HomeMy WebLinkAbout034Jefferson County Planning Commission
ME,E G P:36o379-445o
F:36o379-449r
plancomm@co jefferson.wa.us
6zr Sheridan St.
Port Townsend WA 98368 Date:
Opening Business
Callto Order:
RollCall:
Kevin Coker
Cynthia Koan
Gary Felder
b'-1 a PM Public in Attendance:g
Mt/
t/
Mark Jochems
Matt Sircely
Lorna Smith
t/
,/
Richard Hull
Tom Brotherton
Tom Giske
i,/
t/
i/
lndicateP-Present;All-Absent&Unexcused;orAE-Absent&Excused(osnotedbyChoir);Noteanylotearrivols;Quorum=5
Staff Present:A,v w he (G l""r'r'*aA-
Approval of Agenda:(r ea
Approval of Minutes: Yay #B Nay #Abstained #
1uo* j .oStaff Updates AB ,L9 1q coryl'" L-'9 6l*
Speaker Name
Update
PUfr
Speaker Name
Update
Description of Motion &t,, t,-o- {,D M L
Moved
'TB seconded ru Time 7:62-
lnitiols lnitials
Yay #Nay #Abstained #
PM
Page r of z
Motions
6zr Sheridan St.
Port Townsend WA 98368
Jefferson County Planning Commission
MEETINGNOTES
Date:
P:36o379-445o
F:36o-379-445r
plancomm@co jefferson.wa.us
Discussion Topic:tt
Speaker Name
Speaker Name
Comment Period Open Time I :o2 PM
Speaker Name
Speaker Name
Speaker Name
0:zz PMComment Period Close Time
ClqSiXg Business
Fotlow-up Work ltems for DCD Staff:fuf,-1 . A vtu.tlmn
1,4,t 'Y i ?oLbNext Meeting:
Adjournment Time:
t?r:Z'o PM
Page z of z
t LC U.r.rr-r (^t.f orxf e {u,0
Speaker Name
Public Comment
Pa,T
P: Z60-979-4450
6zr Sheridan St.
Port Townsend WA 98368
Jefferson County Planning Commission
MEETINGAGENDA
Tri-Area Community Center
February g,zot6
<----.-
F:360:379-4451
plancomm@co j efferson.wa.us
o Callto Order/Roll Call
o Approval ofAgenda
r Staff Updates
o CommissionerAnnouncements
. Approval of Minutes Aug. 5th, Sept. 2d, oct. 7th
Topic Speakers
Pleasant Harbor Master Plan Resort
o Deliberations on making
recommendations to the board on
Development Regulations.
o Planning Commission
o David Wayne Johnson, Associate
Planner, Department of Community
Development
When the Choir recognizes you to speok, pleose begin by stoting your name ond address.
Pleose be owore that the observer comment period is .,,
t An optionol time period dedicoted to listening to the public, not o question ond onswer
session. The Plonning Commission is not required to provide response;
ii Offered ot the Chails discretion when there is time;
iii Not o public heoring - comments mode during this time will not be port of any heoring record;
iv Moy be structured with o three-minute per person time limit.
o Summary of today's meeting
o Follow-up action items
o Agenda ltems for February 17th meeting at 6:30 pm at the Tri-Area Community Center
r Thank you for coming and participating in your government at work!
OPENING BUSINESS l
6:30 pm
DrscusstoN
6:45 pm
OBSERVER COMMENT
8:00 pm
CLOSING BUSINESS
8:15 pm
ADJOURNMENT
8:30 pm
6zr Sheridan St.
Port Townsend WA 98968
ROLL CALL
District 1
Coker: Present
Felder: Present
Koan: Present
Public in Attendance:
Aporoval ofAsenda:
Approval of Minutes:
Jefferson County Planning Commission
MEETINGMINUTES
Tri-Area Community Center
August 5, 2015
Call to Order at 6:30 pm
P:36o-379-44So
F:36o-379-445r
pla ncomm@)co jefferson.ua.us
District 2
Smith: Present
Sircely: U-Absence
[Vacant]
3
Disrict 3
Brotherton:. Present
Giske: Present
Hull: E-Absence
StaffPresent
Carl Smith, DCD Director
foel Peterson" DCD Assoc. Planner
Kevin Coker approved the agenda.
Kevin Coker moved to approve the minutes for 04/LS/20L5, 05120/2075 &
06/03/2015 all were approved with none opposed.
STAFF UPDATES
Carl Smith:Mark f ochems has interview for Commissioner this Friday to fill Patricia's seat.
Chair & Vice Chair Nominations: Elections will wait until next month with more member's present. Nominations
for Chair: Cynthia Koan and Kevin Coker. Vice Chair: Lorna Smith, Matt Sircely & Richard Hull.
COMMISSIONER ANNOUNCEMENTS
Comp PIan work: Brinnon Master Plan, Development Agreement & Zoning & finalization of FEIS to go to board for
Approval. David W fohnson asked for a special meeting on 70/21/15 in Brinnon for that. We need a September
overyiew meeting beforehand to address issues.
Kevin attended the foint Land Use Study Meeting: I have additional information for you and they want additional
information. Itwas very informative with a total of nine boards reviewing all very well versed, all input from their
countless resources. Public Comment is open nll0B/ZB/2015. Website is: kiijlus.com. Will bring numbers from
foint Growth Management Steering Committee to you.
Navy Ioint Land Use Study:
foel Peterson spoke. Recommendations are: It's a community plan, NOT the Navy's Plan. We've come up with a
tool set of recommendations on how to avoid conflicts. See table on Page 9, it shows implementation phases.
Funded by OEA, and they have needs assessment, identified tools, have a report. Have a resolution thatwill be
useful. Phase 2 could say there could be projects or studies for additional OEA funding. |efferson County doesn't
have issues for a new study. We may not pursue additional funding we may in the future. Will finalize a report in
September and accept comments trll08/28/15 will approach the BOCC for a resolution. Planning Commission is
also welcome to provide a letter.
Page r of z
PLEASANT HARBOR MASTER PLANNED RESORT
Title 17
MASTER PLAI\NED RESORTS
Title 17. Article I. Port Ludlow MPR
Chapters 17.05-17.50
No change
Title 17. Article II. Pleasant Harbor MPR (l 7.60-1 7.80)
Chapter 17.60. General Provisions
17.60.010 Authoritv.
This title is adopted pursuant to 36.70 and 36.70A RCW. and Title 18 JCC.
17.60.020 Title.
The rezulations set forth in this title shall be known as the "Pleasant Harbor Master
Planned Resort Code" or by the short title "Pleasant Harbor MPR Code." Citations to these
rezulations shall be made usine the applicable JCC section number.
17.60.030 Purpose and intent.
The oumose and intent of the Pleasant Harhor MPR code is to set forth develooment
rezulations that comply with and are consistent with the Jefferson Coun8 Comprehensive Plan
for future development within the boundaries of tle Pleasant Harbor Marina and Golf Resort
Master Planned Resort.
17.60.040 Additional requirements.
Title 15 and Title 18 of the Jefferson County may supplement the regulations presented in
this Article in accordance with the tems and conditions of the Development A$eement entered
into between Jefferson Countv and Pleasant Harbor Marina and Golf Resort. LLP.
17.60.050 Applicabilitv.
The provisions of this title shall apply to all land. all associated water areas and all uses
and structures within the boundary of the Pleasant Harbor Master Planned Resort as deoicted on
the official land use map for Jefferson County. Washineton.
17.60 060 Exemptions.
The following structures and uses shall be exempt from the rezulations of this title. but
are subiect to all other applicable local. state and federal resulations includins- but not limited to.
the county buildinq ordinance. interim critical areas ordinance. the shoreline manaeement master
proeram. and the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA).
1
(l) Wires. cables. conduits. vaults. pipes. mains. valves. tanks. or other similar equipment for
the distribution to consumers of telephone or other communications. electricitv. sas. or water or
the collection of sewage. or surface or subsurfase water operated or maintained bv a
eovernmental entitv or a public or private utility or other county franchised utilities includins
customary meter pedestals. telephone pedestals. distribution transformers and temporary utility
facilities required durine buildine construction. whether anv such facility is located underqround.
or above-sround: but only when such facilities are located in a street right-of-way or in an
easement. This exemption shall not include above-eround electrical substations. sewage pump
stations or treatment plants. or potable water storase tanks or facilities. which shall require
conditional use approval in any zone where permitted:(2) Underground utiliB equipment. mailboxes. bus shelters. informational kiosks. public
bicycle shelters. or similar structure or device which is found by the director of communitv
development to be appropriatelv located in the public interest:(3) Minor construction activities. as defined by the IBC. Section 106.2 and stuctures exempt
under Chapter 15.05 JCC. as amended:(4) Stormwater detention facilities associated with and accessory to new development are
perrnitted in all zones. Any above-eround detention facility or pond shall be screened from the
public rieht-of-way or appropriately landscaped to ensure compatibility with the surroundine
atea.(5) Development consistent with a Bindine Site Plan approved by the Countv prior to
adoption of this chapter.
f7.60.110 Preexisting uses and structures.
Exisfins lesal residential and non land uses and structures in all zones ofthe
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 re8ulations or
Ordinances.
17.60.120 Provisions binding on the land.
The provisions of this section shall apply to any subsequent owlers, lessees. tenants or
others with an interest in the property subject to the master planned resort (or any portion or
parcel thereofl. including but not limited to successors in interest. holders of any recorded
interest recorded subsequent to the MPR approval. communitv associations. facility providers
and special service districts operatins within the MPR area.
17.60.130 Enforcement
The enforcementprovisions codified in Chapter 18.50 Enforcement of Title 18 of the
Jefferson Countv Code as currentlv enacted or as hereafter ameudedshall applv to anv alleeed
violation of Title 17. Article II. more commonlvknown as the "Pleasanl Harbsrl\4PRladei:
Chapter 17.65. Golf Resort MPR-GR)
17.65.010 Purpose.
The MPR-GR zone provides residential and recreational facilities, as well a! commercial
amenities and services associated with the resort and surroundine communiw. It orovides the
central resort and conference facilities.
