Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10 1214 98 ., '... G(~ ", p~\ ~ IJ. .¡q.'tf STATE OF WASHINGTON COUNTY OF JEFFERSON IN THE MATTER OF amending the Interim Ordinance No. 06-0828-98 Sections 3.160, 4 and 11, under RCW 36.70A.390, regulating land use And development within the Port Ludlow Master Planned Resort } } } } } } ORDINANCE NO. 10-1214-98 The Jefferson County Board of Commissioners enters the following findings: 1. Jefferson County is planning under the provisions of the Washington State Growth Management Act, codified as 36.7@., RCW, 2, Jefferson County adopted its 20-year comprehensive land use plan on August 28, 1998, 3. The Comprehensive Plan designates Port Ludlow as a Master Planned Resort, based on the provisions contained in RCW 36,70A.362, 4, The Jefferson County Board of Commissioners adopted the Emergency Interim Controls Ordinance ("EICO"), Ordinance No, 06-0828-98, concurrent with the adoption of the Comprehensive Plan to ensure that all future development within the County is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, 5. The Emergency Interim Controls Ordinance contains provisions for development throughout the County but omitted development standards for several zoning districts within the Port Ludlow Master Planned Resort, 6. The BOCC directed planning staff and the Jefferson County Planning Commission to develop and adopt development standards for the Port Ludlow Master Planned Resort within sixty (60) days of the issuance of the EICO, 7. The Planning Commission held 4 public meetings, attended by a total of seventy-five (75) members of the public and representatives of Olympic Resource Management (ORM). .. 8. The Planning Commission, staff and members of the public toured areas of the Port Ludlow Master Planned Resort on September 23, 1998, at the invitation of ORM, 9. At the meeting of September 30, 1998, staff presented to the Planning Commission a review and comparison of the development limitations contained in the 1993 Port Ludlow FEIS. 10, At the public meeting of September 30, 1998, the Planning Commission requested to see a Master Plan for Port Ludlow. 11. Representatives of ORM responded that no new Master Plan had been finalized and that a resort redevelopment plan was in the process of being worked out with residents of the Port Ludlow community. vOL ?A 'U:- ,- 4f r..,' 3~49 December II, 1998 17, 18, 19, 20. . ,. . 12. On October 7, 1998, ORM presented to the Planning Commission a conceptual rendering of a redevelopment plan for the resort complex area of the Master Plan Resort, 13, RCW 36.70A.362 contains provisions for the review of existing Master Planned Resorts, 14. The County has found that the existing plan is consistent with the development regulations established for critical areas and that on-site and off-site infrastructure impacts have been fully considered and mitigated. 15. The planning staff advised the Planning Commission that, without an adopted new master plan for Port Ludlow which addressed the environmental impacts of the proposed new development at Port Ludlow, development standards would have to be adopted that were consistent with the adopted 1993 Port Ludlow Final Environmental Impact Statement. 16. The Planning Commission, on October 7, 1998, voted ( five in favor, none opposed and one abstention) to have staff develop standards and regulations which were consistent with the 1993 Port Ludlow Final Environmental Impact Statement. - The Planning Commission and staff, at the public meetings of September 30th, October 7th and October 14th, 1998, reviewed the proposed development regulations prepared by the planning staff and took public comment. On October 14th, the Planning Commission voted, recommending forwarding this draft ordinance to the Jefferson County Board of County Commissioners, This ordinance is consistent with the SErA detennination of August 17th, 1998, This ordinance shall remain in effect until such time as final development regulations to implement the MPR designation are adopted, NOW, THEREFORE, The Jefferson County Board of Commissioners amends the interim Ordinance No. 06-0828-98, Sections 3.160, 4 and 11, under RCW 36.70A.390, regulating land use and development within the Port Ludlow Master Planned Resort and ordains the following: 1,'0' 24 rY: ~50 December II, 1998 2 SECTION 1 STATEMENT OF AUTHORITY AND PURPOSE Section 1,10 Statement of Authority: This ordinance is adopted pursuant to Chapter 36,70 RCW. Section 1.20 Statement of Purpose and Intent: The purpose and intent of this ordinance is to accommodate development within the Port Ludlow Master Planned Resort consistent with the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan and that identified in the 1993 FEIS. A new or revised Master Plan may be submitted for the entire area within the MPR boundary or for an entire zone within the MPR. All plans submitted shall comply with Section 3.90 of this ordinance. Port Ludlow is the only Master Planned Resort (MPR) in Jefferson County, In accordance with the 1993 Port Ludlow FEIS Final Environmental Impact Statement and Jefferson County Resolution 17-96, which allocates population to Port Ludlow over the next 20-years, the MPR is limited to a total buildout of 2250 residential units including single-fa¡nily detached, single-family attached, multi-family, assisted living and congregate care. The Comprehensive Plan lists seven categories of general uses within the MPR. Section 1.30 Rules ofInterpretation: The following rules shall be followed in making interpretation relating the terms and conditions contained herein, 1. For purposes of this Ordinance, all words used in the ordinance shall use normal and customary meanings, unless specifically defined otherwise in this ordinance, Words used in the present tense include the future tense, The plural includes the singular and vice-versa. The words "will" and "shall" are mandatory. The words "may" and "should" indicates that discretion is allowed. The word "used" includes designed, intended, or arranged or intended to be used. The masculine gender includes the feminine and vice-versa. 2, 3, 4. 5. 6. 