HomeMy WebLinkAbout022425 - Public Comment re JC Comprehensive Plan 18.40.010 Purpose. C,OvAvAeKr
Articles I through VI of this Unified Development Code are a mechanism for implementing the �}2C.
ZU jfj
provisions of Chapter RCW (the Local Project Review Act) regarding compliance, conformity, l
and consistency of proposed projects with the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan and
development regulations.
(1) Given the extensive investment that public agencies and a broad spectrum of the public have
made and will continue to make in Jefferson County's Comprehensive Plan and development
regulations, it is essential that project review start from the fundamental land use planning choices
made in the Comprehensive Plan and regulations. If the Comprehensive Plan or regulations identify
the type of land use, specify density and identify and provide for the provision of public facilities
needed to review the proposed development and site, these decisions, at a minimum, provide the
foundation for further project review unless there is a question of code interpretation. The project
review process, including the environmental review process under Chapter RCW and the
consideration of consistency, should start from this point and should not reanalyze these land use
planning decisions in making a permit decision, unless the county finds that the Comprehensive Plan
and regulations do not fully foresee site-specific issues and impacts identified through land use project
application review.
;L o r„ JEFFERSON COUNTY
%. DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY
_
S DEVELOPMENT
' /I(-; ' 621 Sheridan Street, Port Townsend,WA 98368 I Web: www.co.lefferson.wa.us/communitydevelopment
Tel:360.379.4450 I Fax: 360.379.4451 I Email:dca@co.iefferson.wa.us
SquareONE Resource Center I Building Permits&Inspections I Development Review I Long Range Planning
August 16, 2024
Pleasant Harbor Marina and Golf Resort, LLP
do John Holbert, PE
235 Salmon Street
Brinnon, WA 98320
via email.-johnh(a.statesmangroup cop,
RE: SITE ADDRESS: 308913 US Highway 101, Brinnon, WA 98320
CASE#: SUB2023-00025 (Pleasant Harbor Master Planned Resort)
REVISED Technical Review Comments
Dear Mr. Holbert:
This letter follows up on issues discussed in JT Cooke's letter to Philip Hunsucker dated July 19, 2024
and our meeting on July 24, 2024, between representatives of Jefferson County and PHMPR. At the July
24, 2024 meeting, PHMPR asked for a letter detailing only those items required for the preliminary plat
approval, after stating that some of the information requested in the County's letters regarding planning
and civil engineering technical review comments (both dated July 3, 2024)applies only to future permits.
The documents provided to PHMPR were intended to provide both required elements for preliminary plat
approval and recommendations of for a smooth process to complete the project. PHMPR made clear in
the July 24, 2024 meeting that it would prefer conditions of approval on the preliminary plat decision
detailing requirements for infrastructure and amenities, final plat, and any other requirements not
specifically applicable to the preliminary plat.
This is a unique project far beyond the scope of a typical subdivision preliminary plat. It is a preliminary
plat for a master planned resort(MPR), where many of the required details of the MPR already have been
decided. Furthermore, the details required were discussed at the final hearing in the 2018 LUPA case,
and in the briefing filed with the court by PHMPR and Jefferson County. PHMPR should remember that
the court in the LUPA case relied on the"master plan" section of the Development Agreement, including
the 2007 FEIS and the 2015 FSEIS,to hold that the Development Agreement provided the level of detail
necessary to satisfy JCC 18.15.126.
The following level of detail is required pursuant to JCC 18.15.126(1) for approval of a Development
Agreement:
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.
Page 1 of 7
Pleasant Harbor Master Planned Resort(Case No. SUB2023-00025)
REVISED Technical Review Comments
August 16, 2024
(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 critical 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.
(Emphasis added.) The required "master plan"is in Section 3.2 of the Development Agreement, and it
provides a continuum of standards and plans that build from the FEIS in 2007,to the Ordinance 01-128-
08 in 2008,to the 2015 FSEIS; and, finally to the adopted development regulations. Despite this,
PHMPR advised that many of the items in the County's July 3,2024 letters regarding planning and civil
engineering technical review comments would require PHMPR to make decisions on topics that PHMPR
had not yet considered, even though the continuum of standards and the Development Agreement
necessarily will limit future discretion.
