HomeMy WebLinkAbout0796zr Sheridan St.
Port Townsend WA g8a68
Jefferson County Planning Commission
NOTES
Date
p:360,379-4450.
F:36o379-445r
plancomm@co jefferson.wa.us
Opening Business )L fa-.e )t-^r +2 ?w,,-
Callto Order:
RollCall:
Kevin Coker
Cynthia Koan
Gary Felder
4(PM Public in Attendance$:a_
LxM
?T?
Mark Jochems
Matt Sircely
Lorna Smith
Richard Hull
Tom Brotherton
Tom Giske
lndicoteP-Present;AU-Absent&Unexcused;orAE-Absent&Excused(asnotedbyChair);Noteanyloteorrivols;Quorum=5
Staff Present:{
Approval of Agenda:
Approval of Minutes
Staff Updates
Yay Nay # Abstained
go<t3.s.r"=- v-*;i 144", Ttgtt
Tvf,Speaker Name
Update Se* 6o-u,te,-
Speaker Name
Update BaLC
Ye tu\JI
C
a fuja.-U
Motions
Description of Motion
Moved [-4-d
lnitiols
Yay oZ
TCI|V '(t*-r\rL U"-J.il t*LY*\
Seconded
lnitials
{J e
Nay
PM
Page r of z
\
P-++
#_ Abstained #_
Jefferson County Planning Commission
MEE NOTES p:360*29-4450
F:36o379-449t
plancomm @co jefferson.wa.us
6zr Sheridan St.
Port Townsend WA 98368 Date:5 b
oiscrssion topic' ?*r,r; o Ge, ( e . h,,trl,..- lr. SC cfl&-
\L
Speaker Name-I]t,,*Lr-
C-a\r\L ?,tP
oG2X d r*b DR
Speaker Name
Speaker Name
Comment Period Open Time Q,:tt
Speaker Name
^^rq)re
Speaker Name
Speaker Name
Comment Period Close Time PM
Closing Busine€s
Follow-up Work ltems for DCD Staff:
Next Meeting:
Adjournment Time:
TS ,ta PM
Page 3 of z
Public Comment @
Jefferson Gounty Planning Commission
Audience Sign-in Sheet
Pleasant Harbor
*** Please include your email address if you wish to be added to
the Planning Commission email distribution list. **"
ent ulations
Meeting Date: May 3, 2016 Meeting Time: 6:30 pm Location : Tri-Area Comm u nity Center
Today's Agenda Topics:
Please PRINT clearly!"** P/ease include your emailaddress if you wish to be added to the Planning Commission email
distibution list for updates. ***
Do you wish to speak during
Obseruer Comment?
Name Sfreef Add ress/O rgan izatio n City Yes No Maybe
W,Jf,lea4 J&,v 60W n ,e
Vc<d QtiL uVVqfin &...t ( LCI€-\ </'Y-
\ o-^* B -" )/6 .'\rc
4Vt ,luklttow fh^^u fb,*'n /)t,,^n,-x-;Dr^lE Lre t].,'fo-,? l0 L,J,k-,wt' n tr a\
r-+fic- Jo L1s*t ( I (o k) ucti*ff k
I
Jefferson County
Planning Commission
NOTICE OF ADJOURNMENT
.l-teDate:
Time:o
V
a Chair
Jefferso ounty Planning Commission
I5
+-GoL€bcp{",<* Va4d W- ErgLs -
A(.,EYA h*U ,1,
bA
\,r -U-e-)_> D4
\A
3(
L(
(.,.-
A-J-
fr*
*h-*l^,/-Gno P(1+
\
D L
*-L Y-o.r*r Lr---c
{ 4s
- -tt*O g*l*.. ,<^-=o-
+e e_
5l
,
/o
,*\- A-*Lv,rc-€,O?MA
C^^o., e- E c
"-\ .,l..,\r,*--
(o (r-o (J.-4
- f,-(A f D
_-LA,>_
_Lg
{2(4
tP d+
{e
Okl'-C at+ er(4a)
SrD
*(-t:=.<-Yq.o
_ ) A_A :sr,r-
,l
lo o. - TD,L
.13 o (1>
.Gt Go(P Cou<-e
vr,vS - Cru
t LZ€ar{ s L
erwerk ul Ru
Pi 360-579-4450
6zr Sheridan St.
Port Townsend WA 98368
Jefferson County Planning Commission
MEETINGAGENDA
Tri-Area Comrnunity Center
May 4, zot6
F:36o-379-445r
plancomm @co jefferson.wa.us
a
o CalltoOrder/Roll Call
. Approval ofAgenda
o Approval of Meeting Minutes - LLlO4l20L5,72l02/2OL5,OL|O6/2016
r Staff Updates
o CommissionerAnnouncements
Topic
Review of the Pleasant Harbor MPR draft regulations
When the Chair recognizes you to speaN please begin by stoting your name and oddress.
Pleose be awore thot the observer comment period is ...
i 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 Choir's discretion when there is time;
iii Not o public heoring - comments mode during this time will not be port of ony heoring record;
iv May be structured with a three-minute per person time limit.
. Summary of today's meeting
o Follow-up action items
o Agenda ltems for May 18th meeting at 6:30 pm at the Tri-Area Community Center
e Thank you for coming and participating in your government at work!
I
I
CLOSING
8:30
Pi 360-119-4450
6zr Sheridan St.
Port Townsend WA 98368
Jefferson County Planning Commission
MEETINGAGENDA
Tri-Area Cornmunity Center
May 4, zot6
F:36o-379-445t
plancomm@co jefferson.wa.us
o CalltoOrder/Roll Call
. Approval ofAgenda
. Approva I of M eeti ng M i nutes - LLI 04 /2075, 721 O2l 20L5, OLI 061 2076
o Staff Updates
o CommissionerAnnouncements
Topic
Review of the Pleasant Harbor MPR draft regulations
When the Chair recognizes you to spedk, please begin by stating your ndme and address.
Pleose be owore thot the observer comment period is ...
i An optionol time period dedicoted to listening to the public, not o question ond answer
session. The Plonning Commission is not required to provide response;
ii Offered ot the Choir's discretion when there is time;
iii Not o public heoring - comments mode during this time will not be port of ony heoring record;
iv Moy be structured with o three-minute per person time limit.
o Follow-up action items
o Agenda ltems for May 18th meeting at 6:30 pm at the Tri-Area Community Center
o Thank you for coming and participating in your government at work!
a
L8.2O Jefferson Street
PO Box l22A
Port ?ownsend, WA 98368
Fhil Johnson, District 1 David W. Sullivan, District 2 Kathleen lfler, District 3
May 3, 2015
Ms. Cynthia Koan and Planning Commissioners
Jefferson County Planning Commission
62l Sheridan Street
Port Townsend, WA 98368
RE: Developrnent Regulations for Pleasant Harbor Master Planned Resort
Dear Ms. Koan and Planning Commission members,
We are writing in response to a request by Planning Commission Chair Koan for
guidance on the process for the Planning Commission to complete its work on the draft
development regulations for the Pleasant Harbor Master Planned Resort in view of the recent
government-to-government meeting the County Commissioners had with the Port Gamble
S'Klallam Tribe, and continuing dialogue between the County, the Tribe and the applicant (The
Statesman Group).
Draft development regulations and a Finalsupplemental Environmental lmpact
Statement were transmitted to the Planning Commission in December 2015 in preparation for
the Planning Commission's public hearing on January 6,2076. The development regulations for
the MPR have been the subject of Planning Commission deliberations since then.
The County Commissioners request that the Planning Commission complete its review
and recommendations regarding the development regulations, independently of any potential
changes that might be made to a resort proposal by the applicant in response to the County's
consultation with the Tribe. The development regulations are general uniform regulations that
should apply to any subsequent development that may occur within the MPR, regardless of the
development's specifics.
Statesman Group, like any other applicant for the development of land, is entitled to
review and recommendation by the Planning Commission, and ultimately a decision by the
County Commissioners with respect to the proposed regulations in a timely manner. While the
Board acknowledges the Statesman proposal is complex, the Planning Commission is urged to
work through the development regulations section by section to arrive at a recommendation a
majority of the Planning Commission can approve and send to the Board.
Phone (36()1 385-91Oo Fax 13601 385-9382 je ffboccr'z co Je fferson.qra. us
*s
The Planning Commission has already spent four months on its deliberations on the
development regulations, which is in contrast to Resolution #54-97, the 1997 Resolution
creating the current Planning Commission, which stated in Section 3 that most reviews with
recommendation by the Planning Commission would be completed within 40 days. A copy of
that Resolution is attached.
ln light of our procedural due process obligations to the applicant, the Board asks the
Planning Commission to send a recommendation to it by 45 days from the Planning
Commission's May 4th meeting on the development regulations. Because June 18, 2016 is a
Saturday, the true deadline will be the close of business on Monday, June 20, 2016. lf the
Planning Commission does not provide a written recommendation to the Board by June 20th,
the Boord will consider there to be no recommendotion from the Planning Commission. Then,
with or without a recommendation from the Planning Commission, the Board, in its legislative
capacity, will commence its own deliberations on the development regulations, potentially hold
its own public hearing and potentially revise and/or adopt development regulations for the
Pleasant Harbor MPR.
On a separate but parallel track, the County will continue its consultation with the Tribe
and discussions with the applicant, and will determine if it will further refine the separate
development agreement. The development agreement, once executed, will be an agreement
between the County and The Statesman Group that governs much more directly the specifics of
the development the Statesman Group and any successors can build inside the MPR. Before
the Board adopts a development agreement, the Board will refer the final proposed
development agreement to the Planning Commission for Planning Commission review and
recommendation.
By considering the development regulataons separately from the development
agreement, the Planning Commission can complete its review of the development regulations
in timely fashion, while the County continues to finalize a development agreement for the
Planning Commission's subsequent review.
The County Commissioners recognize and value the time and dedication the Planning
Commissioners have devoted to this matter, and look forward to your recomrnendation.
Sincerely,
cet {',(r, u t
Johnso Commissioner David Su Commissioner Kathleen Kler, Chair
District 3District 1
Encl: Resolution #54-97
District 2
sFr:r]oN 1. Fo\[,FRs ANn DU llFS.
