “Additional Requirements” Any land disturbing activity within the Pleasant Harbor MPR must comply with the development standards and requirements of: (1) Title 15 and Title 18 of the Jefferson County Code; (2) Conditions and requirements of Ordinance 01-0128-08; (3) The mitigation measures required in the Pleasant Harbor Marina and Golf Resort, Final Environment Impact Statement (November 27, 2007) (2007 FEIS), the Pleasant Harbor Marina and Golf Resort, Final Supplemental Environment Impact Statement December 9, 2015 (2015 FSEIS); and Staff recommends clearly stating that building, site development and land use in PH-MPR be fully subject to provisions of existing County code; that all the conditions of Ordinance 01-0128-08 shall apply; that every mitigation measure published in the Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (FSEIS) will be part of permitting and development applications and that all conditions contained in the Development Agreement shall be complied with. Finally, staff inserted the stipulation that if conflicts arise among conditions that the more restrictive will apply. These are “Requirements” and they are not “additional requirements.” Staff Memorandum: Matrix Discussing Planning Commission Recommended Development Regulations with Staff Recommended Revisions Draft January 5, 2018 2 Discussion Item Number Code Section (final code numbering not included as sequence may change upon adoption) Planning Commission Recommended Version Staff Recommended Version Discussion (4) The terms and conditions of the Development Agreement entered into between Jefferson County and the Developer. Where conflicts occur between the provisions of this title and other applicable code provisions, or other regulations, the more restrictive shall apply. 5 17.60.070 Resort Cap and Residential Use Restrictions 17.80.020 Development cap. The Pleasant Harbor MPR in total shall have a development cap of (intentionally left blank to be determined by further consultation with the Port Gamble S’Klallam Tribe) residential units provided, however, short term visitor accommodation units shall constitute not less than 65 percent of the total units. The Pleasant Harbor MPR in total shall have a development cap of 56,608 square feet of resort commercial, retail, restaurant and conference space, not including all internal open space. 17.60.070 Resort Cap and Residential Use Restrictions The Pleasant Harbor MPR in total shall have a development cap of 890 residential units provided, however, short term visitor accommodation units shall constitute not less than 65 percent of the total units including, but not limited to hotels, motels, lodges, and any residential uses allowed under each zone.. Short-term rental shall be construed to mean less than 30 days. The Pleasant Harbor MPR in total shall have a development cap of 56,608 square feet of resort commercial, retail, restaurant, and conference space Staff recommends moving this from a later section up to General Provisions. Further, staff recommends that PC recommended verbiage “intentionally left blank” item be corrected to what is published in Ordinance 01-012-08 and in the FSEIS to reflect existing, publicly-reviewed and adopted verbiage. 6 Existing uses and structures 17.60.070 Pre-existing uses and structures. Existing legally-permitted, residential and non- residential land uses and structures in all zones of the Master Planned Resort are lawful uses and may be continued in a manner consistent with state law, Titles 15 and 18 of the Jefferson County Code and any other applicable regulations or Ordinances. 17.60.080 Nonconforming Uses Existing nonconforming uses in all zones of the MPR are lawful uses and may be continued unless abandoned for a continuous twelve-month period. 17.60.090 Nonconforming Structures Existing nonconforming structures in all zones of the MPR are lawful uses and may be continued and maintained. Existing nonconforming structures damaged or destroyed by fire, earthquake, explosion, wind, flood, or other calamity may be completely restored or reconstructed if all of the following criteria are met: (1) The restoration and reconstruction shall not serve to extend or increase the nonconformity of the original structure. (2) The reconstruction or restoration shall, to the extent reasonably possible, retain the same general architectural style as the original destroyed structure, or an architectural style that more closely reflects the character of the surrounding neighborhood. Staff recommends revisions that are consistent with other similar verbiage found elsewhere in code and that clearly spell out provisions for existing uses and structures as they are to be considered under new zoning and development standards. Staff Memorandum: Matrix Discussing Planning Commission Recommended Development Regulations with Staff Recommended Revisions Draft January 5, 2018 3 Discussion Item Number Code Section (final code numbering not included as sequence may change upon adoption) Planning Commission Recommended Version Staff Recommended Version Discussion (3) Permits shall be applied for within one year of the damage. Restoration shall be substantially complete within two years of permit issuance. (4) Expansions or substantial modifications to rebuilt nonconforming structures shall comply with current regulations and codes, except that an existing nonconformity regarding the amount of impervious surface on a site may be maintained. 