-2-
17.65.020 Permitted Uses.
(l) Residential uses including sinele-family and multifamily structures. condominiums.
townhouses. apartments.lofts. villas. time-share and fractionally owned accommodations of all
kinds.(2) Short-termvisitoraccommodationg,constitutins not less than 65Yo of the total residential
units authorized by Ordinance #01-0128-08. including. but not limited to hotels. motels. lodees.
and any residential uses allowed under subsection I of this section that is made available for
short-term rental.
(3) Visitor oriented amenities. including" but not limited to (a) conference and meetine
tavems and entertainment associate
such uses: (c) on-site retail services and businesses tvpically found in destination resorts and
desiened to serve the convenience needs of users and employees of master planned resort: and
(d) recreation business and facilities:
4 Cultural and educational facilities of art
and indoor or outdoor theaters:
(5) Indoor and outdoor resort-related recreational facilities. including but not limited to solf
courses (including accessory structures and facilities. such as clubhouses. practice facilities. and
maintenance facilities). tennis courts. swirnmine pools. spa services. hikine trails. bicycle paths.
ropes courses. amphitheater. and other recreational uses consistent with the nature of master
planned resort:(6) Waste water treatment facilities. includine treatrnent plants. capture. storaee and
transmission facilities to serve a reuse/recycle propram for on-site treatment and use/reuse of
waste water and storrrwater:(7\ Prrhlic water crrnnlw and related facilities
(8) Public facilities and services as defined in JCC 18.10.160:
(9) Utilities supporting the resort:
(10) Emersency services (fire. police. EMS):(11) Medical services: and
I Other similar uses consistent with the of this zone and MPR as
Deparfrnent of Communitv Development.
17.65.030 Heieht restrictions.
No buildings within the MPR-GR zone shall be erected. enlarged or structurall), modified
ln as measured IBC standards or
shall not be included in any heieht calculations.
17.65.040 Bulk and density requirements.
There are no yard or setback provisions internal to the MPR-GR zone. All structures
shall be set back at least 20 feet from Master Planned Resort boundary lines and adiacent MPR
zones. Minimum buildine setback from State Route 101 is 50 feet.
Chapter 17.70, Open Space Reserve (MPR-OSR )
17.70.010 Purpose.
a-J-
The purpose of the MPR-OSR zone is to provide a natural buffer between the resort
activities and the waters of Hood Canal. The MPR-OSR zones shall extend landward 200 feet
of Hood Canal as measured under the Shoreline
the bank as measwed under 18.22
Preater.
17.70.020 Permitteduses.
The followins uses are in the MPR-OSR zone
(l) Restoration of existing development intrusions (.roads. campsites) to theit natural pre-
development state: and
(2) Passive recreation that does not reduce the forest canopy. increase stormwater discharge
or blufferosion.
Those uses consistent with the Shoreline Master
Chapter 17.75. Marina Villaee (MPR-MV)
17.75.010 Purpose.
The MPR-MV zone provides mixed use amenities and services associated with the
marina portion of the resort and surounding communitv. and provides the cental support to the
marina operations.
17.75.020 Permitted uses.
The followine uses are permitted in the MPR-lvry:
(l) Marina and overwater structures as approved throueh the Jefferson Counlv Shoreline
Master Proeram and associated reeulations Chapter 18.25 JCC:
(2) Residential uses including sinele-family and multifamily structures. condominiums. time-
accommodations of all
mixed commercial and service
open parkins lots. restaurants and shops. as well as marine service facilities. marina office. vacht
club and recreation facilities serving the resort and the Marina:(4) Accessory uses and structures. such as garages. camorts" storage buildings and similar
structures suoporting marina and maritime village uses. fuel service and parkine:
(5) lndoor and outdoor resort-related recreational facilities. including but not limited to
tennis courts. swimmins pools. marinas. hiking trails. bicycle paths. ropes courses. game center
and other recreational uses consistent with the nature of master planned resort.l
(6) Utilities supportins the resort:(7) lnfrastrucnre and buildinss. both above and below pround. for the utilities:
(8) Emereencv services (fire. police. EMS):
(9) Public facilities. and services servine the MPR-MV zone:
(10) Medical services: and
(10) Other similar uses consistent with the purpose of the this zone and MPR as determined by
the Department of Community Development.
17.75.030 Heieht restrictions.
-4-
No buildinss within the MPR-MV zone shall be erected. enlareed or structurally
modified to exceed 35 feet in heieht as measured by IBC standards. Undersround or imbedded
parking shall not be included in any heieht calculations.
17.15.040 Bulk and densitv requirements.
There are no :yard or setback provisions internal to the MPR-MV zone. All new
structures located within shoreline iurisdiction shall comply with the setback requfuements of the
Countv's Shoreline Master Program as codified at Ch. 18.27 JCC
Chapter 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 anv future resort development. and provides
processes for reviewinq major or minor revisions to the Resort Plan. These proyisions apply to
all resort and associated development within the Pleasant Harbor MPR.
17.80.020 Development cap.
The Pleasant Harbor MPR in total shall a develooment cap of 890 residential units
provided. however. short tenn visitor accommodation units shall constitute not less than than 65
percent of the total units. The Pleasant Harbor MPR in total shall have a development cap of
70.000 square feet of resort commercial. retail. restaurant and conference space. not including
lobbies and internal open space.
17.80.030 Resort Plan
The Resort Plan for future development of properties in the Pleasant Harbor MPR means
the rezulations. requirements. densities and uses established in the Development Apreement
berween the Countv and Pleasant Haxbor Marina and Golf Resort. LLP dated [I and approved bv
Ordinance No. il and as reviewed includes up to 890 residential units. approximately 70.000
square feet of commercial space. as well as infrastructure necessarv to service the development.
17.80.040 Permit nrocess for resort development.(.1) A projectJevel supplemental environmental impact statement (SEIS) anal)"zine
development under the Resort Plan is required prior to issuance of buildine permits for any new
resort development. The applicant mav choose to develop a new environmental impact
statement rather than a supplement.(2) Notice of application for environmental review of the Resort Plan shall be provided to all
persons or agencies entitled to notice pursuant to the land use procedures of JCC Title 18.
(3) Actual buildine permit plans or drawinss are not reouired durine the SEIS
process. Architectural drawinss including a detailed site plan. and architectural sketches or
drawines showinq approximate elevations. sections. and floor plans are required. however. to
ensure that the SEIS considers proiect-level details.(4) The department of communitv development may impose mitisatine conditions or issue a
denial of some or all of the Resort Plan based on the environmental review and
-5-
usins authoritv
provided pursuant to the State Environmeutal Act. Chaoter 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 buildine permits mav be issued. followine appropriate
plan review. for projects analyzed in the SEIS.
(6) Actual resort development may be undertaken in phases. but onlv followine completion
of review and approval of a full resort buildout plan throueh the SEIS orocess. A phasins
schedule may be proposed as part of the environmental review or may be developed at a later
date.
17.80.050 Environmental review for Resort Plan development.
All will be an automatic SEPA
of Siprrificance except where the SEPA-responsible official determines that the ippllaatiqn
results in only minor construction. A EIS or is not required if existine environmental
documents adequately address environmental conditions 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 development agreement and these
development re zulations.
(3) The utilitv element of anv subsequent phase environmental review pertaining to the
Pleasant Harbor MPR shall review information on all affected utility systems. includine sewer
and water svstems and the results of required monitorinq. The effectiveness of such monitorine
shall be evaluated. Supplements or chanees to the monitorine and reportine systems shall be
considered if necessary to ensure that water quality and water supply are adequately protected
and impacts to natural resources minimized.
(4) Anypreliminary scope for future development within the Pleasant Harbor MPR is based
on the described 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 EIS analvsis to reduce duplication and
narrow the focus on potentially sierrificant adverse environmental impacts.
17.80.060 Revisions to Resort Plan.
(l) Any proposed enlareement to the Pleasant Harbor MPR boundarj, or zone chanses within
the MPR shall require a Comprehensive Plan amendment and related zoning action. Such
chanees are outside the scope of the revision processes described below and in JCC 17.80.070
and 17.80.080. The County may approve an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan only if all
requirements of the Growth Manasement Act (Chapter 36.704 RCW) are fulfilled.
(2) The County shall accept buildine permits only for projects included in and consistent
with the Resort Plan. A revision to the existing Resort Plan shall be submitted to the countv for
approval prior to the acceptance ofany that is inconsistent with the Resort Plans set
forth in this title. Upon approval of a revision. all subseguent development proposals shall be
consistent with the revised Resort Plan and development rezulations.
revisions to the Resort Plan shall be submitted to the
de-vclopment and the DCD director will determine whether the proposal constitutes a maior or
-6-
minor revision. Upon makine a determination. the proposed revision shall follow the appropriate
process for plan revisions as outlined in JCC 17.80 060 and 17.80.070.
17.80.070 Minor revisions.(l) Minor Revisions. The county recoluuzes that the Resqlt flaa rnaylasulqminor changes
to facilities and services in response to chansing conditions or market demand and that some
deeree of flexibility for the resort is needed. Minor revisions are those that do not result in a
substantial chanse to the intent or purpose of the Resort Plan in effect. A change that satisfies
the followine criteria shall be deemed a minor revision for pumoses of this chapter:(a) lnvolve no more than a ten (10) percent increase in the overall eross square
footase of the Resort Plan:(b) Will not have a simificantly ereater impact on the environment and/or facilities
than that addressed in the development plan:
c Do not the boundaries of the(d) Do not propose new uses or uses that modifr the recreational nature and intent of
the resort.