7. VOL 24 rAr,~ 3Z51 December 11, 1998 3 ~ SECTION 2 SCOPE OF REGULATIONS Sections: 2.10 2,20 2.30 Territorial Application of Regulations Intent Exemptions Section 2.10 Territorial Application of Regulations. The provisions of this Ordinance shall apply to all land, all water areas and all structures within the boundary of the Master Planned Resort of Port Ludlow as depicted on the official land use map for Jefferson County, Washington. Section 2.20 Intent. No structure shall hereafter be erected and no existing structure shall be moved, altered, added to or enlarged, nor shall any land or structure be used, or arranged to be used for any purpose other than that which is included among the uses listed in the following chapters as permitted in the zoning district in which the structure or l~d is located, nor shall any land or structure be used in any manner contrary to any other requirements specified in this Ordinance, , Section 2.30 Exemptions, The following structures and uses shall be exempt from the regulations of this Ordinance, but are subject to all other applicable Local, State and Federal regulations including, but not limited to, the County Building Ordinance, Interim Critical Areas Ordinance, the Shoreline Management Master Program and SEP A. 1. Wires, cables, conduits, vaults, pipes, mains, valves, tanks, or other similar equipment for the distribution to consumers of telephone or other communications, electricity, gas, or water or the collection of sewage, or surface or subsurface water operated or maintained by a governmental entity or a public or private utility or other County franchised utilities including customary meter pedestals, telephone pedestals, distribution transformers and temporary utility facilities required during building construction, whether any such facility is located underground, or above ground; but when only such facilities are located in a street right-of-way or in an easement. 2. Railroad tracks, signals, bridges and similar facilities and equipment located on a railroad right-of-way, and maintenance and repair work on such facilities and equipment. 3. Telephone booths and pedestals, underground utility equipment, mailboxes, bus shelters, informational kiosks, public bicycle shelters, or similar structure or device which is found by the Director of Community Development is obviously intended to be appropriately located in the public interest. 4. Agricultural buildings used to house livestock, store feed or farm equipment. 5. Minor construction activities, as defined by the UBC, Section 106.2 and structures exempt under Jefferson County Building Code Ordinance #03-0713-98 as amended. : v vot 24 rAr,; 3~32 December II, 1998 4 Sections: 3.10 3.20 3.30 3.40 3.50 3,60 3.70 3.80 3,90 Section 3 PORT LUDLOW MASTER PLANNED RESORT ZONING DISTRICTS Single Family (MPR-SF) Single Family Tracts (MPR-SFT) Multi-Family (MPR-MF) Resort Complex/Community Facility (MPR-RC/CF) Village Commercial Center (MPR- VC) Recreation Areas (MPR-RA) Open Space Reserve (MPR-OSR) Additional Requirements Master Plan Revisions Section 3.10 Sinele Family Zone (MPR-SF) Section 3,101 Purpose: ;¡his zone is intended to recognize, maintain and promote single family residential areas within the MPR, including opportunities for reasonably priced housing. Section 3,102 Permitted Uses: The following uses are permitted within the MPR zone: 1. Single family detached dwelling units. 2. Home-based business, 3. Accessory buildings, such as garages, carports, storage buildings and similar structures supporting the residential environment. . 4, Trails, parks, open space and playgrounds approved through a platting process, 5, Minimum lot areas of 5,000 square feet approved through a platting process and not to exceed a density of four (4) dwelling units per acre, Existing subdivisions shall not be further subdivided. Existing legal non-residential uses are valid land uses in all zones of the Master Planned Resort and shall comply with Comprehensive Plan policies LNP 8,1-8.11 on non-conforming uses. Section 3,103 Conditional Uses: The following uses are permitted conditionally in the MPR-SF zone: 1. Trails, parks, open space and playgrounds if not part of a platting process, 2. Minimum lot areas of 3,500 square feet if approved through a platting process and not to exceed a density of four (4) dwelling units per acre. Existing subdivisions shall not be further subdivided. 3. Single family attached dwelling units including duplexes, triplexes and fourplexes as part of a new subdivision, not to exceed four (4) dwelling units per acre. Section 3.104 Height Restrictions: No building or structure shall be erected, enlarged or structurally modified to exceed 35 feet in height. Section 3.105 Bulk Requirements: The minimum lot requirements for detached dwelling shall be as provided in Tables MPR-SF below. TABLE MPR-SF Density Minimum Minimum Front Yard Side Yard Rear Yard Maximum Impervious Lot Area Lot Width Setback Setback Setback Surface 4 DUlAC 5,000 sq.ft. 40' 20' 5' 5' 45% December 11, 1998 VOL 24 rM,. 3253 5 Section 3.20 Sinille Family Tract Zone (MPR-Sm Section 3,20 I Purpose: This zone is intended to recognize, maintain and promote larger, single family residential tracts within the MPR. Section 3.202 Pennitted Uses: The following uses are pennitted within the MPR-SFT zone: I. 2. Single family detached dwelling units, Accessory buildings, such as garages, carports, storage buildings and similar structures supporting the residential environment. Accessory buildings, such as barns, stables and similar structures. Home-based business. Trails, parks, open space and playgrounds approved through a platting process. 3. 4, 5. Existing legal non-residential uses are valid land uses in all zones of the Master Planned Resort and shall comply with Comprehensive Plan policies LNP 8,1-8.11. Section 3.203 ConditionärUses: The following uses are pennitted conditionally within the MPR-SFT zone: I. Trails, parks, open space and playgrounds if not part of a platting process. Section 3,204 Height Restrictions: No building or structure shall be erected, enlarged or structurally modified to exceed 35 feet in height. Section 3,205 Bulk Requirements: The minimum lot requirements shall be as provided in Table MPR-SFT below, TABLE MPR-SFT Density Minimum Minimum Front Yard Side Yard Rear Yard Maximum Impervious Lot Area Lot Width Setback Setback Setback Surface 1 DU/2.5 AC 2.5AC 100' 25' 25' 25' 20% Section 3.30 Multi-Family Zone (MPR-MF) Section 3.301 Purpose: This zone is intended to recognize, maintain and promote within the MPR multi- family housing opportunities, in part to provide lower-cost housing units, Section 3.302 Pennitted Uses: The following uses are pennitted within the MPR-MF zone: I. Multiple family dwelling units including condominiums. 2. Assisted-Living and long-tenn care facilities, 3. Accessory uses and structures supporting the residential environment such as garages, carports, storage buildings, pools, and recreation buildings. 4. Home-based business. 