7 Exemptions 17.60.060 Exemptions The following structures and uses shall be exempt from the regulations of this title, but are subject to all other applicable local, state and federal regulations including, but not limited to, the county building ordinance, interim critical areas ordinance, the shoreline management master program, and the State Environmental Policy Act, Chapter 43.21c RCW (SEPA). (1) Wires, cables, conduits, vaults, pipes, mains, valves, tanks, or other similar equipment for the distribution to consumers of telephone or other communications, electricity, gas, or water or the collection of sewage, or surface or subsurface water operated or maintained by a governmental entity or a public or private utility or other county franchised utilities including customary meter pedestals, telephone pedestals, distribution transformers and temporary utility facilities required during building construction, whether any such facility is located underground, or above-ground; but only when such facilities are located in a street right-of-way or in an easement. This exemption shall not include above- ground electrical substations, sewage pump stations or treatment plants, or potable water storage tanks or facilities, which shall require conditional use approval in any zone where permitted; (2) Underground utility equipment, mailboxes, bus shelters, informational kiosks, public bicycle shelters, or similar structure or device which is found by the director of community development to be appropriately located in the public interest; (3) Minor construction activities, as defined by the IBC, Section 106.2 and structures exempt under Chapter 15.05 JCC, as amended; (4) Development consistent with the Marina Binding Site Plan approved by the County prior to adoption of this chapter. 17.60.100 Exemptions Only minor construction activities, as defined by the International Building Code (IBC), Section 106.2 and structures are exempt under Chapter 15.05 JCC, as amended; Staff believes that exemptions from code requirements should be limited to that as proposed by staff. Exemptions as proposed by the Planning Commission (PC) present conflicts with other applicable development regulations found in Jefferson County Code (JCC) Title 18 Unified Development Code (UDC) (See Staff Comments in item 3 above). Finally, staff believes that the PC-itemizing exceptions to exemptions is confusing and potentially difficult to interpret. Staff Memorandum: Matrix Discussing Planning Commission Recommended Development Regulations with Staff Recommended Revisions Draft January 5, 2018 4 Discussion Item Number Code Section (final code numbering not included as sequence may change upon adoption) Planning Commission Recommended Version Staff Recommended Version Discussion Zones 8 17.65 17.65 Pleasant Harbor Master Planned Resort Residential Recreation and Commercial Zone (MPR-RRC) 17.65 Golf Resort (MPR-GR Zone) Staff recommends the proposed zone title Golf Resort for simplicity. 9 17.65.010 Purpose The MPR-RRC zone allows residential and recreational facilities, as well as commercial amenities and services associated with the resort and surrounding community. It also allows for the central resort and conference facilities. The MPR-GR zone provides residential and recreational facilities, as well as commercial amenities and services associated with the resort and surrounding community. Staff returned earlier, more clear language associated with the MPR-GR Zone 10 17.65.020 Permitted Uses (1) Residential uses including single-family and multifamily structures, condominiums, townhouses, apartments, lofts, villas, time-share and other fractionally owned accommodations. (1) Residential uses including single-family and multifamily structures, condominiums, townhouses, apartments, lofts, villas, time-share, and fractionally owned accommodations. No change. (2) Short-term visitor accommodations, constituting not less than 65% of the total residential units authorized by Ordinance #01-0128-08, including, but not limited to hotels, motels, lodges, and any residential uses allowed under subsection 1 of this section that are made available for short- term rental. “Short-term rental” shall be construed to mean less than 30 days. Deleted. Moved to Staff proposed 17.60.070 See comments under item 5, above (3) Visitor oriented amenities, including, but not limited to (a) conference and meeting facilities; (b) restaurants, cafes, delicatessens, pubs, taverns and entertainment associated with such uses; (c) on-site retail services and businesses typically found in destination resorts and designed to serve the convenience needs of users and employees of master planned resort; and (d) recreation business and facilities; (2) Visitor oriented amenities, including, but not limited to: (a) conference and meeting facilities; (b) restaurants, cafes, delicatessens, pubs, taverns, and entertainment associated with such uses; (c) on-site retail services and businesses typically found in destination resorts and designed to serve the convenience needs of users and employees of a master planned resort; and, (d) recreation business and facilities; Staff recommends renumbering per comment above and changing format to an itemized list for easier use and easier referencing. (4) Cultural and educational facilities of all kinds including, but not limited to, interpretative displays of local Native American ties to and uses of the area, art galleries, and indoor or outdoor theaters; (3) Cultural and informational facilities including, but not limited to, interpretative displays of local Native American ties to and uses of the area, art galleries, and indoor or outdoor theaters; Staff recommends renumbering and replacing the word “educational” with “informational” so that there is no conflict or confusion with references to ‘education’ or ‘educational’ elsewhere in UDC or in Development Agreement (MOU with schools). Staff Memorandum: Matrix Discussing Planning Commission Recommended Development Regulations with Staff Recommended Revisions Draft January 5, 2018 5 Discussion Item Number Code Section (final code numbering not included as sequence may change upon adoption) Planning Commission Recommended Version Staff Recommended Version Discussion (5) Indoor and outdoor resort-related recreational facilities, including but not limited to tennis courts, swimming pools, spa services, hiking trails, bicycle paths, ropes courses, amphitheater, and other recreational uses consistent with the nature of master planned resort; (4) Indoor and outdoor resort-related recreational facilities, including but not limited to golf courses (including accessory structures and facilities, such as