Ttc porst: ffd dutics of {tc Ftltm$g (-'ommisrion rhall lrc suc[ a; rlc nos dcscribcd by
RCW 36.?0010 cr ry zod odrr appticobte larw of thc Stae of Wubiogton lltf! Cirt<t d to
do so by frc llfld of Jcffcrson Couuy Coaunisrroncr: t]rc Couny Planrung Comsnirsion rh,rll
atso perfonn $$h otl€ drticr rs rrc :ror lrcousistax wi:ir larc ktt. upoo rlaucr{ lile
snmissin rlr.ll airirt thc tcffcrsor County Plmniq Dcpartrncnt ard Jclfcrson Comty llo:rd
of (,'rmmlssio*rs h crr4iag nut thccounq,k pkming fmgmlu afid thorc duliai pre*tibei bl
thr wslriqglnn Sulc Plilnit€ Firrtrling Au erd lhc Gro*rh ll'lirn:grrrcr( r\r"1. Tlt< commirsil:n
sh.ll ,ssist ard advisc in drc dcttlopmerx of urd any revisiom ltr tlr Jcfftrcoo Ltouots
Coqrctrasire fhn ard Shorelinc M.fiEeoeot !"tarer Prograsr end uffici:l crlnrmls rnd/rr
ascrdo€ols thss(u.:al carryiag ou( Gotc durirs prcscdbcd tturcin. llrc conami.rsion thJl tct
rs poliqr dvirors in marcr corrcmin6l geffrel latd us. acd .horclirr we rvithio &c rlr'.roty.
Thc comnirsioo rfull nr'ommod plauing trd Clorclir|e polit:r:s to nrrke ccrtrin lftc,' lrc
($oritkflt *itt thc gnals uill p.rliti<s of thc clormunig' rr cxP'rtssrd rn ttc (lom1n*cr,!it" Plso
rrd rncrdttsrti OErElo a:d thc S[orlinc Mlnrgcmort Mar:cr Program anJ arueodostls
drfio. ltc cqunisstm fton tirrr to tirnc ntr)'gl<rr m*c inc.trirics. fi dcr'd(E nFrrts ur
rrcorilncrdethac.'ltc comsurdor shall rcJxrt in rll maflcrr refentd tr it within forty 140) dqs a wirhia
s^Eh tirE rt ti\ecitied by &c t'oard, Tbe rtport of the ccqanrisrion sbell hc rdvisory only.
stclION{. .^pMr\1$aAT}rRE \srR TltiololuE
PI A N\'I NG COM f,.I ISSIOI'$
'lhc positr,on dcsignarcd thc dtlics of dirccior of plaxsirg (RCIV 36-70.16{rl slull trc
app<intcd b'tlE Bolrd of (lounly Conmisriur:sr':r. Thc dirl*a *dl [c rcrpou.;iblc tbr'llre
JtroF, opcnti({l of tlrc plancng departrt *ull bcdirccrly'rcpondbL'lo th. Borrd of Counq'
Ccnodsiiutrrrs: Crall havc tlr rcsJronsihitrty ol ryrur.idng tlre pr,rsunncl u( thc ploming steft
dnd rhdl bc rtrynnsiblc tin po$dlng rchaical assisorilE to rts plcuing, commiriion.
SIjCTION f. miANCINc - Pt ^\NNG Cofi.l$ll$st0t{.
Ilrc (httt' Ptrn:ing Comoissiolt 6IrIl iacut m rmrncial olrligrtio:s nor aud$rizr my
fuuial oCr.adittrcr erccp fot srctr prrporcr as rrr exprc*dy dhoritcd in orlvu^c $' Ihc
Boud of Lrrxrmy C(rmmLsiqrrr in nr.h mrr r *rc hw povi<lcs. Appropiarioas (ur Orc
o?cr&on of dtc plrnrirg comarisixr sbdl bc idcntiticrl. lxl the oftrrct n'countiag or othcr
ot'ficc rccord< of fmaocrs shdl bc kcpt bt drc phonistg dcp{rtorctrt
sf;&'r'19\!JuLE5.
The Phmiq Cunrmissioo s}rll r&f, iB o*n rulcs aDd Egrfaisrs gorunr,ng :llc
cmduaing of itr inrcmal alLirs povidcd thfl urc! rs.ks urd rcguhrions rhrll mt tre in <mllict
r*it[ Slrte Lus,or Cormy Rcrolurions.
slw
Merabctr ot'ttc Fhuriag Commisrion lhdl tlc app<rin:ut b1 rtr Boa;rd of Oountl'
Conunirri:acnt and cach cornmiisioiln disrkl rhrll he <rQually-. narusortcd on &a Flrnning
c{rcuaiarior- !n rtrd cved o Phnaiag Conrarission memt*r rtrmger csidcrcc dur irq tlrcir tcrm
*tich arovrs rlrcm anto u difftrrnt com:ri:sirncr di$trict. thc, witl rmam in otEcc uo(il thdr
lcrar cgirrcr Aftcr t&c term crpires, thc urcant Sxrufiitrn in thc lFaoprietc .U$ricd will lh€r t'c
GUcd.
sr{noN I sJ..rggLEED_IEE}1t
Tu as:urc fs3ecroJ tcrmt of oflir.c foc mcarbcrr of rrid pluning conmimion a$ scl fclh
in RCW 35.70.070, .0to. .ff0, urd . l{8. of rhc imrH nioc lr.rmcs uppoiarcd mclrhcrt of $c
flmilng cunud:sioo. h$o (2) sha:l br ryptiarcd for I rcrnr o!'onc ilf ycaq nAo (?) sho0 br;
'eFlnirrtsrl ftrr u term of r*o (2) !'cgrr. tnu (2r shElt hc !'Ffrranrcd fttr rr ltsm uf thrc 1'!]ycarr; *d
throe (l) sh.dl bc rpgoiotsl for a Earr ut four ({) 1,crrs 'firoeelicr edr mcrnbcr rffrointed tu
thc plaanirq commisrbn shell hc (cx(!pl *.htr appoiofd tn lill i tc(:!rr!.l furr tcnn of fnur 1i!;
yGrrs.
? Yo- 23 t*'265
)L
PLEASANT HARBOR MASTER PLANNED RESORT
Title 17
MASTER PLANNED RESORTS
Title 17 Article I Port Ludlow MPR
Chapters 17.05-17.50
No change
:l::: :ll::"; .; ' ll
Title 17. Article II. Pleasant Harbor MPR (17.60-17,80)
:,
Chapter 17.60. General Provisions
17.60.010 Authoritv.
to 36
The regulations set forth in this title shall:'be known as the "Pleasant Harbor Master
),
shall be
17.60
with,the Jefferson Plan
17.60.050
The provisions of thl5jitle shall apdy lo all land, al! assoerated w4ter areas and all uses
17.60 060 Exemrrtions.
The following structures and uses shall be exempt from the regulations of this title. but
are subiect to all other apnlicable local. state and federal liqited to,
the county buildins ordinance. interim critical areas ordinance. the shoreline manaqement master
proeram. and the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA).
1
17.60.020 Title.
and structures within the boundary of the Pleasant Harbor Master Planned Resort as depicted on
the offrcial land use map for Jefferson County. Washington.
(l) Wires. cables, conduits. vaults. pipes. mains. valves. tanks. or other similar equipment for
Lhe distribution to rc ers oftelephone or other communications, electricitv. eas. o
the collection of sewage. or surface or subsurface water operated or maintained by a
ora or vate u or other
customary meter pedestals. telephone pedestals. distribution transformers and temporar-y utility
onstruction, whether aqy such facility is loc
or abovelqround; but only when such facili are located in a street risht-of-wav or in an
easement. This exemption shall not include above:ground electrical s
stations or treatment plants. or potable water tanks or facilities. which shall require
conditional use approval in any zone where permitted: , ,,,,(2) Underground utilit), equipment. mailboxes. bus sheltefS.,iriformational kiosks. public
bicycle shelters. or similar structure or device which is fouiidl,',bi the director of community
Minor construction activities as defined 1
under Chapter 15.05 JCC. as amended:
4 Stormwater detention faciliti and
from the
n f-wa or
atea.
5 Devel consistent Site
adoption of this chapter.
in all zones of the
I and 1
Ordinances.
interest in b ect to the master
lders of recorded
within the MPR area.
17.60.130 E
The of Title 18 ofthe
violation of Title 17&Le II, more commonly knoumgs the "Pleasant Harbor M
Chapter 11.65, Golf Resort (MPR-GR)
17.65.010 Purpose.
The MPR-GR zone provides residential and recreational facilities. as well as commercial
atuan{ieJ and services associated with the resort and surroundiue communiff. It provi
w
and
.|
-L-
central resort and conference facilities.
17.65.020 Permitted Uses.
uses incl famil and multifamil structures
townhouses. apartments. lofts. villas. time-share and fractionally owned accommodations of all
kinds.
(2) Short-term visitor accommodations. constitutine not less than 65010 of the total residential
uu{s allharized by Ordinance #01-0128-08, includins, but not limited to hotels. motels, lodges.
and any residential uses allowed under subsection I of this section that is made available for
short-term rental
includin but not limited to a conference and
c on-site retail services and in destination
and indoor ot outdoor theaters;
all
related not ted to lf
courses
courses
planned resort:
ll
17.65.03
Waste water treatment
lc
of
modified
the of this zone and MPR as
zone
80 feet
shall
17.65.040 Bulk and density requirements.
There are no vard or setback orovision s internal to the MPR-GR zone. All structures
or
servl
from Master Planned Resort
zones. Minimum building setback from State Route 101 is 50 feet.
Chapter 17.70. Onen Srrace Reserve (MPR-OSR )
17.70.010 Purrrose.
lines and acent
-J-
(d) recreation business and facilitiesl
The purpose of the MPR-OSR zone is to provide a natural bufferlelweeq lhe [q&rt
activities and the waters of Hood Canal. The MPR-OSR zones shall extend landward 200 feet
from OMHW of Hood Canal as measured under the Shoreline Management Act (Chapter 90.$
RCW) or 25 feet from the top of the bank as measured under Chapter 18.22 JCC. whichever is
greater.
17.70.020 Permitted uses.
The followins uses are permitted in the MPR-OSR zone:(1) Restoration of existins develooment rsions (roads- camnsites)to theit natural nre-
fami
man
development state: and
Passive recreation that
or bluff erosion.
18.25
Chapter 17.75. Marina Villaee [MPR-M\r)
17.75.010 Purpose.
use
the
marina operations.
17.75.020 Permitteduses.
The uses are
I Marina and
,incl
serytce
and similar
fuel service
incl
tenni
the nature of master
Infrastructure both above and below
Public and services the
(10) Medical services: and(10) Other similar uses consistent with the purpose of the this zone and MPR as determined by
the Department of Communit_v Development.
-4-
17.75.030 Heieht restrictions.
No buildinss within the MPR-MV ne shall he erec.ted, enlarsed or structurall v
modified to exceed 35 feet in heieht as measured by IBC standards. Underground or imbedded
parking shall not be included in any height calculations.
17.75.040 Bulk and densitv requirements.
There are no yard or setback provisions internal to the MPR-MV zone. All new
's Shoreline Master at I CC L{
located in sets
ses for or or mlnor
17.80.020 Develorrment cap.
however short term not less than
0 feet ofresort
The Plan in the Pleasant Harbor MPR
as infrastructure
devel under ls ofbui for an
Notice of for en review of the Resort Plan shall to
persons or agencies entitled to notice pursuant to the land use procedures of JCC Title 18.
