HomeMy WebLinkAbout104
STAFF REPORT
TO
JEFFERSON COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
AND
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
RE: Master Planned Resort )
Development Regulations ) FINDINGS OF FACT,
Development Agreement ) CONCLUSIONS, AND
File No: ZON08-00056; MLA08-00188 ) RECOMMENDATIONS
Applicants: Pleasant Harbor Marina and )
Golf Resort, LLC )
SUMMARY OF APPLICATION AND RECOMMENDATION:
Application: The proposed Pleasant Harbor Master Planned Resort, a 256 acre, 300 slip marina with resort amenities including a nine (9) hole golf course, requires approval of proposed
zoning and development regulations (DR) under Jefferson County Code (JCC) Title 17 to implement approval of the Site Specific Comprehensive Code Amendment to re-designate fourteen (14)
parcels from Rural Residential to Master Planned Resort zoning (MLA06-00087). The project also requires approval by the Board of County Commissioners of a development agreement (DA)
between the County and Developer as to the terms and conditions under which the development shall take place. The proposal includes completion of a Supplemental Environment Impact
Statement (SEIS) to ensure compliance with the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) and review and recommendation by the Jefferson County Planning Commission (PC), with final approval
by the Board of County Commissioners (BoCC).
Recommendation: Approval with Conditions
Project Planner: David Wayne Johnson, Associate Planner
BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
Property Owners: Pleasant Harbor Marina & Golf Resort, LLP
Attn: Garth Mann
7370 Sierra Morena Blvd SW
Calgary, AB T3H 4H9 Canada
Location: The project site is located on the east side of Highway 101 approximately one and a half (1.5) miles south of the Brinnon Community, west and south of Pleasant Harbor and
on the Black Point Peninsula on the west side of Hood Canal.
Legal Description: Parcel numbers include: 502153002, 003, 023, 020, 021 & 022; APN 502154002; APN 502152005, 012, 013, 014, 015 & 016 (and 017 for DRs), in Sections 15 & 22, Township
25, Range 02 West, WM, located in Brinnon, WA 98320
History: The Brinnon Subarea Plan (BSAP) of 2002 identified the existing, yet idle NACO Campground on Black point (BSAP page 45) as an ideal location for a Master Planned Resort (MPR).
A pre-application conference for an MPR on Black Point was requested by The Statesman Group of Calgary, Alberta, Canada and held on January 10, 2006. On March 1, 2006 The Statesman
Group submitted to Jefferson County a Comprehensive Plan Amendment to re-zone a portion of Black Point from Rural Residential to MPR (MLA06-87).
Initial Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) scoping, conducted in May 2006, identified probable significant adverse impacts. On October 2, 2006, The Statesman Group, formally requested
that the Environmental Impact Statement be changed from a permit-level, project EIS to a non-project, or programmatic EIS, necessitating the need for a Supplemental or project level
EIS (SEIS) prior to development. On November 27, 2007, a programmatic Final EIS was issued in association with a Comprehensive Plan Amendment request to re-designate the subject 256
acres from rural residential to Master Planned Resort. The Jefferson County Board of Commissioners (BoCC) approved the request on January 28, 2008 with Ordinance No. 01-0128-08 (Exhibit
A of this report), stipulating through conditions that any subsequent project level action would require a Supplemental EIS (SEIS).
In April of 2008, The Statesman Group applied for a Unified Development Code (UDC) Text Amendment and Development Agreement (MLA08-00188) to implement the MPR. A public “Scoping Meeting”
was held at the Brinnon School house on October 28th, 2009, and on March 31, 2010, DCD issued a Scoping Memo to Statesman defining the scope of the SEIS. DCD issued a revised Scoping
Memo on October 12, 2011 to address applicant initiated changes to the alternatives of the project due to the adoption on new Shoreline regulations. On July 3, 2012, DCD informed the
applicant that it would be hiring a third party consultant to draft the SEIS. On February 11, 2013, DCD signed a contract with EA Blumen (now EA Engineering) to author the SEIS.
On November 19, 2014, Jefferson County issued a Draft SEIS (DSEIS) for public and agency review with a 45 day comment period that ended on January 5, 2015. Re-development and renovation
of the Marina under an existing Binding Site plan began in May 2010 and was completed in April 2015. In July 2015, the applicant revised the resort plan to include a new preferred
alternative #3, which reduced the size of the golf course from 18 to 9 with a 3-hole practice course. This change necessitate re-review of some of the environmental elements. A Final
SEIS (FSEIS) was issued on December 9, 2015.
Site Description: The Pleasant Harbor site is located in south Jefferson County on the western shore of Hood Canal, about 1.5 miles south of the unincorporated community of Brinnon.
More specifically, the site is located on a 710-acre peninsula known as Black Point that is surrounded by the waters of Hood Canal on the north, south and east, and is bordered by
U.S. Hwy 101 to the west. Pleasant Harbor is an all-weather deep-water harbor formed by the west shore of Black Point and the mainland, and is connected to Hood Canal by a narrow channel
at the harbor’s north end. The project site consists of 13 parcels and is located on approximately 256-acres; 220-acres are located south of Black Point Road, 36-acres are located
north of Black Point Road.
The marina area includes the area north of the Pleasant Harbor House and the existing Bed and Breakfast (not owned by the applicant), and includes: a pool; Grocery and Food Service building;
pool equipment building; pool restroom building; laundry; and boaters’ shower; restroom building and docks for moorage of 300 slips. An existing Binding Site Plan (BSP) allowed redevelopment
of these structures within the same building footprint under separate building permits.
A small building that contained a former real estate office is located at the intersection of Black Point Road and U.S. Hwy 101. The area from this intersection to the BSP boundary is
forested with a narrow paved and gravel road that connects the gravel parking lot for the small office building with the marina area. Two single family residences are located at the
north boundary of this area including the Pleasant Harbor House, and a Bed & Breakfast.
Currently, the Black Point campground located to the south of Black Point Road is unused and consists of overgrown vegetated areas (trees, shrubs, and grasses), a system of paved and
graveled roads, paths, parking areas, tent camp sites, recreation vehicle (RV) pad sites, picnic areas with shelter buildings, an activity center and swimming pool that has been filled
with soil, playground equipment, restroom buildings with septic tanks and drain fields, wells for water supply, gravel borrow areas, an entry guard house, and fenced equipment storage
areas. None of the buildings within the former Black Point campground are in use.
The southern portion of the site is a steep bluff (100+ feet high) and a narrow beach fronting the shellfish beaches on the Duckabush River delta south of the Black Point peninsula.
A small path presently leads from the top of the bluff to the beach, but no development is located in proximity to the bluffs or the beaches. Beach access will not be allowed as part
of this proposal.
A Washington Department of Fish & Wildlife (WDFW) property located north of Black Point Road is approximately 28.7-acres and contains a boat ramp and picnic facilities at the sound end
of Pleasant Harbor. A boat access road connects Black Point Road to the boat launch. The remainder of the WDFW property is forested hillside. See Appendix D of the SEIS for details
of this existing access road and surrounding property.
Direct access to the Pleasant Harbor site is provided via Black Point Road. No vehicular access currently exists from Black Point Road to the north within the site area; however, a narrow
paved and gravel road connects the gravel parking area for the small former office building and the Pleasant Harbor Marina. Direct access to the gravel parking lot is from U.S. Hwy
101. This narrow road is overgrown in some areas. Vehicular access to the Pleasant Harbor House is via the marina area which accesses U.S. Hwy 101 and access to the Bed and Breakfast
is direct via the gravel driveway.
Vehicular entry to the existing campground is via Old Black Point Road, an undefined County Road that serves as the first 0.04 miles of the existing entrance into the campground. This
road is on property owned by WDFW. Old Black Point Road intersects with Black Point Road at approximately 0.05 miles from U.S. Hwy 101. Public access to the campground is currently
restricted via an entry gate at the entrance to the campground. The existing campground contains a network of privately-owned paved and gravel roads and paths.
Existing vegetative cover on the site is remnant from earlier logging activities and the former Black Point campground. Vegetation consists primarily of an over story of Douglas-fir
with red alder, black
cottonwood, bitter cherry, big leaf maple and Pacific Madrone. Understory includes broadleaf shrubs, red flowering currant, Scot’s broom, blackberry, vine maple, salal and evergreen
huckleberry.