clubhouses, practice facilities, and maintenance facilities), tennis courts, swimming pools, spa services, hiking trails, bicycle paths, rope courses, amphitheater, and other recreational uses consistent with the nature of a master planned resort; Staff recommends renumbering and recommends returning the term golf courses to list of permitted uses to be consistent with the proposed zone as well as with Ordinance 01-0128- 08 and the FSEIS (6) Waste water treatment facilities, including treatment plants, capture, storage and transmission facilities to serve a reuse/recycle program for on-site treatment and use/reuse of waste water and stormwater; (7) Public water supply and related facilities; (8) Public facilities and services as defined in JCC 18.10.160; (9) Utilities supporting the resort; (10) Emergency services (fire, police, EMS); (11) Medical services; and (12) Other similar uses consistent with the purpose of this zone and MPR as determined by the Department of Community Development. (5) Public facilities and services as defined in JCC 18.10. (6) Other similar uses consistent with the purpose of this zone and an MPR as determined by the department of community development Staff recommends renumbering and removing PC recommended items (6), (7), (9) through (11). Utility and other life/safety provisions already are regulated by UDC Land Use and Development Standards (18.15 and 18.30). 11 17.65.040 Bulk and setback requirements All structures shall be set back at least 40 feet from Master Planned Resort boundary lines and adjacent MPR zones. Minimum building setback from State Route 101 is 50 feet. (1) There are no yard or setback provisions internal to the MPR-GR zone. All structures shall be set back at least 20 feet from the Pleasant Harbor MPR boundary lines and adjacent MPR zones. Minimum building setback from State Route 101 right-of-way is 50 feet. Minimum setback from Black Point right-of-way is 20 feet. (2) All buildings not attached or having common walls shall be separated by a minimum distance of 10 feet, as measured from foundation to foundation. Staff revised PC recommended language for clarity, additional specificity and alignment with project proposal as evaluated in FSEIS. 12 17.65.050 Critical Areas, Significant Tree Retention and Cultural Resources Protection Areas (1) Critical areas and their buffers within the MPR boundaries shall be identified, delineated and permanently protected in accordance with JCC 18.22 and shall be designated on the official map of the Pleasant Harbor Master Planned Resort. A building setback of 10 feet shall apply to all designated buffer areas. (2) Significant Tree Retention. All trees measuring 10” diameter breast high (dbh) or greater on the date of binding site plan approval shall be located and marked for retention, and measures taken to protect Deleted substantively and replaced with single statement: All provisions of existing County Code regarding critical areas and their buffers apply except that wetland buffers once determined are to be placed in a permanent conservation easement. Staff recommends deletion of this section that was added in PC version. As discussed in Item 3, “Requirements” section above, there is a clear statement that building, site development and land use in PH-MPR be fully subject to provisions of existing County code and that all the conditions of Ordinance 01-0128-08 shall apply. Staff recommends a short statement that distinguishes wetland critical area buffer requirements that differ slightly from existing County code and that are required under Ordinance 01-0128-08 namely, that wetland buffers once determined must be placed in a Staff Memorandum: Matrix Discussing Planning Commission Recommended Development Regulations with Staff Recommended Revisions Draft January 5, 2018 6 Discussion Item Number Code Section (final code numbering not included as sequence may change upon adoption) Planning Commission Recommended Version Staff Recommended Version Discussion surrounding soil and roots during site disturbance. Where there is no alternative to removing such trees, additional trees, such as Douglas Fir or Sitka Spruce at least four years old or four feet in height, shall be planted in buffer areas at a ratio of two trees planted for each removed. Where feasible, removed trees and their root wads shall be made available for watershed restoration projects. (3) Kettles. A “kettle” is defined as a depression on the land surface left by an ice block after glacial retreat. Black Point has three such geologic and culturally significant features inside the MPR boundaries. Kettles are identified as a type of wetland difficult to replace. The three kettle sites on Black Point inside the MPR boundaries shall be preserved and protected to include buffers as deemed sufficient per agreement with the Port Gamble S’Klallam Tribe. (4) Special Environmental Protection Provisions. Notwithstanding all other environmental requirements, the MPR approved plan must have provisions for: (a) Well-head Protection and Aquifer Recharge Area Permeable soils on site mean potential contamination of the aquifer could occur from improperly directed run-off, spills or other contamination of fertilizers, pesticides, herbicides and petroleum products, putting human health at risk as well as fish and wildlife. An approved plan for directing untreated run-off away from the aquifer and treating all on-site run-off with current biofiltration standards prior to any discharge to the aquifer. (b) An approved organic vegetation and site management plan shall be submitted to the County as part of the overall Master Planned Resort application for review and approval, or approval with conditions. (c) All development and landscaping within the PHMPR area must be located , constructed, and maintained in such a manner as to provide full protection to the aquifer and any on-site or neighboring wells that rely on that aquifer for potable water. (d) No golf course greens should be constructed over the aquifer recharge area. Site grading and excavation shall be minimized, as