HomeMy WebLinkAbout2961-71
(;,w\/14
~
Michelle McConned'tW\-tt~
'LA &1
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Michelle McConnell
Wednesday, January 21, 2009 2:46 PM
'peckassoc@comcast.net'
David W. Johnson
RE: SMP Draft
@
Comments received - thank you.
As we are now in an open public comment period (12/3/08 -1/30/09) on our Preliminary Draft Shoreline Master
Praaram proposal for Comprehensive Plan and Development Regulation amendments, your comments will be
forwarded to the Planning Commission for their consideration. Public Comments are posted online at
http://www.co.iefferson.wa.us/commdevelopment/ShorelineUpdate2005-9.htm#Public Com ments.
No reply is needed in response to this message.
In response to your comments below and your voice mail from 10:30 am today: There is a 3-minute time limit for
providing oral testimony at tonight's Planning Commission public hearing on the Preliminary Draft SMP (PDSMP), no
agenda time is available for a presentation on the Pleasant Harbor development proposal. Article 6 ofthe PDSMP
proposes a standard buffer of 150' on the marine shoreline plus a 10' building setback as well as a maximum height limit
of 35'. Only water dependent structures are allowed within the buffer area. There are both prescriptive and site-
specific options for accommodating unique site conditions that may apply. Article 7 proposes that new bulkheads only
be allowed for the purpose of protecting primary structures from threat of tidal/current/wind erosion, not for the
purpose of leveling/creating property. Questions about the implementation of the current SMP and permit application
processes should be directed to our Development Review Division, including Lead Planner for master planned resorts,
David Wayne Johnson. Due to work load and time limits I am unavailable to further discuss this with you before
tonight's hearing.
<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>
Michelle McConnell, Associate Planner - LRP Lead
Shoreline Master Program (SMP) Update Project Manager
Direct: 360.379.4484
Web: http://www.co.jefferson.wa.us/commdevelopment/ShorelinePlanning.htm
NEW OFFICE HOURS: 9 a - 4:30 p Monday - Thursday; Closed on Friday
<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>
NOTE: A11.maJl sent to this address will be received by the Jefferson County e-mail system and ere subject to Public Disclosure under Chapter 42.56 RCW.
From: peckassoc@comcast.net [mailto:peckassoc@comcast.net]
Sent: Wednesday, January 21, 2009 2:20 PM
To: David W. Johnson; Michelle McConnell
'Cc: Stacie Hoskins
Subject: Pleasant Harbor
David and Michelle,
It appears to me that the setbacks proposed in the "new" SMP would prohibit development of the Maritime
Village in the Pleasant Harbor Marina and Golf Resort MPR currently being developed.
1
What application must be submitted, accepted, or issued to vest the Pleasant Harbor Marina improvements
under the current Shoreline Master Program?
Thank you.
cp
From: peckassoc@comcast.net (mailto:peckassoc@comcast.net]
Sent: Wednesday, January 21/ 2009 11:30 AM
To: Michelle McConnell
Cc: David W. Johnson
Subject: SMP Draft
Michelle,
I will present comment tonight at the hearing regarding setbacks and heights for the commercial development
within the MPR at Pleasant Harbor.
Our current site plan contains buildings at the marina that are much closer to the OHWM than what I have
determined to be the proposed setback of 160 feet in the proposed SMP. The buildings are also higher than 35
feet along the side facing the water although their average height might be 35 feet depending on how the
average is taken.
We also propose a retaining wall near the OHWM to allow the buildings to be elevated to a constant floor
elevation. This will allow the interior parking structure to function. The retaining wall could be as high as 7
feet at its highest point. The wall is to be constructed landward of the MHHW and the OHWM.
It is not clear to me if the retaining wall along the shoreline constitutes commercial development closer than 15
feet that is currently allowed in the existing SMP or if the buildings proposed higher than 35 feet in the MPR
can be exempted from the proposed SMP.
I would appreciate as much education as you can provide to me prior to the hearing.
I have attached two pdfs for the purpose of our discussion.
Thank you.
Craig A. Peck, P .E.
2
(].)
on
~
-
-
.~
>
(].)
s
.~
~
.~
~
~
(].)
~
~
~I ~
:1 I
II
II
----u-----.---iiGi-~--.--u---..
~~
j~
H
~~
-u---..------iiDQi-iiiiiii.-------------
IllfJl
oZ
IQ
ot
NLoJ
IfJl
III
0<
IZ
11]-
1llOi:
co<
~::E
II!l
~
I
@f:
~
@]I
@f:
~
~
~
~
~
w
~
fiJ!Jl
d
@,
~
./
./
/
~
./
./ ./
~/
./ .
~/
/
~
..
..
-
)
~
)0
-~