5, Trails, parks, open space and playgrounds approved through a platting process, Existing legal non-residential uses are valid land uses in all zones of the Master Planned Resort and shall comply with Comprehensive Plan policies LNP 8.1-8.11, Section 3.303 Conditional Uses: The following uses are permitted conditionally in the MPR-MF zone: 1. Trails, parks, open space and playgrounds if not part of a platting process. December II, 1998 VOL 2 4 r~r.; 3~54 6 Section 3.304 Height Restrictions: No building or structure shall be erected, enlarged or structurally modified to exceed 35 feet in height as measured by UBC standards, Section 3.305 Bulk Requirements: The minimum lot requirements shall be as provided in Table MPR-MF below. TABLE MPR-MF Density Minimum Minimum Front Yard Side Yard Rear Yard Maximum Lot Area Lot Width Setback Setback Setback Impervious Coverage 10 DUlAC N/A N/A UBC UBC UBC 55% Section 3.40 Resort Comolex/Communitv Facilities Zone (MPR-RC/CF) Section 3.401 Purpose: The MPR-RC/CF zone is intended to provide amenities and services associated with a destination resort, Uses in the RC/CF zone must be supportive of the recreational nature of the resort, In accordance with the 1993 Port Ludlow FEIS, the MPR-RC/CF zone is limited to a total development cap of 48,000 square feet of noQ;.residential development in addition to those uses which existed prior to 1993. Until a new master plan is developed and is approved by the County, no new development is allowed except the redevelopment of those structures currently built or vested, For the interim, uses and structures which were in existence at the time of issuance of the FEIS shall be pennitted to redevelop in kind (i,e. condominium units), Existing condominium units shall continue to be allowed in the resort zone, Retail commercial uses within this zone that are associated with the resort use are limited to a total of 2,500 square feet and are part of the 48,000 total square foot cap for the zone. Kehele Park is located to the north of the RC/CF zone and serves as a community park operated by the Ludlow Maintenance Commission. Section 3.402 Pennitted and Conditional Uses: For purposes of this ordinance, uses at the resort complex are limited to those uses which currently exist and those which are addressed in the 1993 Port Ludlow FEIS until the submittal and approval of a new plan for the redevelopment of the resort zone in accordance with Section 3.90 of this ordinance. The following uses are pennitted within the MPR-RC/CF zone which are directly related to the resort facilities and/or operations. USES RC/CF Kehele Park Hotel (Inn) and appropriate associated uses .¡' Conference Center/Banquet Facility .¡' Parks and Trails as part of a platting process .¡' .¡' Recreation Center/ Club .¡' Res ta uran tlLo un g eIB ar .¡' Marina .¡' Seaplane Dock C Resort Related Retail Use .¡' Library/Museum C Interpretive and Infonnational Kiosks .¡' Community Organization Activity Facilities, Le. club house .¡' Multifamily and Single Family Residential Structures (10 du/ac) .¡' Tennis Courts .¡' .¡' Those uses and activities which currently exist at the LMC-owned property (Ludlow Beach Club and Kehele Park) are recognized as valid uses and activities and may continue in accordance with the current use of the facilities, December II, 1998 VOL 24 rAr,. ~55 7 Existing legal non-residential uses are valid land uses in all zones of the Master Planned Resort and shall comply with Comprehensive Plan policies LNP 8.1-8.11. Residential uses within the RC/CF zone are bound by the bulk and dimensional standards established in their respective residential zoning districts within this Ordinance (see Sections 3.10 and 3.30) and are limited to the overall 2250 residential unit cap for the MPR, Section 3.403 Hei¡.?;ht Restrictions: No building or structure shall be erected, enlarged or structurally modified to exceed 35 feet in height, excluding roof projections, as measured by UBC standards, except for Hotels which shall not exceed 50 feet in height as measured by UBC standards. Section 3.404 Bulk Requirements: Bulk and dimensional requirements for the MPR-RC/CF zone are contained in the table below. Density Minimum Minimum Front Yard Side Yard Rear Yard Maximum Impervious Lot Area Lot Width Setback Setback Setback Coverage N/A N/A UBC UBC UBC 50% TABLE MPR-RC/CF - Section 3.50 Villaee Commercial Center Zone (MPR- VC) Section 3.501 Purpose: The intent of the MPR-VC zone is to provide retail-commercial uses and other services to serve the needs of resort visitors and community residents, In addition to retail commercial uses or services, other uses such as government or community offices and facilities; long-term care facilities; and visitor services shall be permitted within this zone, Section 3.502 Permitted Uses: The following uses are permitted in the MPR-VC zone: Permitted Commercial Uses . Bank and financial institutions . Art Gallery . Variety Stores . Interior Shop . Grocery Stores . General/Business Offices . Hardware Store . Professional Offices . Pharmacy and Drug Stores . Real Estate . Liquor Stores (state) . Theater . Personal Medical Supply Stores . Food Service Establishments . Travel Consultant . Day care Center . Post Office . Clinics (Medical, Dental, Mental Health, . Dry cleaner/Laundry Chiropractic) . Florist Shops . Social Services . Specialty food stores . Miscellaneous Health . Sporting Goods and related Stores . Home Health/Home Care . Book and stationary Stores . Vehicle Repair and Gas Station . Jewelry Stores . Car wash . Photographic and Electronic Shops . Transportation Service . Computer and Office Equipment and Related . Utility purveyor offices Services . Recycl ing Drop-off facility . Music Stores . Library . Farmer's Market . Museum . Barber and Beauty shops . Community Center 24 r~r,;: 3(--'56 VOL ,"'-' 8 December II, 1998 . Public agency or utility offices Police facility Fire Station Post Office, mailing and packaging businesses Park Residential Uses: . Multi-family . Assisted living . Single family retail/commercial apartments) in association with uses (i.e. second story . . . . Existing legal non-residential uses are valid land uses in all zones of the Master Planned Resort and shall comply with Comprehensive Plan policies LNP 8,1-8.11, Residential uses within the MPR- VC zone are bound by the bulk and dimensional standards established in their respective residential zoning districts within this Ordinance (see Sections 3,10 and 3.30) and are considered part of the overall 2250 residential unit cap for the MPR. Section 3.503 Conditional Uses: The following uses are permitted conditionally within the MPR-VC zone: . Parking Structure - Meeting Facilities . Section 3,504 Height restrictions: No building or structure shall be erected, enlarged or structurally modified to exceed 35 feet in height, excluding roof projections, as measured by UBC standards. Section 3.505 Bulk Dimension Requirements: The maximum square foot area per building allowed shall be 30,000 sq, feet. Density MPR-VC Front Yard Side Yard Rear Yard Maximum Setback Setback Setback Impervious Coverage UBC UBC UBC * Minimum Lot Area N/A Minimum Lot Width N/A Section 3.60 Recreation Area (MPR-RA) Section 3.601 Purpose: The MPR-RA zone is intended to recognize, maintain, and promote the existing and future active recreation activities and areas within the Port Ludlow Master Planned Resort. Section 3.602 Permitted Uses: The following uses are permitted within the MPR-RA zone: 1. 2. 3. 