demonstrated permanent conservation easement. Staff created a section under “Resort development” which lists the required mitigation measures published in the Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (FSEIS) and Ordinance 01- 0128-08. Already proposed by staff is the stipulation that if conflicts arise among conditions that the more restrictive will apply. Finally, staff recommends against creating new or novel regulatory standards for the PH-MPR (e.g., Kettles; single tribes over other tribes, etc.) which present legal issues with federal, state and local laws. The PC version introduces duplication of existing development standards and/or codifies new novel standards that may not be not legally defensible or defendable. Staff Memorandum: Matrix Discussing Planning Commission Recommended Development Regulations with Staff Recommended Revisions Draft January 5, 2018 7 Discussion Item Number Code Section (final code numbering not included as sequence may change upon adoption) Planning Commission Recommended Version Staff Recommended Version Discussion by a County reviewed and approved grading plan pursuant to JCC 18.30.060 & 070. (e) Land disturbing activities such as grading and filling shall be kept to a minimum and natural contours shall be followed in locating and designing all development features to protect the natural environmental uniqueness of the site. (f) Regular independent water quality testing shall be conducted at specific monitoring sites to be identified in the Resort Plan to test for saltwater intrusion and toxic contamination in local wells that rely on the Black Point sole source aquifer, as well as testing in the lower reaches of the two adjoining watersheds for toxic contamination and low oxygen levels. (g) All development and land disturbance shall protect/avoid all important cultural/historic sites that are listed, or eligible to be listed, by State Historic Preservation Officer or by a local Tribe with jurisdiction. Pursuant to JCC 18.30.160, the County recognizes that the area of the MPR is within the ceded area of Tribes that were parities to the Point No Point Treaty. (h) The owner/developer or assignees must provide for all on-site recycling of material, including paper, glass, cardboards, plastics, and composting of garden waste, food waste. All compost should be reused on site. The owner/developer or assignees must provide a written record that landscaping materials purchased and applied onsite, including those applied as compost feedstocks, and pest controls are within the parameters and use restrictions set forth by the National List of Allowed and Prohibited Substances as published and periodically updated by USDA National Organic Program. (i) The applicant shall identify wildlife use areas within the site and provide for set-aside and protection of core wildlife habitat areas and connecting corridors. (j) In cooperation and consultation with local tribes, areas shall be set aside and maintained for the occasional harvesting of medicinal plants and other plants important to tribal culture. Staff Memorandum: Matrix Discussing Planning Commission Recommended Development Regulations with Staff Recommended Revisions Draft January 5, 2018 8 Discussion Item Number Code Section (final code numbering not included as sequence may change upon adoption) Planning Commission Recommended Version Staff Recommended Version Discussion (k) All development with the PHMPR must comply with the requirements for buffer retention, wildlife protection, greenbelt retention and maintenance and establishment of permanent protective easements for these resources, as well as the other specific requirements of Jefferson County Ordinance, 01-0128-08, which was part of the Board of County Commissioners Council approval for establishment of the Pleasant Harbor Master Planned Resort. (l) Any development proposed in the PHMPR shall use the LEED (Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design) green building rating system standards. (m) Any development proposed in the PHMPR shall use the International Dark Sky Association (IDA) Zone E-1 standards for the MPR in order to limit night-time light pollution which may affect neighboring residential areas as well as wildlife. (5) Public Access to Master Planned Resort Amenities. All amenities and recreational resources of the development shall be open to all members of the public, with the exception of those type of activities pertaining to guests and residents only such as access to laundry rooms or internal recreation rooms, TV rooms, etc. Nothing in this section shall prevent the operator of any recreational resource from establishing a fee or charge for the public’s use of the recreational resource. Staff Memorandum: Matrix Discussing Planning Commission Recommended Development Regulations with Staff Recommended Revisions Draft January 5, 2018 9 Discussion Item Number Code Section (final code numbering not included as sequence may change upon adoption) Planning Commission Recommended Version Staff Recommended Version Discussion 13 17.70 Open Space Reserve (MPR-OSR) 17.70.010 Purpose. The purpose of the MPR-OSR zone is to provide for a natural vegetated buffer area between the resort activities and the waters of Hood Canal. The MPR-OSR zone shall include a buffer extending landward 50 feet as surveyed from the top of the shoreline bluff bank, including a 10 foot building setback, along southern boundary of the MPR in accordance with Ordinance No. 01-0128-08. 