(3) Actual buildins permit plans or construction drawings are not required durins the SEIS
process. Architeeturarcrawings including a detailed site olan. and architectural sketches or
drawings showing approximate elevations. sections. and floor plans are required. however. to
ensure that the SEIS considers project-level details.(4) The department of comquuilv developqrcqtmay imposc mitMsue a
not
6b,b lo
to
tion
and
LLP
5
Chanter 17.80. Pleasant Harbor Resort Development
17.80.010 Resort develonment.
State Environmental Policv Act. Chapter 43.2 lC RCW. Article X of
Chaptell&4OJeq sh4ll be aprrlicable to the permit process &llesaa de'i9laprn9!t.
(5) Followine completion of the SEIS buildine permits may be issued. following appropriate
review for ects anal in the
(6) Actual resort development may be undertaken in phases. but only following completion
review and of a full resort the SEIS
schedule may be proposed as part of the environmental review or may be developed at a later
date.
t.
Determination
where
A S environmental
ln
under tal
chan the
I
development requlations.
The element
P
water and the
to
on the descri
tons
sewer
shall be
based
be
Plan
to reduce and
the ve
described
ve Plan onl if all
ts of the Act 36.(2) The County shall accept building permits only for projects included in and consistent
with the Resort Plan. A revision to the existins Plan shall be submitted to the countv for
forth in this title. Upon approval of a revision. all subsequent development proposals shall be
consistent with the revised Resort Plan and development requlations.
revisions to the Resort Plan shall be
action.uch
approval prior to the acceptance of any proposal that is inconsistent with the Resort Plans set
that
the
-6-
whether the
tof
minor revision. Upon making a determination. the proposed revision shall follow the appropriate
for revisions as outlined in JCC 17.80 060 and 17
17.80.070 Minor revisions.
(1) Minor Revisions. The county recognizes that the Resort Plan may require minor changes
tofacilitiesandservicesinresponsetochangingconditionsormaIket@
degree of flexibilitv for the resort is needed. Minor revisions are those that do not result in a
substantial change to the intent or pumose of Resort Plan in effect. A chanse that satisfies
the fnllowino c.riteria qhall he deemed a mlnor revisinn for nrrrnoqes of this c.hanfer:
A
foqlasa!fthq Resa[Plau;
of the
the resort.
to the
Minor
are
referenced
deemed
the
as
inJ
7
ln of or in the of
framework for review. analvsis and mitisation the revised development activity proposed. The
Resort Plan revision proposal shall include the following information:(a) A description of how the revised Resort Plan would further the soals and policies
set forth in the Comprehensive Plan:
(b) A description of how the Resort Plan revision complements the existing resort
facilities of the MPR:
use
m use
-7-
than that addressed in the development plan:
public facilities:
on of how the
natural that have retain
A descri of the
and the
lsPA
or
I A calculation f
sewer a
available at
time
notice of the
Harbor MPR other
on to an
a
forth in the
would be
The revi slon
those established for critical areas:
rd'r On-site and off-site infrastructure ttine.lrrdino hrrt not limited to water- sewer
storm water and transportation facilities.) impacts have been fully considered and
mitieated:
e The revlslon the
are
a
Plan
ma
of residents and patrons. and provides for unified development. integrated site design.
and protection of natural amenities.
facilities
see J,
-8-
(c) A description of the desien and functional features of the Resort Plan revision.
setting out how the revision provides for unified development. integrated site desien and
protection of natural amenities:(_d) A listine of proposed additional uses and/or proposed chanees to density and
intensity of uses within the resort. and a discussion of how these changes meet the needs
of residents of the Pleasant Harbor MPR and patrons of the resort:
(e) A description and analysis of the environmental imoacts associated with the
proposed revision. including an analysis of the cumulative impacts of both the proposed
revision and the approved Resort Plan. and their effects on surrounding properties and/or
Title 18
UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE
Chapter 18.15
Land Use Districts
18.15.025 Master planned resort.
Per RCW 36.704.360, 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
commercial center, which to the resort and local population.
The master planned resort's intemal such as codes,
in JCC Title 17covenants and restrictions be more
However, Jefferson and restrictions.
Marina and Golf Resort is the
second officiall
resort and is su ect to
the rC
V and
of Black Road.
is served the Brinnon
accommo The
restrictions
I
vate
18.15.115 D
"Master planned resort") is a land use designation established under the Comprehensive
Plan. The en+exis+ing officially designated master planned resorts in the county 49is the Port
Ludlow MPR_and the Pleasant Hafto , 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 planned resorts. Pleasant Harbor MPR is adopted pursuant to RCW 36.704.360
to new Master Planned ignation 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.
IS
J
-9-
characteized by both single-family and
accommodations associated with a range of indoor and facilities within the
property boundaries in a setting of significant natural resort may include other
residential uses, but only ifthe residential uses are
recreational nature of the resort.
(1) Port Ludlow. Port Ludlow Master Planned
and support the on-site
E$tonly existing
officially designated master planned resort in is the MPR, which is
designated in accordance with RCW 36.existing resort and is
subject to the provisions of JCC Title 17. The planned resort of is
recreationalwith
facilities including a marina, resort convention of Port
Ludlow also includes a large resort is served a village
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
36.10A.360 offer an opportunity to utilize these special features for enjoyment and recreational
use, while bringing 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
36.704.360.
resort consistent with the Comprehensive policies and RCW
18.15.123 Allowable uses.
The following uses may be allowed within a
compliance with RCW 36.70A.360:
(1) All residential uses including
time-share and fractionally owned
support the on-site recreational nature of the
(2) Short-term visitor
and other residential uses, that are
visitor accommodations shall
accommodation units.
3) Indoor and
courses (including
maintenance facil
paths, equestrian
with the on-site the
(4)and
(s)
(a)
(b)
c) on-
of the
(d)
(6) Cultural and
exhibits, indoor and
multifamily
provided, such
to,
rental;
65 ofthe total resort
cl
resort.
to
but not limited to, golf
practice facilities, and
and nature trails, bicycle
uses deemed to be consistent
on authorized in
condominiums,
into and
lodges,
that short-termfor
(R
(7) Capital facilities, utilities and services to the extent necessary to maintain and operate the
master planned resort.
(8) Temporary and"/or permanent strucfures to serve as sales offices.
(9) Any other similar uses deemed by the administrator 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.
and services which are designed to serve the
as stations, espresso stands, beauty salons and spas,
art food stores, real estate/property management offices; and
businesses and facilities such as sporting goods and
ties, including, but not limited to, interpretative centers and
and museums.
sports
-10-
and sales.
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 MP& including short-term
visitor accommodations, on-site outdoor and indoor recreational facilities, off-site
recreational opportunities offered or provided as part of the resort's services, and
commercial and supportive services provided.
(c) A listing of the proposed allowable uses and
use of the MPR and a discussion of how these uses 'their distribution meet the needs
ofthe resort and its users
A land use map or maps that depict
full extent and ultimate
services, including residential and
(e) A description, with supportive
features that provide for a unified
natural amenities, and which the
This shall address how screenrng,
densities and intensities of
showing
and
space, recreational facilities,
are integrated into the
the project and the
an adjacent to the water
Act, a description and
to the shoreline area
(d)
the
road and parking design,
project site.(0 A description of the
measures that
and subject
supportive or
pursuant to the Shoreline
and
of the
(e)
o
initial
uses
on
surrounding properties, and how its
and promote compatibility among
and r to the development
of the development will be available, and that
.of the ve Plan will be met
intended phasing of development of the project, if any. The
for an shall provide suffrcient detail for the phases such that the
full intended of the development can be evaluated. This shall also
discuss how the
the project, and
function at interim stages prior to completion of all phases of
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 authorizedby Article XI of Chapter 18.40 JCC (Development
Agreements), and RCW 36.708.170 through36.70B.210. Consistent with JCC 18.a0.830(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:
-11-
MPR or
and location.
and maps,and functional
ofsite
of the Plan.
and service which may be necessary,
(a) Permitted uses, densities and intensities of uses, and building sizes;
(b) 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
require a site-specific amendment of the Comprehensive Use Map to a master planned
resort land use designation, pursuant to the 8.45.040; provided, that the
subarea planning process authorized under Article 15 JCC (Subarea Plans) and
JCC 18.45.030 may be used if deemed the t and the county. The
Comprehensive Plan amendment or subarea be processed county concurrent
with the review of the resort master plan and
master planned resort.
agreement for approval of a
(4) Planned Actions. If deemed by the
resort project may be designated asa pursuant to
RCW 43.21C.031 and WAC 1,97-lI -l t-16
(5) Self-Contained Development accessory on-site urban-level
RCW 36.70B.170(3).
(3) Formal Site-Specific Comprehensive Plan
the of the MPR, and such
and land uses
to meet the requirements of JCC
commercial and
services shall be
should be
the
other
are prohibited in areas otherwise
designated as urban areas RCW A. t 10.
18.Ls.129 a process.
New under this UDC, requiring
and the following:
(1)
18.15.1(2) A ofa agreement, pursuant to the requirements of
JCC 18.15.1 Chapter 18.40 JCC (Development Agreements).
(3) Arequest Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map amendment necessary to
meet the requirement 's.r26(3) and 18.45.040. [Ord.8-06 $ 1]
18.15.132 Decision-g authority.
(1) 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.
(2) 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.
Article
-12-
planned resort shall
planned
provisions of
ofa
of the
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 wjth 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 adeliuate 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 recreationa!,uses, adequate open,,.space, and sufficient
services such as transportation access, public safety, and social and hedlth services, to adequately
meet the needs of the guests and residents of the'MPR.(s) The MP necessary supportiVe,.and accessory on-
site urban-level shall be oriented to serve the
placement and screening of
MPR
(6) Environmental considerations
facilities and amenities so that all uses 'R are with each other, and in
as much of nafural features, historic
sites, and public views.
R will contain within the developingnt all
commercial and other,services, and such
in the:
t i,'- li_.. . ,;:::.1.. -18.15.138 Port+idloil, Master Planned Resort.
The Pe+Ludl.ev* Master'Planned Resort Code (JCC Title l7), 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-
order to incorporate and
(7) All on-site
mitigated.
(8) Improvements
mrnrmlze and property.
(e)
(10)
agricultural
rcsourcc land
been fully considered and
in such a manner as to avoid or
to retain and enhance the
resort is better suited and has more long-term
the harvesting of timber or production of
will affect adjacent agricultural or forest
$ lI
located
MPR
and the
IOrd.
i;':.i Sllridrln St.
jro:-i .i'r:ulrsirLt<l
\'1:.,\ q8:i68
Jefferson County Planning Commission
MEETINGMINUTES
Tri-Area Community Center
November 04,2ors
Call to Order at 6:31 pm
P : :.t{.;0-:i;1}-. l. I i{)
l;: l6t)-;1:t;- 14 i 1
pl 2tr){:( }Ul n lr, /;(r). ir'i l(,t 5r )il . \\'a. r ls
ROLL CALL
District 1
Coker: Present
Felder: Present
Koan: Present
District 2
Smith: Present
Sircely: Absent E
fochems; Present
District 3
Brotherton; Present
Giske: Absent E
Hull: Present
Staff Present
David W fohnson, Associate Planner
foel Peterson, Associate Planner
Public in Attendance: Ten
AporovalofAgenda: Approved.