4, 5, Parks and Trails Golf Shop/Club House/Snack Bar/Lounge Interpretive Center, signage Golf Course and Related Offices/Maintenance Buildings and Facilities Indoor and Outdoor Recreation Club Existing legal non-residential uses are valid land uses in all zones of the Master Planned Resort and shall comply with Comprehensive Plan policies LNP 8.1-8.11, Section 3.603 Height Restrictions, No building or structure shall be erected, enlarged or structurally modified to exceed 35 feet in height, excluding roof projections, as measured by UBC standards, VOL 24 f:~f;' 3~57 December 11, 1998 9 Section 3,604 Bulk and Dimensional Requirements: The maximum square foot area for the MPR-RA shall be consistent with table 11-1 of the Emergency Interim Controls Ordinance (No, 06-0828-98). Density Minimum Minimum Front Yard Side Yard Rear Yard Maximum Impervious Lot Area Lot Width Setback Setback Setback Coverage N/A N/A UBC UBC UBC Table 11-1 MPR-RA Section 3.70 ODen Space Zone (MPR-OSR) Section 3.701 Purpose: The purpose of the Open Space zone is to preserve in perpetuity and enhance the natural amenities around Ludlow Bay, the Twin Islands and other natural areas within the MPR. Uses within the Open Space Area shall be low impact and serve to promote or enhance the aesthetic qualities of the Master Planned Resort. No residential or commercial development shall be pennitted in the MPR-OSR zone. 00- Section 3.702 Pennitted Uses: The following uses shall be pennitted in the MPR-OSR zone: 1. 2, Parks, trails, paths, bridges, benches, shelters, and restrooms Directional and interpretative signage and kiosks, Section 3.703 Conditional Uses: The following uses shall be pennitted conditionally in the MPR- OSR zone: 1. Man-made water features or enhanced natural water features, such as ponds, wetlands, wetland buffer enhancements and stonn water detention ponds, Interpretive Center Equestrian Facility 2. 3. Existing legal non-residential uses are valid land uses in all zones of the Master Planned Resort and shall comply with Comprehensive Plan policies LNP 8.1-8.11. Section 3.704 Height Restriction: No building or structure shall be erected, enlarged or structurally modified to exceed 35 feet in height, excluding roof projections, as measured by UBC standards, Section 3.705 Bulk and Dimensional Requirements: The maximum square foot area per building allowed shall be 2000 sq. feet. Some utility facilities may exceed this cap. Section 3.80 Additional Requirements Refer to the following Ordinances for additional provisions or development standards which may qualify or supplement the regulations presented in this ordinance: ]. Ordinance No. 05-0509-94, Interim Critical Areas Ordinance. 2. Ordinance No.1 0-11 04-96, Storm water Management Ordinance 3. Ordinance No. 04-0526-92, Subdivision Ordinance, as amended by this Ordinance 4. Chapter 246-272 WAC, On-Site Sewage Systems 5. Shoreline Management Master Program \'OL 24: rAc" -3~58 ':', Dccember 11. 1998 10 6. Other local, state, and federal regulations as applicable, such as the 1993 Port Ludlow Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS), The provisions contained within this ordinance are intended to serve as emergency interim development standards and are consistent with the current development plan for Port Ludlow. Final development regulations for the Port Ludlow Master Planned Resort will be established upon completion of the Master Plan for the Port Ludlow MPR and will be consistent with the Master Plan, the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan and all other pertinent documents. Section 3.90 Master Plan Revisions 1, Applicability: A. A revision to an existing Master Plan or any sub-area or zone within the Master Planned Resort shall be submitted to the County for approval prior to the acceptance of any proposal that is inconsistent with the previously adopted Master Plan or FEIS, All subsequent development proposals shall be consistent with the revised Master Plan and development regulations as ap.£roved. B. The requirements of this section do not apply to any development for which a permit has been granted and for development that was vested prior to the adoption of this regulation. 2, Purpose: To provide for the planning, development, and assessment of revisions to the Master Plan consistent with RCW 36,70A.362 and the specific policies contained within the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan. When approving a revision to a Master Plan, the County shall make the following findings: a. The proposed revision does not create new urban or suburban land uses in the vicinity of the existing MPR; b, The revision to the Master Plan is consistent with the development regulations established for critical areas; c. On-site and off-site infrastructure (including, but not limited to, water, sewer, storm water or transportation facilities) impacts for the revised resort have been fully considered and mitigated. 3. Review Process: Proposed revisions to a Master Plan shall be submitted to the Long-range Planning Department. The proposal will be reviewed against the provisions outlined in Sections 3.901 and 3,902 below and the DCD Director will make a determination as to whether the proposal constitutes a major or minor plan revision. Upon making a determination, the proposed revision shall follow the appropriate process for plan revisions as outlined in Sections 3.901 or 3.902. Section 3.901 Major Revisions Revisions to an adopted Master Plan that will result in a substantial change to the intent or purpose of the MPR designation including: increase in the intensity of use, scale, or density of development; revisions to the MPR boundaries or sub-area boundaries; or changes which are deemed to have a substantial impact on the environment beyond those which have been reviewed in previous environmental documents, are considered to be major revisions and will require the submission of a revised master plan, or sub-area or zone plan that addresses the proposed changes, VOL 24 tAr,; 3~59 December II. 1998 II 1. Application for a Revision to Master Plan or Sub-area Plan or Zone Plan, A revision to the Master Planned Resort or any sub-area or zone shall be prepared describing the proposed revision in relation to the approved Master Plan and provide a framework for review, analysis and mitigation of the revised development activity proposed. The Master Plan revision proposal shall include the following information: A, A description of the setting and natural amenities in which the MPR is situated, the particular natural and recreational features that attract people to the area and resort and how the revised Master Plan or Sub-area Plan or Zone Plan fits within the overall approved master plan, B. A description of how the Master Plan revision complements the destination resort facilities of the MPR. C. A description of the design and functional features of the Master Plan revision, with supportive information, which provide for a unified development, integrated site