17.70.020 Permitted uses. The following uses may be allowed in the buffer and open space areas in the MPR-OSR zone after review and approval of appropriate critical area reports: (1) Restoration of existing development intrusions (roads, campsites) to their natural pre-development state; and (2) Passive recreation, including trails that do not reduce the forest canopy, increase stormwater discharge, or bluff erosion. (3) Educational and interpretive displays and signs may be installed if such installations involve a minimum of disturbance to soils or vegetation. Purpose The purpose of the MPR-OSR zone is to provide a non- clearing permanently forested native vegetation buffer between the resort development and the waters of Hood Canal. The MPR-OSR zone shall extend landward as measured 200 feet horizontally from the ordinary high water mark of Hood Canal as measured in accordance with local and state code. The dimensions of the MPR-OSR zone do not preclude applicable buffers and setbacks as required under this title or under Title 18 Jefferson County Code. Staff recognizes that, in accordance with conditions of Ordinance 01-0128-08, the entirety of the MPR-OSR zone is required to be within a conservation easement, which runs with the land in perpetuity. Staff revised and strengthened the “Purpose” statement to convey clearly that the OSR is to remain permanently forested and that no clearing is permitted. Staff added language that acknowledges the zone boundary as being subject to other standards existing in code (e.g., geologically hazardous areas). Staff recommends removing “permitted uses” as item number (1) would be subject to a conditional use permit and items (2) and (3) already are regulated in existing code (Chapter 18.15 JCC Land Use and Chapter 18.30 JCC Development Standards). PC version introduces duplication of existing development standards and/or codifies new novel standards that may not be not legally defensible or defendable. 14 17.75 Marina- Maritime Village Zone 17.75.020 Permitted Uses (1) Through (6) (7) Utilities supporting the resort; (8) Infrastructure and buildings, both above and below ground, for the utilities; (9) Emergency services (fire, police, EMS); (10) Public facilities, and services serving the MPR-MV zone; (11) Medical services; and 17.75.040 Bulk and setback requirements. There are no yard or setback provisions internal to the MPR-MV zone. All new structures located within shoreline jurisdiction shall comply with the setback requirements of the County’s Shoreline Master Program as codified under JCC 18.25 17.75.020 Permitted Uses no change for items (1) through (6) Delete items (7) through (11) 17.75.050 Bulk and setback requirements. (1) There are no yard or setback provisions internal to the MPR-MV zone. Minimum building setback from Highway 101 right-of-way shall be 50 feet. Minimum building setback from Black Point Road right-of-way shall be 20 feet. All new structures located within shoreline jurisdiction shall comply with the setback requirements of the County’s Shoreline Master Program as codified under. Chapter 18.25 JCC. Staff recommends removing PC recommended items after Item (6), as noted. Utility and other life/safety provisions already are regulated in existing code (Chapter 18.15 JCC Land Use and Chapter 18.30 JCC Development Standards) PC version introduces duplication of existing development standards and/or codifies new novel standards that may not be not legally defensible or defendable. Staff recommends revised setback requirements as noted and consistent with Golf Resort Zone (MPR-GR) discussed above. Staff Memorandum: Matrix Discussing Planning Commission Recommended Development Regulations with Staff Recommended Revisions Draft January 5, 2018 10 Discussion Item Number Code Section (final code numbering not included as sequence may change upon adoption) Planning Commission Recommended Version Staff Recommended Version Discussion (2) All buildings not attached or having common walls shall be separated by a minimum distance of 10 feet, as measured from foundation to foundation 15 Marina- Maritime Village Zone (no language) 17.75.030 Prohibited Uses. Floatplanes and floatplane docks are prohibited. Aerial access is limited to helicopters for emergency medical purposes only. Staff recommends an additional standard to prohibit Floatplanes, as noted, for the MPR-MV Zone, responding to comments from US Navy and agreed to by Property Owner/Developer. Pleasant Harbor Resort Development 16 17.80 Pleasant Harbor Resort Development 17.80.010 Resort development. This section describes the “Resort Plan” for facilities to be located in the resort MPR, sets out a required environmental review process for any future resort development, and provides processes for reviewing major or minor revisions to the Resort Plan. These provisions apply to all resort and associated development within the Pleasant Harbor MPR 17.80.010 Resort development. This section describes the “Master Plan” defined by 17.60.040 for facilities to be located in the Pleasant Harbor MPR, and provides processes for reviewing major or minor revisions to the Master Plan. These provisions apply to all resort and associated development within the Pleasant Harbor MPR Staff recommends revising “Resort Plan” to “Master Plan.” The Master Plan is established and defined in General Provisions section as discussed item 3 above. The required environmental review process already exists in Chapter 18.45 JCC and SEPA. PC version introduces duplication of existing requirements in the JCC or state law that may not be not legally defensible or defendable. 17 No language 17.80.020 Required Mitigation Measures During Operations. The mitigation measures required in the Pleasant Harbor Marina and Golf Resort, Final Environment Impact Statement (November 27, 2007) (2007 FEIS), the Pleasant Harbor Marina and Golf Resort, Final Supplemental Environment Impact Statement December 9, 2015 (2015 FSEIS); and the terms and conditions of the Ordinance 01- 0128-08 and the mitigation measures contained in the Development Agreement entered into between Jefferson County and the Developer are required for the PH-MPR. Listed Staff locates here all mitigation measures found as conditions in Ordinance 01-0128-08 or as contained in the published FSEIS. These mitigation measures address shoreline, water quality, marina and golf course aspects of the PH-MPR and provide the protection required by SEPA and the Ordinance. Staff Memorandum: Matrix Discussing Planning Commission Recommended Development Regulations with Staff Recommended Revisions Draft January 5, 2018 11 Discussion Item Number Code