The site is characterized by several relatively flat terraces, interspersed with steep slopes and a series of kettles or depressions. The topography of the site ranges from mean sea
level (msl) to about 320 feet above msl on the peninsula, and from msl to approximately 100 ft. above msl in the area north of Black Point Road. Slopes on the peninsula range from
less than 2 percent in the western portion of the site, to more than 100 percent in the area of steep coastal bluffs along the south boundary. The high point on the peninsula (at existing
grades) occurs in the southeast portion of the site.
The Black Point campground area contains several “kettle” depressions, formed when blocks of ice buried in glacial moraines melted. The largest of these kettles, Kettle B in the north-central
portion of the site, occurs in impervious soils and supports a wetland. Other kettles on the site occur in porous soils and are well-drained. Three wetland systems have been delineated
in the central and eastern portions of the site. Refer to Section 3.7 of the SEIS for further information on wetlands. Two streams flow through the site north of Black Point Road.
Both streams are seasonal streams that do not support fish use or habitat and are classified as Type Ns streams that require a minimum 50-foot buffer dependent on the gradient per Jefferson
County Code (JCC 18.22.270).
The private water system infrastructure within the site area presently includes supply wells, storage facilities and distribution piping. Two wells supply water to the site including
an existing well south of Black Point Road that provides water for the Black Point campground. The second well north of Black Point Road serves the existing Bed and Breakfast. Another
well outside of the SEIS boundary serves the marina and the Pleasant Harbor House. Two additional wells within the site located north of Black Point Road serve areas outside the site
boundary on the Black Point Peninsula.
The existing wastewater collection, treatment and discharge system on the site consists of gravity sewer collection systems, septic and pump tanks, pumps, forcemains, and subsurface
drainfields. The Pleasant Harbor House has its own pump tank and grinder pump. The Bed and Breakfast is served by its own septic system. There are several septic systems throughout
the Black Point campground area that are currently not in use.
Most natural runoff on the site is presently contained in the kettles or is filtered through natural vegetation. Existing stormwater runoff conveyance systems in the form of culverts
are located under Black Point Road and in the streams and drainages north of Black Point Road. Untreated surface drainage from U.S. Hwy 101 is collected in roadside ditches and conveyed
to culverts that pass the runoff under the highway to open channels and other culverts to discharge in Pleasant Harbor.
Existing utilities in both areas of the site include electrical power, propane gas and telephone. Electricity is supplied to the site via the Mason County PUD. Propane gas is utilized
by the adjacent marina and surrounding residential uses. Natural gas is not provided in the area.
More details of the site can be found in Chapter 2 of the FSEIS.
Proposal Alternatives: The FSEIS evaluates potential impacts resulting from the proposed project-level development. The following are alternatives evaluated within the FSEIS:
1. Alternative 1 consists of an 18-hole golf course, 890 residential units, 49,772 square feet of commercial space and resort related amenities on a 231 acre site, with 31 acres of natural
area preserved and 2.2 million cubic yards of earthwork required for golf course grading.
2. Alternative 2 consists of the 18-hole golf course, 890 residential units, 56,608 square feet of commercial space with resort related amenities and 80 acres of natural area preserved
with 1 million cubic yards of earthwork for golf course grading.
3. Alternative 3, also the Applicant’s Preferred Alternative, consists of a 9-hole golf course with a 3-hole practice course, 890 residential units, 56,608 square feet of commercial
space with resort related amenities and 103 acres of natural area preserved with 1 million cubic yards of earthwork for golf course grading
4. No Action Alternative – it is assumed that the site’s current land use designations would remain (Comprehensive Plan MPR and Rural Residential zoning designations) and the site would
remain primarily in rural residential use. Two scenarios are analyzed for this alternative in this Final SEIS; Scenario A – Continuation of existing conditions; and, Scenario B – Redevelopment
of the site under existing land use designations with single family residential uses and a 9-hole golf course.
The 300 slip Marina at Pleasant Harbor, although within of the Master Planned Resort boundary, was not included in FSEIS analysis because it has been re-developed under an existing Binding
Site Plan.
Project Phases: The applicant proposes to complete the Pleasant Harbor Marina and Golf Resort over the course of approximately 10 years, or in response to market demand. The phasing
plan for development under the preferred Alternative 3 is as follows:
Phase 1:
• Construct U.S. Hwy 101 and Black Point Road intersection improvements
• Construct Marina Access Drive within SEIS site
• Construct relocated WDFW Boat Access Road
• Construct Water Storage Tank at Tee 9 with transmission/distribution piping
• Redevelop Resort Well
• Create Construction Materials Processing Location on Golf Course Site
• Construct Septic Tanks and Sand filters on WWTP Site (Large Onsite Septic System – LOSS)
• Construct Drip Line Drainfield in Fairway 14 (LOSS)
• Set up Construction Camp
• Construct Maritime Village Building and Parking
• Construct Transit Stop Parking
Phase 2:
• Construct Electric Power Infrastructure for Resort Site (Mason County PUD Improvements)
• Construct site utilities for Phase 2 – utilities underground and roads
• Construct Terrace 1 Building (191 units; 36,000 sf commercial)
• Develop second well
• Construct Kettle B Reservoir
• Create wetland in Kettle C
• Construct storm pond at Fairway 10 with stormwater pumps
• Clearing and grading of site
• Begin Golf Course construction (grading/contouring) and create plant/tree nursery
• Construct Wastewater Recovery Plant
• Construct Maintenance Building and Staff Quarters (52 units)
Phase 3:
• Construct Golf Terraces 2, 3 and 4 (329 units)
• Construct Sanitary Sewer Pump Stations and Force main
• Construct site utilities for Phase 3 – utilities underground and roads
• Complete Golf Course Construction
• Construct Golf Halfway House (snack and beverage) at Fairway 9
• Reconstruct Black Point Road
• Golf Course opens
Phase 4:
• Construct Seaview Villas (206 units)
• Construct Golf Vistas (44 units)
Comprehensive Plan Designation: The Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan designates the subject parcels as Master Planned Resort (MPR). The purpose and intent of the MPR designation
is to establish a master planned resort land use district to be applied to those properties the board of county commissioners (BoCC) determines are appropriate for development as a
master planned resort consistent with the Comprehensive Plan policies and RCW 36.70A.360. The BoCC re-designated the subject parcels MPR from Rural Residential zoning on January 28,
2008.
Site Visit: Jefferson County Development Review staff have conducted several site visits, most recently in June 2015.
DATE OF APPLICATION: An application (MLA08-00188) to amend the GMA Implementing regulations (Unified Development Code – Jefferson County Code Titles 17 & 18) and a request for a Development
Agreement was submitted to DCD on April 16, 2018 consistent with JCC 18.45.090(1)(c), and deemed complete on May 14, 2008 per JCC 18.40.110(4).
STATE ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT (SEPA): This application was reviewed under the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA), utilizing the Supplemental EIS (SEIS) type per WAC 197-11-405(4)(a)
and as required by Jefferson County Ordinance No. 01-0128-08 condition 63(b). Jefferson County, as Lead Agency, issued a Draft SEIS on November 19, 2014 with a 45 day comment period
that ended on January 5, 2015. The Final SEIS (FSEIS) was issued on December 9, 2015.
JEFFERSON COUNTY DEVELOPMENT APPROVALS AND PERMITS REQUIRED:
Type V Amendment to Development Regulations
Type V Development Agreement
Type III Binding Site Plan or Type I Boundary Line Adjustment
Type I Stormwater Permit for Infrastructure and Class IV General Forest Practices with Public Works review
Type I Building permits
APPLICABLE JEFFERSON COUNTY ORDINANCES:
Jefferson County Code (JCC), JCC Titles 17 & 18, Unified Development Code, as amended
Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan, adopted August 28, 1998, as amended
NOTICE REQUIREMENTS:
As required under JCC 18.40.150 & 780
Public Notice was published in the Port Townsend-Jefferson County Leader newspaper and mailed to parties of record:
Notice of Scoping for Preparation of Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement to address Zoning Code Amendments, Development Agreement, and Project Level Environment Review of the
Master Plan for the Brinnon Master Planned Resort: October 14, 2009.
Notice of Availability of Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (DSEIS) and Request For Comments on DSEIS for Pleasant Harbor Marina and Golf Resort LLC Master Planned Resort:
November 19, 2014
Notice of Availability of Final Supplement Environmental Impact Statement (FSEIS) and Notice of Planning Commission Public Hearing and Notice of Intent to Amend Unified Development code
(UDC) for Pleasant Harbor Marina and Golf Resort LLC Master Planned Resort: December 9, 2015. Notice was also posted on the project site on December 23, 2015.