design and protection of natural amenities; and which further the goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan. D. A listing of pr°,2osed additional allowable uses and/or proposed maximum density and intensity of uses within the MPR and a discussion of how these changes and their distribution meet the needs of residents and patrons of the MPR, Additional proposed uses for review may include but not be limited to the following uses for the following zones: MPR-RC/CF . Short-term visitor accommodations and appropriate associated uses . Marina and related facilities MPR-VC . Garden store MPR-RA . Restaurant MPR-OSR . Interpretive centers . Antique store . Lounge . Equestrian facilities . Youth activity center Emergency Helicopter pad . RV park . Increased impervious surface ratios may also be allowed within the MPR- VC and MPR-CF zones only if the proponent clearly demonstrates in the plan document that adequate facilities will be developed to ensure adequate storm water management. E. A description and analysis of the environmental impacts associated with the proposed revision, including an analysis of the cumulative impacts of both the proposed revision and the approved Master Plan, and their effects on surrounding properties and/or public facilities. F. A description of how the proposed Master Plan revision is integrated with the overall MPR and any features, such as trail systems, natural systems or greenbelts, that have been established to retain and enhance the character of the overall MPR, G, A description of the intended phasing of development projects within the revised sub- area/zone, if any; and how this phasing relates to the overall phasing of development within the MPR. H. Maps, drawings, illustrations, or other materials necessary to assist in understanding and visualizing the design and operation of the completed proposed development, its facilities and services, and the protection of critical areas, VOL 24 r~f,;: 34'"'ç"Q , "'-' (.) December 11. 1998 12 I. A calculation of estimated new demands on capital facilities and services and their relationship to the existing MPR demands, including but not limited to: transportation, water, sewer and storm water facilities; and a demonstration that sufficient facilities and services to support the development are available or will be available at the time development permits are applied for. 2. Major Revision Process The revised Master Plan or sub-area/zone plan will identify allowable uses, their locations and intensities, and the cumulative environmental impacts associated with the proposed development. Plan revisions will be submitted to the Jefferson County Long-Range Planning Department for review and an administrative determination of the type of Master Plan revision by the DCD Director. The DCD director shall make a determination of the Master Plan revision within 14 days of submission. Those revisions that are deemed to be major revisions will be reviewed as submitted by the Jefferson County Planning Commission for consistency with the provisions of - the Comprehensive Plan and other supporting documents and regulations, The Planning Commission will then submit the Master Plan and a report of findings and recommendations to the Board of County Commissioners for review and final adoption as a sub-area amendment to the Comprehensive Plan within sixty (60) days of the major revision determination by the DCD Director. Revisions of Master Plan or sub-area/zone plans within an approved Master Plan Resort may occur outside the annual comprehensive plan amendment date. The adopted revision will also be reviewed by the SEP A Responsible Official to determine the level of environmental review required for the revised plan, Section 3.902 Minor Revisions It is recognized that a Master Planned Resort may require minor changes to facilities and services in response to changing conditions or market demand and that some degree of flexibility for the resort is needed, Minor revisions are those that do not result in a substantial change to the intent or purpose of the master plan in effect and which: a. Involve no more than a ten percent (10%) increase or decrease in the overall square footage of the floor area over that identified in the development plan (Master Plan or sub-area/zone plan). b. Will not have a significantly greater impact on the environment and/or facilities than that addressed in the development plan, c. Do not alter the boundaries ofthe approved plan. d, Do not propose uses that modify the recreational nature and intent of the Master Planned Resort. I, Minor Revision Process: Applications for plan revisions shall be submitted to, and reviewed by the Jefferson County Long-Range Planning Department to determine if the revisions are consistent with the existing MPR plan, the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan and other pertinent documents. Those proposals that are determined to result in no major change in use, location, intensity or environmental impact and which satisfy the above-referenced criteria shall be deemed a minor plan revision and may be administratively approved by the Director of the Department of Community Development, VOL 24 rM,; . 3~61 December 11,1998 13 , .. 2. Requirements: All minor revisions shall be evaluated to determine the anticipated environmental impacts associated with the minor revision and shall demonstrate that there are adequate services and infrastructure to support the proposed minor revision, Those revisions that do not comply with the provisions contained within this Section shall be deemed a major revision, subject to the provisions outlined in Section 3,901 above. - December 11, 1998 14 VOL 24 fAr" 3~62 SEtTION 4 SEVERABILITY Severability: If any section, subsection, or other portion of this Ordinance is, for any reason, held invalid or unconstitutional by any court of competent jurisdiction, such section, subsectio.n. or portion thereof shall be deemed a separate portion of this ordinance and such holding shalf not affeçt the validity of the remaining portions of this Ordinance. -~ . SECTION 5 REPEALER Repealer: Effective immediately upon its adoption, this Ordinance repeals and replaces Sections 3.160, 4 and 11 of the Emergency Interim Controls Ordinance (Ordinance No, 06-0828-98). - SECTION 6 EFFECTIVE PERIOD ~ Effective Period: This ordinance shall become effective on the ~Day of 1:> Ec.BM~e+2- 1998 and shall remain in effect until such time as final development regulations to implement the MPR designation are adopted. VOL 24 f-M,' 3~63 December 11,1998 15 APPROVED AS TO FO ./ f' .r) /x, , n:~¿:=t.(. ~ Al Scalf, Director, .~ Department of Community Development December 11. 1998 .' JEFFERSON COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ( VOL 24 rAe,' 3~{)4 "~ 16 JEFFERSON COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT Long-Range Planning and Growth Management Jefferson County Courthouse P.O. Box 1220 Port Townsend, WA 98368 (360) 385-9123 FAX: (360) 385-9357 1-800-831-2678 To: Bert Loom is r\ \llj -\é:"J i -,-' "-:'1 C-';y, r I \1 . '. \ . r\O-.