Approval of Minutes: None to approve
STAFF UPDATES
David f ohnson
Assoc. Plonner
ANNOUNCEMENTS
Cynthia Koan
Chair
The date for the Pleasant Harbor Master PIan Resort (MPR) Public Hearing is on lanuary 6,
2016 at the Brinnon School Gymnasium
I had an interesting meeting with folks from Land Trust in Chimacum to discuss their
proposal for worker housing and farm related activities at Chimacum Corner behind the
market. Very preliminary, anyone interested let me know and I can get more information.
Info on Land Trust Website also. Land Trust talking with Habitat for Humanity to potential
partner to get a traditional mortgage/housing situation. Young people voiced they needed
shorter term housing, six months to three years, no mortgages wanted or needed.
PUBLIC HEARING
PRESENTATION
foel Peterson
Assoc. Planner
Last meeting, DCD introduced an amendment to the sign code proposed by f efferson Transit. It was submitted on
g lzg /LS and sponsored by. the board of county commissioners. They directed DCD to proceed with an amendment
to the UDC forthe sign regulations. We provided a threshold determination under SEPA of a Mitigated Determination
of Non Significance (MDNS). An amendment to sign code last year that had constitutional issues regarding the way
communities regulate signs. See that discussion in my staff report. We've had an environmental review and a
constitutional review of the proposed amendment.
Tonight is a public hearing, to take testimony for the planning commission to make a recommendation to either
approve, deny or approve with modifications the amendment that will go to the board of County Commissioners. To
summarize the amendment is to allow government entities to place a reader board or changing message signs on a
government owned property, not closer than 200' or adjacent to residential property. And we have analysis of this
proposal (with a glitch) and we also recommend an alteration to the Ianguage of proposal in order to meet with the
constitutional muster.
Jefferson County Planning Commission
MEETINGMINUTES
Tri-Area Community Center
November 04,2ots
The logistical issues: Currently a reader board sign is prohibited. Last year's amendment allowed them in limited
circumstances in commercial and light industrial areas only. Not within 200' of a residence and if within 300' of a
residence, the sign would have to be turned off at night. My analysis of SEPA is to observe other public entities that
have these signs and look at their zoning. There is no other public entity that isn't either sited on residential parcel
or within 200' of one. I can't find one. Perhaps we can change the longuage from adjacent to abutting. The
Environmental Impact Statements we have, don't have discussions about these electronic signs. Also looked at
Comprehensive Plan that embodies the counties vision of what rural character and aesthetics look like. In evaluation,
last year's amendment was not consistent with the comprehensive plan. Looking at the constitutionality of it, issues
were brought up in Iegal review . . . if we use Government Entity, or property is owned by the government entity
then it's a government property. A public entity can have public speech on their property, just as a private entity can
have private speech on their private property. It has to be content neutral. See the article from our Deputy
Prosecuting Attorney Michael Haas which further reinforces that our approach is going to be constitutional. The
planning commission is tasked with listening and formulating public comments and concerns and going through a
series of findings (on the record). You may make a determination immediately or defer to another meeting.
PRESENTATION
Tammi Rubert and Samantha Trone
J effe rs o n Tra n sit Autho rity
Explained they emailed county and were told they could change sign to a reader board. They got approval, modeled
the East Jefferson Fire and Rescue sign. We've submitted the change and got what we thought was approval. Applied
to relocate the sign, and that's how we found out that it's not approved.
The intent of the sign is to let the riders know before hand of an event or deviation. For instance, when the Hood
Canal Bridge was closed, we could have posted that. We researched the sign and are using repurposed wood from
the property. East fefferson Fire and Rescue partnered with us because they fuel at our fuel station and we have a
local agreement with them.
CONCERNS FROM THE BOARD
Does this open us up, if we allow this sign or make an exception, to other reader board signs? Concerned about the
proximity to a very dangerous intersection where someone gets killed every other year. If you put a wood sign up,
you wouldn't have to change our codes. My sense of your purpose of the sign was to provide significant public
information, but it seems to me there's other technology that can do that, like an a.m. radio. Could this be referred
to the Growth Management Hearing Board for rezoning? Or would we still have to change our code? Pull out Ianguage
of closeness to residences and use a Conditional Use Permit? We don't want to cost anyone extra money or time with
litigation.
ANSWERS/ADDTTTONAL TNFORMATTON PROVTDED
We received a state grant to add additional fifteen parking spaces out front for park and ride (or bike and ride). We
moved out stops inside. All of our buses go through that intersection. The sign is not to just alert drivers, it's the
monument sign for our facility, so we can't relocate it. It's just one or two lines with messages on it. We don't
currently have a sign. We have tried other modes to get information out. We've posted on busses, on the park n ride,
on our website. This is just another way to get messages out. The sign is custom made, says Iefferson Transit and
has a reader board on it.
P : ;.16it-11:g-.1.1,',i I
[: ij(io-:]:q-rl1l; I
pla il{1 rl}t i}.ir{)cr ),.ir'1'1i.:rsr.ln .tta. t ts
6rr Shclidau St-
P<xt lfr:irrrsertd 1$A 9fl:168
Jefferson County Planning Commission
MEETINGMINUTES
Tri-Area Community Center
November 04,2o7S
f: tj6a-:i79-.1.1:i()
F: ;l{i0-3i9-rl1;1
plilirr oi]l n).ril <lrl..i.rililfsr )rr. i\ir . ris
PUBLIC COMMENT
Brian Belmont 64 Timber Ridge Dr. Port Ludlow: Support reader board sign.
Glee Hubbard, 60 Admiralty Ln., Port Ludlow: Support reader board sign.
Dave Armitate, L47 Mt. Constance Way, Port Ludlow: Concern with Ordinance, give people some leeway.
Kathleen KIare, Quilcene: Support a reader board sign.
Jean Ball, Chimacum: I find reader board or flashing or glowing signs or bill boards annoying. Please consider the
location (at 4 corners), it's not a beautiful residential area. The sign for bridge and ferry on 104 is nice. "Coming to
the nuisance" term.
Elizabeth V. Admiralty Ln., Port Ludlow: Please be flexible designing this sign so they don't shut you down. f efferson
Co allowed Port Ludlow, allowed our resort . . . so when you're trying to maintain our rural forested atmosphere,
you have to still be flexible and recognize we have dense areas.
ferryRupertl25CubRd.,PortTownsend: HastherebeenastudyofcaraccidentsattheFireHall? ItlSadangerous
intersection but I don't think the sign will distract drivers there because the one at the Fire Hall doesn't distract
drivers.
Afier mitigation it was moved: The Planning Commission supports a revision of the sign code that allows a non-
commercial, public information sign to violate any requirement of the sign code with a conditional use permiL
This movement was seconded.
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE
PRESENTATION:
North Olympic Climate Change Preparedness PIan: Kate Dean; Regional Coordinator for N. Olympic Peninsula
Resource Conservation and Development'Council with Cindy fane and |udy Surber; City of Port Townsend Planning
Department.
We're looking at strategies for adaptation to climate change. We can project the impact of climate change and it's
our responsibility to plan for that focusing on preparedness from a Land Use perspective and how to mitigate the
impact of climate change. Planning is a responsibility of ours.
Overview of project with climate projections:
We've gathered observed and projected changes jn fefferson and Clallam Counties. Because of our moderated
climate (due to the ocean), we don't expect to see such dramatic effects, but we've already seen warmer temperatures
and expect to see more days over 90 degrees and more frost free days. The greatest change we expect to see is in
the form of our precipitation: we expect larger storm events happening, more so in the winter, the sea level and
seismic activity to rise. Ocean Acidification will have major impacts on the shellfish industry effecting both the
economic and ecological functions.
Human health and livelihood: Injuries during extreme weather events, heat related illness, forest fires, air quality,
pollen production, microbial contamination, emerging risks of shell fish poisoning, crop yield. Power disruptions,
flooding, transportation disruptions, expectation of immigration to this area.
Sensitivity analysis: Wild Salmon, shellfish, sea and shore bird populations are all sensitive to climate change.
,1,
{i?r ijll"ri{lln St.
I'orf iir$nsl;rd \'1'.\ (rti:168
Jeft'erson County Planning Commission
MEETINGMINUTES
Tri-Area Community Center
November 04, zots
l': ;joo-:i:9-.i.1.)o
I" : :i(n)-;.1?()-jl.1s l
l)ilttx ctl'tttri<,:r:, l..ir:Ilt.:L-rrln.t{a.tts
We have three ways to organize the strategies: Critical infrastructure, Ecosystems and Water Supplies. Much more
of the Olympic Peninsula will be unfavorable for the wild salmon (due to water temperatures). We expect a decrease
in soil water storage (due to surface water runoff and higher temps), agriculture will have a number of impacts
including a possible growth due to more carbon dioxide and longer frost free seasons (if there's enough water).
The top strategies or recommendations we make include: Education, Awareness, Policy Land Use, switch from snow
pack to rain based watersheds, promotion of smarter irrigation technologies, changes to codes and ordinances.
FOTLOW-UP ITEMS
The November lBtt meeting for the entire planning commission and sub-committee meeting and ad hoc committee
to brainstorm on the numerous themes for the Comprehensive Plan Review. Defining themes: Aspects of the comp
plan that may or may not have their own elements, may show up in multiple elements and/or are high level concerns
that we wish to be mindful of. We need to get a notice in the paper on Friday and notify DCD and David.
Move that the Planning Commission bring to the attention to the Board of County Commissioners that we ore
facing a very tough challenge in meeting the deadlines of the Comp PIan Updates and we need to have sufficient
staff and resources from DCD dedicated to that program. Motion Passed with all in favor.
Next Planning Commission meeting scheduled for 11/18/2015 at 6:30 pm at the Tri-Area Community Center
d at 9:12 pm
These meeting minutes were approved this day of
Cynthia Koan, Chair Teresa A Smith, PC Secretary/DCD
20L6.
Port'l'rxrlrsr,rxl \,\i,{ t8::t{i8
.Jefferson County Planning Commission
MEETINGMINUTES
Tri-Area Community Center
December 02,2ot1
Call to Order at 6:30 pm
i)' .if)O-'i:(,)-.1.1i{)
l.:jl(ro_:.liq-41ir
plan{'r nniltiir)<:r.r. icflils,ltr.r, a.tr..
ROLL CALL
District 1
Coker: Present
Felder: Present
Roan: Present
District 2
Smith: Absent E
Sircely: Present
fochems: Present
District 3
Brotherton; Present
Giske: Present
Hull: Present
Staff Present
|oel Peterson, Associate Planner
Public in Attendance: One
Approval ofAgenda: Approved.