A chanee to the Resort Plan may still qualify as a minor revision under this section despite its
failure to satistv one or more of the conditions (a) throueh (d) of this section.(2) Minor Revision Process. Applications for minor revisions shall be submitted to, and
reviewed bv the Jefferson County department of community development to determine if the
revisions are consistent with the existine Resort Plan and Resort Plan SEIS, the Jefferson Counry
Comprehensive Plan and otherpertinent documents. Those proposals that satisft the above-
referenced criteria shall be deemed a minor plan revision and may be administratively approved
(as a Type II decision under the land use procedures of JCC Title 18. Unified Development
Code) by the director of the department of community development. Public notice of the
application. the written decision. and appeal opportunities shall be provided to all persons or
agencies as required by the land use procedures of JCC Title 18. Unified Development Code.
Those revisions that do not comnlv with the contained within this section shall be
deemed a maior revision- subiect to the provisions outlined in JCC 17.80.080.
17.80.80 Maior revisions.
Revisions to the Resort Plan that will result in a substantial change to the resort
includine: chanees in use. increase in the intensitv of use. or in the size. scale. or densitv of
development: or changes which mav have a substantial impact on the envfuonment beyond those
reviewed in previous environmental documents. are considered to be maior revisions and will
require application for a revised Resort Plan.(l) Application for a Maior Revision to the Resort Plan. An application shall be prepared
revision in relation to the Resort Plan and
framework for review. analysis and mitisation of the revised development activitv proposed. The
Resort Plan revision proposal shall include the followine information:
(a) A description of how the revised Resort Plan would further the eoals and policies
set forth in the Comprehensive Plan:
ft) A descriotion of how the Resort Plan revision complements the existine resort
facilities of the MPR:
-7-
(c) A description of the design and frrnctional features of the Resort Plan revision.
settine out how the revision provides for unified development. inteprated site desim and
protection of natural amenities:
(d) A listine of proposed additional uses and/or proposed changes to density and
intensity of uses within the resort, and a of how these chanses meet the needs
of residents of the Pleasant Harbor MPR and patrons of the resort:
(e) A description and analysis of the environmental impacts associated with the
proposed revision. includins an analysis of the cumulative impacts of both the proposed
revision and the approved Resort Plan. and their effects on surroundine properties and/or
public facilities:(fl A description of how the DroDosed Resort Plan revision is inteprated with the
overall Pleasant Harbor MPR and any features. such as connections to tail svstems.
natural systems or ereenbelts. that have been established to retain and enhance the
character of the resort and the overall MPR:(e) A description of the intended phasine of development proiects;
(.h) Maps. drawings. illustrations. or other materials necessary to assist in
understandins and visualizins the design and use of the completed proposed
development. its facilities and services. and the protection of critical areas:
(i) Acalculation of estimated new demands on capital and services and
their relatiqnship tq tthq existine resort and MPR demands,but not limited to
transportation. water. sewer and stormwater ities: and a demonstration that sufficient
facilities and services to support the development are available or will be available at the
time development permits are applied for.(2) Major Revision Process. Major revisions shall be processed as a hearins examiner
decision (Type IID. with a required public hearing prior to the decision. Public notice of the
application. the written decision. and appeal opportunities shall be provided to all persons on the
Pleasant Harbor MPR roster (see JCC 17.60.070) and such other persons or aeencies as requfued
bv the land use Drocedures of JCC Title 18, Unified Develonment Code. Anv nrooosed maior
revision involvine a chanse to the boundaries of the MPR zone shall reouire a Comorehensive
Plan amendmenthTwe V countv commissioners decision) nrior to anv decision on the Resort
Plan amendment.
(3) Decision Criteria. The hearine examiner may approve a major revision to the Resort Plan
onlv if all the following criteria are met:
(a) The proposed revision would further the goals and policies set fodh in the
Comprehensive Plan:
O) No unmitieated probable sipnificant adverse impacts would be
created by the proposed revision:(c) The revision is consistent with all applicable development rezulations. includins
those established for critical areas:
fd\ f)n-cite enrl nff-cife infi'acfnrr.hrre ,Ltzli- c lrrrf nnt limited to ulafpr eplrpf
storm water and transportation facilities) impacts have been fully considered and
mitieated:(e) The oroposed revision complements the existins resort facilities. meets the needs
of residents and pakons. and provides for unified development. inteerated site desim.
and protection of natural amenities.
-8-
Title 18
UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE
Chapter 18.15
Land Use Districts
18.15.025 Master planned resort.
Per RCW 36.70A.360, a new master planned resort means a self-contained and fully integrated
development with primary focus on resort destination facilities that includes short-term visitor
accommodations associated with a range of indoor and outdoor recreational facilities within the
property boundaries in a setting of significant natural amenities. A resort may include other
residential uses, but only if the residential uses are integrated into and support the on-site
recreational nature ofthe resort.
(1) Port Ludlow. Port Ludlow Master Planned Resort (MPR). The fifgtenly existing
offrcially designated master planned resort in the county is the Port Ludlow MPR, which is
designated in accordance with RCW 36-70A.362 as an existing master planned resort and is
subject to the provisions of JCC Title 17. The master planned resort of Port Ludlow is
charucteized by both single-family and multifamily residential units with attendant recreational
facilities including a marina, resort and convention center. The master planned resort of Port
Ludlow also includes a large residential community. The entire resort is served by a village
commercial center, which accommodates uses limited to serving the resort and local population.
The master planned resort's intemal regulations and planning restrictions such as codes,
covenants and restrictions may be more restrictive than the requirements in JCC Title 17.
However, Jefferson County does not enforce private codes, covenants and restrictions.
(2) Pleasant Harbor Marina and Golf Resort. Pleasant Harbor Marina and Golf Resort is the
second officially designated master planned resort in the County. The Pleasant Harbor MPR is
designated in accordance with RCW 36.70A.360 as a new master planned resort and is subject to
the provisions of JCC Title 17. The Pleasant Harbor MPRis characterized bv a eolf course resort
facili8 south of Black Point Roarlautla marr s!!h
of Black Point Road. The resort is predominatel desiprred to serve resort and recreation uses and
has only limited full-time occupancy. The resort is served by the Brinnon Rural Center" which
accommodates LAMIRD-scale commercial uses servinq the resort and local population. The
master planned resort's internal re8ulations and plannins restrictions such as codes. covenants
and restrictions may be more restrictive than the requirements in JCC Title 17. However.
Jefferson Countv does not enforce private codes, covenants and restrictions.
18.15.115 Designation.
"Master planned resort" (IvtPR) is a land use designation established under the Comprehensive
Plan. The oaty€xis+ing officially designated master planned resorts in the county qgi* the Port
Ludlow MPR_and the Pleasant Harbor . provisions for which are codified in JCC Title 17.
The Port Ludlow MPR is adopted pursuant to RCW 36.70A.362 regarding designation of
existing master plamred resorts. Pleasant Harbor MPR is adopted pursuant to RCW 36.704.360
pertaining to new Master Planned Resorts. Designation of any new master planned resorts
pursuant to RCW 36.70A.360 requires compliance with the provisions of this article and a
formal site-specific amendment to the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map subject to the
findings required by JCC 18.45.080.
-9-
18.15.120 Purpose and intent.
Jefferson County has a wide range of natural features, including climate, vegetation, water,
natural resources, scenic qualities, cultural, and geological features, which are desirable for a
wide range of recreational users to enjoy. New master planned resorts authorized by RCW
36.70A.360 offer an opporhrnity to utilize these special features for enjoyment and recreational
use, while b.iogg significant economic diversification and benefits to rural communities. The
purpose of this article is to establish a master planned resort land use district to be applied to
those properties the board of county commissioners determines are appropriate for development
as a master planned resort consistent with the Comprehensive Plan policies and RCW
36.70A.360.
18.15.123 Allowable uses.
The following uses may be allowed within a master planned resort classification authorized in
compliance with RCW 36.70A.360:
(1) All residential uses including single-family and multifamily structures, condominiums,
time-share and fractionally owned accommodations; provided, such uses are integrated into and
support the on-site recreational nature of the master planned resort.
(2) Short-term visitor accommodations, including, but not limited to, hotels, motels, lodges,
and other residential uses, that are made available for short-term rental; provided, that short-term
visitor accommodations shall constifute no less than 65 percent of the total resort
accornmodation units.
3) lndoor and outdoor recreational facilities and uses, including, but not limited to, golf
courses (including accessory structures and facilities, such as clubhouses, practice facilities, and
maintenance facilities), tennis courts, swimming pools, marinas, hiking and nature tails, bicycle
paths, equestrian facilities, sports complexes, and other recreational uses deemed to be consistent
with the on-site recreational nature of the master planned resort.
(4) Campgrounds and recreational vehicle (RV) sites.
(5) Visitor-oriented amenities, including, but not limited to:
(a) Eating and drinking establishments;
(b) Meeting facilities;
(c) On-site retail businesses and services which are designed to serve the
needs ofthe users such as gas stations, espresso stands, beauty salons and spas,
gift shops, art galleries, food stores, real estate/property management offices; and
(d) Recreation-oriented businesses and facilities such as sporting goods and
outdoor equipment rental and sales.
(6) Cultural and educational facilities, including, but not limited to, interpretative centers and
exhibits, indoor and outdoor theaters, and museums.
(7) Capital facilities, utilities and services to the extent necessary to maintain and operate the
master planned resort.
(8) Temporary and/or permanent structures to serye as sales offices.
(9) Any other similar uses deemed by the adminisfrator to be consistent with the purpose and
intent of this section, the Comprehensive Plan policies regarding master planned resorts, and
RCW 36.70A.360.
18.15.126 Requirements for master planned resorts.
-10-
An applicant for an MPR project must meet the following requirements:
(1) Master Plan. A master plan shall be prepared for the MPR to describe the project and
provide a framework for project development and operation. This shall include:
(a) A description of the setting and natural amenities that the MPR is being situated
to use and enjoy, and the particular natural and recreational features that will attract
people to the area and resort.