COMMENTS:
Public and Agency comments and staff responses to each comment to the DSEIS can be found in Volume II of the FSEIS. A summary of comments received can be found in Chapter 5 of the FSEIS
and is reproduced here as Exhibit B of this report.
PROPOSED FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS:
This section constitutes staff’s findings and conclusions regarding the applicant’s consistency with Washington State Statue, the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan and the Jefferson
County Unified Development Code.
RCW 36.70A.360 Master Planned Resorts: The proposed development is subject to the following criteria and requirements of the Revised Code of Washington (RCW)
Counties that are required or choose to plan under RCW 36.70A.040 may permit master planned resorts which may constitute urban growth outside of urban growth areas as limited by this
section. A master planned resort means a self-contained and fully integrated planned unit development, in a setting of significant natural amenities, with primary focus on destination
resort facilities consisting of short-term visitor accommodations associated with a range of developed on-site indoor or outdoor recreational facilities.
Staff Comment: as reviewed, approved and conditioned under Ordinance No. 01-0128-08 (Exhibit A), the proposal complies this criterion. Subsequent development shall comply with the conditions
of approval under Ordinance No. 01-0128-08 #63(a) thru (dd), and specifically condition 63 (aa) that requires a minimum of 65% of residential units be provided for short-term visitor
accommodations, and the FSEIS that lists the resort amenities (Appendix S of the FSEIS and Exhibit C of this report) and recreational facilities.
NOTE: Ordinance No. 01-0128-08 was appealed and upheld by the Western Washington Growth Management Hearings Board (Brinnon Group and Brinnon MPR Opposition v. Jefferson County and Pleasant
Harbor - Case No. 08-2-0014 Final Decision and Order) on September 15, 2008. The Board’s Synopsis of Decision is reproduced here: “In this Order the Board finds that the process employed
by Jefferson County to adopt a comprehensive plan amendment authorizing a proposed Master Planned Resort map legal description and text amendment for the Brinnon Master Planned Resort
complied with the Growth Management Act's public participation requirements, as well as the process required under the Jefferson County Code. In addition, the Board finds in this Order
that Petitioners have failed to demonstrate that any of the challenged
aspects of the Brinnon MPR create an inconsistency such that one feature of the Jefferson County plan is incompatible with any other feature of its plan or regulation. The Board also
finds that Petitioners have not demonstrated that the adoption of the Ordinance and environmental review fails to comply with the substantive and procedural requirements of Chapter
43.21C RCW including implementing regulations in Chapter 197-11 WAC and JCC 18.40.700 et seq. including the procedural requirement for consideration of alternatives in the EIS. As the
Board has not found any area of noncompliance, there is no basis for a finding of invalidity.”
Capital facilities, utilities, and services, including those related to sewer, water, storm water, security, fire suppression, and emergency medical, provided on-site shall be limited
to meeting the needs of the master planned resort. Such facilities, utilities, and services may be provided to a master planned resort by outside service providers, including municipalities
and special purpose districts, provided that all costs associated with service extensions and capacity increases directly attributable to the master planned resort are fully borne by
the resort. A master planned resort and service providers may enter into agreements for shared capital facilities and utilities, provided that such facilities and utilities serve only
the master planned resort or urban growth areas.
Staff Comment: the resort will be completely self-contained in terms of water, waste water and stormwater treatment. Basic security systems and personnel will be provided on-site by
the developer, along with a 500 square foot room dedicated to law enforcement. Fire and emergency medical will be provided by the local Fire District and Jefferson Healthcare. The
Developer is required under Ordinance No. 01-0128-08 condition (c) to maintain a Memorandums of Understanding with the Sheriff’s Department, Fire District and Jefferson Healthcare to
provide those services.
Nothing in this subsection may be construed as: Establishing an order of priority for processing applications for water right permits, for granting such permits, or for issuing certificates
of water right; altering or authorizing in any manner the alteration of the place of use for a water right; or affecting or impairing in any manner whatsoever an existing water right.
All waters or the use of waters shall be regulated and controlled as provided in chapters 90.03 and 90.44 RCW and not otherwise.
Staff Comment: Water rights have been granted for three (3) on-site wells by the Department of Ecology under application number G2-30436. Approval of a Class A Water System by the
Department of Health is required prior to any County development permit approval per Ordinance No. 01-0128-08 condition (n).
A master planned resort may include other residential uses within its boundaries, but only if the residential uses are integrated into and support the on-site recreational nature of
the resort.
Staff Report: No more than 35% of residential use shall be for permanent use. Fifty two (52) residential uses shall be dedicated to Staff Housing as required under Ordinance No. 01-0128-08
condition (g). Both uses are integrated into and support the recreational nature of the resort.
(4) A master planned resort may be authorized by a county only if:
The comprehensive plan specifically identifies policies to guide the development of master planned resorts;
Staff Comment: Comprehensive Plan Land Use and Rural element goal LNG 24.0 and policies LNP 24.1 thru 24.13 guide the development of new Master Planned Resorts and will be addressed
specifically in the following section on the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan. Under
Ordinance No. 01-0128-08, the BoCC made an affirmative statement to satisfy this criterion (see Exhibit A, page 5 #34).
The comprehensive plan and development regulations include restrictions that preclude new urban or suburban land uses in the vicinity of the master planned resort, except in areas otherwise
designated for urban growth under RCW 36.70A.110;
Staff Comment: Under Ordinance No. 01-0128-08, the BoCC made an affirmative statement to satisfy this criterion (see Exhibit A, page 5 #33).
The county includes a finding as a part of the approval process that the land is better suited, and has more long-term importance, for the master planned resort than for the commercial
harvesting of timber or agricultural production, if located on land that otherwise would be designated as forest land or agricultural land under RCW 36.70A.170;
Staff Comment: Under Ordinance No. 01-0128-08, the BoCC made an affirmative statement to satisfy this criterion (see Exhibit A, page 5 #33 & 34).
The county ensures that the resort plan is consistent with the development regulations established for critical areas; and
Staff Comment: applicable sections of the Critical Area ordinance (JCC 18.22) will be addressed under the Jefferson County Unified Development Code section.
On-site and off-site infrastructure and service impacts are fully considered and mitigated.
Staff Comment: the FSEIS fully considered and suggested mitigation for transportation, water, wastewater, solid waste, stormwater, telecommunications and public services, and under
Ordinance No. 01-0128-08 condition (c), Memorandums of Understanding are required for all public service providers.
[1998 c 112 § 2; 1991 sp.s. c 32 § 17.]
NOTES:
Intent—1998 c 112: "The primary intent of this act is to give effect to recommendations by the 1994 department of community, trade, and economic development's master planned resort task
force by clarifying that master planned resorts may make use of capital facilities, utilities, and services provided by outside service providers, and may enter into agreements for
shared facilities with such providers, when all costs directly attributable to the resort, including capacity increases, are fully borne by the resort." [1998 c 112 § 1.]
Staff Comment: The 30 conditions imposed on the developer under Ordinance No. 01-0128-08 and specifically condition (c) that requires Memorandums of Understanding (MOUs) with service
providers is the BoCC response to this intent.
Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan: The proposed development is subject to the goals and policies of the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan. The following Plan goals and policies
apply to the proposal:
The Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan, 1998, Land Use and Rural Element
MASTER PLANNED RESORTS
As required under Ordinance No. 01-0128-08 Section Two, the following text amended the Comprehensive Plan narrative on page 3-23, last paragraph:
“Early in 2008, Jefferson County designated a new Master Planned Resort (MPR) in Brinnon. The new Master Planned Resort is 256 acres in size and includes the Pleasant
Harbor and Black Point areas. The Marina area is existing and would be further developed to include additional commercial and residential uses such as townhouses and villas. The Black
Point area of the new resort would include new facilities such as a golf course, a restaurant, a resort center, townhouses, villas, staff housing, and a community center. The overall
residential construction would not exceed 890 total units.”
Staff Comment: Since the adoption of Ordinance No. 01-0128-08 in January 28, 2008, the then proposed marina development has changed due to the required 150 shoreline buffer under the
new Shoreline Master Program. The proposed additional residential and commercial development was moved out of the marina area and up to and abutting Highway 101 as the Maritime Village
complex. As such, Staff recommends the following revision to this text to be included the Ordinance adopting the Development Agreement, as well as included in the periodic update to
the Comprehensive Plan Amendment due June, 2018:
“Early in 2008, Jefferson County designated a new Master Planned Resort (MPR) in Brinnon, known as the Pleasant Harbor Master Planned Resort. The new Master Planned Resort is 256 acres
in size and includes the Pleasant Harbor Marina and Black Point areas. The Marina area is existing and would be redeveloped under a legally permitted Binding Site Plan. The Black Point
area and Maritime Village along the Highway 101 of the new resort would include new facilities such as a golf course, a restaurant, a resort center, townhouses, villas, staff housing,
and a community center. The overall residential construction would not exceed 890 total units.”