Contrary to PHMPR's claim,the County is not requiring"construction-level detail for the preliminary plat,"
but the County is requiring the level of detail required by Section 3.2 of the Development Agreement—the
master plan. As PHMPR told the Kitsap County Superior Court in its brief filed on November 21, 2018,
Section 3.2"states that the 30 Conditions are ongoing and are part of the approved master plan further
assuring that the conditions guide future development(2018-104-00012)." PHMPR's November 21,2018
brief at 10. According to PHMPR's brief, "The 30 Conditions are also attached as Appendix K to the
Development Agreement(2018-104-00010).Accordingly, no reasonable interpretation of the
Development Agreement can authorize future development contrary to the condition as Petitioner
contends." PHMPR's November 21,2018 brief at 12.
Page 2 of 7
Pleasant Harbor Master Planned Resort(Case No. SUB2023-00025)
REVISED Technical Review Comments
August 16, 2024
Despite PHMPR's disagreement with the County about the level of detail required at this follow-on
development stage and pursuant to PHMPR's request, the county will recommend conditions of approval
to the Hearing Examiner to the maximum extent feasible, while complying with state law, the applicable
development regulations and the governing documents for the project. We believe this may create
unforeseen challenges for future PHMPR permit applications; nevertheless, we will proceed as requested
to the extent feasible.
The County believes the following items require correction, clarification, or additional information for
approval of a preliminary plat application that is consistent with the master plan in Section 3.2 of the
Development Agreement:
Planning General Comments
1. Plan Corrections. See plan sheet markups and notes transmitted to you on July 3, 2024.
Because the County will be seeking conditions in the preliminary plat from the Hearing Examiner,
PHMPR does not need to address the following markups:
a. Sheet 1, Site Data Section: markups related to residential and nonresidential uses.
b. Sheet 1, Project Types and Density Section: markup related to "Statesman Panelized
Modular Engineered Center."
Please address all other markups.
2. Plan Sets Inconsistent. The Preliminary Plat drawings and the preliminary civil plans do not
match. For example, Tract X-9 is a different shape in each plan set, and in the preliminary civil
set Tract X-9 is abutted by Tract L to the west,which is different than the Tract L shown in the
Preliminary Plat set. Please review the project application documents carefully, conform them,
and provide updated drawing set(s) as necessary.
3. Conservation Easement. Show the conservation easement recorded on February 29, 2024, on
the plans, including relevant detail sheets. Project elements should be evaluated carefully to
determine if they encroach into the easement area; revise if needed.
Title 17, Division II —Jefferson County Code
4. Setbacks. Pursuant to JCC 17.65.040, all structures1 must be set back at least 20 feet from the
master planned resort boundary lines. The proposed Eagle's Nest building is less than 20 feet
from the eastern property line (see Preliminary Plat drawings, Sheet 22). The pedestrian path
along the eastern property line near Lots 125 and 126 is also less than 20 feet from the property
line. Revise the plans to show the setback line around the perimeter of the resort property.
Some lots and tracts will have structures but do not include information about buildable area. For
such lots or tracts, verify that they will be buildable as proposed while complying with applicable
setback requirements.
5. Vegetation Management. Please address the following:
a. Blending of Buildings. Per JCC 17.80.020(6)(a) and Ord. No. 01-0128-02, Conditions
63(u)and 63(v) (part of the master plan in the Development Agreement), buildings must
be constructed and placed in such a way that they blend into the terrain and landscape
with park-like greenbelts between buildings. Not enough information has been provided
to determine compliance with this requirement. Provide a design intent narrative
explaining how buildings have been sited to achieve this requirement.
b. Tree Preservation. JCC 17.80.020(6)(b), Ord. No. 01-0128-08 Condition 63(w) (part of
the master plan in the Development Agreement), and the SETS (also part of the master
1 Per JCC 18.10.190, "Structure" means a permanent or temporary edifice or building or any piece of work artificially
built up or composed of parts joined together in some definite manner,whether installed on, above, or below the
surface of the ground or water, except for vessels(WAC 173-27-030).
