HomeMy WebLinkAboutSHR2003-00005 Hearing - SHR Letters / Memos - 5/13/2003 r �
Mason County
Department of Planning
Building I * 411 N. 5th Street * P.O. Box 279
Shelton, Washington 98584 * (360) 427-9670
May 13, 2003
TO: Mason County Hearing Examiner
FROM: Planning Staff—Rick Mraz
RE: Buffer Reduction for Alderbrook Inn per Mason County Resource Ordinance
STAFF REPORT
I. Introduction. This report evaluates a request for a buffer reduction from
Alderbrook Creek, a Type III stream. The specific proposal is for the construction
of an addition to the Alderbrook Inn.
II. Applicant. Barbara Anderson, employee of Collins Woerman and representing
North 40 Lodging, LLC.
III. Property Location. Alderbrook Inn, E. 7107 Highway 106, Union. Tax parcels
#32233-50-90010,90020,90030,90040. Legal description is lengthy and available
at County office
IV. Project Site.
A. Characteristics of the site: The site is the Alderbrook Inn and associated
facilities as described in the permit application. See drawings, site plans and
details in the binder provided by the applicant.
B. Characteristic of the area: Again, staff references the binder that contains a
detailed description of the project vicinity.
C. Comprehensive Plan designation of the site is Rural Tourist.
V. SEPA compliance: A Mitigated Determination of Non-Significance was issued
by Mason County on April 3, 2003, pursuant to the proposed activities within
Shoreline Master Program jurisdiction (Case#SEP2003-00012). The comment
period under SEPA ended on April 17, 2003. While the SEPA determination did
not specifically relate to the buffer reduction, it did include general discussion of
the project impacts to streams and stream buffers. A single comment letter was
1 �
received from Washington Department of Ecology and is attached. Comment in
the letter was not related to the buffer reduction.
VI. Public Comments: Public notice was made on this specific permit application on
5/8/03. A 14-day comment period followed. No public comments were received
on this specific permit as of this writing.
VII. Other Permits or Approvals. The proposal will require a Mason County
Building Permit for the Inn construction. The proposal required review and
comment by Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife and the Skokomish
Tribe. Notification was sent on 4/3/03. A 28-day review period followed. Marty
Ereth, fisheries biologist with the Skokomish Tribe, made verbal comment
expressing general approval of the proposal in a phone message left on 5/5/03.
He expressed concerns over placement of an incubator chamber in the stream
channel but noted that this concern would be resolved with the Hood Canal
Salmon Enhancement Group.
Analysis: The required buffer for a Type III stream is 150 feet plus a 15-foot
building setback for a total distance of 165 feet from the stream. Stream typing is
per Washington Department of Natural Resources stream typing criteria. The
proposal is to construct an addition to the Plaza building. The Plaza building is
east of and totally within the buffer of Alderbrook Creek. The new addition,
which will constitute primarily the lobby of the Plaza building, is approximately
3,027 square feet. This addition is proposed eastward of the plaza building and
emplacement of such would constitute a reduction of that buffer.
Section 17.01.110.D.3 establishes procedures for buffer reduction requests. For
major new development, Mason County may decrease the buffer after
consultation with the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife and the
Skokomish Tribe, after review and approval of a Habitat Management Plan
(HMP), and after a public hearing. The HMP is found in the binder title Mason
Environmental Permit. Comment from the respective agencies is as noted above.
Staff discussion:
Buffer reduction is considered a Type III quasi-judicial decision. Thus Hearing
Examiner approval is required. Staff finds that the request is generally consistent
with the purpose of the Mason County Resource Ordinance and the Fish and
Wildlife Habitat Conservation Areas chapter(Section 17.01.110). The area
proposed for the addition is further from the stream than the existing Plaza
building. The site of the new addition is currently a paved driveway and access
road. The proposal has offered substantial mitigation to offset an arguably
innocuous increase in new construction footprint. The mitigation plan has been
crafted under the guidance of the Hood Canal Salmon Enhancement Group.
Extensive restoration of Alderbrook Creek is planned that includes removal of a
fish passage barrier at the mouth of the creek,placement of log and rock weirs to
create pool and riffle habitat, creation of interpretive displays, and more. The
change in in-stream habitat within the development boundary will increase by %2
acre from existing conditions. Natural flood plain area will more than double
thereby attenuating flood risk. A new stream channel will be created to maintain
a spawning zone for returning salmon. The habitat management plan (Section 5
of the binder)provides elaborate detail of the mitigation measures.
VIII. Conclusions. Based upon the above discussion the proposal is consistent with
the general intent of the Mason County Resource Ordinance as detailed in Section
17.01.110. A. Staff recommends granting of the buffer reduction, subject to the
following conditions:
1. The existingnatural vegetative buffer shall remain undisturbed b an
g Y Y
construction and/or development activities on the parcel, except as prescribed
in the Habitat Management Plan.
2. The activities and recommendations of the Habitat Management Plan shall be
implemented and a follow-up site inspection shall be conducted by planning
staff prior to final approval.
VII. Choices of Action.
1. Approval.
2. Approve with condition.
3. Deny(reapplication or resubmittal is permitted).
4. Deny with prejudice(reapplication or resubmittal is not allowed for one year).
5. Remand to for further proceedings and/or evidentiary hearing in accordance
with Section 15.09.090 of Title 15.
1
BEFORE THE HEARING EXAMINER FOR MASON COUNTY
2
Phil Olbrechts, Hearing Examiner
3
RE: Alderbrook Inn FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS
4 OF LAW AND FINAL DECISION.
5 Shoreline Substantial Development/
Conditional UseNariance Permit
6 &
Resource Ordinance Buffer
7 Reduction
8 Special Use Permit
9
10 INTRODUCTION
11 The applicant has applied for several permits to remodel and reconstruct the existing
Alderbrook Inn located on the south shore of Hood Canal. This project requires a
12 special use permit; shoreline substantial use/conditional use/variance permits and a
resource ordinance buffer reduction. The Examiner approves all of these permit
13 applications.