GOALS AND POLICIES – Land Use and Rural Element
Goal 24.0 (p. 3-65) states:
Provide for the siting of Master Planned Resorts (MPRs) pursuant to the adoption of development regulations consistent with the requirements of the Growth Management Act (RCW 36.70A.360),
in locations that are appropriate from both an economic and environmental perspective.
Staff Comment: The proposal is consistent with this goal since Ordinance No. 01-0128-08 approved the re-designation of the subject parcels from Rural Residential to Master Planned Resort
on January 28, 2008, effectively siting the resort on the subject parcels.
Policy 24.1 - Master planned resorts are generally larger in scale, and involve greater potential impacts on the surrounding area, than uses permitted under the Small -Scale Recreation
and Tourist Uses standards. MPRs may constitute urban growth outside of urban growth areas as limited by RCW 36.70A.360.
Staff Comment: The proposal is consistent with this policy as approved under Ordinance No. 01-0128-08.
Policy 24.2 - Owners of sites where MPRs are proposed to be located must obtain an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map, giving the site a master planned resort designation
prior to, or concurrent with an application for master plan review. The comprehensive plan amendment process should evaluate all of the probable significant adverse environmental impacts
from the entire proposal, even if the proposal is to be developed in phases, and these impacts shall
be considered in determining whether any particular location is suitable for a master planned resort.
Staff Comment: The proposal is consistent with this policy as approved under Ordinance No. 01-0128-08.
Policy 24.3 - The process for siting a master planned resort and obtaining the necessary Comprehensive Plan designation shall include all property proposed to be included within the
MPR and shall further include a review of the adjacent Comprehensive Plan land use designations/districts to ensure that the designation of a master planned resort does not allow new
urban or suburban land uses in the vicinity of the MPR. This policy should not be interpreted, however, to prohibit locating a master planned resort within or adjacent to an existing
Urban Growth Area or within or adjacent to an existing area of more intense rural development, such as an existing Rural Village Center or an existing Rural Crossroad designation.
Staff Comment: The proposal is consistent with this policy as approved under Ordinance No. 01-0128-08.
Policy 24.4 - MPRs should not be located on designated Agricultural Resource Lands or Forest Resource Lands, unless the County specifically makes the finding that the land proposed for
a Master Planned Resort is better suited and has more long-term importance for the MPR than for the commercial harvesting of timber or production of agricultural products, and also
makes the finding that the MPR will not adversely affect adjacent Agricultural or Forest Resource Land production.
Staff Comment: The proposal is consistent with this policy as approved under Ordinance No. 01-0128-08.
Policy 24.5 - The master planned resort shall consist of predominantly, short-term visitor accommodations and associated activities, but may include some other permanent residential
uses, including caretakers' or employees' residences and some vacation home properties, provided they must be integrated into the resort and consistent with the on- site recreational
nature of the resort. MPRs may propose clustering construction, setbacks, lot sizes, and building sizes that vary from those normally found in the Rural or Resource Lands designations.
Staff Comment: No more than 35% of residential use shall be for permanent use. Fifty two (52) residential uses shall be dedicated to Staff Housing as required under Ordinance No. 01-0128-08
condition (g). Both uses are integrated into and support the recreational nature of the resort. The proposal includes suggested development and zoning regulations that deviate from
those found in other zoning districts. The proposal is consistent with this policy.
Policy 24.6 - The master planned resort may include indoor and outdoor recreational facilities, conference facilities and commercial and professional activities and services that support
and are integrated with the resort. These facilities shall be primarily designed to serve the resort visitors, either day visitors or overnight visitors, but may also provide some limited
goods and services for the surrounding permanent residential population.
Staff Comment: Ordinance No. 01-0128-08 condition (d) requires the applicant provide a list of amenities which include recreational, commercial or professional activities and services
(non-residential or operational) and identifies which are accessible to the general public. That list is Exhibit C of this report. The proposal is consistent with this policy.
Policy 24.7 - The capital facilities, utilities and services, including those related to sewer, water, storm water, security, fire suppression, and emergency medical provided on-site
shall be limited
to meeting the needs of the resort. These facilities, utilities, and services may be provided by outside service providers, such as special purpose districts provided that the resort
pays all costs associated with service extension capacity increases, or new services that are directly attributable to the resort, and provided that the nature of the facilities and
services provided are adequate to meet the increased needs of the resort, based on the planned concentration of guests, structures and other facility, utility and service demands. Plan
approval shall provide that facilities serving the resort, which may be urban in nature, not be used to serve development outside the resort areas, except at appropriate rural densities,
uses, and intensities.
Staff Comment: the FSEIS fully considered and suggested mitigation for transportation, water, wastewater, solid waste, stormwater, telecommunications and public services, and under
Ordinance No. 01-0128-08 condition (c), Memorandums of Understanding are required for all public service providers to ensure that those infrastructure and services required by the resort,
are contained within the resort and fully paid for by the developer. No resort infrastructure or services are to be provided to areas outside the resort, with the exception of water
service to those residential uses under the Neighborhood Water Supply Program (Appendix F). The proposal is consistent with this policy.
Policy 24.8 - MPRs should only be approved when it can be demonstrated that, on-site and off-site impacts to public services and infrastructure have been fully considered and mitigated.
Staff Comment: the FSEIS fully considered and suggested mitigation for transportation, water, wastewater, solid waste, stormwater, telecommunications and public services, and under Ordinance
No. 01-0128-08 condition (c), Memorandums of Understanding are required for all public service providers to ensure that those infrastructure and services required by the resort are
fully paid for by the developer. The proposal is consistent with this policy.
Policy 24.9 - The MPR shall contain sufficient portions of the site in undeveloped open space for buffering and recreational amenities to help preserve the natural and rural character
of the area. Where located in a rural area, the master planned resort should also be designed to blend with the natural setting and, to the maximum extent practical, screen the development
and its impacts from the adjacent rural areas outside of the MPR designation.
Staff Comment: Natural open space, pervious and impervious surface area calculations are contained in Table 2-3 (page 2-35) of the FSEIS (Exhibit D of this report). Alternative 3,
the Applicant’s preferred alternative, preserves 103 acres of natural undisturbed open space from a total site acreage of 231 acres - 45% or nearly half of the total site area. With
the exception of the Maritime Village Complex (which needed to be relocated from the Marina to along Highway 101), and those properties at higher elevations west of the resort, the
resort shall be screened from view with vegetation and site topography to the maximum extent practical. The proposal is consistent with this policy.
Policy 24.10 - The MPR must be developed consistent with the County's development regulations established for environmentally sensitive areas and consistent with lawfully established
vested rights, and approved development permits.
Staff Comment: The FSEIS analyzed impacts consistent with current Critical Area regulations under JCC 18.22, and shall be described in further detail in the Jefferson County Unified
Development Code section below. The application includes draft development regulations and a Development Agreement (Exhibit E of this report) that regulate how development will occur,
and address vested, legal non-conforming rights and uses, as well as development permit review and approval for the resort. Proposed section JCC 17.60.040 of the development regulations
allow Title 15 (building code) and Title 18 (Unified Development Code) to supplement the proposed
new development regulations for the resort, including JCC 18.22 Critical Areas. The proposal is consistent with this policy.
Policy 24.11 - Master planned resorts shall include existing or new Development Agreements, as authorized by RCW 36.7013.170, to implement these policies.
Staff Comment: The Development Agreement is a contract between the County and Developer over the terms and scope of development, and is also a requirement under JCC 18.15.123(4). The
BoCC will hold a public hearing before the Development Agreement is signed. A draft of the Development Agreement is included in Exhibit E of this report. The proposal is consistent
with this policy.
Policy 24.12 - The County shall prepare development regulations to guide the review and designation of master planned resorts that include, at a minimum, compliance with these policies.
Staff Comment: JCC Title 18 Article IV Master Planned Resorts – Special Provisions constitute the development regulations cited above, and shall be reviewed in detail in the Jefferson
County Unified Development Code sections below. The proposal is consistent with this policy.
Policy 24.13 - New or expanded existing master planned resorts must be located in areas or existing shoreline development, such as marinas and shoreline lodges, which promote public
access to developed shorelines, and/or locations which promote public access and use of
National Parks and National Forests.