-~ If;. Ie; ~ Ù ~,ç:j \\. I...! ~ \~') -' , l.j ! í\J ' ,.- JUL 021999 N Imnardum CC: Board of County Commissioners JEHEHSON COUN1Y ç BOARD OF COMMISSIONER. From: AI Scalf, Director Community Development Date: July 2, 1999 Re: Finding of Fact 14, Ordinance No.1 0-1214-98 You have requested the background research :lnd documentation that lead to Finding of Fact #14 in Ordinance No. 10-1214-98 regulating land use and development within the Port Ludlow Master Planned Resort. In formulating the findings of fact for the above referenced ordinance, county staff considered the following pc!icies in the Land Use Element of the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan: Applicable Comprehensive Plan policies: LNP 25.1 Ensure that development in Port LudJow complies with County development regulations established for critical areas and that on-sire and off-sire infrastructure impacts are fully considered and mitigated. LNP 25.2 The provision of urban-style services to support the anticipated growth and development at Port Ludlow shan occur only within the designated MPR boundary. LNP 25.3 No new urban or suburban land uses will be established in the vicinity of the Port Lud!ow Master Planned Resort. LNP 25.4 The total number of residential lots allo\vable within the MPR boundary shall not exceed the 1993 Port Ludlow FEIS total of2,250 residential dwelling units. LNP 25.i No preliminary plats will be processed by Jefferson County for the :lOO-acres south of tht; Port Ludlow Golf Course within the MPR boundary (as depicted on the official Jefferson County Land Use Map) until such time as a conceptual site plan has been approved by the County. The intent of the ordinance was also considered to support Finding of Fact # 14, Page 1 ;Jf 2 Ordinance No.1 0-1214-98 Regulating land use and development within the Port Ludlow Master Planned Resort Section 1.20 Statement of Purpose and Intent: The purpose and intent of this ordinance is to accommodate development within the Port Ludlow Master Planned Resort consistent with the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan and that identified in the 1993 FEIS. A new or revised Master Plan may be submitted for the entire area within the MPR boundary or for an entire zone within the MPR. All plans submitted shall comply with Section 3.90 of this ordinance, Port Ludlow is the only Master Planned Resort (MPR) in Jefferson County. In accordance with the 1993 Port Ludlow FEIS Final Environmental Impact Statement and Jefferson County Resolution 17-96, which allocates population to Port Ludlow over the next 20-years, the MPR is limited to a total buildout of 2250 residential units including single-family detached, single-family attached, multi-family, assisted living and congregate care. The Comprehensive Plan lists seven categories of general uses within the MPR. In the course of developing the above referenced Comprehensive Plan policies and implementing ordinance, County staff thoroughly reviewed the existing plan under the Critical Areas Ordinance, the Critical Area maps, monitoring reports submitted by the Resort and the 1993 Port Ludlow FEIS. Development limitations contained in the 1993 Port Ludlow FEIS were considered in drafting the Comprehensive Plan policies as well as in drafting Ordinance No. 10-1214-98. County staff concluded that development outside of these limitations would also be outside the scope of the Comprehensive Plan FEIS. The intent of both the Comprehensive Plan policies and the interim ordinance is to limit development to that reviewed in the 1993 Port Ludlow FEIS. Finding of Fact #14 was based on the County's assessment that by limiting development to those impacts analyzed in the Port Ludlow FEIS, the County had ensured that "on- site and off-site infrastructure impacts have been fully considered and mitigated," Enclosed: Analysis by Blake Liebennann of Port Ludlow FEIS Memo from Al Scalf to the Board of Commissioners dated August 25, 1998 Page 2 of 2 Port Ludlow FEIS Analysis In April 1993, ORM submitted a Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) for the Port Ludlow community. The FEIS examines the cumulative environmental impacts associated with the Inn at Port Ludlow and the implementation of the 1987 Port Ludlow Development Plan, spanning 1,200 acres of the southern portion of the Port Ludlow community. The proposed action includes the following development on the 1,200 acre site: . 700 residential units (531 IF and 169 multi-family units) 47,500 sq. ft. of additional commercial space a 36-room Inn expansion of Marina by 100 slips a new golf course clubhouse (6,000 sq. ft,) development of recreational trails development of supporting infrastructure 815 acres of permanent open space . . . . . . . Residential Standards Single- family The Port Ludlow FEIS divides the proposed residential and commercial development into 50 development areas (see Figure 3 on page 2-6 of the FEIS). According to the FEIS, development areas 16 through 42 and 47 (see map) would accommodate 508 single-family residential units on a total of 1,118 acres, of which, 751 acres would remain in open space, As a result, net density would be 1.4 units/acre (508 units on 367 acres). Single-family units would range in size between 6,000 sq. ft. to 10 acres (overall gross residential density = 0.6 units/ac.), The largest lots would be contained within development area 35 (1:10); the smallest lots would be in development area 25 (2.6 units/acre). Multi-family Approximately 120 multifamily units would be constructed on 28 total acres for an average gross density of 4.3 d.u./ac. (individual development area densities range from 3.3 units per acre in development areas 45 and 46 to 5 units/acre in development area 50). Of the 28 total multi-family acres, approximately 17 acres are to be dedicated open space resulting in 11 acres for 120 multi-family units (11 units/acre), Mixed-Use Development area 48 is identified as a mixed single and multi-family area. A total of 72 units (23 single-family and 49 multi-family) are slated for this area, with a gross density of 4.1 units/acre. Minimum lot size is estimated to be 3,586 sq. ft., with an average lot size of 4,361 sq. ft. Commercial The FEIS proposes 47,500 sq. ft. of additional commercial space of which, 45,000 sq. ft. would be accommodated in development area 43 (MPR- VC). The FEIS assumes the following breakdown of commercial space: . 