(b) A description of the destination resort facilities of the MPR, including short-temr
visitor accommodations, on-site outdoor and indoor recreational facilities, off-site
recreational opportunities offered or provided as part ofthe resort's services, and
commercial and supportive seryices provided.
(c) A listing of the proposed allowable uses and maximum densities and intensities of
use of the MPR and a discussion of how these uses and their distribution meet the needs
ofthe resort and its users.
(d) A land use map or maps that depict the completed MPR development, showing
the full extent and ultimate development of the MPR or resort and its facilities and
services, including residential and noffesidential development types and location.
(e) A description, with supportive inforrration and maps, of the design and functional
features that provide for a unified development, superior site design and protection of
natural amenities, and which further the goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan.
This shall address how landscaping, screening, and open space, recreational facilities,
road and parking design, capital facilities, and other components are integrated into the
project site.
(0 A description of the environmentally sensitive areas of the project and the
measures that will be employed for their protection. For an MPR adjacent to the water
and subject to the jurisdiction of the Shoreline Management Act, a description and
supportive materials or maps indicating proposed public access to the shoreline area
pursuant to the Shoreline Master Program.
(g) A description of how the MPR relates to surrounding properties, and how its
design and arangement minimize adverse impacts and promote compatibility among
land uses within the development and adjacent to the development.
(h) A demonstration that sufficient facilities and service which may be necessary,
appropriate, or desirable for the support of the development will be available, and that
concrurency requirements of the Comprehensive Plan will be met.
(D A description of the intended phasing of development of the project, if any. The
initial application for an MPR shall provide sufficient detail for the phases such that the
full intended scope and intensity of the development can be evaluated. This shall also
discuss how the project will firnction at interim stages prior to completion of all phases of
the project, and how the project may operate successfully and meet its environmental
protection, concurrency, and other commitments should development cease before all
phases are completed.
(2) Development Agreement. A master planned resort shall require approval of a
development agreement as authorized by Article XI of Chapter 18.40 JCC (Development
Agreements), and RCW 36.708.170 through 36.708.210. Consistent with JCC 18.40.830(3) and
RCW 36.708.170, the development agreements shall be prepared by the applicant and must set
forth the development standards applicable to the development of a specific master planned
resort, which may include, but are not limited to:
-l 1-
(a) Permitted uses, densities and intensities of uses, and building sizes;
O) Phasing of development, if requested by the applicant;
(c) Procedures for review of site-specific development plans;
(d) Provisions for required open space, public access to shorelines (if applicable),
visitor-oriented accommodations, short-term visitor accommodations, on-site recreational
facilities, and on-site retail/commercial services;
(e) Mitigation measures imposed pursuant to the State Environmental Policy Act,
Chapter 43.21C RCW, and other development conditions; and
(0 Other development standards including those identified in JCC 18.40.840 and
RCW 36.708.170(3).
(3) Formal Site-Specific Comprehensive Plan Amendment. A master planned resort shall
require a site-specific amendment of the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map to a master planned
resort land use designation, pursuant to the requirements of JCC 18.45.040; provided, that the
subarea planning process authorized under Article VII of Chapter 18.15 JCC (Subarea Plans) and
JCC 18.45.030 may be used if deemed appropriate by both the applicant and the county. The
Comprehensive Plan amendment or subarea plan may be processed by the county concurrent
with the review of the resort master plan and development agreement required for approval of a
master planned resort.
(4) Planned Actions. If deemed appropriate by the applicant and the counQr, a master planned
resort project may be designated by the county as a planned action pursuant to the provisions of
RCW 43.21C.031 and WAC 197 -l l -164 and 1 97- 1 1 -1 68.
(5) Self-Contained Development. All necessary supportive and accessory on-site urban-level
commercial and other services should be contained within the boundaries of the MPR, and such
services shall be oriented to serve the MPR. New urban or suburban development and land uses
are prohibited outside the boundaries of a master planned resort, except in areas otherwise
designated as urban growth areas in compliance with RCW 36.70A.110.
18.15.129 Application requirementsand approvalprocess.
New MPR applications shall be processed as Type V permits under this UDC, requiring
legislative approval by the board of county commissioners and the following:(1) A draft of the master plan shall be prepared to meet the requirements of JCC
18.1s.126(1).
(2) A request for authorization of a development agreement, pursuant to the requirements of
JCC 18.15.126(2) and Article XI of Chapter 18.40 JCC (Development Agreements).(3) A request for a site-specific Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map amendment necessary to
meet the requirement of JCC 18.15.126(3) and 18.45.040. [Ord. 8-06 $ 1]
18.15.f32 Decision-making authority.
(l) The planning commission, pursuant to its authority specified under JCC 18.40.040 and
18.45.080, shall hear and make recommendations on master plans and site-specific applications
for MPR land use designations on the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map.
@ The board of county commissioners, pursuant to its authority specified under JCC
18.40.040, 18.40.850(5) and 18.45.080, shall designate new master planned resort land use
districts on the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map, approve the uses, densities, conditions and
standards authorized for site-specific MPRs in a development agreement, and approve master
plans.
\
-t2-
18.15.135 Criteria for approval.
An application to develop any parcel or parcels of land as an MPR may be approved, or
approved with modifications, if it meets all of the criteria below. If no reasonable conditions or
modifications can be imposed to ensure that the application meets these criteria, then the
application shall be denied.
(1) The master plan is consistent with the requirements of this article and Article VI-D of this
chapter (Environmentally Sensitive Areas District (ESA).
(2) The MPR is consistent with the goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan, the
requirements of the Shoreline Master Program, and complies with all other applicable sections of
this code and all other codes and policies of the county.
(3) If an MPR will be phased, each phase contains adequate infrastructure, open space,
recreational facilities,landscaping and all other conditions of the MPR sufficient to stand alone if
no subsequent phases are developed.
(4) The MPR will provide active recreational uses, adequate open space, and sufficient
services such as transportation access, public safety, and social and health services, to adequately
meet the needs of the guests and residents of the MPR.
(5) The MPR will contain within the development all necessary supportive and accessory on-
site urbanJevel commercial and other services, and such services shall be oriented to serve the
MPR.
(6) Environmental considerations are employed in the design, placement and screening of
facilities and amenities so that all uses within the MPR are harrnonious with each other, and in
order to incorporate and retain, as much as feasible, the preservation of nafural features, historic
sites, and public views.
(7) All on-site and off-site infrastructure and service impacts have been fully considered and
mitigated.
(8) Improvements and activities are located and designed in such a manner as to avoid or
minimize adverse effects of the MPR on surrounding lands and property.
(9) The master plan establishes location-specific standards to retain and enhance the
character of the resort.
(10) The land proposed for a master planned resort is better suited and has more long-term
importance for the MPR than for the commercial harvesting of timber or production of
agricultural products, and the MPR will not adversely affect adjacent agricultural or forest
resource land production. [Ord. 8-06 $ l]
18.15.138 l!€,rt+udlo# Master Planned Resort
The P€*+uClior# Master Planned Resort Code (JCC Title 17), as may be amended to be
consistent with the provisions of this UDC, is hereby adopted by reference and made a part of
this UDC.
-13-
David W. Johnson
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Haylie Clement
Wednesday, January 13, 2016 9:16 AM
David W. Johnson
FW: Blackpoint Development Marina and Golf Resort
From: Janet Marx Imailto:janetman_76@msn.com]
Sent Tuesday, January 72,2016 10:13 PM
To: Planning Commission Desk <PCommissionDesk@co.jefferson.wa.us>
Subject Blackpoint Development Marina and Golf Resort
I live in Port Angeles but we own property on Hood Canal near Coyle. I am very concerned about the
Blackpoint Development's effect on the health of Hood Canal and the welfare of the Jefferson County
citizens.
lncreased threats to the health of Hood Canalo The ability to handle and adequately contain sewage from 890 residences plus commercial
spaces is a huge issue. The Canal is in such a damaged condition that even treated sewage
should not be discharged into the Canal. A spill from this development size would be
disastrous.o Golf courses are notorious for the use of pesticides, herbicides and chemical
fertilizers. Waters laden with these poisons eventually will rnigrate into the Canal causing
more "dgad zones".o Extensive on-site irnpermeable surfaces would result in additional polluted runoffs.
Other concerns. Jefferson County citizens will bear the increased taxes to support added road upkeep due to
increased traffic during and after construclion, infrastructure upgrades, and increased
demands on emergency services.o lncreased off-site roadway traffic will add to pollution run-off.. The DEIS does not adequately address the potential for water shortages and salt water
intrusion into the nearby wells particularly during drought years.
Finally, and of great concern, it appears that Blackpoint Development lacks the credentials to carry
out a ten-year construction project. lt has taken them nine years of delays, no-shows and submittals
of inadequate information to finally make it to the Drafl EIS stage. Due to this track-record the
Developer should be required to post a bond adequate to completely cover services and
infrastructure costs and a performance bond to assure funds are available for restoration and clean
up in case of project abandonment. lf these are not required the County could be left "holding the
bag"-
Janet Max
112 Lockerbie Place
Port Angeles, WA 98362
I
JEFTERSON COUNTY
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
621 Sheridan Street, Port Townsend, WA 98368
p6a) s7e-445A
Guidance to Create Findings and Recommendation for
Development Regulations
Pleasant Harbor Master Planned Resort MLA08-00188
Proposed Amendments to:
Title 17 & 18 Jefferson County Unified Development Code
February 3,2016
@
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
approval/denial/approval with conditions or modifications of the proposed development
regulationsfor the Pleasant Harbor Master Planned Resort MI-408-00188.