Staff Comment: The proposed resort as located includes Pleasant Harbor, a marina and public access point to the shoreline, and Black Point Peninsula, which is completely surrounded
by marine waters. The site is also within close proximity to access of the Olympic National Park and adjacent National Forests. The proposal is consistent with this policy.
Jefferson County Unified Development Code: The proposal is subject to review to determine consistency with the Jefferson County Unified Development Code. The following code sections
are applicable to the proposal.
JCC 18.15.025 Master Planned Resort
Per RCW 36.70A.360, a new master planned resort means a self-contained and fully integrated development with primary focus on resort destination facilities that includes short-term visitor
accommodations associated with a range of indoor and outdoor recreational facilities within the property boundaries in a setting of significant natural amenities. A resort may include
other residential uses, but only if the residential uses are integrated into and support the on-site recreational nature of the resort.
Staff Comment: As described in the prior two review sections, the proposal is consistent with this description as a land use district. The following is the applicant’s proposed new
subsection (2) to this section, to follow subsection (1) describing Port Ludlow as the first Master Planner Resort (MPR). Staff’s suggested edits are indicated by strike-through and
underline:
(2) Pleasant Harbor Marina and Golf Resort. Pleasant Harbor Marina and Golf Resort is the second officially designated master planned resort in the County. The Pleasant Harbor MPR is
designated in accordance with RCW 36.70A.360 as a new master planned resort and is subject to the provisions of JCC Title 17 Article II. The Pleasant Harbor MPR is characterized by
a golf course resort facility with associated residential uses south of Black Point Road, a 300 slip Marina at Pleasant Harbor, and a Maritime Village mixed use recreation center with
associated housing north of Black Point Road. The resort is designed to serve
resort and recreation uses and has only limited full-time occupancy. The resort is located within 2 miles of the Brinnon Rural Center, which accommodates LAMIRD-scale commercial uses
serving the resort and local population. The master planned resort's internal regulations and planning restrictions such as codes, covenants and restrictions may be more restrictive
than the requirements in JCC Title 17. However, Jefferson County does not enforce private codes, covenants and restrictions.
JCC Chapter 18.15 Article IV. Master Planned Resorts – Special Provisions
JCC 18.15.115 – Designation - "Master planned resort" (MPR) is a land use designation established under the Comprehensive Plan. The officially designated master planned resorts in the
county are the Port Ludlow MPR and the Pleasant Harbor MPR, 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 36.70A.360 pertaining to new Master Planned Resorts. Designation of any new master planned resorts
pursuant to RCW 36.70A.360 requires compliance with the provisions of this article and a formal site-specific amendment to the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map subject to the findings
required by JCC 18.45.080.
Staff Comment: The Applicant’s proposed changes to the current code are indicted by strikethrough and underline. Ordinance No. 01-0128-08 established the boundary and siting of the
resort through the site-specific Comprehensive Plan amendment process.
JCC 18.15.120 Purpose and intent - Jefferson County has a wide range of natural features, including climate, vegetation, water, natural resources, scenic qualities, cultural, and geological
features, which are desirable for a wide range of recreational users to enjoy. New master planned resorts authorized by RCW 36.70A.360 offer an 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 resort consistent
with the Comprehensive Plan policies and RCW 36.70A.360.
Staff Comment: The proposal is consistent with this purpose and intent.
JCC 18.15.123 Allowable Uses - The following uses may be allowed within a master planned resort classification authorized in compliance with RCW 36.70A.360:
(1) All residential uses including single-family and multifamily structures, condominiums, time-share and fractionally owned accommodations; provided, such uses are integrated into and
support the on-site recreational nature of the master planned resort.
(2) Short-term visitor accommodations, including, but not limited to, hotels, motels, lodges, and other residential uses, that are made available for short-term rental; provided, that
short-term visitor accommodations shall constitute no less than 65 percent of the total resort accommodation units.
3) Indoor and outdoor recreational facilities and uses, including, but not limited to, golf courses (including accessory structures and facilities, such as clubhouses, practice facilities,
and maintenance facilities), tennis courts, swimming pools, marinas, hiking and nature trails, bicycle paths, equestrian facilities, sports complexes, and other recreational uses deemed
to be consistent with the on-site recreational nature of the master planned resort.
(4) Campgrounds and recreational vehicle (RV) sites.
(5) Visitor-oriented amenities, including, but not limited to:
(a) Eating and drinking establishments;
(b) Meeting facilities;
(c) On-site retail businesses and services which are designed to serve the needs of the users such as gas stations, espresso stands, beauty salons and spas, gift shops, art galleries,
food stores, real estate/property management offices; and
(d) Recreation-oriented businesses and facilities such as sporting goods and outdoor equipment rental and sales.
(6) Cultural and educational facilities, including, but not limited to, interpretative centers and exhibits, indoor and outdoor theaters, and museums.
(7) Capital facilities, utilities and services to the extent necessary to maintain and operate the master planned resort.
(8) Temporary and/or permanent structures to 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.
Staff Comment: The proposal is consistent with this section of the code. Proposed uses and amenities are listed in Chapter 2 of the FSEIS and in Appendix S (Exhibit C of this report).
Uses and amenities not listed there but allowed here, may be established at a future date, or deemed allowable by the Administrator if they are consistent with the purpose and intent
of this section, the Development Agreement and Development Regulations.
JCC 18.15.126 Requirements for Master Planned Resorts - An applicant for an MPR project must meet the following requirements:
(1) Master Plan. A master plan shall be prepared for the MPR to describe the project and provide a framework for project development and operation. This shall include:
(a) A description of the setting and natural amenities that the MPR is being situated to use and enjoy, and the particular natural and recreational features that will attract people
to the area and resort.
(b) A description of the destination resort facilities of the MPR, including short-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 maximum densities and intensities of use of the MPR and a discussion of how these uses and their distribution meet the needs of the resort
and its users.
(d) A land use map or maps that depict the completed MPR development, showing the full extent and ultimate development of the MPR or resort and its facilities and services, including
residential and nonresidential development types and location.
(e) A description, with supportive information and maps, of the design and functional features that provide for a unified development, superior site design and protection of natural
amenities, and which further the goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan. This shall address how landscaping, screening, and open space, recreational facilities, road and parking
design, capital facilities, and other components are integrated into the project site.
(f) A description of the environmentally sensitive areas of the project and the measures that will be employed for their protection. For an MPR adjacent to the water and subject to the
jurisdiction of the Shoreline Management Act, a description and supportive materials or maps indicating proposed public access to the shoreline area pursuant to the Shoreline Master
Program.
(g) A description of how the MPR relates to surrounding properties, and how its design and arrangement minimize adverse impacts and promote compatibility among land uses within the development
and adjacent to the development.
(h) A demonstration that sufficient facilities and service which may be necessary, appropriate, or desirable for the support of the development will be available, and that concurrency
requirements of the Comprehensive Plan will be met.
(i) A description of the intended phasing of development of the project, if any. The initial application for an MPR shall provide sufficient detail for the phases such that the full
intended scope and intensity of the development can be evaluated. This shall also discuss how the project will function at interim stages prior to completion of all phases of the project,
and how the project may operate successfully and meet its environmental protection, concurrency, and other commitments should development cease before all phases are completed.
Staff Comment: In substance, the FSEIS, Development Agreement, Zoning and Development Regulations constitute the “master plan,” under this section. However, a County drafted “Master
Plan for the Pleasant Harbor Marina and Golf Resort,” meeting required elements of this section, as well as permitting processing tools such as mitigation checklists and other documents
to guide future permit review, shall be prepared and included as Exhibit F of this report prior to final adoption of the Development Agreement and Amendment to the UDC.
(2) Development Agreement. A master planned resort shall require approval of a development agreement as authorized by Article XI of Chapter 18.40 JCC (Development Agreements), and RCW
36.70B.170 through 36.70B.210. Consistent with JCC 18.40.830(3) and RCW 36.70B.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:
(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
(f) Other development standards including those identified in JCC 18.40.840 and RCW 36.70B.170(3).
Staff Comment: A draft Development Agreement meeting the required elements of this section is attached to this report in Exhibit E of this report.
(3) Formal Site-Specific Comprehensive Plan Amendment. A master planned resort shall require a site-specific amendment of the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map to a master planned resort
land use designation, pursuant to the requirements of JCC 18.45.040; provided, that the subarea planning process authorized under Article VII of Chapter 18.15 JCC (Subarea Plans) and
JCC 18.45.030 may be used if deemed appropriate by both the applicant and the county. The Comprehensive Plan amendment or subarea plan may be processed by the county concurrent with
the review of the resort master plan and development agreement required for approval of a master planned resort.