14
HEARING ON SPECIAL USE PERMIT:
15
Brian McGinnis, President of North Forty Lodging, owner of Alderbrook Resort. Mr.
16 McGinnis testified that the resort has been at the present location since the turn of the
century. It has been in substantial disrepair in the last few years. North Forty
17 Lodging decided to purchase the property because it owns adjoining properties and
18 wanted to rehabilitate the resort to make it more of an economic asset to the
community and to make it more environmentally compatible. He stated the goal of
19 North Forty was to make the resort a sustainable year round business. Mr. McGinnis
also stated that the remodel of the resort will actually reduce the number of resort
20 units from 101 units to 98 units.
21 Dan Faux, project manager, discussed the current site and the proposed changes. He
22 stated that a major part of the project was the relocation of SR 106. He stated that
currently the Porte Cochere almost touches the right of way. A major benefit of the
23 relocation is to relocate the parking to the same side of SR 106 as the resort. A
majority of the parking is currently across SR 106 from the resort, creating a
24 dangerous situation where pedestrians must cross SR 106 to get to the resort. A
25 crosswalk does cross SR 106, but it is inconveniently located and ignored by resort
patrons. Changes in proposal include the relocation of the lobby, a new ballroom and
spa, and the conversion of a real estate office to administrative space.
Alderwood Inn P. 1 Findings, Conclusions and Decision
(PA0546766.DOC;1/13009.900000/)
I Mr. Faux explained that part of the reason for exceeding the height limit is to
2 introduce peaked roofs to the project, which breaks the scale of the building and hides
building equipment. In response to a question from the Examiner, Mr. Faux
3 explained that the remodel will not involve an additional story. Mr. Faux stated that
the proposed portion of the resort above-ground level facing SR 106 will actually be
4 below 35 feet in height. However, the resort is cut into the side of a slope and on the
side facing Hood Canal the height from floor to roof top is 45 feet. Part of the need
5 for the increased height arises from aligning the floor plates. Parts of the resort on the
6 Canal side had to be excavated six feet down to provide for an even alignment. Mr.
Faux also stated that the property naturally slopes to the Canal.
7
Rick Mraz summarized the staff report.
8
Allison Daily, Deputy District Director for Congressman Norm Dicks, read a letter of
9 support from Norm Dicks and introduced it into the record as an exhibit. Ms. Daily
10 requested that the letter serve as an exhibit in all three hearings on the proposed
project.
11
Lauren Davis, construction manager for Alderbrook Resort, introduced Exhibit F.
12
Barbara Anderson, Collins Woerman, testified on the impacts of height and size. She
13 noted that the buildings are already over 5,000 square feet, increasing in area from
14 62,000 square feet to 63,000 square feet, a 2% increase. Buildings are already over
height at 38 feet. She testified that North Forty has proposed an erosion control plan,
15 a stormwater plan that involves treatment of stormwater prior to discharge in Hood
Canal (an improvement over existing conditions), water saving devices that will help
16 water consumption, insulation and other conservation measures that will reduce
power use, and the replacement of septic systems with the currently existing award
17 winning on-site sewage treatment plant. There are no discernable view impacts to
18 adjoining landowners: North Forty owns the uphill land to the south. The view of a
landowner further upland will not be impacted and the adjoining property owner to
19 east will have his/her view enhanced because of a relocation of the building envelope.
The resort also currently blocks site distance to drivers on SR 106 — the proposed
20 relocation will significantly improve site distance.
21 HEARING ON BUFFER REDUCTION:
22
Rick Mraz summarized his staff report.
23
Dan Faux. In existing conditions there is both gravel and concrete parking lots within
24 the stream buffer. When the project was started Alderbrook Creek was classified as a
25 Type IV stream. The Creek was recently upgraded to Type III, increasing the buffer
from 100 foot to 150 foot buffer plus 15 foot vegetative buffer. There are 34,865
square feet of building footprint in Alderwood Creek buffer and the applicant is only
Alderwood Inn p. 2 Findings, Conclusions and Decision
(PA0546766.DOC;1/13009.900000/)
proposing the addition of 1,528 square feet to the buffer, which is less than 10% of
I existing nonconforming structures. The additional square feet takes two forms: one is
2 the placement of an outbuilding for trash and recycling and another is a new lobby.
In response to an Examiner question Mr. Faux testified that the overall amount of
3 impervious surface will be reduced in the buffer due to the reduction of paved
surfaces.
4
Mr. Faux further testified that Alderwood Creek is not currently viable for salmon
5 passage. The proposed remodel will rehabilitate the stream and enable fish passage
6 eliminating a two-foot bulkhead and adding woody debris, log weirs, boulders and
natural plantings. North Forty is working with the Hood Canal Salmon Enhancement
7 Group to fix the stream. Mr. Faux also stated that a formerly proposed incubator is
no longer proposed due to objections by the Skokomish Tribe.
8
Lauren Davis: Mr. Davis stated that the applicant had initially concluded that the
9 incubator would be beneficial for public education. The Tribe objected because it did
10 not believe that the incubated fish would mix well with the Hood Canal salmon
population.
11
12 HEARING ON SHORELINE PERMITS:
13 Rick Mraz summarized his staff report. Mr. Mraz noted that proposal has been
14 reviewed by the Skokomish Tribe and the Washington State Department of Wildlife
for the SR 106 realignment impacts on Dalby Creek and has received preliminary
15 approval from the Department of Wildlife. The Washington State Department of
Transportation has also partially approved the project and staff is recommending the
16 addition of a condition requiring compliance with Department of Transportation
17 requirements.
18 Dan Faux explained that only 14 feet of the new wing extends into the SMA shoreline
jurisdiction, which is the only part of the building requiring a height variance. Mr.