Page 3 of 7
Pleasant Harbor Master Planned Resort(Case No. SUB2023-00025)
REVISED Technical Review Comments
August 16, 2024
plan in the Development Agreement) require PHMPR to preserve trees 10 inches in
diameter at breast height(dbh)or greater as much as possible. Provide a narrative
describing the approach to site design that will result,to the maximum extent possible, in
the preservation of trees 10 inches dbh or greater.
6. Building Envelopes. Per JCC 18.35.300(4)(g),show the building envelope on each lot.
Title 18—Jefferson County Code
Pursuant to JCC 17.60.060,the provisions of Title 18 JCC as currently enacted or hereafter amended or
as vested apply to development in the Pleasant Harbor MPR. Pursuant to the Development Agreement,
the project is vested to the following standards in effect on the date the Development Agreement was
executed:stormwater management standards in JCC 18.30.070(Appendix B),critical areas standards in
JCC 18.22(Appendix C), land division standards in JCC 18.35(Appendix D), shoreline master program
standards in JCC 18.25 (Appendix F), and development standards in Chapter 18.30 JCC to the extent
that they do not conflict with the Development Agreement(Appendix G). All other applicable standards
are those in effect as of the date the application was determined complete per JCC 18.40.230(3).2
7. Geologically Hazardous Areas. Geologically hazardous areas are present on the project site,
including erosion hazard areas, landslide hazard areas(including shoreline slope stability
hazards), and seismic hazard areas. Please address the following:
a. Geotechnical Study. The 2008 geotechnical report prepared for the EIS and SETS
evaluated a significantly different version of the site plan. Please provide an updated
geotechnical report that addresses project changes since 2008 pursuant to Development
Agreement Appendix B,sec. 18.22.170(9). Refer to geologically hazardous area report
requirements in Development Agreement Appendix B, sec. 18.22.420. The report should
include or be accompanied by a site plan that identifies geologically hazardous areas.
b. Recommendations. Some recommendations in the geotechnical report apply to project
design,such as maintaining a 100-foot buffer from the top of shoreline slopes to all
buildings, roadways,and infrastructure. Further review for specific project
recommendations will be completed when the geotechnical report is updated.
c. Phasing. The 2008 geotechnical report indicates that staging construction work in
phases over a number of years is a mitigation measure to address risk associated with
geologically hazardous areas. The report should consider the proposed sequence of
construction for the project.
8. Wetlands. Please address the following:
a. Delineation. Wetlands delineations are valid for five years pursuant to the US Army
Corps of Engineers'Wetland Delineation Manual, adopted under Development
Agreement Appendix C, sec. 18.22.300(1) and sec. 18.22.330(2) (see Manual pg. 41,
Step 5). Please provide an updated delineation. A new delineation may not be
necessary, but it may be necessary to revisit the site to determine if the delineation is still
accurate or needs to be redone based on current conditions. Refer to wetlands
delineation requirements in Development Agreement Appendix C, sec. 18.22.330 and
sec. 18.22.450.
b. Establishing Buffers. The wetland delineation should include the applicable buffer. This
buffer should be shown on the plans for each of the three wetlands.
c. Buffers in Conservation Easements. Pursuant to JCC 17.65.050 and Ordinance No. 01-
0128-08, Condition 63(s) (part of the master plan in the Development Agreement),
2 Tide 15 JCC and Chapters 12.05 and 12.10 JCC are referenced but are not relevant for preliminary plat. Title 15
JCC sets forth building code requirements. Chapters 12.05 and 12.10 JCC describe requirements for approaches to
county roads and road vacations.
Page 4 of 7
Pleasant Harbor Master Planned Resort(Case No. SUB2023-00025)
REVISED Technical Review Comments
August 16, 2024
wetlands and their buffers must be placed in a permanent conservation easement.