Section (final code numbering not included as sequence may change upon adoption) Planning Commission Recommended Version Staff Recommended Version Discussion for reference are those mitigation measures, which include but are not limited to: (1) Shoreline Mitigation: The southern shoreline abutting Hood Canal will be put into a permanent conservation easement from the ordinary high water mark to 200 feet landward. (2) Water Quality Mitigation: (a) The Pleasant Harbor MPR shall be required to perform water quality monitoring and to supply that data from the state water quality sampling station and other stations in Pleasant Harbor and submit a summary water quality report to the County. (b) The Pleasant Harbor MPR shall comply with a County-based comprehensive water quality monitoring plan requiring at least monthly water collection and testing developed and approved in concert with an adaptive management program, utilizing best available science and appropriate state agencies. The monitoring plan shall be funded by a yearly reserve, paid for by the Pleasant Harbor MPR that will include regular off-site sampling of pollution, discharge, and/or contaminant loading, in addition to any on-site monitoring regime. (c) In the event that water quality shows any sign of deterioration, the County shall consult with the resort, the local residents, and the State (both Washington State Department of Health and Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife) concerning the source of the change. (d) All the Pleasant Harbor MPR permits shall require implementation of appropriate mitigation measures to alleviate any water quality issues caused by the Pleasant Harbor MPR. Staff Memorandum: Matrix Discussing Planning Commission Recommended Development Regulations with Staff Recommended Revisions Draft January 5, 2018 12 Discussion Item Number Code Section (final code numbering not included as sequence may change upon adoption) Planning Commission Recommended Version Staff Recommended Version Discussion (3) Marina Mitigation: (a) All stormwater from impervious surfaces shall be captured and treated to the most current edition of the Stormwater Manual of Western Washington before discharge. (b) There shall be no discharge of sewage or contaminated bilge waters at the marina. (c) Pump out facilities shall be provided and operational at all times. (d) Cleaning of fish or sea life shall be prohibited within the controlled access areas of the marina. (e) The Project permits shall incorporate shellfish protection district guidelines. (f) The marina shall have the right to inspect any vessel at any time. (g) The marina shall develop and manage an active boater education program appropriate to the marina setting to supplement the County program developed as part of the shellfish protection district. (h) New or significant expansions to existing fuel storage or transfer shall be prohibited on marina floats, docks, piers, and storage lockers. (i) No storage of oily rags, open paints, or other flammable or environmentally hazardous materials except emergency equipment as approved in the Emergency Service MOU shall be permitted on the docks. (j) Painting, scraping, and refinishing of boats shall be limited to minor repairs when in the water, which do not result in any discharge to the waters of the harbor. (k) Any minor repairs must employ a containment barrier that prevents debris from entering the marine waters. Staff Memorandum: Matrix Discussing Planning Commission Recommended Development Regulations with Staff Recommended Revisions Draft January 5, 2018 13 Discussion Item Number Code Section (final code numbering not included as sequence may change upon adoption) Planning Commission Recommended Version Staff Recommended Version Discussion (l) Notification and information (before harvesting shellfish) will be available at the proposed. (m) The marina operations shall incorporate mitigation requirements appropriate under the County Shellfish Protection Plan, and shall integrate a boater education program into a marina public education plan, which shall be implemented and maintained for so long as the resort is in operation, as part of a resort habitat management plan. (n) The marina operations shall collect water quality data (from State sources so long as available or from approved testing plan should the state sources move or not accurately reflect Pleasant Harbor conditions), and shall be required to participate with the County in an adaptive management program to eliminate, minimize, and fully mitigate any changes arising from the resort and related Pleasant Harbor or Maritime Village. (o) The marina operations shall conduct ongoing monitoring and maintain an inventory regarding Tunicates and other invasive species, and shall be required to participate with the County and state agencies in an adaptive management program to eliminate, minimize, and full mitigate any changes arising from the resort, and related to Pleasant Harbor or the Maritime Village. (4) Golf Course Mitigation (a) The Pleasant Harbor MPR shall ensure that golf course operations comply with the best practice standards of the King County golf course management guidelines, or their substantial equivalent, including, but not limited to, American Golf Association standards. (b) The golf course and resort facilities will be required to participate in any adaptive management programs required by the County, as a result of the water quality Staff Memorandum: Matrix Discussing Planning Commission Recommended Development Regulations with Staff Recommended Revisions Draft January 5, 2018 14 Discussion Item Number Code Section (final code numbering not included as sequence may change upon adoption) Planning Commission Recommended Version Staff Recommended Version Discussion monitoring program required by JCC 17.080.020(2) and any changes caused by the resort operations. (c) Stormwater discharge from the golf course shall meet requirements of zero discharge into Hood Canal. To the extent necessary to achieve the goal of designing and installing stormwater