Approval of Minutes: None to approve.
STAFF UPDATES
There are no meeting minutes to approve yet but we have hi.red someone who is working on the backlog.
David W f ohnson wanted to remind us that fanuary 6,2016Wi11 be the Public Hearing for the Pleasant Harbor EIS in
Brinnon. They're close to finaling it, and baring any delays there will be a public notice on Monday, December 7,
2015 and the FEIS will be available on December 9,2015.
COMMISSIONER ANNOUNCMENTS
C.K. The DCD Director position had four applicants, two were selected and one showed up. David Goldsmith gave a
recommendation, he's coming from Corvallis, has been a Planning Department Manager and worked around
Connecticut for a while. There will be another meeting with him. There is a panel interviewing him.
K.C. Many members in our communit5r would like to be involved with this screening. December 11,,2015 is a meet
and greet date
C.K. After our LL/LB/1S meeting, the following Monday I went to the Board of County Commissioners and David
Sullivan pulled me aside privately and informed me they had a one year, $100,000.00 line item for a Consultant to
work on the Comprehensive Plan. So we need to be clear on.what we think they should do with that money. They're
also working on an internal reorganization of some of their people to give us a single point of contact. It sounds like
David W f ohnson will be helping us with the public process piece and mapping it out. I'm hoping he can come on
12lt6lLS to help us with that.
f.P. It may not be until mid-fanuary, 2016. It's a proposal (with outreach) that David W f ohnson will be presenting
to David Goldsmith. I'm working on a critical path calendar for the backbone of required elements including the
skeleton of other elements to fit into a finite number of days I hope to be done by December L8,2015.
C.K. I spoke with David Goldsmith, our Interim Director, and reiterated my interests of a real rewrite and a single
author and a readable document of the Comprehensive Plan. He sounded excited and said he could imagine a
document that was more of a short narrative with the detail. The technical detail that you guys use in code and policy
would be more organized in the supporting document but to have a narrative piece that's readable to the lay public
and has a single author. He seemed to really understand that idea and got excited.
K.C. The idea is more to structure things, an equivalent way is to write an introduction, not reinventing the wheel,
keeping all the nuts and bolts. Clari$ that you're not talking about a complete re-write.
r{'
.Jeft'erson County Planning Commission
ME,ETINGMINUTES
Tri-Area Community Center
December oz,2ols
P .1i!o-'{':(}-.1
ii : ;:|{:9-;j:<-1-,1
n..ii iii'r'sor:.:r
C.K. Yes. This is an important discussion I'd like to move to the December L6,2075 meeting.
M.S. Not necessarily a complete re-write. We need to clarify that a complete re-write would be to restructure (the
document). 0r to write a good introduction to (summarize the plan). We don't want to reinvent the wheel, just make
it readable for the public while keeping the nuts and bolts.
M.S. Our Sub Committee met and spoke of ways to approach the public, structuring meetings and our approach. It
was constructive for an initial meeting with very general ideas regarding how to go about it.
J.P. I had hoped but don't have a sheet of paper to give you with what our required deliverables with having a meeting
like that. It would need minutes, a recording that we can keep in our Growth Management Act file that is our
background for a public process and the direction that we took.
C.K. David Goldsmith said we need: who was there, and a general sketch that I can forward to them daily.
M.S. And we'll want to capture the public comments precisely.
T.B. We spoke about the business element aspects of it and how land was zoned and how to make it work.
PUBLIC HEARING
PRESENTATION:
foel Peterson, DCD:
October 7 , 20LS was the introductory meeting to the Planning,Commission about the proposed sign code, then the
application DCD received was a board sponsored amendment, so we ran it through on its own schedule. So on
November 4,2015 we had a public meeting and heard testimony and public comment. I have prepared a staff report
for evaluating the application for changing reader board signs for any public or quazi public entity, which later we
tightened the definition down to a government entity, a group that's been formed though an RCW is how we could
get to a specific definition. This is to satisfy the situation of |efferson Transit. Then your documents of October 7tt
here's a map ofwhat we're trying to achieve. The brown zoning color category is real residential 1 and 10. The dark
blue is a LAMIRD a flimited area of more intensive rural development), a neighborhood crossroads, so it's considered
commercial. These changing message signs are allowed in commercial and industrial zones. f efferson Transit was
just outside the LAMIRD in a residential zone so their sign application had to be denied or the code changed. So the
question is: If we allowed any governmental entity in any residential district to have a changing message sign, what
would be the impact? That's the SEPA analysis I did that came up with a mitigated determination of non-significance.
Meaning that if we applied some mitigations, it probably wouldn't be a significant environmental impact. The other
part of my analysis is to look at the comprehensive plan and is it consistent with the comp plan? This was the hard
part as I began to look at the EIS's and the development of the comp plan, in Chapter 3; Land use and Rural, is where
it clearly defines what rural character is and what level of nuisances where going to allow in our rural residential
areas. We allow facilities like fefferson Transit to be in residential zones with a Conditional Use Permit. We don't
allow the signs to be there though. So we're trying to figure out some alternate text that would clearly define how
it's being applied and provide a solution to fefferson Transit without opening things up too big.
So we're here today to look at our text. We had a public hearing, about a dozen people came, around 9 people spoke,
mostly about Port Ludlow, that they are in the Port Ludlow MPR, which is a little bit different zoning category, but
they're in what you might consider it a mixed use commercial zone however they're within 200' of open space and a
residence. So the code read that you can't do that. We Iooked at the effect of that Prohibition County wide at the
governmental entities: the firehouses, the parks, the sch the shops and nearly everyone is on a residence or near
Pitge ? !i
Jeff'erson County Planning Commission
MEETINGMINUTES
Tri-Area Community Center
December 02,2or1
P: :"16o^'l?r-.i.ii{)
li lt;{)-.1-r()-.11ii
plarttt tttl rt rr,):r:, l. i<'i'lirt sirtt.rra.tt:;
a residence so it became what we call "Trapped by the Ordinance". How do you implement the approval for a sign if
90 times out of 100 you're going to be faced with this restriction? So after the public hearing was over we began
deliberations, and we will complete those deliberations tonight.
What I sent out to you on Monday was in preparation of this were some options of how we might blend one or two
or parts of different options in order to achieve two basic things.
One is how do we allow f efferson Transit, which is a facility which is a public benefit to us all (some may define it as
an essential public facility, or a public purpose facilityJ, next door to a LAMIRD how can we allow them to have a
sign? What analysis or logic path would we follow to allow them to have this sign? We're going to be looking at what
are the impacts and how do we address the impacts in our development regulations? We address those, typically in
this type of situation with a Conditional Use Permit and there are criteria that I've provided in the staff report, of this
is how we evaluate a project that needs special permission or special review. The second thing is that they're across
the street they're next door, and they're all around residential. So we have that second prohibition of the 200'rule
and how do we address that? So in our post hearing deliberations last time we talked about this, what came forward
was "let's use the Conditional Use Permit process as a way of evaluating site by site what the impacts and mitigations
could be. So in a sense, we're taking out or not going to make an effort to define a one size fits all code, we're going
to use our Conditional Use Permit process to do a site by site analysis and that would allow f efferson Transit to have
a sign, being across the street from a residence, if they could come up with a design that would avoid problems with
that residence, and then it would also address the concerns with Port Ludlow, who were here with a very strong
message of "here we are with an MPR and we want to communicate with our other neighbors but we've got a lot of
residential and open space in our MPR that we're going to be able to find a place for a sign". So what I sent out, looks
just a bit different than what you have in front of you. You notice that I said revised December 1't. In putting my
proposed text together, I'm showing where we started from which was the applicant's text and DCD's proposed text,
that Mr. David Alverez had some hand in, but then after the Planning Commission's Public Hearing there is two, and
that's what we want to focus on tonight. This is to be responsive to the public comments. And I've put a sentence in
yellow, that's included in alternate proposed text #1 but I left it out of alternate proposed text #2 and that was an
oversite of mine. I was trying to pare down the text and be efficient but without including it in the second option,
I'm not allowing Port Ludlow to have a sign because it didn't address that specific case of an entity that is in a
commercial district but within 200' of a residence so it was intended to be a part of both of these so we could use the
Conditional Use Permit process to review these rather than having a 200' rule. So the new document I brought you
is updated. So both of these have that yellow sentence in there just to highlight that we mention that 200' rule but if
you're within 200'you can use a Conditional Use Process.
I was hoping the bullet points at the bottom reflect what each text does. So ifyou focus on them, we see that our new
proposed text that you're seeing tonight has two methods by reducing the number of changing messages. One is to
rezone Jefferson Transit Authority an Essential Public Facility thereby making it the only one and very special, (and
that sign would be allowed for them and no one else (generically)). The concern with that approach is that it takes
a long time to rezone them to an Essential Public Facility and they would not be able to illuminate the sign until that
process is done. We have a draftagreement with them saying: you can put the sign up, test it, but not illuminate until
the zoning's right. The other option may be more direct and helpful to f efferson Transit and that is: If you're within
100'of a LAMIRD and the reason for 100'is because that's the width SR19 and SR20 right of way, the State routes
have about a 100' right of way and Four Corner's Rd is about a 60' right of way, so that would be inclusive of that. It
wouldn't allow for a diagonal adjacency if you take the hypotenuse of a 60' triangle, you would end up being about
120'. The thought is we have these designated areas of more intensive rural development and if you're that close to
one, perhaps the nuisance of a lighted sign is not going to be that great, itwill only apply to governmental entities
which we find, looking at the geography of our governmental entities, they're in the communities they serve. They're
either on a residential parcel with a firehouse, next to other residential parcels or maybe they're in a LAMIRD but
they're next to a housing sub-development. So we're caught up by not being able to find very many cases by being
able to site one right in the middle of a LAMIRD. You can raise the intensity inside a LAMIRD and I've got some
findings here that might help tonight that might be able to help as I go through our required findings.
i:,,.,:. ,
Jefferson County Planning Commission
MEETINGMINUTES
Tri-Alea Community Center
December o2) zoLS
U:;.i60_:{79-4.lii{}
Ir: :i6()-il:g-;{:1Sl
pl:1nl rnl rnr,1.)t:r). jrrl'li:t:iixr. rra.rrs
I've put them in bullet points, it's kind of a logical path that supports the idea of allowing more intensity near a
LAMIRD and this deliberation with the required findings, you can play around with the different elements here but
basically were looking at signs for governmental entities being either only for Essential Public Facilities.
If you're close to a LAMIRD and then if you're within 200' of a residence or open space we'll use a Conditional Use
Process to permit those.
So we're not out of alignment of how our code is working with Conditional Use Permits in residential zones, we're
opening it up to governmental entities and we're allowing that governmental entity to go through that Conditional
Use process near a residential zone, it's kind of a fact of Iife for how fefferson Count5l's been developed. As far as
going back to the essential public facility, in our use table we already have a category under institutional uses called
transit facilities and it says yes they're allowed here, conditionally and so rural residential 1 in 10 is a conditional
use, which they went through so there's a consideration for transit facilities already in our use table. There are other
public facilities that have that same thought process of which ones are going to be conditional or discretionary or
allowed out right. There's even a category for unnamed conditional uses that you could put a transit center into.