2.Deliberations-discussion of proposal and entering findings & conclusions
"For all proposed amendments, the planning commission shall develop findings
and conclusions and a recommendation which consider the grovvth management
indicators set forth in JCC 18.45.050 (4)(b)(i) through H)@)(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 (1Xb)(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 describe why]
PC Response:
'How to Decide' Supplementfor Planning Commission
MLAOS-OOI$g PHMPR Page 2 of7
(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]
PC
(iii) Does the proposed amendment reflect current, widely held values of the
residents of Jefferson County? [Answer'yes' or'no' and describe why]
PC Respon SE:
"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 @)(c)(i) through @)(c)(viii)] (not applicable since the
proposal is not a sife specifrc amendmentto the comprehensive plan)
b) Jcc 18.45.050(4xb)(i) throush (a)(b)(vii)
lnquiry into the Grovtrth Management Indicators:
i) ls growth and development as envisioned in the Comprehensive Plan occurring
faster or slower than anticipated, or is it failing to materialize? [Answer 'yes' or 'no'
and describe whyl
PC Response
ii) Has the capacity of the county to provide adequate services diminished or
increased? [Answer'yes' or'no' and describe why]
'How to Decide' Supplementfor Planning Commission
MLAOS-OOISS PHMPR Page 3 of7
PC Respon SE:
iii) ls there sufficient urban land, as designated and zoned to meet projected
demand and need? [Answer'yes'or'no'and describe why]
PC Response:
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]
PC Response:
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 whyl
PC Response:
vi) Are there changes in circumstances which dictate a need for amendment to the
Comprehensive Plan? [Answer'yes' or'no' and describe why]
PC Respon
vii) Do inconsistencies exist between the Comprehensive Plan and the GMA or the
Comprehensive Plan and the Countyrvide Planning Policies for Jefferson County?
[Answer'yes' or'no' and describe why]
'How to Decide' Supplementfor Planning Commission
MLAO8.OOI88 PHMPR Page 4 of 7
PC Response
c) Attorney General Advisory Memo on Takings, December 2006
1) Does the regulation or action result in a permanent or temporary physical
occupation of private property?
PC Response
PC Response
PC Response
4) Does the regulation or action require a property owner to dedicate a
portion of property or to grant an easement?
PC Response
5) Does the regulatory action have a severe impact on the landowner's
economic interest?
2) Does the regulation or action deprive the owner of all economically viable
uses of the property?
3) Does the regulation or action deny or substantially diminish a fundamental
attribute of private property?
PC Response:
'How to Decide' Supplementfor Planning Commission
MLAOS-00188 PHMPR Page 5 of7
d) 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 proposal? [Answer'yes'or'no' and
describe whyl
2) Can assertions in the record be confirmed by information from other sources?
[Answer'yes' or'no' and describe why]
PC
3) !s the decision we are about to make based on the record? [Answer'yes'or
'no'and describe whyl
PC Response
4) Does the decision we are about to make, so far as we know, satisfy legal
criteria? fAnswer'yes' or'no' and describe why]
5) ls the decision we are about to make limited to the specific request at hand?
fAnswer'yes' or'no' and describe why]
PC
'How to Decide' Supplementfor Planning Commission
MI-408-OOI88 PHMPR Page 6 of 7
PC Response:
PC Response:
Are there any additional findings of fact or conclusions of law pertinent to this decision?
PC Response
3.Repeat motion and vote (one of the following)
a. ln favor - Yea
b. Opposed - Nay
c. Abstain - I
PC Motion Example following decision of whether to approve the 2013 CPA:
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.
'How to Decide' Supplementfor Planning Commission
MLAOS-00188 PHMPR Page 7 of7
6zr Sheridan St.
Port Townsend WA 98368
Jefferson County Planning Commission
MEETINGMINUTES
Tri-Area Community Center
August 5, 2015
P:36o-379-445o
Ft36oi79-445|
plancomm@co jefferson.wa.us
OBSERVER COMMENTS:
We need to lanow what power or authority the Nary has over our planning/building. Do they have full power?
Do we have a definition of whatthe Navy's mission is?
You mentioned Tribes, what was discussed?
You mentioned REPI Funding. Why can't it support compliance activity by the County?
Freight Overlays?
Bookrnark for future, I'm worried about the single access to the Indian Island.
You didn'tinclude the Planning Commission on your announcement of a tour. We need more notice.
We're meeting Tuesday in Paulsbo, and Bremerton on 08/11/15.
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE
Referring to fuly packet:
Broad Overview of Comprehensive Plan - including letter from BoCC regarding the new GMA deadline, with a
calendar, flowchart &2016 Mandatory & Potential Updates and need for discussion of overview & updates of
Chapters. Carl would like us to review this Plan. Be ready to tackle first two Chapters for next month's meeting.
OBSERVER COMMENTS:
If deadline is extended, can we consider making a recommendation sooner for the more urgent issue[s) of
ecological housing & jobs, etc., we need to change that sooner. This will be brought up next meeting and other
more urgent things as well.
Simultaneously Code Amendments will occurbefore our CPA.
Is there thought of increasing our meeting schedule? Instead, follow this process: ONE and ONLY ONE Chapter
subiect for each meeting.
PUBLIC COMMENT
None
FOLLOW-UP ITEMS
First two Chapters of Comp Plan Development & Updates, keeping in mind the community priorities & any specific
code issues.
Next Planning Commission meeting scheduled tor 09 /02/2015 at 6:30 pm at the Tri-Area Community Center
Adjourned at B:28 pm
These meeting minutes were approved this day of
?age z of z
Kevin Coker, Chair Teresa A Smith, PC Secretary/DCD
20t5.
6er Sheridan St.
Port Townsend WA 98368
ROLL CALL
District 1
Coker: Present
Felder: Present
Koan: Present
Public in Attendance:
Approval ofAgenda:
Approval of Minutes:
Jefferson County Planning Commission
MEETINGMINUTES
Tri-Area Community Center
September 2,2ot^s
Call to Order at 6:30 pm
P:86<t-879-445o
r': B60-379-445r.
plancomm@co jefferson.wa.us
District 2
Smith: Present
Sircely: Present
fochems; Present
2
District 3
Brotherton: U-Absence
Giske: E-Absence
Hull: Present
StaffPresent
Carl Smith, DCD Director
David W. lohnson, Assoc. Planner
Kevin Coker approved the agenda.
Kevin Coker moved to approve the minutes for 08/05/2015, all were approved with
none opposed.
STAFF UPDATES
Carl Smith:Welcome our new Commissioner Markfochems. Carl Smith announced his retirement,
last day is 09/25/75. David Goldsmith will be the interim DCD Director. Everyone is
invited & encouraged to get involved in the new selection process.
Elizabeth Williams the planning clerk is leaving. Recruiting for that position closes next
week. Haylie ClemenL our part time clerk, is applying for the position & will do the
minutes. It's time for a Planning Manager again as well.
Chair & Vice Chair Elections:
Tom Giske & Tom Brothefton are not here tonight Nominations for Chair: Cynthia
Koan and Kevin Coker. Cynthia won with 5 (five) votes, Nominations for Vice Chair:
Lorna Smith, Matt Sircely & Richard Hull. Lorna won with 6 (six) votes.
COMMISSIONER ANNOUNCEMENTS
Comp Plan work: Brinnon Master Plan Resort & Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement we reviewed
Iast fall, David fohnson believes the final SEIS & Development Agreement will be ready for your review. David
lohnson requests that you all commit to a special meeting [a public hearing) on 71/78/15 for that presentation in
Brinnon at either the Community Center or School.
Page r of z
6er Sheridan St.
Port Towrrsend WA 98368
Jefferson County Planning Commission
MEETINGMINUTES
Tri-Area Community Center
September 2,2oLs
P: 36o-1179-445<r
F: B6o-879-44ti1
plancomm@co j effemon. wa.us
COMPREHENSIVE PIAN UPDATE
Tonight we're looking at Chapters 1 & 2. Cynthia advised us to look at the schedule & matrix again. Element 1 & 2
are for tonight. David Wayne f ohnson will be here on October 7th with an overview of Element 4. Know that the
appropriate StaffLeads will be here for their overviews.
Introduction: The Comprehensive Plan is online. As we have no budget to advertise these public meetings, we
could: disribute fliers or interview on local radio for public input. Email is discouraged. It s on our website.
To rim Chapter 1, staffneeds to come backwith recommendations i.e. move things to the appendix.
The Urban Growth Element is very important. We can move a lot into the traffic section.
The sewer section needs updated language.
The Health element needs to move as well.
Population Growth can be updated (Page 2-9), someone here needs to attend the Joint Growth Management
Steering Committee. Countywide Planning Policies are on our website & you need to look at them.
The septic issue in Glen Cove needs to be worked out as soon as possible. The County & City need to agree on the
revenue sharing issue first.
New documents for Brinnon will show updated traffic documents. The UGA population numbers are urban like,
adding growth for Brinnon & Port Ludlow needs to be mentioned (population growth).
Element 2: Unfunded & unfinished traffic projects, some are done, it mentioned SR 19 [some are 3 & 4 lanes) is out
of date & needs to be moved to the Traffic Section.
The 13 Elements and additional goals need to be moved to right up top.
Public Comment:
Emailed meetings in a private board setting I sit on are allowed but we're not allowed to vote by phone so please
check your bi-laws.
FOLLOW.UP ITEMS
Due to the anticipated amount of paperwork involved, everyone agreed to use three ring binders.
Everyone needs to thinkup sub-committees please.
Next Planning Commission meeting scheduled for L0/07 /2015 at 5:30 pm at the Tri-Area Community Center
Adjourned at 8:30 pm
These meeting minutes were approved this day of
-201s
Kevin Coker, Chair Teresa A Smith, PC Secretary /DCD
Page a of e
6zr Sheridan St.