19 Faux explained that the applicant had moved the new wing as far back from the
shoreline as possible. Highway construction did not allow moving the new wing any
20 further south. A new fire lane is also being added into the shoreline jurisdiction in
21 response to requirements from Mason County. Changes are also being made to a
couple of the cottages, but they will not exceed the 35-foot height limit. Drainage
22 improvements and the joining of the pool building to the spa building are other
changes in the shoreline area
23
Barbara Anderson noted that the applicant is eliminating several covered walkways,
24 paved roads and gravel roads and replacing them with pedestrian paths. The whole
25 shoreline will be revegetated with native plants. Significant landscaping is being
added and Dalby and Alderwood Creeks are being rehabilitated. A raised roof will
Alderwood Inn p. 3 Findings, Conclusions and Decision
{PA0546766.DOC;1/1 3009.900000/}
articulate building lines. A proposed fire lane required by Mason County is being
1 located at an existing access road.
2
3 SPECIAL USE PERMIT EXHIBITS:
4
Exhibit 1: Special Use Permit notebook submitted by Woerman Collins,
5 received by Mason County Planning Department on March 21, 2003.
6 Exhibit 2: Staff report on special use permit (DDR2003-00005), May 27,
7 2003.
g Exhibit A: Master Site Plan (undated).
9 Exhibit B: Notebook entitled "Mason County Environmental Checklist" ,
10 prepared by Woerman Collins.
11 Exhibit C: May 9, 2003 letter from Jerry Hauth.
12 Exhibit D: May 12, 2003 letter from Alan Tahja.
13 Exhibit E: May 27, 2003, letter from Norm Dicks to Hearing Examiner
14 Exhibit F: Road re-alignment map (on back of Exhibit A). Ex. T-3 in the
15 SEPA checklist.
16 BUFFER REDUCTION EXHIBITS:
17 Exhibit 1: Notebook submitted by Woerman Collins entitled "Mason County
18 Environmental Permit", received by Mason County on March 21, 2003
19 Exhibit 2: Staff report and resource ordinance variance (DAR2003-00010),
dated May 16, 2003
20
Exhibit A: May 27, 2003 letter from Norm Dicks to Hearing Examiner
21
22 Exhibit B: Notebook entitled "Mason County Environmental Checklist",
submitted by Woerman Collins
23
Exhibit C: Site plan "New v. Existing" showing current condition in stream
24 buffer
25 Exhibit D: Site plan "New v. Existing" showing proposed conditions in
stream buffer
Alderwood Inn p. 4 Findings, Conclusions and Decision
(PA0546766.DOC;1/13009.900000/)
I SHORELINE PERMIT HEARING EXHIBITS:
2 Exhibit 1: Staff Report for shoreline substantial development
3 permit/conditional use/variance permit (SHR2003-00005) and Addendum to Staff
Report for(SHR 2003-00005)
4
Exhibit 2: Notebook submitted by Woerman Collins entitled "Mason County
5 Shoreline Permit", received by Mason County March 14, 2003 with revision to Page
6 8 received March 21, 2003
7 Exhibit 3: Notebook entitled "Mason County Environmental Checklist",
submitted by Woerman Collins.
8
9 Exhibit 4: May 9, 2003 letter from Robert Hauth.
10 Exhibit 5: May 12, 2003 letter from Alan Tahja.
11
Exhibit 6: May 27, 2003 letter from Norm Dicks to Hearing Examiner
12
13
14 FINDINGS OF FACT
15 (All Findings below are based upon information within the record of each
hearing, i.e. the administrative record for each permit supports each finding
16 below)
17 Procedural:
18 1. Applicant. The applicant is North Forty Lodging, LLC. Barbara
19 Anderson, of Woerman Collins, is the applicant's representative. The Shoreline
Permit Applications were received by Mason County on March 14, 2003. A Special
20 Use Permit Application was received on March 21, 2003. The Resource Ordinance
Variance Application was received on March 21, 2003.
21
2. Hearin,;. The Hearing Examiner conducted a hearing on the applications
22 subject to this Decision on May 27, 2003. The Examiner conducted separate hearings
23 on the three following sets of permits: (1) Special Use Permit; (2) Resource
Ordinance Variance; and (3) Shoreline Substantial Development/Conditional
24 Use/Variance Permits. The hearings were held at the Mason County Board of
Commissioners meeting chambers.
25
Alderwood Inn p. 5 Findings, Conclusions and Decision
{PA0546766.DOC;1/13009.900000/}
Substantive:
1
2 3. Site Description. The project site is housed by the Alderbrook Inn, an
existing 101-room resort located on SR 106, 1.5 miles east of Union. The main
3 campus, located on the north side of SR 106, fronts the Hood Canal at the marina, and
is approximately 2.6 acres in size, not including tidelands. It is comprised of the
4 Plaza Building (to be extensively renovated inside and out), the Lanai Building (to be
5 demolished and replaced with the new wing of guest rooms), the Conference Center
(to be demolished), Eastwood Building (to be renovated into a spa) and a pool (to
6 have minor repairs). The marina, a T configuration dock, will undergo routine
maintenance and repair.
7
To the west of the main campus is a grouping of 21 cottages (partial
8 exterior and interior renovations) located on approximately 1.8 acres.
9 Opposite the main campus and the cottages, on the south side of SR 106, are
10 approximately 6.9 acres housing surface parking lots, the Brookside Building
(receiving interior renovations to become the Administration Center), Sewage
11 Treatment Plant (remaining as is), and undeveloped lots.
12 Located about 307 feet west of the aforementioned property, also on the
13 south side of the highway, is a .77 acre lot, which houses an old barn structure.
14 Page 4 of the environmental checklist identifies the major components of
the proposed redevelopment of the Alderbrook Inn that is the subject of the Special
15 Use Permit Application.
16 4. Characteristics of the Area. North Forty owns the property adjoining to
17 the south of SR 106, a total of about 86 acres. The North Forty property contains a
sewage treatment plant and will otherwise be undeveloped. Adjacent properties to
18 the west and east are residential.