Similarly we have, in our Public Facility section of our code that has advisory responses to whether they can be used
in these different districts. If you're siting a waste management faciliLy, it's a conditional use here, maybe a yes there
maybe not allowed here. The thing to point out is with an essential use facility, they're not sited in the same way as
a Conditional Use Permit does. The reason being is the wayyou site an Essential Public Facility is a Type 5 process,
is much like a zoning change. The way the RCW was written it has to do with train stations, regional transportation
facilities, rails to multi modal, ferry docks, things like that that are difficult to site. Or institutional buildings: Prisons,
other kinds of Institutional Health Centers, HoSpitals those are the types of things that GMA (Growth Management
Act) says a jurisdiction's Comprehensive Plan:and development regulations cannot prohibit the citing of these
facilities. They're going to take a little elevated different process, a Type 5 process. So right now we have f efferson
Transit already appropriately Iocated with a Conditional Use Permit on a rural residential parcel, we could rezone
them as an Essential Public Facility but I guess I'm wondering how much does that help them, they've already been
sited. We're not going to back track and give them a Type 5 process and give them a special use permit at this point
but it is a way to limit this sign to a very special circumstances so they're not all over the County.
CONCERNS FROM THE BOARD
M.f. Can we go with option #1 but they can't use the lit part till zoning was approved. Now can you take the lighted
part, and give them a Conditional Use Permit (an exception on this case) so they can use their sign?
f .P. If we applied #2 theycould light the sign as soon as their Conditional Use Permit has been approved and they
can re-zone later. The zoning of Essential Public Facility doesn't get us anywhere other than limiting the application
of this sign.
K.C. We're highly specializing the approach and one thought mentioned in a previous meeting was that we were
trying to do it in such a way that we were being a little more inclusive. I'm a little concerned that we may regret it in
the future. If this is a problem within the sign code that has a wider application, I'd steer away from a single one up
fix for this.
Is it true that if an application meets these criteria and goes through the option #2 and goes for a Conditional Use
Permit, can they still be denied?
Motion & Second for Alternate Proposed Text#2,ltem C in December 1,2015 revised document called Preparation
of December 2,2015 Planning Commission Meeting Update Reader-Board for MLA15-00063 Proposed UDC
amendment ICC 18.30.150 sign code.
t::: i iltct iiir n St.
J)(ifl'i-r'lr!lisl:t id i1.\ rlli.:ii:S
;r: i Sltr'r ir1:il'r St.
Pcll' Ii:n"rrsrrd l1',.1 t]8;-;(r8
Jefferson County Planning Commission
MEBTINGMINUTES
Tri-Area Community Center
December 02,2ors
P : :16r.)*:j7(l-,.1.1.5{)
F. 1_{r0-.}?9_{.1i1
;lianl.*tr rtti,i q:r r..ir'ilirrsolt.n a.t rs
ANSWERS AND ADDITIONAL INFORMATION PROVIDED
The Essential Public Facility approach is an eloquentway of limiting it but it prolongs the pain and if we go with Text
2, [proximity to a LAMIRD) they could apply for a Conditional Use Permit right after this is approved. If it is important
for them to be an Essential Public Facility that could be a separate activity they do through a Comprehensive Plan
Amendment process and we could have that Type 5 review.
My concern is that the EPF, as eloquent as it is, will drag us out quite a long time and maybe it's not needed. Then
we open up Quilcene and Brinnon, who are in similar situations there's two fire halls each that are right next to the
LAMIRD's there. So we have a handful of places where these may appear.
Approved: 5
Nay: 2
Abstention: 1
REQUIRED FINDINGS FOR GMA ON THE REQUIRED TEXT
Section 8.2 Planning Commission and Board of County Commissioner's Review of the Growth monagement Indicators
and Required Findings:
(DStrikethelasttwosentencesfromstafffindings.
(ii) Strike first sentence ffcim'itaff findings. '': ,:, ' .
(iii) Residents of Jefferson County want to have input regarding what happens in their neighborhoods and
the public value has changed regarding the Conditional Use Permit Review on a site by site basis to allow
changing message signs in appropriate areas.
.l ,,', ''..
Section 8.2.2 Criteria Governing Planning Commr'ssion ^Assessmenf;
No Changes
No Changes
N/A
No Changes
Amendments aren't necessary so it does not apply.
This code change does not dictate a need for a change to the Comprehensive Plan.
The proposal is consister-rtwith the Comprehensive Plan because we're Iinking itto the adjacent LAMIRD
and making it a conditional use permit review process which can allow the public to appropriately
evaluate the specific impact.
Section 8.3 Time, Place and Manner Findings:
8.3.1 Yes
8.3.2 Yes
8.3.3 Yes
B.3.4Yes
(i)
(ii)
(iii)
(iv)
(v)
(vi)
(vii)
l',1!1,, ! r)1':
i.:r rilrtrid:ru St.
I)or"l'li;*ttst':ttd \\t;\ !ti:j(i8
.Iefferson County Planning Commission
MEETINGMINUTES
Tri-Area Community Center
December c2,2or;
p: ij6o_3.9-.i,iio
!: :i(;o-:l:rl-:1:l;r
l)|ar){. ( )1}1 }l i {//j1}1. it'ili:r'sr ln. rr'it.Us
Section 8.4 Takings Findings:
B.4.1No
8.4.2 No
8.4.3 No
B.4.4No
8.4.5 No
Section 8.5 Findings on the Record:
8.5.1 The Sign Code process and deliberations
8.5.2 lt's all in the record.
8.5.3 Yes
ffj ffii": proposed amendment was reviewed by theicounty Deputy Prosecuting Attorney and found to meet
8.5.5 No the decision is mindful of all known instances in the,county.
9. Planning Commission Recommendation:
Motion & Second for Alternate Proposed Text #
of December 2, 20LS Planning Commission
Amendment, ICC 18.30.150 sign code.
'2, Item C in December 1, 2015 revised document called Preparation
Meeting Update Reader-Board for MLA15-00063 Proposed UDC
Approved: 5
Nay: 2
Abstention:7
Note to Board of County Commissioners: We recognize zoning issues with this particular request that could be
addressed in the Comprehensive Plan Amendment cycle to more clearly identi$r proper zoning. During our
discussion it was noted that the representation of several types of Public Facilities is inadequate in the use table. We
recommend that f efferson Transit pursue rezoning to EPF.
Presentation on December 14,2015 to the Board of County Commissioners.
PUBLIC COMMENTS
f ean Bell: Why not rezone transit to commercial instead of altering the code? I find it a little distasteful that we're
going to go through all the trouble of altering the code for one public entity? You wouldn't have altered it for me,
you won't alter it for my small business, and you won't alter it for my colleges so I find that a little hard to swallow.
About this singular applicant for the position of DCD Director, I find that really disappointing.
I hope he's really qualified and we love him. I wonder if we don't, can we throw him back and cast the net again?
Why is there such Iow interest in the job? Are we not offering an attractive enough package? You mentioned a single
offer of the laymen's form of the vision and I wonder what that's all about.
r):li ilt.ai)riiit! 5l
l\li'l'.1'r:r:tslrlttt t't-.ti t)[i3{i8
Jeff'erson County Planning Commission
MEETINGMINUTES
Tri-Area Community Ccntcr
December 02, zor1
P: 360 -:j?q-4 4Io
Irr:10o-ll7q-1.:iij
pl;]il{ ( lrtl tili;;l cr !. i( rf li')'sr)l} .1\'a .r ll:
FOLLOW UP ITEMS
OurnextmeetingisDecemberL6,20LShereat6:30. WewillbeworkingwithDCDontheagendabutwewillwant
some sub-committee reports.
I will be getting an outline (a little bit of direction) out to all of you. And the new sub-committee focus's and
assignments so you're real clear about that. So I'd love some sub-committee reports and I'm hoping to start talking
about a timeline and some recommendations for that $100,000.00, what do we want them to do with that? Let's be
clear ourselves so we can advocate clearly to the powers that be. We will be coming up with a timeline for outreach
so in your sub-committees be thinking about what you guys need in the way of public interaction so that we can
work with both pieces.
Old business: Iast meeting we were discussing proper communication methods. Any of us writing emails, we can't
simply write the Planning Commission Board. That's not proper. We need to go through DCD channel. We will get
clarity on this.
Next Planning Commission meeting scheduled for
Adj
L2/76/20L5 at 6:30 pm at the Tri-Area Community Center
ourned at B:44 pm
20L6.
Teresa A Smith, PC Secretary/DCD
These meeting minutes were approved day of
Cynthia Koan, Chair
titr S!:tt'irlii:r St.
i'9t'i I'rlr,."tts(rtt<'l \i;,1. (,t 36I'l
Jefferson County Planning Commission
MEETINGMINUTES
Tri-Area Community Center
January 06,2ot6
Call to Order at 6:30 pm
District 3
Brotherton: Present
Giske: Present
Hull: Present
l): ;1{:o-3;g-'"*t'
|: fi{:t.l-;;'9-1,15 t
pllrn{-:{rll'} r}t (r(xi,.icl ti rt's, lr, r,a. r rs
ROLL CALL
District 1
Coker: Present
Felder: Present
Koan: Present
District 2
Smith: Present
Sircely: Present
fochems; Present
Public in Attendance: Many
ApprovalofAgenda: Approved
Approval of Minutes: None to approve
STAFFUPDATES: NONE
COMMISSIONER ANNOUNCEMENTS:
ln 2016 the Planning Commission will meet twice a month, instead of once a month on the first and third Wednesday.
At the Tri Area Community Center in Chimacum unless announced otherwise. You can always check the DCD website
to see any changes.
Garth Mann from Statesman Group is the applicant and he will be telling you about his project:
Pleasant Harbor Planning Phase 14 on Pleasant Harbor Resort: We knew when we built it we wouldn't make any
money on it but had to get started. That was done through a BSP (Binding Site Plan) that had been in place twenty
years. The Pleasant Harbor and community has been integrated for quite a while. In 2015 we did a study to show
how many jobs would be created. The population within a five minute drive of Pleasant Harbor is 491 people. In a
fifteen minute drive it's 1,L62 and in a thirty minute drive it's 2,591. fefferson County total population in 2015 is
30,635 people. Washington State is a little over 7 million. The population in Brinnon has been declining over the
past five years. Compounding the change from 2010 to 2015: The County is increasing in size by Yz of 1% and the
State has increased by Lo/o. The median household income in this area is the lowest in the State at roughly $39,000.00
in20L5whiletheaverageincomeinWashingtonStateis$63,320.00. Youcanseethatthere'ssomethingnotpositive
in the County with regards to growth. The average age in this County is sixty years of age, the average age in the
State is roughly thirt5r-seven years. So you can see without jobs being created, the County will fade off into the sunset.