management infrastructures and techniques that allow no stormwater run-off into Hood Canal, (d) The Pleasant Harbor MPR shall implement as a best management practice for the operation and maintenance of the golf course a requirement to maintain a log of fertilizers, pesticides and herbicides used on the Pleasant Harbor MPR site, and this information shall be made available to the public. (5) Greenhouse Gas Mitigation: The Pleasant Harbor MPR shall collaborate at least annually with the Climate Action Committee (CAC) or its successor to calculate greenhouse gas emissions (GHGs) associated with the Pleasant Harbor MPR, and identify techniques to mitigate such emissions through sequestration and/or other acceptable methods. (6) Blending of Buildings, Light Mitigation, Greenbelts and Buffer Management: (e) In keeping with an approved landscaping and grading plan, and in order to satisfy the intent of JCC 18.15.135(6), and with special emphasis at the Maritime Village, the buildings should be constructed and placed in such a way they will blend into the terrain and landscape with park-like green belts between buildings. (f) Construction 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). An arborist will be consulted and the ground staked and flagged to ensure the roots and surrounding soils of significant trees are protected during construction. To the extent possible, trees of significant size (i.e. 10 inches or more in diameter at Staff Memorandum: Matrix Discussing Planning Commission Recommended Development Regulations with Staff Recommended Revisions Draft January 5, 2018 15 Discussion Item Number Code Section (final code numbering not included as sequence may change upon adoption) Planning Commission Recommended Version Staff Recommended Version Discussion breast height (dbh) that are removed during construction shall be made available with their root wads intact for possible use in salmon recovery projects. (g) All development within the Pleasant Harbor MPR shall use the International Dark Sky Association (IDA) Zone E-1 standards within the boundaries of the Pleasant Harbor MPR. (h) The Pleasant Harbor MPR, at its expense, shall manage all conservation easements to include removing, when appropriate, naturally fallen trees, and replanting to retain a natural visual separation of the development from U.S. Hwy 101. 18 Pleasant Harbor Resort Development 17.80.030 Resort Plan and Development Agreement The Resort Plan shall consist of an approved binding site plan, including monitoring and operational plans, and an approved Development Agreement for future development of properties in the Pleasant Harbor MPR. The process for approval of such agreements is contained in 18.40.820 JCC 17.80.040 Permit process for resort development. (1) A project-level supplemental environmental impact statement (SEIS) analyzing development of the Resort Plan is required prior to issuance of building permits for any new resort development. (2) Notice of development application and environmental review under SEPA shall be provided to all persons or agencies entitled to notice pursuant to the land use procedures of JCC Title 18. (3) Actual building permit plans or construction drawings may not be required during the SEPA review process, but submitted architectural drawings must contain and demonstrate sufficient details, including a detailed site plan, showing approximate elevations, sections, and floor plans are required, however, to ensure that the SEPA review process analyzes and considers project-level details. (4) The department of community development may impose mitigating conditions or issue a denial of some or all of the Resort Plan based on the environmental review and 17.80.030 SEPA Compliance Required (1) Substantial Compliance with Environmental Impact Statements and Supplemental Environmental Impact Statements Required. (a) Potential environmental impacts from future development of the Pleasant Harbor MPR have been assessed and addressed in prior environmental documents. The prior reviews were published in the following documents: i. Draft Environmental Impact Statement for Pleasant Harbor Marina and Golf Resort (September 5, 2007) (DFEIS); ii. Pleasant Harbor Marina and Golf Resort, Final Environment Impact Statement (November 27, 2007) (FEIS); iii. Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement for Pleasant Harbor Marina and Golf Resort November 19, 2014 (DSEIS); Staff recommends striking the verbiage from the PC version regarding “resort plan” as most of what is described here is part of the Development Agreement, under a separate staff report. Staff also recommends deleting PC language regarding State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) thresholds. The PC provisions attempt to repeat current state law, but are potentially inconsistent. The applicability of SEPA applies to all land use actions and does not require reproduction here. Staff notes that the PC version is borrowed from earlier verbiage adopted for Port Ludlow MPR. SEPA rules as published in state law recognize that existing environmental documents for a given project and property will and are required to guide all land use, environmental and site development decisions. For the PH-MPR, there are a draft and final EIS and draft and final SEIS, which recognize all the provisions, reproduced here. Any modification, revision or change to what was analyzed in the EIS and SEIS for PH- MPR property and site development will, in accordance with state law, require additional analysis under SEPA, i.e., a SEPA addendum or supplement. Reproducing state legal requirements is not value-added and introduces potential confusion for future planning staff, citizen interpretations or by future contractors /developers. Staff Memorandum: Matrix Discussing Planning Commission Recommended Development Regulations with Staff Recommended Revisions Draft January 5, 2018 16 Discussion Item Number Code Section (final code numbering not included as sequence may change upon adoption) Planning Commission Recommended Version Staff Recommended