Master Planned Resorts - GMA Style

Many of the resource-based industries that have traditionally provided jobs and income to rural residents have cut back or even shut down operations. Where this has occurred, concerned county officials are under pressure to attract substitute sources of income, employment, and tax base to revive languishing economies. In response to these needs, the legislature amended the Growth Management Act (GMA) to offer greater flexibility for new uses, services, and economic opportunities in rural areas, while attempting to limit negative effects on rural, resource, and critical area lands. Master planned resorts and small-scale recreational or tourist uses are among the uses that counties may choose to permit within rural areas.

What the Heck are MPRs?

According to the GMA definition, master planned resorts (MPRs) are "self-contained and fully integrated planned unit development(s), 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 recreation facilities," (RCW 36.70A.360(1).)

In other words, MPR's are more than just overnight lodging for visitors or a singlerecreation use. They are carefully planned and integrated developments, centered on special recreational opportunities and natural settings. They provide a package of facilities, services, and amenities that largely meet the daily needs of visitors. They attract visitors for extended stays because of the high quality and varied recreational opportunities and the area's natural splendor. In some other states, MPR's are called destination resorts to emphasize their special attractions and ability to draw visitors from distant places.

While most counties will not land a planned resort of Disneyland dimensions, Washington is already home to a variety of resorts (although all don't perfectly fit the MPR definition). Examples include Crystal Mountain Ski Resort (and its proposed expansion) in the shadow of Mt. Rainier; Port Ludlow, in its Hood Canal setting; the Skamania Lodge, overlooking the Columbia River Gorge National Scenic Area; Rosario Resort, in the San Juan Islands; and Sun Mountain Resort in scenic Okanogan County. In addition, several MPRs have been approved under the new GMA requirements, including the Mt. Rainier at Park Junction Resort in Pierce County and the Mountainstar Resort in Kittitas County.

Small-Scale Recreational or Tourist Uses are not just Mini-MPRs

Small-scale recreational or tourist uses (SSRTs) generally involve a more limited investment and a smaller scale of development on an individual parcel. They are not intended to be mini-MPRs, but generally focus on offering one or several activities rather than a broad range of activities or services. Although smaller in scale, they are generally more intensive uses than traditional rural uses. They may be a "Ma & Pa" type operation, but they still must provide access to a high-quality recreational opportunity to be successful. They can include commercial but not permanent residential uses. Washington has numerous examples of small-scale uses such as bed and breakfast lodging, campgrounds, river rafting guide services, and outdoor sports equipment rental, often bordering national park or recreational areas.

Evaluating the Net Benefits of MPRs

Many of Washington's rural areas offer magnificent scenic settings and natural amenities with potential to attract tourists and recreational enthusiasts. MPRs and SSRTs offer a potential "shot in the arm" for rural counties with depressed economies. They promise to bring new jobs, revenues, and recreational opportunities - a promise that has been realized in some rural communities.

However, these uses can contrast greatly in scale and nature from traditional rural uses and activities. As a result, they can bring changes to the economic, social, or environmental character of surrounding rural areas. The changes can be dramatic and controversial. For instance, Kittitas County recently approved a large MPR sited on 6,200 acres. The development included more units (mostly short-term rentals) than the combined housing units in the adjacent cities of Cle Elum and Roslyn. A citizens' group challenged the MPR approval, and resort developers needed to address concerns raised by adjacent cities and a tribe. The resort development is now moving forward following a series of interlocal agreements, a settlement agreement with the citizens' group, and a development agreement with the county.

Each county will need to weigh whether MPRs offer net benefits to the county and are consistent with GMA and the county's priority goals for its rural areas. In addition, county officials should evaluate whether a proposed resort is likely to succeed, the promised benefits will accrue to county residents, and the benefits outweigh any negative impacts.

MPRs will make sense in some rural locations within some counties. MPRs will be most appropriate where a county seeks new jobs, recreational opportunities, or other benefits that resorts may offer, and when impacts can be adequately addressed. In contrast, other counties that have lost rural lands to sprawl, may decide that preserving the limited remaining rural and resource lands should be the primary focus.

Resort development is a risky business, although the long-term prospects for the industry appear favorable. After reviewing North American resort and recreational projects over a 30-year span, some resort industry leaders estimated that as few as 10 percent were profitable for the original developer (Middleton, 1994). As a result, local jurisdictions should carefully evaluate a proposed MPR's prospects for success. Master planned resorts are typically large undertakings that will take years (and sometimes decades) to complete all phases. To succeed, an MPR must offer something very special. The county must be satisfied that the MPR location qualifies as "a setting of significant natural amenities." In addition, the MPR also must offer a package of high quality recreational opportunity and amenities capable of drawing visitors from distant places. This will require that resort developers make a substantial investment in recreational facilities and other amenities. Much of this investment must occur before substantial revenues come in. To ensure adequate investment, some Oregon communities have adopted a minimum investment requirement of at least $7 million for onsite developed recreation facilities and visitor-oriented accommodations for "destination resorts" (similar in concept to Washington's MPR).

Whether or not a local jurisdiction adopts specific investment targets, it should look for convincing assurance that the project is economically viable. A developer should present market plans and analyses demonstrating that a proposed resort can succeed and that benefits to the community will materialize. In addition, a developer should provide evidence of sufficient company experience and financial backing to manage a large-scale, long-term venture.

Local officials should also consider who will realize resort benefits and who will experience impacts. Although successful resorts can be expected to generate jobs, the jobs will not necessarily go to local residents. It is not unusual for a resort to bring in top managers from other areas. News of job opportunities in a resort setting may draw job seekers from afar who compete with local job seekers. For instance, when the Semiahmoo Resort was developed near Blaine, WA, many jobs were filled by college students from Bellingham, according to one consultant who works with resort developers. Local officials may want to seek some agreement encouraging local job recruitment. Similarly, resort recreation facilities may or may not be available to local residents. Master planned resorts may provide new jobs and revenue, but they may also interfere with farm operations and otherexisting economic pursuits. There also may be an opportunity cost if some other type of development would offer greater benefits.

Local officials should determine that resort benefits (and revenues) to the county and county residents will outweigh any costs or impacts. If the county decides to permit MPRs and/or SSRT uses, the challenge will be to guide the development in a manner that limits undesirable effects on existing infrastructure, sensitive critical areas, resource uses, and rural uses and character. Careful planning and design are essential if an MPR is to attract visitors and harmonize with neighboring rural uses. The MPR should not overwhelm surrounding rural character or disrupt surrounding resource operations. Successful resorts must balance development of an attractive package of amenities with preservation of the features and natural settings that are a major key to attracting visitors. They must also be self-contained and able to meet the daily needs of its guests to minimize traffic and other impacts. MPR developers should also address possible unintended side effects common to large resort developments in remote rural areas. Potential issues include increased land and housing costs in the resort vicinity, increased wildfire hazard, fragmented wildlife habitat, and other impacts.

MPRs and SSRTs offer promising options for broadening economic and recreational opportunities in rural areas. When carefully planned and sited, some of these recreation-related uses can be developed without jeopardizing traditional rural character or economic pursuits. However, county officials should carefully consider whether these uses will further the county's goals for its rural areas. They also should be prepared to ask appropriate questions and negotiate conditions to ensure that such developments will be successful and will benefit the county.

Sue Enger
Planning Consultant
Municipal Research & Services Center