Staff Comment: Ordinance No. 01-0128-08 established the boundary and siting of the resort through the formal site-specific Comprehensive Plan amendment process.
(4) Planned Actions. If deemed appropriate by the applicant and the county, a master planned resort project may be designated by the county as a planned action pursuant to the provisions
of RCW 43.21C.031 and WAC 197-11-164 and 197-11-168.
Staff Comment: the proposal is not a Planned Action.
(5) Self-Contained Development. All necessary supportive and accessory on-site urban-level commercial and other services should be contained within the boundaries of the MPR, and such
services shall be oriented to serve the MPR. New urban or suburban development and land uses are prohibited outside the boundaries of a master planned resort, except in areas otherwise
designated as urban growth areas in compliance with RCW 36.70A.110.
Staff Comment: All supportive commercial and resort services with the exception of gasoline and too an extent, groceries (a farmer’s market on site will provide fresh produce), shall
be provided within the resort. No new urban or suburban (subdivision) developments shall be allowed outside the boundaries of the MPR.
JCC 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.
The master plan is consistent with the requirements of this article and Article VI-D of this chapter (Environmentally Sensitive Areas District (ESA)).
Staff Comment: The FSEIS technical reports analyzed the proposal under current ESA regulations under the County’s Critical Area Ordinance – JCC Chapter 18.22, specifically for a Habitat
Management (Plan), Geologically Hazardous Areas, and Wetlands. The FSEIS concluded that the proposal would not result in significant adverse environmental impacts, and would comply
with JCC 18.22 with the Geologically Hazardous Areas, Fish & Wildlife Conservation Areas, and Wetlands. Also, Critical Aquifer Recharge and Saltwater Intrusion Protection Zones were
analyzed by the Department of Ecology use State protection standard, but those standards are consistent with standards under JCC 18.22.
The MPR is consistent with the goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan, the requirements of the Shoreline Master Program, and complies with all other applicable sections of this
code and all other codes and policies of the county.
Staff Comment: As stated above in the applicable sections of this report, the proposal complies with this criterion. No new resort development shall take place within the Shoreline
jurisdiction.
If an MPR will be phased, each phase contains adequate infrastructure, open space, recreational facilities, landscaping and all other conditions of the MPR sufficient to stand alone
if no subsequent phases are developed.
Staff Comment: As detailed in the Master Plan requirement under JCC 18.15.126(1)(i), the proposal is consistent with this criterion.
The MPR will provide active recreational uses, adequate open space, and sufficient services such as transportation access, public safety, and social and health services, to adequately
meet the needs of the guests and residents of the MPR.
Staff Comment: The list of available resort and recreational amenities; the increase in undisturbed open space between Alternatives 1 and 3; the proposed infrastructure improvements
to Black Point Road, the DNR boat ramp, shuttle service to and from the resort and SeaTac Airport, and between the golf and marina side; and the MOUs for public service; all demonstrate
compliance with this criterion.
The MPR will contain within the development all necessary supportive and accessory on-site urban-level commercial and other services, and such services shall be oriented to serve the
MPR.
Staff Comment: As state in the FSEIS and Master Plan, the proposal complies with this criterion.
Environmental considerations are employed in the design, placement and screening of facilities and amenities so that all uses within the MPR are harmonious with each other, and in order
to incorporate and retain, as much as feasible, the preservation of natural features, historic sites, and public views.
Staff Comment: As described in the Master Plan as required under JCC 18.15.126(1)(e), the proposal complies with this criterion.
All on-site and off-site infrastructure and service impacts have been fully considered and mitigated.
Staff Comment: Per the FSEIS, the proposal complies with this criterion.
Improvements and activities are located and designed in such a manner as to avoid or minimize adverse effects of the MPR on surrounding lands and property.
Staff Comment: Development along the south bluff is setback at least 200 feet from Ordinary High Water Mark, and south beach access is prohibited specifically to avoid any impacts to
the marine waters of Hood Canal. Also, the Stormwater System is designed to prevent any discharge into Hood Canal per Ordinance condition (q). Siting of buildings and recreational
activities were designed to be buffered from adjacent properties.
The master plan establishes location-specific standards to retain and enhance the character of the resort.
Staff Comment: the master plan contains zoning and development standards specific to each zone in order to maintain the specific character of each zone, such as golf course, marina
and mixed use recreational (Maritime Village) as different aspects of the overall resort.
(10) The land proposed for a master planned resort is better suited and has more long-term importance for the MPR than for the commercial harvesting of timber or production of agricultural
products, and the MPR will not adversely affect adjacent agricultural or forest resource land production. [Ord. 8-06 § 1]
Staff Comment: Ordinance No. 01-0128-08 contained findings per the RCW that satisfy this criterion.
JCC 18.15.138 - Port Ludlow Master Planned Resort.
The Port Ludlow Master Planned Resort Code (JCC Title 17), as may be amended to be consistent with the provisions of this UDC, is hereby adopted by reference and made a part of this
UDC.
Staff Comment: the strikethrough in the section above is the recommended change to this section in order to reflect the addition of Pleasant Harbor as the second MPR in Jefferson County,
should the amendment be approved.
JCC 18.20.190 – Golf Courses
(1) Applications for a golf course must be accompanied by a design plan and best management practices plan. The design plan shall minimize the use of pesticides, herbicides, fertilizers,
and groundwater by the type and placement of appropriate vegetative materials and other means. The use of pesticides, herbicides, or fertilizers that are known to leach into groundwater
are prohibited. The design plan shall also demonstrate that an adequate water supply shall be provided without diminishing the level of service for system users or others dependent
upon the resource. The best management practices plan shall include monitoring procedures and an integrated management plan. Once approved by the county, the management plan shall be
a condition of project approval and failure to comply with the approved plan shall be grounds for revocation of the permit.
Staff Comment: The Applicant submitted a Golf Course Development and Operation Best Management Practices Plan as part of the SEIS, which shall be incorporated into a design plan that
shall be required as a condition of approval for further development and submitted for review and approval at time of stormwater management permit application to grade and develop the
golf course under Phase 2 of the overall resort development.
(2) Accessory uses to golf courses shall be limited to those either necessary for the operation and maintenance of the course, or those which provide goods or services customarily provided
to golfers at a golf course. Accessory uses may include parking, maintenance facilities, cart storage and repair, clubhouse, restrooms, lockers and showers, food or beverage service,
pro shop, and practice or driving range, swimming pools, tennis courts, weight rooms, or similar uses oriented to persons other than golf course patrons.
Staff Comment: Since the golf course is not stand-alone, but accessory to the resort, accessory uses are listed as permitted uses in the Golf Resort zone (MPR-GR) of the development
regulations (17.65) for the resort.
(3) Accessory uses which provide commercial services, such as food and beverage service and pro shop, shall not exceed a total of 5,000 square feet of gross floor area.
Staff Comment: Since the golf course is not stand-alone, but accessory to the resort, applicable development standards are listed under the Golf Resort zone (MPR-GR) of the development
regulations (17.65) for the resort.
(4) No occupied building accessory to a golf course shall be located within 100 feet of any property line.
Staff Comment: Since the golf course is not stand-alone, but accessory to the resort, applicable development standards are listed under the Golf Resort zone (MPR-GR) of the development
regulations (17.65) for the resort.
(5) No off-street parking or loading area shall be permitted within 50 feet of a side and rear property. [Ord. 8-06 § 1]
Staff Comment: Since the golf course is not stand-alone, but accessory to the resort, applicable development standards are listed under the Golf Resort zone (MPR-GR) of the development
regulations (17.65) for the resort.
JCC Chapter 18.40 Article XI – Development Agreements
18.40.820 Purpose.
This article establishes the mechanism under which Jefferson County may enter into development agreements as authorized by RCW 36.70B.170. A decision to enter into a development agreement
shall be made on a case-by-case basis. A development agreement may be appropriate for large, complex or phased projects, or projects which were not contemplated by existing development
regulations or existing application procedures. [Ord. 8-06 § 1]
18.40.830 General requirements.
(1) Discretion to Enter Development Agreement. A development agreement is an optional device that may be used at the sole discretion of the county, except a development agreement shall
be required for applications for master planned resorts in accordance with JCC 18.15.126 and major industrial developments in accordance with JCC 18.15.605.
Staff Comment: The applicant has submitted a draft Development Agreement as part of their Type V application for a Master Planned Resort. That draft is provided in Appendix S of the
FSEIS and in Exhibit E of this report.