30,000 sq. ft. grocery store 10,000 sq. ft. of retail 5,000 sq. ft. of office 1.4 acre parking lot (158 parking spots) . . . The FEIS also lists potential commercial uses for this area, including: general retail, medical offices, a café, a grocery and hardware store. Resort (Inn) The FEIS for the Inn at Port Ludlow anticipated mixed-use development on the 17.5 acre project site. Included within this mixed-use area is: a 36-room Inn (34,171 sq. ft./50' high); 72 residential units (see Mixed-use section above); 2,500 sq. ft. of tourist-oriented retail commercial space, to accommodate a proposed souvenir shop and bakery; a 50' foot high, 1,850 sq. ft. "Townhall," to be used for meetings and community activities; a 800 sq. ft. marina manager's office (from which marina-related merchandise would be sold); and parking for 400 vehicles. The proposed development is anticipated to use only 7 acres of the 17.5 site; the remaining 10.5 acres would be undeveloped open space. Recreation/Open Space The FEIS proposes that 815 acres of permanent open space would be designated within the 1,200- acre site. The Recreation/Open Space would include walking, jogging and bicycle trails. Other recreational uses identified include an addition of 100 slips to the boat marina and a 6,000 sq. ft. golf course club house, Access and Circulation Roads and dedicated rights-of-way total approximately 43 acres and neighborhood streets account for approximately 84 acres. Impervious Surfaces (Drainage) A total of 120 acres of impervious surfaces is anticipated for the 1,200-acre development site. The breakdown is as follows: Zone Single-family (and associated streets) Multi-family Commercial Mixed-Use (Inn site) Roads (Arterials) Total 76 9 2 7 26 120 6.3 0.8 0.17 0.6 2.2 10.0 2 The impervious surface estimates assume a 2,000 sq. ft. footprint per single-family unit and 500 sq. ft. per driveway per single-family lots. Assumptions for multi-family areas are an average of 1,200 sq, ft. footprint per unit, 300 sq. ft. in parking area (1.5 spaces per unit) and 50 linear feet of right-of-way with 28 feet of paved width and 4-foot-wide sidewalk, Assumptions for the commercial area were 1,300 sq. ft. of parking area (3.5 spaces) per 1,000 sq. ft. of building area, and 45,000 sq. ft. of building footprint area. Acreage Figures for the Port Ludlow MPR1 MPR-RA MPR-VC MPR-SF MPR-MF MPR-RC/CF MPR-SFT MPR-OSR Total 225.8 acres 38.4 acres 1251.5 acres 74.6 acres 52,6 acres 111,6 acres 358.6 acres 2113.0 acres Environmental Impact Statement--Overview "Non-Project" Status The Port Ludlow Final Environmental ImpactStatement (FEIS) considers the cumulative and broad environmental impacts of the anticipated development within Port Ludlow over the next ten years. The FEIS for the Port Ludlow Development Plan is considered under SEP A as a "non-project" (programmatic) action, "Non-project," according to WAC 197 -11- 77 4, means "actions which are different or broader than a single site-specific project, such as plans, policies and programs," The FEIS does not address specific development projects contained in the Port Ludlow Development Plan, because each project would be subject to further Jefferson County review and approval. Furthermore, WAC 197-11-441 (1) and (2) allow the contents of an EIS for a non-project proposal to be more generalized than for a "proj ect" action, Scoping Scoping is defined in WAC 197-11-793 as "determining the range of proposed actions, alternatives, and impacts to be discussed in an EIS"" [and] is intended to identify and narrow the EIS to the significant issues," "Significant," as used in SEP A (WAC 197-11- 794 (1», means "a reasonable likelihood of more than a moderate adverse impact on environmental quality," I Figures obtained from Jefferson County IDMS and are exclusive of roads. 3 Phased Review As part of the "phased review," the broad impacts identified in the Development Program EIS could be analyzed in more detail when specific development projects for portions of the program site are submitted to the County. Coincidental with each individual project application (residential subdivisions, commercial projects, marina or golf course expansion, etc,), the County would issue a "SEP A threshold determination" which would either result in a "determination of significance" or in a "determination of non- significance." Further SEP A analysis could result in a supplement to the Program EIS, which would present new information on a proposal's possible impacts, or an addendum which would add analysis or information but would not substantially change the impact analysis from the Program EIS. A determination of non-significance or a mitigated DNS would indicate that there are no probable significant adverse impacts from a given proposal and waive the need for another EIS or addendum, In either case, the specific project would likely be subject to the general mitigations defined for the entire development program, and quite likely more specific mitigations and conditions tailored for the individual project. Often, it is not possible to anticipate in an EIS every mitigation that will ultimately be required by the responsible party, Each future individual development project must complete its own 'specific on-site environmental analysis subject to the permit review and approval process established by Jefferson County during which time the actual, enforceable legal requirements will be established. 4 \/ /, D '-"" ,. ¿,;-- "y':', \\ ./., 'j'" ,;, , . \..~, .., -- memorandum DATE: TO: FROM: August 25, 1998 Board of County Commissioners Al Scalf, DCD Director Long Range Planning Staff RE: Port Ludlow Master Planned Resort Representatives from the County met with Olympic Resources Management on several occasions recently to discuss the interim regulations for the Port Ludlow Master Planned Resort, ORM has submitted draft regulations, and, while the Planning staff has worked to resolve issues with ORM, many issues remain unresolved. The Planning staff has revised the ORM proposed draft to produce the attached interim regulations that the Planning staff is recommending to the BOCC for adoption under the emergency Interim Controls ordinance. A. MPR Designation The staff has reviewed the regulations proposed by ORM and discussed these issues with CTED staff. Staff concerns regarding urban standards and commercial uses broader than resort-related uses led to the discussion with CTED. CTED raised questions regarding the similar treatment of the Village Commercial Center for the MPR and the County's treatment of Rural Village Centers, both in terms of the range of uses, and some uses that appear to go beyond the needs of the residents and the guests of the MPR, such as professional office buildings, CTED has stated that commercial areas of an MPR should not accommodate regional shopping activities or employment centers, CTED provided the County with two policies for serious consideration. These policies are recommended by staff for inclusion in the final Comprehensive Plan, Staff presents three options to the BOCC for its consideration of this issue: I. The Master Planned Resort designation could be severed from the larger community and limited to the actual resort facility and immediate area, which includes