19 5. Adverse Impacts of Proposed Use. The only recognizable adverse impact
will be a seven-foot increase in building height on the new west wing of the facility.
20 Since the property directly south of the west wing is owned by North Forty and the
21 view impacts on other properties are negligible (even improved on one adjoining
property due to building relocation), this is a negligible adverse impact. The overall
22 project impacts are significantly improved by the project, including stream
rehabilitation, reduction of impervious surface in stream buffers and increase in in-
23 stream habitat, improved site distance on SR 106, and architectural design that breaks
up building mass. Although the amount of building footprint in the Alderbrook
24 stream buffer will increase by 3,027 square feet, the amount of paving/parking area in
25 the buffer will decrease by 15,168 square feet, resulting in a substantial reduction in
impervious surface. The project will also eliminate a crossing of Alderbrook Creek.
Alderwood Inn p. 6 Findings, Conclusions and Decision
{PA0546766.DOC;1/13009.900000/}
6. Public Services/Infrastructure. Staff testified that the site will (and
I currently is) served with a full compliment of public services, including an on-site
2 sewage treatment plant. Although use of the facility will probably increase, thereby
creating a greater demand on public services, this increase will be off-set by improved
3 insulation and water conservation measures.
4 CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
5 Procedural:
6
1. Authority of Hearing Examiner. MCC 15.03.050(I) provides the Examiner
7 with the authority to review and issue a final decision upon all permit applications
submitted.
8
9 Substantive:
10 2. Zoning and Comprehensive Plan Designations.tions. The area is designed as
Rural Tourism and Rural Residential 5 (where the Maintenance Building is located).
11
12 SPECIAL USE PERMIT:
13 3. Review Criteria and Application. The review criteria for a Special Use
Application are governed by MCC 1.05.044, which are laid out below with applicable
14 Conclusions of Law. The need for the Special Use Permit is triggered by MCC
1.04.604(B)(C), which requires a special use permit for structures exceeding 5,000
15 square feet in area and 35 feet in height. The proposed remodels will involve an
16 increase in height for the west wing from 38 feet to 45 feet. The total
addition/replacement of building space will also exceed 5,000 square feet.
17
MCC 1.05.044(A): The proposed use will not be detrimental to public health, safety
18 and welfare.
19 4. Staff have analyzed the impact of the increase in height on adjoining
20 views and have found no detrimental impact. The applicant owns the property across
SR 106 that would be most significantly impacted by the increase in height. The
21 applicant will not be developing the property across SR 106 in a fashion that will be
adversely impacted by the increase in height. Adjacent property to the south on an
22 upland site not owned by the applicant will not have its view impacted because of its
23 elevation over the Alderbrook Project. Adjacent owners to the east and the west will
also have no view impacts. Impervious square feet attributable to the roofs of the
24 project is only being increased from 1.4 to 1.5 acres. The actual number of hotel
units in the project will decrease from 101 to 98 as a result of the reconstruction and
25 remodel. Although the number of units will decrease, it does appear that usage of the
property will be increased as a result of the remodel and reconstruction. As indicated
in the Traffic Impact Analysis for the project, at page 3, the hotel has had a historical
Alderwood Inn p. 7 Findings, Conclusions and Decision
(PA0546766.DOC;1/13009.900000/)
occupancy rate of 35 to 50% for the previous five-year period and it is anticipated
I that as a result of the remodel and reconstruction occupancy will increase to 60 to
2 65%. Despite this increase in traffic, the Traffic Impact Analysis prepared for the
project, which is unchallenged, concludes that roads will still operate at an acceptable
3 level of service. As further indicated in the staff report, the environmental impacts of
the project have been fully mitigated to address habitats, wetlands, hydrologic and
4 geotechnical impacts. Given the extensive analysis and mitigation associated with
this project, the proposal will not be a detriment to the public health, safety and
5 welfare.
6 MCC 1.05.044(B): The proposed use is consistent and compatible with the intent of
7 the Comprehensive Plan.
8 5. Staff have conducted an analysis of consistency of the project with the
Comprehensive Plan and have found it consistent, particularly in relation to the
9 policies governing tourist recreational uses, including RU 215, RU 216, and RU 218.
10 MCC 1.05.044(C): The proposed use will not introduce hazardous conditions at the
11 site that cannot be mitigated through appropriate measures to protect adjacent
properties and the community at large.
12
6. Since the project is essentially a remodel of an existing facility, it does not
13 create any recognizable hazards. In point of fact, by relocating SR106 so that parking
14 is on the same side of SR106 as the resort, the project substantially decreases existing
pedestrian/traffic hazards.
15
MCC 1.05.044 (D): The proposed use is served by adequate public facilities which
16 were in place, or planned as a condition of approval or as an identified item in the
17 County's Capital Facilities Plan.
18 7. The environmental checklist and staff testimony establish that the property
is fully served by public facilities, including an on-site sewage treatment plant.
19
MCC 1.05.044 (E): The proposed use won't have a significant impact upon existing
20 uses on adjacent lands.
21 8. The applicant owns most of the adjoining properties, which are intended to
22 be left undeveloped. There are adjoining residential properties to the east and west.
The only adverse impact that this remodel could have on these properties is aesthetic,
23 and as discussed in Finding of Fact No. 5, these impacts are marginal, if not improved
by architectural features that break up building mass.
24
25 Staff also noted in their staff report that the SR106 road realignment will
alter access to the Union Post Office as well as a water wheel located on private
Alderwood Inn p. 8 Findings, Conclusions and Decision
{PA0546766.DOC;1/13009.900000/}
i
property. It is unclear how much access will be altered by the relocation, but impacts
I do not rise the level of"significant" as contemplated in the criteria above.
2 MCC 1.05.044 (F): The proposed use will not result in a need to extend urban
3 services.
4 9. As previously discussed, the project is already served by all necessary
urban services.
5
6 BUFFER REDUCTION:
7 Alderbrook Creek is classified as a Type 3 stream, which requires a 150
foot buffer in addition to a 15 foot building setback as required by MCC
8 17.01.110(D)(2)(Table 3). Work proposed within the 150 foot buffer is outlined in
detail at page 21 of the environmental checklist. The most significant encroachments
9 beyond those already existing in the buffer include the addition of a trash enclosure
10 and the construction of a new two-story lobby and most of a new Porte Cochere. The
total amount of building space within the Alderbrook Creek buffer is increasing from
11 34,865 square feet to 36,393 square feet, representing a 4.4% increasing in building
space. This additional building space is more than off-set by an elimination of
12 impervious road and parking surfaces.
13 MCC 17.01.110(D)(3) allows for the reduction of stream buffers after review and
14 approval of a habitat management plan and consultation with Washington State
Department of Fish and Wildlife and the Skokomish, Quinault and/or Squaxin tribes.
15 The Skokomish Tribe expressed general approval except for concerns about a fish
incubator proposed by the applicant. The applicant has since removed the incubator
16 from the proposal. As indicated in the staff report, all necessary consultations have
been made and the applicant has prepared an excellent habitat management plan that
17 provides mitigation that far exceeds the adverse impacts of the project. All conditions
18 for the requested buffer reduction have been satisfied.
19 SHORELINE SUBSTANTIAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT:
20 MCC 15.09.055(A) requires a substantial development permit for any
21 substantial development within the shoreline jurisdiction. MCC 15.09.055(F)
requires that permit for substantial development permits be subject to review by the
22 Hearing Examiner. MCC 15.09.055(F)(2)(c) provides that the Examiner shall base a
decision on a substantial development permit application on the Shoreline Master
23 Program for Mason County and the policies and procedures of Chapter 90.58 RCW,
the Shoreline Management Act. MCC 7.08 defines a substantial development as any
24 development of which total cost for market value exceeds $5,000 or any development
25 which material interferes with any normal public use of the water or shorelines of the
state. As testified by staff and as is inherently obvious from the nature of the project,
the improvements proposed by the applicant exceed $5,000 and, therefore, require a
Alderwood Inn P. 9 Findings, Conclusions and Decision
(PA0546766.DOC;1/13009.900000/)
shoreline substantial development permit. The Mason County Shoreline Master
I Program is codified as Title 7 to the Mason County Code.
2 The applicable shoreline policies and regulations, as well as state shoreline
3 policies, are listed below with accompanying analyses:
4 MCC 7.16.040(1)(Policy): Commercial development on shorelines should be
encouraged to provide physical and visual access to the shoreline, and other
5 opportunities for the public to enjoy the shoreline.
6 15. The Alderbrook Inn derives most of its appeal from visual and pedestrian
7 access to the shoreline. Pedestrian walkways allow for easy pedestrian access and all
rooms face the waterfront. Recreational facilities such as the pool building and
8 marina are located adjacent to or on the waterfront as well.
9 MCC 7.16.040(2)(Policy): Multiple use concepts which include open space and
10 recreation should be encouraged in commercial developments.
11 16. The Alderbrook Inn contains a wide variety of uses including lodgings,
recreational facilities, a restaurant and significant open space.
12
MCC 7.16.040(3)(Policy): Commercial development should be aesthetically
13 compatible with the surrounding area. Structures should not significantly impact
14 views from upland properties,public roadways or from the water.
15 17. As previously discussed, the project will not have any adverse impacts on
the views of adjoining properties. The project will also be aesthetically enhanced to
16 make it more aesthetically compatible with the surrounding area.
17 MCC 7.16.040(4)(Policy): The location of commercial developments along
18 shorelines should insure the protection of natural areas or system identified as having
geological, ecological, biological or cultural significance.
19
18. As previously discussed, the proposed remodel will significantly improve
20 the ecological systems on-site through stream rehabilitation and the removal of
21 impervious surface. The applicant has also moved the west wing away from the
shoreline jurisdiction and is re-vegetating the shoreline area with native plants.
22
MCC 7.16.040(5)(Policy): Commercial development should be encouraged to be
23 located inland from the shoreline area unless they are dependent on a shoreline
location. Commercial development should be discouraged over-water or in marshes,
24 bogs, swamps and flood plains.
25 19. The applicant has made a strong effort to locate structures away from the
shoreline jurisdiction, including the relocation of the west wing and the placement of
Alderwood Inn P. 10 Findings, Conclusions and Decision
{PA0546766.DOC;1/13009.900000/1
L
all parking facilities outside of the shoreline jurisdiction. A significant amount of
1 open space separates most of the facilities from the Hood Canal shoreline. The site
2 does not lie within a 100 year flood plain and does not extend over-water or in
marshes, bogs or swamps, except for the marina.
3
MCC 7.16.040(6)(Policy): New commercial development in shorelines should be
4 encouraged to locate in those areas with existing commercial development that will
5 minimize sprawl and the inefficient use of shoreline areas.
6 20. The proposed project is a remodel of an existing commercial development,
leaving the general building envelope the same as before while focusing upon
7 connecting building units that are currently separated from each other but in close
proximity and also removing structures from shoreline jurisdiction.
8
MCC 7.16.040(7)(Policy): Parking facilities should be placed inland, away from
9 immediate waters edge and recreational beaches.
10 21. The parking facilities are outside the shoreline jurisdiction.
11
MCC 7.16.040(8)(Policy): Commercial development should be designed and
12 located to minimize impacts of noise and/or light generated by the development upon
adjacent properties. Commercial developments which generate significant noise
13 impacts should be discouraged.
14
22. The main source of noise for the proposed project will be traffic and an
15 electrical generator. The applicant has proposed to muffle the generator with sound
attenuation housing. Construction will also serve as a source of short-term noise. In
16 the environmental checklist, the applicant proposes to keep all equipment mufflers,
engine intake silencers, and engine enclosures properly maintained and functioning
17 and to keep idling equipment off. Light impacts will be significantly reduced by the
18 proposed remodel, since lighting at the Inn dates generally from the 1940's to the
1970's. The applicant also states in the environmental checklist that lighting in
19 parking lot areas and at the perimeter entries will be located and shielded to minimize
potential for light to reach adjacent properties.
20
21 MCC 7.16.040(1)(Use Regulation): The County shall utilize the following
information in its review of commercial development proposals:
22
• Nature of activity;
23 • Need for shore frontage;
• Special considerations for enhancing the relationship of the activity to the
24 shoreline;
25 • Provisions for public visual or physical access to the shoreline;
• Provisions to insure that development will not cause severe adverse
environmental impact;
Alderwood Inn P. 11 Findings, Conclusions and Decision
{PA0546766.DOC;1/13009.900000/)
• Provisions to mitigate any significant noise impacts; and
I • Provisions to mitigate light or glare impacts.
2
23. All these factors are addressed in the above policy analysis for the
3 substantial development permit.
4 MCC 7.16.040(2)(Use Regulation): Commercial development may be permitted on
the shoreline in the following descending order of priority: water dependent, water
5 related and water oriented. Non-water related, non-water depending and non-water
6 oriented developments in an urban and rural environment may be permitted by
substantial development permit when: the parcel of land to be developed is a
7 minimum of 100 feet from OHWM, and is located on the up-line side of a public
roadway, railroad right-of-way or government controlled property.
8
9 24. The project meets the definition of "water oriented use" in Chapter 7.08
MCC. The definition provides that a use qualifies as water oriented when it provides
10 the opportunity for a substantial number of the general public to enjoy the shoreline
without causing significant adverse impacts upon other uses and shore features. One
11 of the qualifying criteria is that it offers a view of waterfront activities, makes use of
any characteristics of the site or supports other proximate water dependent uses. The
12 proposed remodel will enhance the ability of Alderbrook Inn to provide the public
13 with waterfront accommodation and enable easy access to water dependent activities.
As a water-oriented use, the proposed remodel is allowed along the shoreline as
14 detailed in the criteria above.
15 MCC 7.16.040(3)(Use Regulation): Parking and loading areas shall be located
well away from the immediate waters' edge and beaches, unless there is no other
16 practical location for parking. Perimeters of parking areas shall be landscaped to
17 minimize visual impacts of the shorelines, roadways and adjacent properties subject
to approval by Public Works and/or Department of Transportation. Permit
18 applications shall identify the size, general type and location of landscaping. Design
of parking loading areas shall insure that surface run-off does not pollute adjacent
19 waters or cause soil or beach erosion. Design shall provide for storm water
retention. Parking plans shall be reviewed by Mason County Department of Public
20 Works for compliance with applicable County Ordinances. Creation of parking areas
21 by landfilling beyond the OHW mark or in biological wetlands is prohibited.
22 25. As noted previously, parking is all located outside the shoreline (SMA,
Chapter 90.58 RCW) jurisdiction. The project is subject to significant landscaping
23 and all road and parking features have been subject to the review and approval of
Mason County Public Works and the Washington State Department of
24 Transportation. No landfilling of wetlands is proposed for the creation of parking
25 areas.
Alderwood Inn p. 12 Findings, Conclusions and Decision
{PA0546766.DOC;1/13009.900000/)
MCC 7.16.040(4)(Use Regulation): Those portions of a commercial development
I which are not water dependent are prohibited over the water.
2 26. No part of the project is proposed over water except the marina, which is
not subject to the remodel and is water dependent.
3 � p
4 MCC 7.16.040(5)(Use Regulation): Water supply and waste facilities shall comply
with the strictest established guidelines, standards and regulations.
5
6 27. The facilities are served by an award winning sewage treatment facility.
The proposal has already review and approval from the Mason County Environmental
7 Health Department.
8 MCC 7.16.040(6)(Use Regulation): New commercial developments shall be located
9 adjacent to existing commercial developments whenever possible.
10 27.5 The proposal is not a new commercial development.
11 MCC 7.16.040(7)(Use Regulation): New or expanded structures shall not extend
more than 35 feet in height above average grade level.
12
28. All, except approximately 14 feet of the west wing of the project complies
13 with the 35 foot height requirement. The 14 feet in question is authorized by a
g
14 variance.
15 MCC 7.16.040(8)(Use Regulation): Commercial developments adjacent to aqua-
culture operations shall practice strict pollution control procedures.
16
17 29. There are no aqua-culture operations adjacent to the proposed remodel.'
18 ( )( Regulation):MCC 7.16.040 9 Use Re ulation : Commercial development shall be located and
designed to minimize noise impacts on adjacent properties.
19
30. As previously discussed, the applicant has proposed noise mitigation
20 measures in the environmental checklist.
21 The Hearing Examiner adopts by reference the document entitled
22 "Addendum to Staff Report for all SHR2003-00005 Substantial Development Aspect
Transportation Component", which addresses the transportation policies and use
23 regulations in MCC 7.16.060 in the Mason County Shoreline Master Program.
24 The Examiner also adopts by reference the staff analysis of the policies in
25 MCC 7.24.010 that apply as a result of the Hood Canal serving as a shoreline of
statewide significance. This analysis is located in the staff report for the shoreline
Alderwood Inn p. 13 Findings, Conclusions and Decision
{PA0546766.DOC;1/13009.900000/1
I
permits (SHR2003-00005). The aforementioned analysis is equally applicable to the
1 shoreline policies enunciated in RCW 90.58.020.
2 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT:
3
The shoreline master program designation for the Alderbrook Resort
4 project area is "Urban Commercial Development". The project classification table in
Chapter 7.16 MCC provides that non-water dependent/with waterfront uses are
5 allowed in urban shoreline designations with a conditional use permit. Chapter
6 7.28.010 governs criteria for approval of the shoreline master program conditional
use permits. The criteria, which are not numerically codified, provide as follows:
7
That the proposed use will be consistent with the policies of RCW 90.58 and the
8 policies of the shoreline master program;
9 31. The proposed project is consistent with the policies of RCW 90.58 and the
10 policies of the Mason County Shoreline Master Program.
11 That the proposed use will not interfere with the normal public use of the shoreline;
12 32. The project is going to be entirely built upon private property. No part of
the project interferes with locally accessible tideland. The pedestrian walkways on
13 the project site enhance public access to the shoreline.
14
That the proposed use of the site and design of the project will be compatible with
15 other permitted uses within the area;
16 33. As discussed on several prior occasions, the project is well designed to be
compatible with adjoining uses. Although there is an increase in height involved, this
17 will not impact views from adjoining properties and indeed aesthetic design features
18 will help break the scale of the building to make it more aesthetically pleasing and
hence compatible with adjoining uses. There are no other features of the project that
19 will make it incompatible with adjoining properties or create adverse impacts upon
adjoining properties.
20
21 That the proposed use will cause no unreasonable adverse effects to the shoreline
environment in which it is to be located;
22
34. The project is heavily mitigated to improve environmental resources, most
23 notably the stream rehabilitation of Alderbrook and Dalby Creek, the elimination of
impervious surfaces within the shoreline jurisdiction and placement of native
24 vegetation in the shoreline jurisdiction.
25 That the public interest suffers no substantial detrimental effect.
Alderwood Inn p. 14 Findings, Conclusions and Decision
(PA0546766.DOC;l/13009.900000/)
35. There are no recognizable adverse impacts created by this project, except
I for a slight increase in height as previously discussed.
2 36. Cumulative Impacts. MCC 7.28.010 requires consideration of cumulative
3 impacts in the granting of a conditional use permit. As noted by staff in the staff
report, there are no other similar facilities nearby and any new proposals would
4 require rezoning of neighboring lands in harmony with the Mason County
Comprehensive Plan.
5
6 SHORELINE VARIANCE:
7 MCC 7.16.040(7)(Use Regulation) provides that new or expanded structures shall not
extend more than 35 feet in height above average grade level. A little over 14 feet of
8 the renovated west wing of the project will be 45 in height, thus necessitating a
shoreline variance. Shorelines variances are governed by MCC 7.28.020 as follows:
9
10 MCC 7.28.020(1): That the strict application of the bulk, dimensional or
performance standards set forth in the Master Program precludes or significantly
11 interferes with a reasonable use of the property not otherwise prohibited by the
Master Program;
12
37. The applicant needs the variance in order to provide for a pitched roof and
13 to align floor plates in order to provide room for a ballroom, apparently with windows
14 facing SR106. As noted previously, the need for the remodel of the Alderbrook Inn
stems from the fact that its current design does not allow for amenities that attract
15 enough customers for commercially viable use. The addition of a ballroom with
ballroom dimensions is a necessary and appropriate component of a resort facility of
16 this scale. Further, since the ballroom is cut into the side of a slope, the height as
perceived by people travelling along SR106 and properties to the south is less than
17 the 35 foot limit imposed by the Shoreline Master Program. Given these factors and
18 the relatively minor deviation from dimensional requirements (only 14 feet of the
west wing is in the shoreline area where the 35 foot limit applies), the strict
19 application of the 35 foot height limit would significantly interfere with the
reasonable use of the property.
20
21 MCC 7.28.020(2): That the hardship which serves as a basis for the granting of a
variance is specifically related to the property of the applicant, and is the result of
22 unique conditions such as irregular lot shape, size, or natural features in the
application of the Master Program, and not, for example, from deed restrictions or
23 the applicant's own actions;
24 38. The slope of the property has created the need for additional height in
25 order for the floor facing SR106 to be accessible to ground level. This slope, in
conjunction with the existing buildings creates the need for the variance.
Alderwood Inn p. 15 Findings, Conclusions and Decision
(PA0546766.DOC;1/13009.900000/)
MCC 7.28.020(3): That the design of the project will be compatible with other
I permitted activities in the area and will not cause adverse effects to adjacent
2 properties or the shoreline environment;
3 39. As discussed on several prior occasions, the project is compatible with the
surrounding properties and will not create any adverse effects.
4
MCC 7.28.030(4): That the variance authorized does not constitute a grant of
5 special privilege not enjoyed by the other properties in the area, and will be the
6 minimum necessary to afford relief;
7 40. The applicant is only proposing a variance for 14 feet of the project, which
is the minimum necessary to allow the remodel. As testified by the applicant, the
8 west wing has been moved as far outside of the shoreline jurisdiction as possible.
Given that there are no other projects within the area of similar scale, it is not possible
9 to assess whether this is a grant of special privilege. Given the unique circumstances
10 of this project, it is likely that any other project with similar circumstances would be
given the same authority to deviate from bulk and dimensional requirements.
11
MCC 7.28.050(5): That the public interest will suffer no substantial detrimental
12 effect.
13 41. As identified Finding of Fact No. 5, this project creates no adverse
14 impacts.
15 42. Cumulative Impacts. As indicated previously, there are no other facilities
in the nearby area similar to the Alderbrook Inn. Even if there were, there would not
16 be any discernable cumulative impact. The height variance is only for a minor
17 portion of the project and cannot be discerned from upland properties.
18 DECISION
19 The Examiner approves all permits addressed in this decision, to wit: (1) Special Use
Permit for stream buffer encroachment (DDR2003-00005); (2) Buffer Reduction
20 pursuant to MCC 17.01.110(D)(3); and (3) Shoreline Substantial
21 Development/Conditional UseNariance Permit (SHR2003-00005). All permit
approvals are subject to the conditions of approval recommended by staff in the staff
22 reports listed as exhibits herein,. The project is further conditioned as follows:
23 1. Removal of the salmon fish incubator identified in the testimony for the buffer
reduction.