(2) Who May Enter. The property owner(s) and the county shall be parties to a development agreement; provided, that if a proposed development is within an adopted municipal UGA, the
applicable town or city shall also be a party to the agreement. The following may be considered for inclusion as additional parties in a development agreement: contract purchasers,
lenders, third-party beneficiaries and utility service providers.
Staff Comment: the application is consistent with this requirement.
(3) Content of Development Agreements. A development agreement shall be prepared by the applicant and shall set forth the development standards and other conditions that shall apply
to and govern the development, use and mitigation of the property subject to the agreement.
Staff Comment: the application is consistent with this requirement.
(4) When Development Agreements May Be Approved. A development agreement may be entered into prior to, concurrent with or following approval of project permits for development of the
property.
Staff Comment: the approval of the development agreement shall take place prior to approval of any project permits for development of the property.
(5) Consistency with Unified Development Code. The development standards and conditions set forth in a development agreement shall be consistent with the applicable development regulations
set forth in the Unified Development Code, except in the case of a master planned resort (which requires a site-specific Comprehensive Plan amendment), where adopted standards may be
modified by the development standards contained in the agreement, so long as all project impacts have been adequately mitigated. However, the minimum requirements related to the protection
of
environmentally sensitive areas in Article VI-D of Chapter 18.15 JCC may not be varied by adoption of any development agreement. [Ord. 8-06 § 1]
Staff Comment: development standards as proposed are consistent with Title 17 Article I Port Ludlow MPR, and as a Master Planned Resort. Mitigation measures listed in the FSEIS shall
be required as part of the development agreement, and proposed section 17.60.040 Additional Requirements of the development regulations ensures that environmentally sensitive areas
under JCC 18.22 would apply to any resort development.
18.40.840 Development standards to be addressed.
(1) A development agreement shall include, but need not be limited to, one or more of any of the following types of development controls and conditions:
(a) Project elements such as permitted uses, residential and nonresidential densities, scale and intensity of uses and/or building sizes;
Staff Comment: these standards are addressed in the development regulations Title 17 Article II as adopted under Section 3 Development Standards of the proposed development agreement.
(b) Mitigation measures, development conditions and other requirements pursuant to environmental review under Chapter 43.21C RCW;
Staff Comment: Section 4 of the proposed development agreement addresses mitigation measures.
(c) Design standards such as maximum heights, setbacks, drainage and water quality requirements, screening and landscaping and other development features;
Staff Comment: these standards are addressed in Section 3 of the proposed development agreement.
(d) Roads, water, sewer, storm drainage and other infrastructure requirements;
Staff Comment: these standards are addressed in Section 3 of the proposed development agreement.
(e) Affordable housing;
Staff Comment: addressed in the revised MOU for housing attached as Exhibit G of this report.
(f) Recreational uses and open space preservation;
Staff Comment: addressed in Section 4 of the proposed development agreement and in the Master Plan for the resort as a condition of approval for the development agreement.
(g) Phasing;
Staff Comment: addressed in Section 5 of the development agreement.
(h) Development review procedures, processes and standards for implementing decisions, including methods of reimbursement to the county for review processes;
Staff Comment: addressed in Section 4 of the proposed development agreement.
(i) Other appropriate development requirements or procedures.
Staff Comment: addressed in Section 3 & 4 of the proposed development agreement.
(2) A development agreement may obligate a party to fund or provide services, infrastructure, or other facilities. Project applicants and governmental entities may include provisions
and agreements whereby applicants are reimbursed over time for financing public facilities.
Staff Comments: not included as part of the proposed development agreement.
(3) Development agreements shall:
Establish a process for amending the agreement;
Staff Comment: addressed in Section 6.6 of the DA.
Specify a termination date upon which the agreement expires;
Staff Comment: addressed in Section 1 of the DA.
Establish a vesting period for applicable standards; and
Staff Comment: addressed in Section 4.3 of the DA.
Reserve authority to impose new or different regulations to the extent required by a serious threat to public health and safety. [Ord. 8-06 § 1]
Staff Comment: addressed in section 4.3.1 of the DA.
18.40.850 Procedures.
(1) A development agreement shall be initiated by a written request from the property owner to the administrator of the department of community development. The request should describe
the project and the specific reasons why the project is suitable for a development agreement. The request should identify the development standards set forth in JCC 18.40.840 that the
applicant is requesting to be included in the development agreement and any other reasonable information requested by the county.
Staff Comment: the application (MLA08-00188) submitted April 16, 2008 satisfies this requirement.
(2) If the administrator determines in his or her discretion that a development agreement should be considered by the county, the property owner shall be so informed, except that development
agreements shall be required for the approval of master planned resorts in accordance with JCC 18.15.126 and for the approval of major industrial developments in accordance with JCC
18.15.605.
Staff Comment: The DA was required as part of the application to implement a master planned resort as approved under Ordinance No. 01-0128-08.
(3) When a development agreement is being considered prior to project permit approvals, the property owner shall provide the county with the same information that would be required for
a complete application for such project permits in order for the county to determine the development standards and conditions to be included in the development agreement.
Staff Comment: MLA08-00188 included a request to amend the UDC to adopt new standards for development under proposed Title 17 Article II.
(4) When a development agreement is being considered following approval of project permits, the development standards and other conditions set forth in such project permits shall be
used in the development agreement without modification.
Staff Comment: not applicable since the DA is required prior to project permits.
(5) The county shall only approve a development agreement by ordinance or resolution after a public hearing. The board of county commissioners may, in its sole discretion, approve the
development agreement. If the development agreement relates to a project permit application, the provisions of Chapter 36.70C RCW shall apply to the appeal of the decision on the development
agreement.
Staff Comment: the BoCC shall schedule and conduct a public hearing prior to approval of the DA. RCW 36.70C does not apply since an appeal of the DA would be heard by the Growth Management
Hearings Board per JCC 18.40.050 Table 8-2 Action Types – Process note 2.
(6) An approved and fully executed development agreement shall be recorded with the county auditor. [Ord. 8-06 § 1]
Staff Comment: addressed as a recommended condition of approval.
18.40.860 Effect.
(1) A development agreement is binding on the parties and their successors, including a city that assumes jurisdiction through incorporation or annexation of the area covering the property
subject to the development agreement.
Staff Comment: addressed in Section 6.2 of the DA.
(2) A development agreement shall be enforceable during its term by a party to the agreement.
Staff Comment: addressed in Section 6.11 & 6.12 of the DA.
(3) A development agreement shall govern during the term of the agreement all or that part of the development specified in the agreement and may not, unless otherwise agreed to in the
development agreement, be subject to an amendment to a local government land use ordinance or development standard or regulation or a new local government land use ordinance or development
standard or regulation adopted after the effective date of the agreement.
Staff Comment: addressed in Section 4.3 of the DA.
(4) Permits issued by the county after the execution of the development agreement shall be consistent with the agreement.
Staff Comment: addressed in Section 4.1 of the DA.
(5) Nothing in RCW 36.70B.170 through 36.70B.200 and Section 501, Chapter 374, Laws of 1995, or this chapter is intended to authorize the county to impose impact fees, inspection fees,
or dedications or to require any other financial contributions or mitigation measures except as expressly authorized by other applicable provisions of state law. [Ord. 8-06 § 1]
JCC 18.45.080 – Final Docket – Planning Commission and Board of County Commissions review
The following code is applicable only to the process to amendment the zoning and development regulations under the next section, JCC 18.45.090, and shall be addressed during the Planning
Commission and Board of County Commissioner’s formal review and recommendation under that section:
(1)(b) Required Findings – Generally. For all proposed amendments, the planning commission shall develop findings and conclusions and a recommendation which consider the growth management
indicators set forth in JCC 18.45.050(4)(b)(i) through (4)(b)(vii), as well as the following:
(i) Whether circumstances related to the proposed amendment and/or the area in which it is located have substantially changed since the adoption of the Jefferson County Comprehensive
Plan;
Staff Comment: the applicant submitted the following suggested text as part of their application MLA08-00188 in response to this requirement for a finding:
“The proposal is a UDC amendment and amendments to Title 17 and 18 Jefferson County Code describing the zones and criteria for development of the Master Planned Resort at Brinnon. During
the adoption process for the Comprehensive Plan. Staff detailed a two-step process: (1) define the nature of the plan amendment approved by the Board of County Commissioners, and (2)
develop and adopt implementing regulations and development agreement before any development could occur. Step 1 was completed with the adoption of Ordinance 01-0128-08. This application
is designed to start Step 2. The proposals put forth in the application arc in furtherance of that objective and the Goal of GMA to adopt development regulations consistent with the
Comprehensive Plan. As the Brinnon Master Planned Resort amendments to the Comprehensive Plan were only adopted in January 2008, no implementing regulations or development agreement
are presently available to judge any future development.”