Negative growth is not a positive thing for a community. It will affect the character or your community.
We're planning to create Phase 1B: Our plan is to create roughly four hundred jobs in that period, with roughly fifty
million dollars revenue for the community. It's at Black Point Rd. and Highway 101. Each Phase takes roughly two
years to complete. The community of the Maritime Village Fun Center is for ages four to ninety-four. A Farmer's
Market, a Health Food Bistro, and a Community Walk Center also. We have sixty-six one and two bedroom sweets
overlooking the harbor for short term stays. A grand total of 89 L units, including some for staff housing. A Controlled
Pistol Range in the arcade level, with Sheriffs 0ffice, etc.
Phase 2: Davenport Community is a successful Destination ResorE It will have one hundred and ninety-one suites,
36,000 sq. ft. of commercial. It has a Health Exercise Center and Spa, Rejuvenation Plus Facility, Golf Pro Shop,
Variety Store, Olympia Dining and Steamboat Lounge, Commercial Kitchen, Convention Center, Wedding Chapel and
Sports Activities.
Staff Present
Garth Mann, Statesman Group, Ltd.
David W. f ohnson , Assoc, Planner
lr;: t Sit"t :rii: tt $l.
l'(r'i i'r\ril"q('l(l 11i1 qfl368
Jeft-erson County Planning Commission
MEETINGMINUTES
Tri-Area Community Center
January 06,2oL6
Phase 3: Will provide another opportunity for development with our fifty-two suites. They're designed to
accommodate a total of two hundred and eight people. Similar to a time share format. Very well decorated and a
nice addition. It will also provide some sort of transportation between Pleasant Harbor and Sea Tac Airport.
Phase 4: The completion of everything you see there.
The environment gets a lot of press, please see our footprint. We try to maintain as much of the habitat as we can.
We're really improving the two hundred and fifty-six acres out there and following the footprint. Our plan for the
environment is extremely sensitive. Our impervious footprint is less than 120/0. A state of the art Waste Water
Treatment Plant is a six million dollar plant. It can create class A water from this for our Golf Course and the Fire
Smart Program for irrigation. We will improve the design for the well for the quality of the aquifer and will put more
water back into it than we take out. We will monitor this per the County as well. We will have no water runoff. We
will use a conduit system at the bottom of the reservoir to accomplish heating and cooling. Improvements to
Highway 101 and Black Point Rd., and an improvement to parking requirements at State Dock Road. We'll also use
dark sky lighting with LED lights. We've reduced the Golf Course, at request, from eighteen to nine holes. We will
have public transportation coming to the sight also.
David W. f ohnson
Associate Planner
I'm going to cover the regulatory side of this. Specifically what the Planning Commission is being tasked to do as
There was an open house in 20L4 about this project, with the Environmental Impact Statement. There's Public
Review Binders roaming around the room. Please look at them and we can give you copies of them. Mr. Mann started
by meeting with us back in 2006 with his plans. SEPA (State Environmental Policy Act) is a very long, expensive
process you have to do with everything. Under SEPA you can take a large project and narrow it down into phases.
Phase 1 was a Comprehensive Plan, from rural zone property to a Master Plan Resort property. That was done, and
approved, in fanuary, 2008 with thirty conditions, including another (Supplemental) Environmental Impact
Statement (SEIS) and another Environmental Impact Statement [EIS) to analyze those two. In 2013 we hired EAE
Engineering to write the new EIS. In December 20\4we released the draft and had a presentation at the Community
Center, etc. At the conclusion of the forty-five day comment period we stopped and looked at them all and we
changed the draft, based on the comments, including Alternative #3 [Golf Course, (18 holes to t holes)). We finished
on December 9,20L5 and have it ready for the Planning Commission. We assume that the final FEIS is adequate for
SEPA.
The role of the Planning Commission specifically: We need to implement development regulations. We borrowed
Port Ludlow's MPR (Master Plan Resort) Development Regulations. This is what the Planning Commission will
review and make recommendations on starting in February, 2016.
The final element in Phase 2 is the Development Agreement. Under the Board of County Commissioners. It's a Iegal
contract we borrowed from Port Ludlow (with changes) as well.
P'360-ti7q-,1...1i{)
li: :ibi)-:l:q-1.4; I
l)lrr)l (ilu lt t,rrl trl..lcf.lt.t'sotr.rnit.t rs
A successful resorttoday has to be year round. We need to attract people from outside the area and work in concert
with nature and the environment.
ti:: i Slt.,r'illlrn St.
Irorl 'l'r)l\'ttsrIl(l 1'g;1 r.18 j68
Jefferson County Planning Commission
MEETINGMINUTES
Tri-Area Community Center
January 06,2cl6
P: ;r6()-:j?9-4..I50
F: :l(ro-:];tl-4-tr5 t
pl.lrnr:orn nrr..4co..icllirrsrln.r|a.us
The Staff Report I've already forwarded to the Planning Commission. This is the first time we've used this code in
lefferson County because we've never built a MPR in fefferson County before. State Law, to Comprehensive Plan, to
Unified Development Code and my recommendations and conditions of approval.
PUBLIC COMMENT
Until we've adopted the recommendations there will not be a Master PIan Resort.
PUBLIC HEARING
Phase 2 review process of the Master Plan Resort M0B0B-00188 for'Pleasant Harbor Resort:
Roma Call, (with Port Gamble S'Klallam Tribe): The proposed Pleasant Harbor Resort Project is within our tribes U
and A in an area where we rely on fish. We were not consulted after the February meeting and have had no input on
it. We continue to oppose this process. We are concerned about the adverse impacts on our land. The County
bypassed our Tribal Consultation Process when it approved the Pleasant Harbor Marina and they violated our Tribal
Treaty Rights.
Barbara Moore-Lewis I'm speaking for the Brinnon Group the 501c3 group. This will impose a burden to our
taxpayer's that they aren't willing to pay. Such as the Sheriffs needing to come down here for three shifts every day.
I have a documented study that shows all the extra costs. ,When the Commissioner's approved this, they put on thirty
conditions which were good but we have no proof they've changed to them.
Joe of Brinnon, Last spring 95% of our kids qualified for free or reduced lunch. It's all because we have no economy
here. fust from the retiree's, that's it. We have to create an economy here. This is an opportunity for f efferson Co.
to take a step into the future here.
Phil Best, Hood Canal Environmental Council: Think very hCrd about the conditions you need for a positive resull
Inadequate review time, consider the No Action Alternative, Hood Canal pollution.
Mr. Coleman: I've been operating a small business out of the marina so this is important to me. Mr. Mann's replaced
docks, the fuel system, met and exceeded all State.and Federal requirements, storm water management was NON
EXISTANT. Mr. Mann's improved the dangerous access road approaching Highway 101. Potable water supply was
obsolete. Now it's a state of the art system. Electrical, sanitation, restaurants, etc.
f ean Far: I live in Port Townsend zip code, not the city. I'm impressed with all the studies and analysis of this project.
We should all figure out ways to approve and move this project forward.
Samantha Boing: I'm twenty eight years old, without the Resort and Marina I'd have to move. There's nothing else
here for us. We NEED this kind of growth.
Darlene Shenfield: Overall we do support the Brinnon group's position including the no action alternative. The reuse
of wastewater into water isn't good. It's terribly toxic. You can't reuse it. The pathogens that you think you've killed
will come back to life. You can't get rid of the metals either. It's not safe, it will poison the land, animals, children
and pets. The State will approve it now but don't. It's still not safe.
i)lr Sli('r'irl:rt'l Sl.
Polt liltiltst'ild \i'A 98368
Jefferson County Planning Commission
MEETINGMINUTE,S
Tri-Area Community Center
January 06,2ot6
l:: :.i{ii)--t?9- ri jji I
l)l il n1 ( ]rn nl(./)(r)..k:l'li:r:sr ) n . (\'a . i ls
Brenda McMullan: ['ve been watching the Brinnon project for many years. The water is insufficient. There's only
one aquifer. It will pose severe challenges on using fresh water without seawater intrusion. The mere threat of it
should close this project immediately.
Monica Fletcher: With Sierra Clubs North Olympic Group: we respectfully request for more time to look at the FEIS
and the Staff Report and the MPR regulations that apply to Ludlow but not this area. We want more time for us to
respond: wetlands, water availability, fish and wildlife, traffic patterns, sewage waste issues.
Denny Schultz: This County has been in economic decline for twenty years. We need something. This will be the
largest employer in the County outside of Government. The only other is the Paper Mill. We need this project now.
Steve Schibly: I'm the Tourism Marketing Coordinator: This is a game changer that will help with Kalaloch Lodge,
Port Ludlow etc.
Ken Velbert: My wife and I chose Hood Canal to put our boat in for the rest of our life. We think it's so beautiful but
a very depressed area. We're excited about what's going on at Pleasant Harbor. It's out of this world. Please support
this.
Unknown: The regulation process is bad. Too many road blocks. I was a Planning Commissioner in 2008. We had
many meetings in Brinnon and got the agreement on the first phase., Don't cut the Golf Course from 18 to t holes.
We need this and more!
Steve Walker: The aquifer issue, the issue of traffic, We are deficient in medical services here. Everyone has to be
flown out already. The EIS is deficient We haven't seen the esthetic impacts either. The Black Point Resort will
increase poverty not decrease poverty. We'll have two hundred and twenty people laid off after Labor Day every
year!
George Sickle: I've been a property owner here since I was twenty years old. What would have happened to the area
had they not come up here in the first place? It was disastrous and polluted. Look what he's done here already.
RichardWhitehall: TheonlywayhereisHighwayl0lunlessyoucomebyboat. Howmuchgrowthwillthisproduce,
You cut the Golf Course back, cut the housing in half please. It will draw too many and the one road can't take it.
Rhonda Black: I support the Resort. I've been here for ten years and see NO young people staying. There's nothing
for them.
Scott Black: I've mixed feelings about the resorl I like the green and don't really want it to go. I've seen how bad it
can be.
Roger W: I attend all these meetings and see money being spent on how you can't do this or that, and I see how no
one has a job. They get into drugs. Stop preventing the development from trying.
Beth Strostern: This is the most beautiful place on earth. We came here in 2000 because of its peace and beauty.