some residential uses, and should also include the golf course, The "community" portion of Port Ludlow would not constitute part of the MPR, and be treated similar to Kala Point and Cape George, The commercial area could then be designated for uses allowed in a Rural Village Center. This option would delay the plan because of the need for public review and the change to the FEIS, and thus' is not the preferred option, 2. Adopt the designated MPR boundary and limit the range of commercial uses within the Village Commercial Center consistent with the RCW language that "., .an existing resort may include other permanent residential uses, conference facilities, and commercial activities supporting the resort, but only if these other uses are integrated into and consistent with the on- site recreational nature a/the resort." RCW 36.70A.362 [emphasis added). If this option is selected, staff recommends changing the commercial area designation from Village Commercial Center to Resort Commercial Center, 3. Adopt the designated MPR boundary as an interim boundary to keep the County's options open, similar to commercial areas, Glen Cove, and the Mill. Consider the two options above through the Planning Commission public process, in a timeline that allows for staff research and development of options. Include policies in the Land Use and Rural element to resolve this issue consistent with the RCW, as well as the extent to which "urban" development can occur, and the extent that urban development can be allowed under the statute. Based on the discussion with CTED over implementing regulations, staff has questions whether the entire Port Ludlow community should be included under the MPR designation, or whether the it is, in fact, no different from Kala Point or Cape George, except for the nearby resort complex, The Interim Controls ordinance will limit uses and standards by a revision of the staff draft of Section 18. Planning staff prefers option #3. B. Interim Controls The staff-recommended version of Section 18 differs from the interim regulations proposed by ORivI for the following reasons: 1, Interim controls are adopted by emergency ordinance, precluding Planning Commission review and extensive public discussion, The regulations proposed by ORM would represent a significant departure from existing County regulations, with a level of detail more appropriate to final development regulations. It is appropriate for the interim to adopt limited regulations and to defer discussion of the significant changes until the process of final development regulations. 2. The Master Planned Resort may include growth which"... .may constitute urban growth outside of urban growth areas as limited by this section." (RCW 36,70A,362) Under the timelines for adoption of the Plan and the interim ordinance, the Planning staff cannot research urban standards and develop options for a number of issues discussed below, Staff recommends that many of the "urban" standards requested by ORM be addressed in the process for final development regulations, 3. RCW 36,70A,362 cited above is limited by requirements that: "(4) The county find that the resort plan is consistent with the development regulations established for critical areas; and (5) On-site and off-site infrastructure impacts are fully considered and mitigated." The environmental impacts of3500 square foot lots, as well as 90%, 75% and 60% lot coverage and the associated stonn water drainage problems already existing in portions of Port Ludlow raise questions regarding allowing such standards over the extent of the entire community, rather than limiting these urban standards to the resort area. It is well- documented that urban levels of impervious surface significantly reduce the protection of water quality and fish habitat. In light of Endangered Species Act proposed listings, urban areas are now re- examining previously accepted "urban" standards that have clearly failed to protect fish habitat. Planning staff has concerns regarding consistency with best available science, and therefore with goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan. The following issues are among those requested standards that may not be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan that is being adopted and/or require further discussion: . Single family zone allowing attached, condominium style dwellings to be pennitted outright, and conditionally allowing duplex, triplex, and other multiplex structures, with a minimum lot size of 3500 square feet in an area zoned 4: 1, i.e. approximately 11,000 sq ft per residence, . Uses that require further definition, such as resort related retail, vacationltimeshares, structured parking, and employee support facilities. . Commercial uses that may not be supportive to the resort complex and may not be consistent with state law, and single family uses in the Village Commercial Center. . The list of uses suggested for all areas. . Lot coverages of 60%, 75% and 90% over large areas. Clarification of the nature of forest management activities and other uses in Open Space areas and the perpetual status of the Open Space. Maximum building sizes in several areas. Height allowance of 65 feet that may exceed fire safety requirements. . . . 4. Planning staff has concerns that adoption of the "urban" stàndards requested could result in new significant adverse impacts to the environment that were not addressed in the DEIS or the FEIS of the Comprehensive Plan, Adoption of these standards would require a supplemental FEIS to address the impacts of these development standards. This would delay adoption of the Comprehensive Plan, 5. The aRM proposal appears to vary in significantly from the original Master Plan for the Port Ludlow Resort, If this is the case, the Master Plan should be revised and submitted to the County with appropriate environmental documents prior to approving any change to the internal configuration of the Master Planned Resort, 6. While ORM has explained that these regulations have been developed and reviewed in an extensive public process within the MPR, that process cannot substitute for the County's public process, which includes the Planning Commission and the public countywide. Adoption of . "urban" standards in an emergency ordinance that lacks a full public process is not recommended, Staff Recommendation: It is the goal of the Planning staff to produce for the BOCC a legally defensible Comprehensive Plan for adoption on August 28, 1998, not only in tenns of consistency with the Growth Management Act, but also in tenns of internal Plan consistency and public process, The Planning staff recommends adopting Section 18 as revised by the staff, and encouraging ORM to fully participate in the final development regulation process over the next 6 months, which will include a review of the regulations proposed by ORM and endorsed by Port Ludlow community planning groups.