(ii) Whether the assumptions upon which the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan is based are no longer valid, or whether new information is available which was not considered during
the adoption process or any annual amendments of the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan; and
Staff Comment: the applicant submitted the following suggested text as part of their application MLA08-00188 in response to this requirement for a finding:
“As with item one, this question is also answered by the comment that the proposed regulations are developed as part of the two-step approval process outlined by Staff and approved by
the Board. The proposals before the County in this application serve to implement the conditions and requirements of the Master Planned Resort approved in Ordinance No. 01-0128-08.”
(iii) Whether the proposed amendment reflects current widely held values of the residents of Jefferson County.
Staff Comment: the applicant submitted the following suggested text as part of their application MLA08-00188 in response to this requirement for a finding:
“On January 28, 2008, the Jefferson County Board of County Commissioners unanimously adopted Ordinance No. 01-0128-08 approving the amendment of the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan
map to enable the Pleasant Harbor Master Planned Resort at Brinnon as depicted in Chapter 1 of the FEIS. The Comprehensive Plan adoption speaks to the public interest and values of
the residents of Jefferson County. The development regulations and development agreement provide the specific means by which that interest may be accomplished.”
JCC 18.45.090 – Amendments to GMA implementing regulations
(1) Initiation. The text of the county’s adopted Comprehensive Plan implementing regulations (also referred to within this code as “development regulations”) may be amended at any time,
provided the amendment is consistent with the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan and Land Use Map. When inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan and Land Use Map, the amendment shall
be processed concurrent with any necessary plan amendments using the process and
timelines for plan amendments set forth in this chapter. “Implementing regulations” means the controls placed on development or land use activities by the county, including, but not
limited to, this Unified Development Code, the Jefferson County Shoreline Master Program, or any other official controls required to implement the plan (see RCW 36.70A.030). Proposed
amendments, changes, or modifications may be initiated as follows:
(a) When consistent with the plan, at any time at the direction of the board of county commissioners or by the planning commission pursuant to RCW 36.70.550;
(b) When inconsistent with the plan, under the process and time lines for Comprehensive Plan amendments by any interested person consistent with this chapter; or
(c) Immediately following or concurrent with an amendment or amendments to the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan, the implementing regulations shall be amended to be consistent with
the plan and Land Use Map.
Staff Comment: this subsection applies since MLA08-00188 was submitted to the County following approval of the amendment to the Comprehensive Plan to designated the Pleasant Harbor
Master Planned Resort under Ordinance No. 01-0128-08.
(2) Notice.
(a) Proposed amendments to the implementing regulations pursuant to subsection (1) of this section which must be processed concurrently with an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan and
Land Use Map shall be processed and noticed in the same manner as plan amendments consistent with this chapter.
Staff Comment: not applicable since the proposed amendment to the implementing regulations is being processed separately from the Comprehensive Plan amendment.
(b) Notice of any hearing on amendments to the implementing regulations generated by DCD staff, the board of county commissioners or the planning commission outside of the annual Comprehensive
Plan amendment process shall be given by one publication in the official newspaper of the county at least 10 days prior to the date of the hearing and by posting a copy of the notice
of hearing in the Jefferson County Courthouse.
Staff Comment: notice of the Planning Commission public hearing on January 6, 2016 to consider the proposed amendment to the implementing regulations was published in the official newspaper
and posted in the County Courthouse on December 9, 2015.
(c) Any additional notice required by state or local law (e.g., statutory notice requirements for amendments to the Shoreline Master Program), or deemed appropriate by the administrator,
shall be paid for by the applicant.
Staff Comment: the applicant has and shall continue to reimburse the County for all expenses related to noticing and mailing.
(3) Planning Commission Review. The planning commission shall hold a public hearing on any amendment(s) to the implementing regulations and shall make a recommendation to the board of
county commissioners using the site-specific criteria set forth in JCC 18.45.080(1)(b) and (1)(c), as applicable.
Staff Comment: the Planning Commission public hearing was scheduled for January 6, 2016 at the Brinnon School Gym staring at 6pm. The hearing will include a presentation by the
Applicant, by Staff and testimony by the public on the proposed project and amendment to the implementing regulations. Subsequent meetings, times and dates to be determined, will be
held by the Planning Commission to deliberation and make a recommendation to the BoCC.
(4) Board of County Commissioners Review. The board of county commissioners shall consider the proposed amendments at a regularly scheduled meeting.
Staff Comment: Staff shall place the proposed amendments on the BoCC agenda to present the findings and recommendation of the Planning Commission as soon as feasible after the recommendation
is made.
(a) If after applying the criteria set forth in JCC 18.45.080(1)(b) and (1)(c), as applicable, the board of county commissioners concludes that no change in the recommendation of the
planning commission is necessary, the board may make a final determination on the proposed amendment(s) and adopt the amendments as recommended by the planning commission.
Staff Comment: Staff shall have prepared an ordinance to adopt the proposed amendments should the BoCC accept the Planning Commission recommendation.
(b) If after applying the criteria set forth in JCC 18.45.080(1)(b) and (1)(c), as applicable, the board of county commissioners concludes that a change in the recommendation of the
planning commission is necessary, the change shall not be incorporated until the board conducts its own public hearing using the procedures set forth under JCC 18.40.310. The hearing
shall be noticed by one publication in the official newspaper of the county at least 10 days prior to the date of the hearing, and by posting copies of the notice of hearing in the
Jefferson County Courthouse. The notice and public hearing for proposed amendments to implementing regulations may be combined with any notice or public hearing for proposed amendments
to the Comprehensive Plan or for other actions of the board of county commissioners.
Staff Comment: since the BoCC must hold a public hearing on the DA, they may wish to consolidation that public hearing with the hearing to amend the development regulations should they
determine a change to the Planning Commission recommendation is necessary.
(5) Transmittal to State. The administrator shall transmit a copy of any proposed amendment(s) to the implementing regulations at least 60 days prior to the expected date of final action
by the board of county commissioners, as consistent with Chapter 36.70A RCW. The administrator shall transmit a copy of any adopted amendment(s) to the implementing regulations to OCD
(State Office of Community Development – now the Department of Commerce) within 10 days after adoption by the board.
Staff Comment: Staff transmitted a copy of the proposed amendments to the Department of Commerce on December 10, 2015. No final action by the BoCC may, nor is it anticipated that it
will, take place before February 10, 2016 – sixty days from the date of transmittal to the State.
(6) Appeals. All appeals to the adoption of any amendment(s) to the implementing regulations shall be filed with and processed by the Western Washington Growth Management Hearings Board
in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 36.70A RCW. [Ord. 2-06 § 1]
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Based on the preceding findings and conclusions, staff recommends that the proposal is consistent with the applicable codes, ordinances and statues, and that it satisfies all relevant
review criteria. Approval of the proposed amendments to Title 17 and 18 of the Jefferson County Code and Development Agreement between the Pleasant Harbor Marina and Golf Resort LLC
should be granted subject to the following conditions.
CONDITIONS
Adopt FSEIS Alternative #3 as the “preferred alternative” or “proposed action” under SEPA WAC 197-11-440(5).
The proposed amendments to Title 17 and 18 of the Jefferson County, and a Development Agreement between the Pleasant Harbor Marina and Golf Resort LLC and Jefferson County be approved,
adopted and enacted by the Board of Jefferson County Commissions by two separate Ordinance.
The development agreement include and adopt the “Master Plan for the Pleasant Harbor Master Planned Resort,” as required under JCC 18.15.126(1), which shall include required mitigation
measures and development review checklists for use by Staff and the Applicant to ensure proper design, review and approval of subsequent phases of resort development.
An approved and fully executed development agreement shall be recorded with the Jefferson County Auditor at the Applicant’s expense.
Explore the feasibility of creating a “revenue development area” (RDA) within the Brinnon LAMIRD (Local Area of More Intense Rural Development) through the State’s Local Infrastructure
Financing Tool (LIFT) to set aside a portion of the property and sales tax revenue generated by the resort to be used on infrastructure improvement projects that will benefit the Brinnon
community, such as renovating the Community Center, developing affordable housing and/or financing possible hook-ups to the Dosewallips State Park sewer system.
Prepared by:
David Wayne Johnson, Associate Planner
Jefferson County Department of Community Development