The extent of the development will take away what we came to see. We're very concerned about it. I want to know
that there are teeth to enforce the promises that were made. Like will the resort employ two hundred people as we
were told?
i.l
i:-:t Sltt't'ir lrtn St.
i1-rrt lorrn:,r:rrcl \'\it q8368
,Jefferson County Planning Commission
MEETINGMINUTES
Tri-Area Community Center
January 06,201.6
P : ;1(rit-]j:9-.1 "1,:;o
Ir: 360-:17!)- il li I
l)lt rlil )lI rtl !.rj(:r ). it flfltsrtn. wit . tis
Christina Maloney: I'm an eight year resident of Brinnon and small business owner. The final EIS is a vast
improvement from the previous one. The County scheduled this meeting when all the snow birds are gone, because
it's winter and didn't give us much time at all to go over this documentation. I'm surprised about the discussion
concerning the displacement of businesses (included in the former EIS drafu) isn't in this one. The former one said
it wouldn't displace any businesses but it has displaced two, one of which is mine, Kayak Brinnon, and he also chose
to compete with me which has resulted in a 600/o decreased family income. I can't speak for the other business
owner, but I can tell you she was forced to shut down and liquidate. These actions, along with many other, have
caused a great distrust with this company within the community. They will increase population from 797 people to
close to 3,000 people. That's a2500/o increase. I and many others enjoy this area because it's remote. If you add
2,000 people, it will impact our lives greatly. I also am concerned because over 250 low wage workers will be laid
off each fall, letting our State Welfare System, OIy Cap and local Food Bank pick up the slack. The final EIS says 52
apartment houses will be built for the workers. In summary, I opt for scenario B.
Marion Murdock: As a longtime resident and property owner, I have concerns: traffic effects, controlled storm water
overflows, ecological integrity, local water resources, economic impacts on local businesses and infrastructure.
Traffic greatly increases every summer. The traffic study done was proved to be inadequate including only
intersections. I've witnessed a number of accidents and the proposed development would only add to this problem
with no expansion of the highway. Also concerned about the overflow of the grey water retention ponds. The
wetlands in this project area are classified as Category II and provide high levels of wetland functions and are difficult
to replace. The 2006 Wetland Functions Analysis not only used methods not up to date with current Washington
State protocols but didn't include a professional rare plant survey. They're uncommon in the Puget Sound and Hood
Canal area and the No Net Loss Policy dictates that these wetland resources should be maintained. The current
project contains no plan for maintaining biodiversiry of the remaining wetlands and does not provide adequate
mitigation for the loss of wetlands and their ecological, biochemical, hydrological and habitat functions. The FSEIS
says there's enough water for two years of development and after that another well can be drilled. I wonder what
everyone feels about that, with the possibility of salt water intrusion. It seems odd that the 2007 draft stated that
they wouldn't displace existing businesses but the first thing they did was open another kayak rental business
displacing the existing and professionally run one at Pleasant Harbor Paddle.
Rob Mitchell: Once again the FSEIS has been dumped on the Planning Commission and our citizen's right in the
height of our Holidays. We must require another additional review period. The same problems with the DSEIS
persist and remain unsolved traffic, water availability, a neighborhood water plan which does not protect current
homeowners. Noise and air pollution from an open pit mining operation and massive cut and fill. Disposal of large
volumes of bio solids, use of sewage treatment plant recycled water which does contain drugs and chemicals not
removed. The loss of peace and tranquility before and after construction. Overcrowding on our limited trail systems,
rivers and shell fish areas. The late addition of cutting the Golf Course from eighteen to nine holes which only cuts
construction costs. The late addition of scenario B in the no action alternative does not. The Brinnon Sub Area Plan
is not developed enough to seriously consider. It's full of vague and false negative impacts. The costs to all current
residents and tax payers, the lack of adequate emergency services, the traffic costs to working commuters,
commerce, tourism, and added pollution in the Hood Canal Watershed. Degradation of our only major highway and
secondary roads. This directly negatively impacts our health and safety. The high number of poverty level jobs
straining our taxpayer funded social services. This will increase our property taxes. An MPR at Black Point is the
worst possible location for future sustainable growth not only in Brinnon but for the entire Olympic Peninsula. We
should not hand over our last best resource for the developer's gain. The DSEIS was inadequate, the FSEIS was also
inadequate therefore the conclusion is to opt for scenario A the no action alternative.
f oanie Hendricks: I've been at all of these public meetings and still say this project is way too big. Think about
removing one million cubic yards of earth and vegetation, then getting five inches of rain. Think about what that will
do to our shell fish beds.
(r;: t $li.'r'irlirn S'.,
l!ifl'l'()\{-jtS(rt}d 11 q8'J6t3
Jefferson County Planning Commission
MEETINGMINUTES
Tri-Area Community Center
January 06,2oi.6
P : iifi.)-ijrq-.i.1 i;{)
l: : :-i6{)-:}a(,-,1 il51
lriln{.:( r.n'r,)Ii.'rcr). i{:ll(:l'sr)n.r\:a.us
I'm a larva department manager for Taylor Shellfish and I really care about what's going to happen to she shellfish
beds out there. Where I work we hire people from Port Ludlow, Port Townsend, and Sequim because we aren't
getting local people applying. Same with other businesses in this area. There's a lot of self- employed people in this
area. Because the scope of this project is so large, and I think it's detrimental to the environment, I would suggest
the no action alternative. I have Ietters from my family and some neighbors to give you.
Kathy Ackerman: When this first started I was a no. I thought it was too big and noisy and the pollution. Now I'm
much more encouraged. I love the idea that it's done in sections. Then more meetings before another section. I'm
still concerned about people's water quality and quantity in wells. But I think the planners and County Officials and
Statesman have done a wonderful job working and working this over and like I said it will be done in stages which I
think is the best approach.
Britney Edwards: I have three young children and my biggest concern is their development. The school is great here
but beyond that the opportunities are nonexistent for recreational activities. For basketball, dance or swimming I
have to drive at least forty-five minutes. After talking to Pleasant Harbor Marina, they're looking at opening the pool
to the community, as a membership. That's a huge opportunity. When my kids get older they'll need a place to work,
even part time, and a place to recreate with their friends. We love the idea of having more options and a place to go
and understand why it's taking so long, as we'd Iike to see a minimal impact on the environment as well. We
appreciate everything the Statesman Group has done so far and we're excited to see the rest come to fruition.
Sesial Culp: I support the idea of the project. Two concerns: traffic, and what the COUNTY will do about alleviating
it and the second is that the water studies have been well done I HOPE we won't run out of ground water. I see many
attractions to this project. I've heard the Resort will have a walk in Medical Clinic. I think you're going to get othei
medical professionals moving here to accommodate that increased population, and I think the people that already
live here are going to benefit from that And I want more medical personnel around here as well because I plan to
retire here soon. In short, the pies going to expand, economically, and everyone's going to get a bigger piece. The
existing businesses will have more business. It's not just the resort it just works that way. In short, change is
inevitable, and it's either going to be a continued deterioration of this community or taking the first step toward the
new future. It's our choice.
Eleanor Safar: I'm turning this research in about the Olympic Park Glaciers. The decline of them changes the
strearnflow, the snowmelt reducing the supply of water for the many competing uses and demands causing far-
reaching ecological and social economic consequences. We all understand the tremendous trend towards this region
and the use of the water with this resort. To add this huge development to this mix poses a long term transformation
of the forest landscape. Global warming is a reality. Look at development of Suncadia on Snoqualmie. They've been
in bankruptcy because of the economy now they're trying to take the two towns they vested in use of this project
and they're still in litigation because the developer decided to renegotiate their contracts. If you think this is going
to be easy, it isn't. Suncadia was once a 5 star resort, now it's a 3 star, and that's what happens when things get bad,
they say they're going to do a lot of good things for you, but look at what does happen. Suncadia is a pretty good
example of what I think will happen here, though I hope that's not the case.
Peter Vales: I'd like to urge the Planning Commission to recommend additional time to review this proposal. The
scale and location of this project right on Hood Canal, make a potential for a serious and irreversible damage to the
environment. The devil is in the details in the mitigation measures and having a review period over the Holiday over
something that's been in the works for ten years is simply not adequate. As an example, my comments made on the
draft of the Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement we simply asked that a letter from Dr. Richard Horner
dated 2007 who commented on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement be attached and reviewed as part of the
Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement because he raised a number of issues with storm water.
Jefferson County Planning Commission
MEETINGMINUTES
Tri-Alea Community Center
January o6, zot6
P : ;j6{.i-:J:9-"i 4 iI{)
I. :'i(rr-i.llq- ?!.{;1
pl arttrltt ntr,r) c.r)..jc 1'l r,,lsr) li , rr,e . r I s
In response to this, "thank you for your comments the 2007 AEIS was found to be adequate and therefore it is
assumed that the issues raised in Dr. Horner's letter were addressed in sufficient degree". So in other words, because
they were blown off in the EIS they should be fine in the SEIS. So, furthermore that letter from Dr. Horner was not
included with my comment letter in the response so it doesn't appear in there. And I'm going to ask the Planning
Commission to include it now and I'm giving you a copy of that. One of the issues Dr. Horner raised is with the
massive expansion of traffic along 101 and the hundreds of thousands of additional car trips, whatthe impact of that
would be in terms of storm water impacts from automobiles. There's a big section in here on that. His conclusion
with the FEIS was: Concentration of toxic materials such as various metals and road run off is the condition most
dangerous to aquatic life, the FEIS is an incomplete and thoroughly inadequate document not addressing these
impacts at all. So here's his letter to the Planning Commission.
Phil Benstead: Everyone's worried about the increase in traffic. When the Hood Canal Bridge was built it pretty
much decimated most of the businesses along the canal here, I don't think a little extra traffic is going to be bad for
business for anyone. It's going to be good for all the businesses along the canal. As far as poverty goes, I was just
talking to Mike and Elyse that run the Food Bank. They're currently servicing up to 900 families. Why are so many
using it? The other day someone mentioned the Sheriff and that the Resort wasn't going to pay for that. I would
personally pay to have an extra Sheriff here because I'm tired of the drug dealer's running up and down our streets,
I'm tired of kicking the people out that are making drug deals. The field over by the Marina now is being used as the
low life's furniture deposit depot and the park has thousands of visitors each year, I haven't seen the elk being
disturbed at all. Let's bring this project. I support it.
Catherine Brinnon: I know all the technical stuff has been addressed, however on a personal note; most of us moved
to this area because we like rural. We knew we had to drive a distance for anything. Kids never have like rural and
always fled to the City. If you want to live by a Resor! go buy property by one, don't screw it up for the rest of us
that are here for the rural.
If anyone brought written comments you can turn them in now. I'm going to allow them to be submitted until the
February 3,2076 meeting of the f efferson County Planning Commission. You can submit them to the DCD or you can
bring them on February 3.d. At that point we will stop taking them. The public testimony is now closed.
Deliberations will take place on February 3,2016 in Chimacum at the Tri Area Community Center. At the regular
first Wednesday of the month meeting of the Jefferson County Planning Commission. We will deliberate, then we
will make a recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners, who will have another hearing, so you will get
a chance to talk to them before they make a decision. Thank you.
FOLLOW-UP ITEMS
Next Planning Commission meeting scheduled for 02/03/2016 at 6:30 pm at the Tri-Area Community Center
Adjourned at 9:04 pm
These meeting minutes were approved this dav of- 20L6.
Cynthia Koan, Chair Teresa A Smith, PC Secretary/DCD
ilat. ..;i: