Planning Commission recommends Roche Harbor master-plan amendments, including 100-foot forested buffer and 40% open space for added parcels

The San Juan County Planning Commission on Oct. 17 recommended that the County Council approve amendments to the Roche Harbor Master Planned Resort Activity Center master plan and official maps as presented in staff reports and with specified conditions. The commission—s vote was unanimous following public testimony and a staff presentation by Planner Sophia Cassam.

The amendment, generated in part because large portions of the resort—s existing development area are now constrained by wetlands, does not add dwelling units to the resort. "There is no proposed increase to the number of units allowed in the district," Cassam said. The 1996 plan allows 180 units in the resort residential/recreational district; the proposed map change redistributes where those units could be built, not the total count.

Why it matters: Staff and the applicant said wetlands and other critical-area constraints in the resort—s originally mapped area mean the 180 units cannot be realized where previously mapped. The proposed map amendment enlarges the area in which those entitled units could be sited in buildable locations, while imposing conditions intended to protect view corridors, open space and neighborhood character.

Major conditions and clarifications included in the recommendation

- No increase in unit count: The master plan continues to cap the resort recreational residential district at 180 dwelling units.

- Minimum 40% open space on five parcels added to the resort district: Staff recommended and the commission required that these parcels maintain at least 40% open space so the resort cannot reallocate that open space elsewhere within the resort boundary.

- 100‑foot forested buffer along Roche Harbor Road and LaRue Road: The recommendation requires a minimum 100‑foot forested buffer along the outer boundaries of the five affected parcels to reduce visual and noise impacts; exceptions were noted for utilities and necessary access.

- Recreational amenities maintained: The master plan amendment and conditions require recreational amenities to be provided or maintained as part of future planned unit development (PUD) phases.

Applicant and public testimony

Anna Nelson, land‑use consultant for Roche Harbor, said prior wetland studies (2021) and a county‑retained third‑party review (Canyon Environmental, Nov. 2023) informed the conclusion that the previously mapped area contains wetlands that limit development. "...even at the pre‑app stage, it became really apparent that there was never a way to fully realize 180 units in the district at the site as mapped today," Nelson said.

Neighboring property owners expressed concern about buffer width, visual impacts and noise. "We signed up for a rural area and are quite disappointed that this is going to become kind of a high‑density housing area," said resident Kim Kyla Corson, who asked the county to conserve a named parcel as treed buffer. Resident Glenn Korsen asked whether backup wells and the disc‑golf course on the parcel would be affected and suggested a larger setback (he cited roughly 300 feet from road to home for his neighborhood).

Commission questions and staff responses

Commissioners pressed staff and the applicant on wetland mapping and how precise boundaries will be established. Staff clarified that public GIS layers are indicators but that a formal wetland delineation and other technical studies are typically required at the PUD application stage. Anna Nelson confirmed the applicant had worked through a pre‑application that included consultant wetland work and that the county had asked for a third‑party review.

Deliberation and formal actions

- Motion to accept staff draft findings (mover: Bill; second: Peter). Roll call: Sarah – yes; Sheila – yes; Bill – yes; Peter – yes; Chair Rick – yes. Outcome: approved.

- Motion to recommend the proposed Roche Harbor master plan and map amendments to the San Juan County Council as presented in the Oct. 3 staff report (mover: Peter; second: Bill). Roll call: Sarah – yes; Sheila – yes; Bill – yes; Peter – yes; Chair Rick – yes. Outcome: recommendation approved unanimously.

What happens next

Staff will forward the Planning Commission findings and the recommendation to the County Council. Cassam said the council will be briefed on Nov. 3 and is expected to hold a public hearing in late November or early December, at which time the council will take final action on the proposed amendment and any associated comp‑plan updates.

What the decision does not do

The commission—s action does not approve a specific development; it amends the master‑plan maps and master plan text and adds conditions. Any future project to build units on the resort property would require separate PUD and permit applications, technical studies (wetland delineation, geotech, cultural resources as applicable) and public review, at which time neighbors may offer additional public comment.