Port Townsend WA 98368
ROLL CALL
District 1
Coker: Present
Felder: Present
Koan: Present
District 2
Smith: Present
Sircely: Present
fochems; Present
District 3
Brotherton: Present
Giske: Present
Hull: Present
Jefferson County Planning Commission
MEETINGMINUTES
Tri -Area Community Center
October oT,2oLS
Call to Order at 6:31 pm
?:36o379-445o
!': 36o-379-445r
plancom m@co jefferson.wa.us
StaffPresent
f ean Baldwin, Director, JCPHD
Karen Obermeyer, ICPHD
David W. f ohnson,Associate Planner
Joel Peterso n, Asso ciate Planner
Public in Attendance: None in attendance
Approval ofAgenda:
Approval of Minutes:
Approved the agenda by acclamation.
STAFF UPDATES
Carl Smith:Pleasant Harbor Master PIan Resort: we're close to finalizing the SEIS, however the
applicant has come up with a new alternative (#3) which is a reduction in the number
ofholes from 18 to 12. The technical team is in the process ofanalyzingthose changes.
It pushes us back even further, also the contract is going to have to be extended for a
second time. Special meeting 10/?,U75 is not going to work We're looking at
Wednesday, t7/78/75 now in Brinnon @ Community Center. foint Growth
Management Steering Committee Meeting is 1:00 on October 16th, at Pope Marine Bldg.
will be looking at population proiections for the Comp Plan Updates for fefferson
County& PortTownsend.
ANNOUNCMENTS
At last meeting I brought up the bi-laws about the number of terms for Chair &
Vice Chair. I looked them up: A member shall serve no more than four consecutive
years as Chair orVice Chair.
In today's meetingwith the Architecture Group for the redesign of Grant St. School. Has
a long way to go. Has lofty goals of what we'd like to see happen. Current School Levy
to be complete within 3 months.
This Friday at f FK Bldg. at Fort Warden the collective impact group is having their Fall
Community Mtg. Topic is housing.
COMMISSIONER ANNOUNCEMENTS
I have a meeting on70/12/15 with David Goldsmith about: Our November 4s meeting our Comp PlanAmendment
Process, Organizing ourselves with sub-committees, planning commission member's different suengths and
interests, listing our own focuses.
I'd Iike a sub-committee about proposing sub-committees and what we want addressed. Who will work with me
before the L7/0a/ 15 meeting? Tom, Kevin & Tom have volunteered.
)age r of 3
6at Sheridan St.
Port Townsend WA 98868
Jefferson County Planning Commission
MEETINGMINUTES
Tri-Area Community Center
October 07,zoLS
P: 16o-379-44So
F: B60-lZ9-44li1
plancomm@co jefferson,wa.us
Comp PIan work: Brinnon Master PIan Resort & Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statementwe reviewed
last fall, David Johnson believes the final SEIS & Development Agreement will be ready for your review. David
|ohnson requests that you all commit to a special meeting [a public hearing) on 71/18/75 for that presentation in
Brinnon at either the Community Center or School.
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE
PRESENTATIONS:
Health ElemenE fean Baldwin & Karen Obermeyer from f efferson County Public Health:
The Health Departrnent keeps demographics. We welcome you to go through this data. lnZOL4 - 2075 a group of
community health leaders led by fefferson Health Care & the Health Departrnent started reviewing the Community
Health Assessment Data for the last three years. When you look at health indicators, many things contribute to
healthcare. We came up with four (4) things that healthcare providers could use to make a difference on:
> ImmUniZatiOnS (For 25 years, Jefferson Countyhas the most unimmunized population in the state.)
Natural Resources Element David W fohnson:
Last updated in 1998. Propose updates to text, references & maps. Goals, policies & strategies need to be made
compatible.
NRP 4.1 Prohibi* subdivisions of designated forest lands for residential purposes, allowing only one dwelling per
eachlegallotofrecord. In2006NRP4.Bwaswrittenanditallowssubdivisionsofmorethanonedwellingperlotas
long as they're protected by a buffer. NRP 4.8 is law now so I'd like to strike NRP 4.1
AI Latlam's proposed changes: It appears he wants comp plan changes to reflect UDC:
Pages 25 - 27 of your packet: Table 4.2 Guidelines for classification of Agricultural Resource Lands:
#1 looking at criteria to designate agricultural he wants the addition of and/or soils of statewide significance
[Agree). #2 historic uses for agriculture; lands which have not been used for a number of years ffive)can be re-
designated agricultural even though they haven't been used for such for 5 yrs. (UDC change item, fhe can speak
to county commissioners & let them know the issue)) #3 existing & ongoing agriculture, table 4. 2a; agriculture
uses & single family should include farm worker housing (Agreed) #4 the ability to petition & be included in the
agriculture 20, the land located outside master plan resort or urban growth area [he wants this removed stating
Spring Rain Farm is outside the UGA. (Notaccurate)
Chapter 4 [All required actions) Remove all references to mineral forest & mineral agriculture ordnances, rewrite to
show connection to UDC, instead of individual ordinances, consolidate them into the UDC. Update & add section to
view the latest legal guidance & legislative actions. Rewrite strategies & action items, specifically, which ones?
Conduct economic study to determine what's economically viable in the natural resource industry. fPossible
stratery, action item) go to economic development council to see if any of this has already been done. David will
continue work on this.
Page z of3
6er Sheridan St.
Port Townsend WA 9ti368
Jefferson County Planning Commission
MEETINGMINUTES
Tri-Area Community Center
October oT,2o:^s
P:36o979-445<t
F:360-379-4451
plancomm@eo jeffersot.wa.us
UDC AMMENDMENT:
foel Peterson: UDC amendment & proposal: There's a signed permit for Jefferson Transit Authority issued in
2074: They developed a 10 acre project outside the blue zone fbus barn & facilities). The question is are they
invested under to old sign code or do they need to bump up to new code. fTA wants a reader board or electronic
sign, which isn't allowed. They've already purchased sign, before they got the permit. The new sign code broadens
their ability, commercially. The contractor would like his bond released. Our sign code says they can't have it
there.
A Public hearing on this is mandatory, it will be during our 11/04/ 15 meeting.
Public Comment:
FOLLOW.UP ITEMS
17/04/15 UDC Amendment/Proposal for Sign Code for fTA.
Everyone please review the two packets given to you for fhe lL/04/ 1.5 agenda meeting
Next Planning Commission meeting scheduled for LT/04/2015 at 6:30 pm at the Tri-Area Community Center
Adjourned at B:55 pm
These meeting minutes were approved this day of
-
2015.
Cynthia Koan, Chair TeresaA Smith, PC Secretary/DCD
Page 3 of g
Pleasant Harbor Phase ll Planning Commission Actions
January Z:OLG
Summary of Planning Commission actions:
1. Hold a Public Hearing and take testimony - (held January 6,201.6l.. Record held open until
February 3,2016.
2. Accept Port Gamble S'Klallam Tribe's request for 50 days to complete consultation with County
- (accepted January 20,2016l. Tribe will advise the County on how to proceed after Tribal
Council meeting on February 8, 2016.
3. Close Public Hearing record (February 3,2076l'
4. Begin deliberations (February 3,20161
5. Develop findings under JCC 18.45.080(b) - see below
6. Develop a recommendation to the BoCC for denial, approval, or approval with conditions for
Title 17 Article ll (development regulations) and sections of Title L8 on Master Planned Resorts
(Highlighted sections apply)
18.45.090 Amendments to GMA implementing regulations.
(3) Planning Commission Review. The planning commission shall hold a public hearing on any
amendment(s) to the implementing regulations and shall make a recommendation to the board of
county commissioners using the site-specific criteria set forth in JCC 18.45.080(1Xb) and (1)(c), as
applicable.
18.45.080 Final docket - Planning commission and board of county commissioners review.
(b) Required Findings - Generally. 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(4XbXi) through (aXbXvii), as well as the following:
(i) Whether circumstances related to the proposed amendment and/or the area in which it is located
have substantially changed since the adoption of the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan;
(ii) Whether the assumptions upon which the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan is based are no
longer valid, or whether new information is available which was not considered during the adoption
process or any annual amendments of the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan; and
(iii) Whether the proposed amendment reflects current widely held values of the residents of Jefferson
County.
(c) Additional Required Findings - Formal Site-Specific Amendments. ln addition to the required findings
set forth in subsection (1Xb) of this section, in order to recommend approval of a formal site-specific
proposalto amend the Comprehensive Plan, the planning commission must also make the following
findings: (Not applicable - not an amendment to the Comp Plan)
(i) The proposed site-specific amendment meets concurrency requirements for transportation and does
not adversely affect adopted level of service standards for other public facilities and services (e.g.,
sheriff, fire and emergency medical services, parks, fire flow, and general governmental services);
(ii) The proposed site-specific amendment is consistent with the goals, policies and implementation
strategies of the various elements of the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan;
(iii) The proposed site-specific amendment will not result in probable significant adverse impacts to the
county's transportation network, capital facilities, utilities, parks, and environmental features that
cannot be mitigated, and will not place uncompensated burdens upon existing or planned service
capabilities;
(iv) ln the case of a site-specific amendment to the Land Use Map, that the subject parcels are physically
suitable for the requested land use designation and the anticipated land use development, including,
but not limited to, the following:
(A)Access;
(B) Provision of utilities; and
(C) Compatibility with existing and planned surrounding land uses;
(v)The proposed site-specific amendment will not create a pressure to change the land use designation
of other properties, unless the change of land use designation for other properties is in the long-term
best interests of the county as a whole;
(vi) The proposed site-specific amendment does not materially affect the land use and population
growth projections that are the bases of the Comprehensive Plan;
(vii) lf within an unincorporated urban growth area (UGA), the proposed site-specific amendment does
not materially affect the adequacy or availability of urban facilities and services to the immediate area
and the overallUGA;
(viii) The proposed amendment is consistent with the Growth Management Act (Chapter 36.70A RCW),
the County-Wide Planning Policy for Jefferson County, any other applicable inter-jurisdictional policies
or agreements, and any other local, state or federal laws.