Please add the proposed easement to the plat drawings and provide a draft of the
protective easement language for review.
d. Buffer Encroachments. Although the applicable wetland buffers are not shown on the
project drawings, it appears that some project elements are likely to encroach into buffer
areas around Wetlands C and D. These include residential lots, pedestrian pathways,
and golf course uses. Very limited activities and uses are allowed in wetlands buffer
areas and are described in Development Agreement Appendix C, sec. 18.22.070 and the
SEIS (part of the master plan in the Development Agreement) indicates that existing
roads will be removed and the areas re-planted with native vegetation. Please revise the
plans to remove encroachments from the wetland buffer areas, or provide information
demonstrating that encroachments and their related impacts cannot be avoided. If
impacts are unavoidable, compensatory mitigation meeting the requirements in
Development Agreement Appendix C, sec. 18.22.350 is required. Alternatively, you may
consider the buffer reduction allowances in Development Agreement Appendix C, sec.
18.22.330(7) or the buffer averaging allowances in sec. 18.22.330(8).
Ordinance No. 01-0128-08
9. Recharge Wells. Recharge wells for saltwater intrusion are shown on the preliminary plat plan
set(sheets 11, 15, 18, 20, and 21) as required by Ordinance No. 01-0128-08, Condition 63(p)
(part of the master plan in the Development Agreement), and Appendix 0 to the Development
Agreement—Water Supply Plan, section 5(c). The recharge wells are shown in the center of a
100-foot reserve area, and in several cases,the reserve area overlaps with residential lots, golf
course fairways, and/or other planned improvements. Please clarify whether the recharge area is
compatible with the uses that will occur within it, especially considering residential lots and
whether impervious improvements would impact the utility of the recharge area.
Development Agreement
10. Appendix J5 — Healthcare MOU. PHMPR must provide a suitable landing zone to accommodate
a helicopter or float plane transport. Please identify where this will be provided and verify it will
not conflict with planned improvements.
11. Appendix P—Wildlife Management Plan. Please address the following:
a. Report Figures. Figures 2 and 3 in the Wildlife Management Plan are poor resolution and
difficult to read. Please provide legible figures.
b. Site Features. The Wildlife Management Plan requires installation of a west-oriented
fence in any open areas where elk could access the golf course fairways. The fence is
also listed as a mitigation measure in the FSEIS (part of the master plan in the
Development Agreement). Please identify the proposed location of the elk fence and
verify it will not conflict with planned improvements.
12. Appendix S— Dark Sky Lighting Standards. Appendix S includes a number of lighting
requirements and recommendations that must be implemented in the PHMPR project design.
Please address the following:
1. Illumination Standards. Appendix S identifies the following lighting standards: LZ2 (E2)
zone for pathways and the maritime park, LZ2 (E2) zone for parking lots and
maintenance areas. Other areas must be designed to comply with El standards
pursuant to Condition 63(z) of Ordinance No. 01-0128-08 (part of the master plan in the
Development Agreement). Provide enough information to determine general compliance
with these requirements. Detailed review of compliance with Dark Sky Lighting
Standards will occur with construction permits.
2. Lighting Extent. The preliminary lighting plans show lighting on some roads and
Page 5 of 7
Pleasant Harbor Master Planned Resort(Case No. SUB2023-00025)
REVISED Technical Review Comments
August 16, 2024
pedestrian pathways. Some roads and pathways are not shown as lighted(see Road D
and access to Cascadia and Olympia Houses, Eagle's Nest cul-de-sac, pedestrian paths
adjacent to roadways, pedestrian pathways along top of shoreline bluff). Please verify
that these roads and pathways are not intended to be lit.
Additionally, the preliminary lighting plans show illumination to be cut off immediately at
the edge of the lighted roads and pathways. It is more likely that illumination will extend
somewhat beyond the edges of lighted infrastructure and the full extent of illumination
should be shown on the plans.
Civil Engineering General Comments
13. Existing Wetlands. Please show buffers on the plans and confirm there are no impacts. Buffers
should be updated to conform to the required updated wetlands delineation per Planning
Technical Review Comment 8.a. above.