24
25 2. Compliance with the noise and light mitigation measures identified in Section
7(a)(sic)(1) and (3) and Section 11(d) of the environmental checklist.
Alderwood Inn p. 16 Findings, Conclusions and Decision
{PA0546766.DOC;1/13009.900000/}
3. Compliance with mitigation measures imposed by the Washington State
1 Department of Transportation for the relocation of SR 106.
2 Dated this 23rd day of June, 2003.
3 - -
4
Ph 1 Olbrechts
5 Mason County Hearing Examiner
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Alderwood Inn p. 17 Findings, Conclusions and Decision
{PA0546766.DOC;1/13009.900000/}
I
Affidavit of Publication
Notice of application for Buffer
Reduction pursuant to the Mason County
Resource Ordinance and Notice of Public STATE OF WASHINGTON,
Hearing COUNTY OF MASON SS.
Notice Is hereby given that North For-
ty Lodging LLC, who is the applicant for
the following proposal, has filed an appli-
cation for a buffer reduction on a Type III Julie C- Orme being first duly swom
stream.
The request for buffer reduction pur- on oath deposes and says that she is the clerk
suant to the Mason County Resource Or- of THE SHELTON-MASON COUNTY JOURNAL,a weekly newspaper.That said news-
dinance No.77-93 Is for the expansion of paper is a legal newspaper and it is now and has been for more than six months prior to the
Inn facilities, specifically a portion of a
new wing and connecting addition from date of the publication hereinafter referred to,published in the English language continu-
the main plaza building, within a Type III ously as a weekly newspaper in SHELTON,Mason County,Washington,and it is now
stream buffer. Site address and Project and during all of said time was printed in an office maintained at the aforesaid place of
Location: Alderbrook Inn, E. 7107 High- publication of said newspaper.That the said SHELTON-MASON COUNTY JOURNAL
way 106, Union. Tax parcels #32233-50- was on the 9th day of August,1941,approved as a legal newspaper by the Superior Court
90010, 90020, 90030, 90040. Legal de- of said Mason County.
scription Is lengthy and available at
County off ice listed below. That the annexed is a true copy of a Notice Of Appl . For
Date of application: March 21,2003.
The proposed development is re- Buffer Reduction — North Forty Lodging
viewed under the Mason County Re-
source Ordinance No. 77-93, specifically LLC
Section 17.01.110,Fish and Wildlife Habi-
tat Conservation Areas, which details as it was published in regular issues(and not in supplement form)of said
stream buffer requirements and estab-
lishes provisions for decreasing buffers. newspaper once each week for a period of one
The proposal requires a Habitat Manage- consecutive weeks,commencing on the
ment Plan and Hearing Examiner approv-
al. A PUBLIC HEARING will be held by 8 th day of May ,20 03 and ending on the
the Mason County Hearing Examiner on 8th day of May ,20 03 ,both dates inclusive,
the proposed project t Tuesday, May and that such newspaper was re regularly distributed to its subscribers during all of the said
27, 2003 at 1:00 p.m. In the County Com- gu Y g
missioners Chambers,Bldg.1,411 N.5th period.That the full amount of the fee charged for the
Street,Shelton,WA. If special accommo-
dations are needed,contact the Planning foregoing publication is the sum of S 41 .6 9
Department at ext.577. Ob
Please contact Rick Mraz of the Ma-
son County Department of Community
Development at(360) 427-9670, ext. 577,
with any questions or comments on this Subscribed and swom to before me this 8 th day of
development and variance.
5/81t May 20 03
v PUB L%G ft
No rst3for State of Washington
0f ` sid� fWAS� Renghelton Washington
My commission expires
RESOURCE ORDINANCE VLAMANff CHECKLIST
Application received and logged: r f oo zc)
Notice and HMP sent to WDFW and Tribe: ��� Y
Notice of application delivered to Journal: 5 o
Notice of application posted an fled-
Noti e h ng d aver Journal:
Noti o e ng sted and mailed:
Photos?
SEPA?: Circulated on:
Report to HEX by:
HEX hearing date:
Decision: a�
Notice of Final Decision sent on:
Appeal to BOCC:
Notes & Comments:
H: y DocumentsTorms and Templates\RESOURCE ORDINANCE VARIANCE CHECKLIST.doc.ram
Notice of application for Buffer Reduction pursuant to the
Mason County Resource Ordinance and Notice of Public
j Hearing
Notice is hereby given that North Forty Lodging LLC,who is the applicant for the
following proposal, has filed an application for a buffer reduction on a Type III
stream.
The request for buffer reduction pursuant to the Mason County Resource
Ordinance No. 77-93 is for the expansion of Inn facilities, specifically a portion of a
new wing and connecting addition from the main plaza building,within a Type III
stream buffer. Site address and Project Location: Alderbrook Inn, E. 7107
Highway 106, Union. Tax parcels#32233-50-90010,90020,90030,90040. Legal
description is lengthy and available at County office listed below.
Date of application: March 21, 2003.
The proposed development is reviewed under the Mason County Resource
Ordinance No. 77-93, specifically Section 17.01.110, Fish and Wildlife Habitat
Conservation Areas, which details stream buffer requirements and establishes
provisions for decreasing buffers. The proposal requires a Habitat Management
Plan and Hearing Examiner approval.
A PUBLIC HEARING will be held by the Mason County Hearing Examiner on the
proposed project on Tuesday, May 27, 2003.at 1:00 p.m. in the County
Commissioners Chambers, Bldg. I, 411 N. 51h Street, Shelton, WA. If special
accommodations are needed, contact the Planning Department at ext. 577.
Please contact Rick Mraz of the Mason County Department of Community
Development at (360) 427-9670, ext. 577, with any questions or comments on this
development and variance.
\\CLUSTER 1_HOME_SERV ER\HOME\MRAZR\My
Documents\Alderbrook\hexMEPbuffernotice.doc.ram