(d) Recommendation. The planning commission's findings and conclusions shall include a
recommendation to the board of county commissioners that the proposed amendment(s) be denied,
approved, or approved with conditions or modifications.
18.45.050 Compilation of preliminary docket. (Not applicable - the proposal is not part of a period
assessment or change to the Comp Plan - consistency with the Comp Plan will be determined under
the findings required under JCC 18.45.080(bl)
(4) Planning Commission Periodic Assessment - Recommendations.
(a) Periodic Assessment - Timelines. The planning commission shall review, and if necessary
recommend revisions to the Comprehensive Plan during the periodic assessment in accordance with
RCW 36.70A.130. The planning commission shall complete its assessment of the Comprehensive Plan by
November 1st of the year prior to the assessment. Any amendments recommended by a majority vote
of the planning commission shall be forwarded to the administrator by March 1st of the year in which
the periodic assessment is conducted. The administrator shall place all such recommended amendments
on the preliminary docket to be considered during the final docket selection process set forth in JCC
18.45.060.
(b) Criteria Governing Planning Commission Assessment. The planning commission's periodic
assessment and recommendation shall be based upon, but shall not be limited to, an inquiry into the
following growth management indicators:
(i) Whether growth and development as envisioned in the Comprehensive Plan is occurring faster or
slower than anticipated, or is failing to materialize;
(ii) Whether the capacity of the county to provide adequate services has diminished or increased;
(iii) Whether sufficient urban land is designated and zoned to meet projected demand and need;
(iv) Whether any of the assumptions upon which the plan is based are no longer found to be valid;
(v) Whether changes in county-wide attitudes necessitate amendments to the goals of the plan and the
basic values embodied within the Comprehensive Plan Vision Statemen!
(vi) Whether changes in circumstances dictate a need for amendments;
(vii) Whether inconsistencies exist between the Comprehensive Plan and the GMA or the
Comprehensive Plan and the County-wide Planning Policy for Jefferson County. [Ord. 2-06 5 1]
\
--\4
Citizen Parlicipation Handbook for Pulslic Cfticials and Other Pro{essionals Working in the Public Seclor
CP PRINCIPLE NO. 55:
trt is inherently difficult for a large bureaucracy to interact with a lay citizen.
Unless a large agency makes an overt effort to overcome this built-in handicap, lay citizens rvho
have to deal with it are bound to perceive it as unresponsive.
CP PRINCIPLE NO. 56:
It is difficult to get people involved in the planning of a project until there is a
proposal -- i.e., a plan -- to react to.
This is a real dilemma for the project staff who is sincerely trying to involve various interests early
in a project's planning process -- i.e., long before there is a plan they can react to.
CP PRINCIPLE NO. 57:
The process is part of the product ...
By the time a big project has gone through the long and involved process of being planned and
designed, it will have acquired a history of its own. That history -- in other words, the history of the
process by which the project was planned and designed -- is as much a feature of the project as are
sorne of its more obvious features such as cost, physical form, location, etc. With a project's
planning history, including its CP history, -- becoming an integral feature of the project, -- i.e., the
product -- you need to be concerned about developing the kind of CP history that will become a
contributing rather than a detracting feature ofthe project.
CP PRINCIPLE NO- 58:
It is the nature of the beast -- the beast of Citizen Participation -- that people who
will be hurt by a project want to become directly involved in a project, but that
those who will benefit from the project prefer to remain on the sidelines.
This CP Principle holds for various reasons, not the least of which is that in most big and/or complex
projects, the benefits from the project tend to be distributed among a very large and often hard-to-
identify population, but the hardships that result from the same project tend to fall on relatively few
and readily identifiable interests. Another reason is that more oflen than not, the benefits per person
thus impacted are relatively small, and the hardships per person thus impacted are relatively massive,
-- even rvhen the total benefits outweigh the total hardships.
Chapter lll: Principles of Citizen Participation
Pagelll -l-3
David W, Johnson
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Lucas Hart <hartlucasm@gmail.com>
Wednesday, January 13,2016 11:07 PM
David W. Johnson
Pleasant Harbor Marina and Golf Resort
Dear Mr. Johnson,
Thank you for the opportunity to comrnent on the Pleasant Harbor Marina and Golf Resort. This letter is in
opposition to the Pleasant Harbor project and in support of the no action alternative as outlined in the final
supplemental environmental impact statement.
Job creation should not be used as an excuse for allowing large development to take priority over what is best
for our rural communities. I moved to Jefferson County in 2010 at the age of 30 and have stayed due to its
"isolation" and relatively undisturbed natural surroundings. When I relocated here, my reserves totaled $3000
and I had absolutely zero job prospects. Through volunteering and part time work I was able to build a network
that recently led to stable full time employment. As I have told my friends, I would rather leave this place than
be dependent upon new development to provide my paycheck. It is worth thr more to maintain the unique
character of Jefferson County.
We have an unmatched combination of wildemess, maritime culture and quiet rural living. Our county is also a
haven for visitors who seek respite from a multitude of resorts, golf courses and shopping malls that can be
found within driving distance of Brinnon, WA. Allowing the construction of Pleasant Harbor Marina and Golf
Resort, one of the largest development projects in the history of Jefferson County, will permanently scar the
character and natural beauty of our home.
Puget Sound has already seen unprecedented development along its shores. Over thirty percent of our shorelines
have been modified, 90olo of our forests have been convefted andT0Yo of our wetlands have been converted.
One of the repercussions of these activities is ocean acidification, which directly threatens our Western
Washington shellfish economy. Pleasant Harbor Marina and Golf Resort will only contribute to these problems
tluough increased nutrient loads (one cause of ocean acidification), decreasing natural shoreline buffers and
increased carbon dioxide emissions (another cause of ocean acidification). These issues will be exacerbated
both during construction and well into the future as mors individuals travel to Pleasant Harbor Resort.
Furthermore, low tidal exchanges in Hood Canal make it especially susceptible to the aforementioned issues.
Jefferson County needs to be a leader in protecting our unique and invaluable surroundings and do its part to
protect our Sound. Please follow the no action alternative and stop Pleasant Harbor Marina and Golf Resort
fiom permanently changing our County.
1
Sincerely,
Lucas Hart
3l E. Maude St.
Port Hadlock, WA 98339
360-797-3966
2
David W. Johnson
From:
Sent:
To:
Haylie Clement
Thursday, January 14,2016 8:22 AM
David W. Johnson
FW: Proposed Black Point developmentSubjsct:
From: Folu [mailto:folu@oo.netJ
Sent: Wednesday, January 13, 2016 10:10 PM
To: Pla nning Commission Desk <PCommissionDesk@co.jefferson.wa. us>
Subject Proposed Black Point development
This development is out of scale for this rural area with delicate and unique fish and wildlife resources such as
shellfish, marine mammals, elk and birds. Water resources have not been demonstrated and water quality
protection is also a huge risk. Out of town developers with few local ties care little for this as has been shown
all over Puget Sound where water quality prolection and threatened species issues abound. Traffic on Highway
l0l in sunmer is very problematic and the resort would simply make this worse. Pleasant Harbor is a unique
recreational boating resource and anchorage, and would not be improved with increased traffic. David Moore
10 Mallard Ct Brinnon
1
David W. Johnson
From:
Sent:
To:
Haylie Clement
Thursday, January 14,2016 8:22 AM
David W. Johnson
FW: Pleasant harbor resort proposalSubject:
---Original Message---
Frorn: Rebeccamars [mailto:rebeccamars@gmail'com]
Sent: Wednesday,.lanuary 13, 2016 7:58 PM
To: Planning Commission Desk <PCommissionDesk@co.jefferson.wa.us>
Subject: Pleasant harbor resort proposal
To commissioners and county permitting agencies of Jefferson county:
I have reviewed the environmental impact studies of the proposed resort and find it very lacking in technical analysis of
environmental impacts. I live in Seabeck and look directly over to pleasant point . Seeing land from this vantage over the
years have given me clear views of what removing trees from the peninsula can do. There has been numerous clear
cutting of pristine forest land to the detriment of Hood Canal in many areas near there. I was dismayed two years ago to
see such cutting along the the mountains along the Dosewallups river adjacent to pleasant harbor. Well as you know,
shortly after a large clear cutting , there was a tremendous flood. I could see the plume of dirt, debris and even part of
homes coming down the canal. lt was devastating to our canal water quality, let alone stress and mortality to our
shellfish and fish. Yes it was a large storm , but in reality the clearcutting above was probably the cumulative factor in
taking out the river. This is exactly what will be happening when trees, underbrush and soil disturbance happens to
build this resort. we cannot easily fix the damage once the resort is permitted and construction commences. This
beautiful land mass should be put into protection and a
moratorium be placed on building in this area.
Do you realize how many tax payer dollars are appropriated for habitat restoration for the protection of salmon in our
Salish sea? How can one agency of our government appropriate money for protection and the other make decision to
destroy it. The chinook salmon is protected yet the nearshore habitat they need here will be destroyed. With soils
disturbed, erosion will occur and salmon feeding areas adversely affected. Golf courses are notorious for using chemical
which ultimately willfind its way to the canal. We who love to shrimp and crab will be negatively affected by taking
away our quality of life and values we want to pass on to our heirs. Any more stress on the water quality will be the
straw that breaks the canals back
please please do not permit this resort. Please for all of us who love the canal and the land here and wish to protect it,
please just say no!