14. Roadway Maximum Slopes. To confirm that the right-of-way configuration as shown generally
accommodates the maximum longitudinal roadway slope, provide verification that the roadway
longitudinal slopes are in compliance.
15. Sanitary Sewer. Confirm that the preliminary plat has tracts and/or easements indicated if they
will be required to accommodate sanitary sewer routing and lift stations.
16. Setback Distance for Well. Well #2 does not appear to meet the spacing requirements to Pond
#5. The spacing is to conform to V-5.5, at 500 feet from the water supply wells, per V-5.5, 3. (pg
738) of SWMM. Also confirm whether SSC-1 Setback Criteria, under V-5.6 Site Suitability Criteria
(SSC) is required for proposed well#2. Revise if needed.
17. Storm Drainage Easements. If storm system routing is anticipated to require easements, please
depict those easements on the Preliminary Plat.
18. Geotechnical Recommendations.As noted above,the project geotechnical report recommends
that a 100 foot buffer be provided at the top of steep slopes. The Preliminary Plat as submitted
depicts a 30 foot wide buffer only. Please confirm the appropriate buffer width in coordination with
the project geotechnical engineer and revise the Preliminary Plat accordingly.
Transportation:
The roadway section has been reviewed for general compliance with the Jefferson County
Transportation Design, JCC 18.30.080, Construction Manual and 2017 NFPA 1141 (Brinnon Fire
Department),and the Development Agreement and mitigation measures in the FEIS (p 5-5) and
FSEIS.
Jefferson County Transportation Design and Construction Manual:
19. Roadway Lane Width. Per Section 3.7.8.1.2, a 12-foot all-weather travel surface and two-foot
shoulders on either side are required, the current roadways sections only show 10-foot travel
surface.
20. Total Roadway Width of 20 Feet. Per Section 3.7.8.2.2, a total width of 20 feet, including 16 feet
all-weather travel surface and 2-foot shoulders on either side for roads serving up to 15 dwelling
units, the current roadways sections only show 10-foot travel surface
21. Total Roadway Width of 24 Feet. Per Section 3.7.8.2.3, a total width of 24 feet, including 18 feet
all-weather travel surface and 2-foot shoulders on either side for roads serving up to 15 dwelling
units, the current roadways sections only show 10-foot travel surface
Page 6 of 7
Pleasant Harbor Master Planned Resort(Case No. SUB2023-00025)
REVISED Technical Review Comments
August 16, 2024
Per 2017 NFPA 1141:
24. Per Section 5.2.3, roadways shall have a minimum clear width of 12 feet for each lane of travel
excluding shoulders and parking, the current roadways sections only show 10-foot travel surface
25. Per 5.36, Fire lanes providing two-way travel shall be a minimum of 24 feet in width. The current
roadway section only shows a 24-foot wide total roadway path of travel.
26. Per Section 5.3.6.2, fire lane widths shall not include shoulders, sidewalks, or drainage, ensure
the travel lanes meet width requirements without including shoulders, sidewalks, or drainage.
Required Action —Confirm that the roadway sections and road rights-of-way comply with the minimum
travel lane and shoulder width requirements, applicable NFPA requirements and that the horizontal curve
radius of roadways at centerline is a min. of 30 ft. Revise where needed. Confirm that turns have an
outside curb line radius of no less than 50 ft to accommodate all fire apparatus and vehicles.
PHMPR's application remains on hold pending the submittal of the requested information. As much as
possible, please provide a single consolidated response. If you have any questions or comments, please
contact me at 360.352.1465 or cristina.haworth(c�scjalliance.com. Please advise us immediately if
PHMPR has any issues with this letter and what it requires. We would be happy to meet to discuss
whether we can further narrow any area of disagreement.
Sincerely,
Cristina Haworth,AICP
Planning Consultant
cc: Josh Peters,AICP,Jefferson County, Community Development Director
George Terry,Associate Planner
Philip C. Hunsucker, Chief Civil Deputy Prosecuting Attorney
Page 7 of 7