Version Discussion using authority provided pursuant to the State Environmental Policy Act, Chapter 43.21C RCW. Article X of Chapter 18.40 JCC shall be applicable to the permit process for resort development. (5) Following completion of the SEIS, building permits may be issued, following appropriate plan review, for projects analyzed in the SEIS. (6) Actual resort development may be undertaken in phases, but only following completion of review and approval of a full resort buildout plan through the SEIS process. A phasing schedule may be proposed as part of the environmental review or may be developed at a later date. iv. Pleasant Harbor Marina and Golf Resort, Final Supplemental Environment Impact Statement December 9, 2015 (FSEIS). (b) The FEIS, DSEIS and FSEIS are referred to collectively as the “Prior EISs.” Development shall substantially comply with the express mitigation measures imposed pursuant to the Prior EISs. (c) The Prior EISs shall constitute compliance to the fullest extent possible under SEPA, as well as Condition 63(b) of Ordinance 01-0128-08, for all subsequent approvals or permits to develop the Pleasant Harbor MPR including, but not limited to, plats, short plats, binding site plans, boundary line adjustments, development permits, grading permits and building permits. No additional substantive SEPA mitigation measures are required for approvals or permits that authorize development that is consistent with level and range of development analyzed in the Prior EISs. (d) Additional environmental analysis may be required for a new or modified proposal that materially exceeds the level and range of development reviewed in the Prior EISs. For any such new or modified proposal, relevant information from Prior EISs shall be used to the fullest extent possible in future SEPA review. The scope of environmental review shall be limited to considering how or whether the proposal differs from or exceeds the scope of the Prior EISs and if so, whether such modification results in potentially significant adverse environmental impacts that have not been adequately addressed in the Prior EISs. Staff Memorandum: Matrix Discussing Planning Commission Recommended Development Regulations with Staff Recommended Revisions Draft January 5, 2018 17 Discussion Item Number Code Section (final code numbering not included as sequence may change upon adoption) Planning Commission Recommended Version Staff Recommended Version Discussion 19 17.80.050 Environmental review for Resort Plan development. (1) All project level applications will be presumed to meet the threshold for a SEPA Determination of Significance except where the SEPA-responsible official determines that the application results in only minor impacts. Existing environmental review documents may be adopted under SEPA if those documents meet the SEPA and JCC requirements to adequately address environmental impacts and mitigation as set forth in RCW 43.21C.034. (2) The scope of an SEIS prepared under this section shall address environmental issues identified in the Programmatic FEIS issued November 2007, together with such additional requirements as a project specific application may raise. The scope shall not change the standards of approval, however, as set forth in the applicable development agreement and these development regulations. (3) The utility element of any subsequent phase of SEPA review pertaining to the Pleasant Harbor MPR shall provide information on all affected utility systems, including sewer and water systems and the results of required monitoring. The effectiveness of such monitoring shall be evaluated. Supplements or changes to the monitoring and reporting systems shall be considered if necessary to ensure that water quality and water supply are adequately protected and impacts to natural resources minimized. Requirements for water quality and quantity monitoring as well as for run-off impacts shall be specified in the Developer Agreement and in 17.80.030. (4) Any preliminary scope for future development within the Pleasant Harbor MPR shall be consistent with the approved Resort Plan. Other elements, issues, and specific levels of detail may be included based on information available at the time the Resort Plan development application is submitted. Elements noted above may be combined in the SEPA analysis to reduce duplication and narrow the focus on potentially significant adverse environmental impacts. Deleted See comment to Item 18 above. Staff Memorandum: Matrix Discussing Planning Commission Recommended Development Regulations with Staff Recommended Revisions Draft January 5, 2018 18 Discussion Item Number Code Section (final code numbering not included as sequence may change upon adoption) Planning Commission Recommended Version Staff Recommended Version Discussion Revisions to Master Plan 20 17.80.060 and 070 Revision to Master Plan (replaces Resort Plan) Uses term “Resort Plan.” Replaces with “Master Plan” whenever “Resort Plan” is used No other changes recommended by staff. Limitation of Permit Approval, Extinguishment and Severability 18 17.85 New section, proposed No language 17.85.010Limitation of permit approval. An MPR approved with a phasing plan shall be null and void if the applicant fails to meet the conditions and time schedules specified in the approved phasing plan. A new development plan shall be required for any development on the subject property. Specific development activities shall be subject to the standards of the approved MPR and the regulations in effect at the time of development permit application. 17.85.020 Severability If any section, subsection, clause or phrase of this title or amendment thereto, or its application to any person or circumstance, is held by a court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid, the remainder or application to other persons or circumstances shall not be affected Staff recommends inserting this language into this PH-MPR code to protect against a failure to develop the PH-MPR as required by the development regulations and the development agreement.