Sincerely
Rebecca Mars
Resident of Seabeck
1
Sent from my iPhone
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
David W. Johnson
Cindy Germaine <cgermaine@comcast.net>
Saturday, January 16, 2016 9:53 AM
David W. Johnson
tgboating@comcast. net; brinnongroup@gmail.com
comments for record, Plesant Harbor
Hello David. I am Cindy Germaine at 104 Rhododendron Lane and spoke to you briefly after the last meeting. You
suggested I contact you to address some questions about the development that you did not have the answers to, As we
have our own well, and are across the street from the development, we have concerns about our water. This is a huge
project, yet when we added to our house just a bedroom and bath the county at first restricted our use of our own well
water to no outside watering as they were concerned of salt water intrusion in the area. We fought this and won, and
now use our own well water, but of course with care. We also had our water tested when we bought a little over seven
years ago and it was good. We plan to check again prior to the Pleasant Harbor development if it proceeds. My question
is that if we end up with water issues of salt water intrusion or dirty water with contamination do we have to wait for
any time to have the development supply us with water. Who will be the judge of responsibility for this problem. We
want to protect ourselves as we are very concerned about the size of the development and the impact on the aquifers.
We bought on Black Point as it was quiet and secluded. The amount of traffic, noise, lights, etc. will totally change what
we bought. Atso the idea of ten years of trucks and noise of construction is definitely not appealing to us. I know change
is inevitable, but having development that is in line with the community is important. This project is way to large for this
area, and will have a negative impact on the Hood Canal. Also on checking about the impact I asked a developer about
the presentation his comment was "How noble to market the development as sustainable then fail to promise even the
lowest industry standards, instead inventing a program of "LEED Shadowing" where you simply pick the elements of
LEED that would have made sense for your fiscal bottom line anyways" Also promises to keep those in business in
Brinnon were broken very early on with both the houseboat and kayak businesses at Pleasant Harbor. Not a good start
to building trust. Also there was no information at the meeting about the alternative of individual homes in the area,
which could maybe be a compromise of a much smaller scale. Hopefully you will look at this development carefully and
the lonB term impact on Brinnon. Also please send us written information about what the written plan is for taking care
of any problems with neighbors wells once this development moves forward. Thank you, Cindy and Terry Germaine
Subject:
1
iL. livlh
I
I
t
JI January 15e,2015
lo: David Wayne Johnson
Associate Planner
621 Shcridan St.
Port Townsend, WA 98368
Re: Proposed Brinnon Resort
Dear Mr. Johnson,
It is difficult for me to understand why anyone living in the Brinnon
area would oppose the development by Garth Mann and the
Statesman Group in this area. This planned resort should be the
poster child for green building, and how resorts of this kind should be
built. Here in Brinnon in the last two decades (other than the recent
Pleasant Harbor marina) there have only been two buildings
constructed - a post office and a fire department. Both of these
buildings are sized for a much larger city than Brinnon, possibly in
anticipation of growth in this area. But instead there has been only
stagnation and decline. Development that is done carefully and
conscientiously, such as this one, will be an asset to our community.
i\
1$
ry
., t: 1l
I recently attended the Brinnon meeting in regards to the proposed
resort at Pleasant Harbor. I am a l7-year resident of Brinnon who is
environmentally minded and concemed about the beauty and
standard of living in this arsa. I am also an experienced builder,
designer, and real estate developer and am very familiar with building
codes and environmental impact. Over my four-decade career, I have
developed an interest and expertise in green building techniques.
Upon careful consideration of the development by Garth Mann and
the Statesman Group, I am very impressed with the proposal. This
resort will provide many positive benefits to the citizens of Brinnon,
all while taking careful measures to preserve our environment and the
beauty of Hood Canal.
Many people probably don't realize that the over 230 acre properly
for this planned resort already has a network of roads, septic drain
fields, electrical and water lines throughout the property to
accommodate ovor 500 RV and campsites. In the high season it's
possible the current property could generate almost much impact (if
Lsed as a campsite) as the proposed resort. However, the current
development did not address all of the environmental concerns the
way the proposed development does.
By taking advantage of the existing topography and increased
setbacks, the Statesman engineers and planners have all but
eliminated harmful runoff into the canal and the shellfish beds below
the property. The Statesman's revised proposal to make it a year-
round resort balances the need of making it a profitable and
successful project, along with the wants and needs of the existing
residents and the people outside the Brinnon area, while addressing
and minimizing the negative impacts on water, air, roads, lighting and
traffic.
This project should be approved for two reasons: first, it would
provide income and jobs for residents along with services that will
increase our standard of living. Second, it also complies with, and
even exceeds, the current requirements for a development such as this
with an approved environmental impact statement (EIS). My guess is
that there is more support for this resort than was demonstrated at the
meeting, as usually the people who are in opposition ars the most
vocal.
Sincerely
-€<-, '
E. Gene ThomPson
Date: January ll,2016
To:
Re:
Department of Community Development, Jefferson County, WA
MPR, Brinnon, WA
When I moved to Brinnon over thirry years ago, I was employed as a truck driver for
a logging company. Logging is what built Brinnon and was the main source of
employment for decades. As the timber related jobs were drying up the community
changed from working families to largely a retirement community. The saw ship on
Corey Lane closed in the 1980's and is now a medical marijuana shop. I finished out
the last 27 years of my working career employed by Jefferson County and am now
retired. With the job market in Brinnon all but dried up, the opportunities for
employment of the young people in the comrnunity could finally come back with the
completion of the Pleasant Harbor Marina and Golf Resort. I do think it would be
more successful as a destination resort if it were an l8-hole rather than a 9-hole golf
course. I have been following the proposed Master Planned Resort process since its
inception, attending every meeting. The issues regarding the aquifer, water runofI,
etc. have been studied and addressed. I hear the opponents of the resort bringing up
these studied and addressed issues over and over. There has been a form of
development on the Black Point site for decades. The proposed MPR is the best
answer for cleaning up the property while benefiting the Brinnon and Jefferson
County economic and employment issues. I fear that if the Resofi does not come to
fruition, others will eventually develop the Black Point propeg and there will
eventually be homes on five-acre lots with multiple wells tapped into the aquifer and
septic systems close to Pleasant Harbor without an overall plan to address the runoff
issue for the property in its entirety. A golf resort would address economic and
employment issues, and fits well with Brinnon, which is primarily a tourist oriented
retirement community. For these reasons I urge you to allow the Pleasant Harbor
Master Planned Resort to move forward without any more delays.
P. O. Box I42
Brinnon, WA lri IFI c lF I VrEIlt---Tiir, i
\
rrl
:Y
I have been a Brinnon resident for over 30 years and am a proponent of the Pleasant Harbor
Master Planned Resort since its inception. I am also an original member of the Brinnon Sub-
Area Plan, which paved the way for such a plan in my cornmunity.
I attended another DCD hearing (l-6-16) at the Brinnon School only to hear more discouraging
reasons for delaying a project that has been prevented from progressing due to demands from
Jefferson County to comply with new or revised regulations and redundant environmental
studies. Meanwhile, our county has suffered economical decline due to a lack of revenue
because new businesses have been furned away and old businesses have closed their doors or
moved to counties with less red tape or near impossible regulations in which to comply.
Reasonable governing boards that consider the wellbeing of their constituents would do
anything in their power to make the communities for which they are responsible more livable.
Unfortunately, Jefferson County government is not one. Over the years, Jefferson County
employees have been reduced in days and hours due to the lack of revenue, which is the result
of its own rules and regulations! Perhaps if more businesses were allowed to grow and prosper,
Jefferson County would be able to reduce the time and money it takes to prevent progress and
make the necessary revenue to keep its employees fully staffed to serve the public. It really is a
simple lesson of economics that I hope the DCD and our county commissioners understand
when making decisions regarding the process of the much-needed MPR development in
Brinnon. The arguments in favor out-weigh the negative.
Please consider wisely for the future of our comrnunities and make a quick and positive
decision to allow this project to finally come to fruition. We cannot afford to delay this any
longer.
Date: January I1,2016
To:
Re:
Department of Community Development, Jefferson County, WA
MP& Brinnon, WA
Thank you,ni! ' / tl
*,L1,_l.r l_.*,,1-a
Dalila Dowd
P. O. Box 142
Brinnon, WA
nj
fficr$nvq
..,1
.--' - -:i a:tl,
David W. Johnson
From: Haylie ClernentSen* Monday, January25,2016 3:11 PMTo: David W. JohnsonSubject FW: Bond needed
---Original Message---
From: brendainpt@gmail.com [mailto:brendainpt@gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, January 25,2A16 2:07 PM
To: Planning Commission Desk <PCommissionDesk@cojefferson.wa.us>
Subject: Bond needed
> This development is expected to take ten years to complete. At any
> point the developer could walk away from the project.
> ln order to ensure that Jefferson County is. protected from such an
> event, it is necessary that the developer post a substantial bond with
> the County
submitted by: Brenda McMillan, 2929 Sheridan Ave
Port Townsend
Jan 25, 2015
1
Brinnon MPR
BOCC Adopted Boundary
January 14,2008
DNR Lease
0 250 500 1,000 Feetml dcsbh.uuEcy
lrrrltrrl Figure 8i.lhid br hc tqq of iB dke
Legend
MPR Boundary
&'
hdnrtuc: D&m
FiL: q\klidl\IDeinffi AnMffi N_Am.mrd
h?*d &:hrebild. Ms.
g ru? &&pn Obty, Wahqh G6
MD lm Strbtum Waihiqb khfE 601Fd
DlmrNoilhhdhr lS3
l*a
,s
w
fi
i'-tllv )
a,
t
NN
;:&*
'!
IJ
,
&,
{
\t'
t"t
't
,
I
Ilr,p
ir
,
t
1
I
t
:
k
ryra
q
", )_lr*tt\
h-ffi}*
wLt i
nn\J
r-ft'z
(}-
o)
r:f
::}:
7
t;
*r
Iita1
r*
O
I
,t&
I
Brinnon MPR
BOCC Adopted Boundary
January 14,2008
DNR Lease
Legend
MPR Boundary
.&.
r2umE
0 250 500 1,000 Feet
lrrtlttrl Figure 8