Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutM062199JEFFERSON COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS District No. I Commissioner: Dan Harpole, Chair District No. 2 Commissioner: Glen Huntingford, Member District No. 3 Commissioner: Richard Wojt, Member THE 14EAKT OF TH_~ k ,~l~'"-.g /OLYMPIC PENINSULA] Clerk of the Board: Director of Public Services: Deputy Director of Public Services: Lorna L. Delaney Gary A. Rowe David Goldsmith MINUTES Week of June 21, 1999 The meeting was called to order by Commissioner Glen Huntingford in the absence of Chairman Dan Harpole. Commissioner Richard Wojt was present. Issue Manager Update: The Clerk of the Board presented a new form for the Board to use to add, delete, or update items on this program. Appoint Member to Serve on the North Olympic Salmon Restoration Lead Entity Technical Review Group Administered by Clallam County: Director of Public Services Gary Rowe reported that several weeks ago he sent a letter to Clallam County advising them that Caryn Woodhouse, Natural Resources Policy Analyst, would represent Jefferson County on the Lead Entity Group and the Technical Review Group. He asked if the Board wants to reaffirm her appointment, or if they want to solicit input from organizations, other than the North Olympic Salmon Coalition (NOSC), who may have concerns about appointing a technical person to serve on the Technical Review Group? Commissioner Wojt asked if there are two positions? Gary Rowe reported that there is a Lead Entity Group and a Technical Advisory Group. He asked if the Board feels it is important to appoint someone who has been involved in specific projects in the County? Commissioner Huntingford stated that he feels there is an advantage in having the same person serve on both groups. Commissioner Wojt questioned if Caryn Woodhouse's schedule would allow time to serve on both groups? He added that the Technical Advisory Group will be reviewing specific projects which may be time consuming. Page ?_5 Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of June 21, 1999 Commissioner Wojt moved to reaffirm Caryn Woodhouse as the County's representative on the Lead Entity Group and to contact groups that are involved in salmon restoration and ask for their input on a person to serve on the Technical Review Group. Commissioner Huntingford seconded the motion which carried. PUBLIC SERVICES BRIEFING SESSION: Public Services Director Gary Rowe reported: · The Chair signed a letter to the Governor asking that the FEMA denial of the disaster declaration be appealed. Damage costs have increased by $1,000,000 since the initial figures were reported to the State. · The Board advised that they have been given a presentation on yurts (specialized tent structures that can be used as housing.) They also have been invited to tour the yurt manufacturing facilities. Commissioner Wojt volunteered to discuss this request with Eric Anderson of the EDC. PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD: The following comments were made: Transit uses productivity surveys to determination route changes but they do not provide all the necessary informa- tion for these changes; have there been any further developments regarding Lakeside's Cape George asphalt plant? (Al Scalf reported that the Board met with the Prosecuting Attorney regarding potential litigation on this matter, therefore the information is subject to attorney/client privilege. There may be a public announcement next week from the County Commissioners regarding this project.); a petition signed by 187 persons from the Quimper Peninsula regarding the Bailey PUD project was submitted; a comment that Chairman Harpole and Commissioner Wojt have not presented proof of insurance which is required for their monthly reimbursement for automobile expenses, and a question regarding the mileage figures between various destinations the Commissioners have driven and requested for mileage reimbursement. APPROVAL AND ADOPTION OF THE CONSENT A GENDA: Commissioner Wojt moved to delete Item 7 and to adopt and approve the balance of the items as presented. Commissioner Huntingford seconded the motion which carried. RESOLUTION NO. 54-99 re: HEARING NOTICE, Intent to Establish a County Road; North Beach Drive; Hearing Scheduled for Tuesday, July 6, 1999 at 2:00 p.m. in the Commissioner's Chambers AGREEMENT re: Administrative Facilities Plan, Phase II; Jefferson County Public Works; Miller Hull Partnership AGREEMENT re: Provision of Medical Review Officer Services for Random Drug and Alcohol Testing Programs; Jefferson County Public Works; Virginia Mason Medicine Center ;¥OL Page 2 Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of June 21, 1999 AGREEMENT, Interlocal re: East Tarboo Creek Fish Passage Barrier Culvert Replacement Project #CD1379; Jefferson County Public Works; Washington State Department of Fish & Wildlife AGREEMENT #KC-238-89 B, Amendment re: Establishment of the Peninsula Regional Support Network (PRSN); Modifying the Quorum Requirements for Executive Board Meeting and Changing the Required Makeup of the Advisory Board to Bring it into Compliance with Current Washington Administrative Code; Jefferson County Public Services; Kitsap and Clallam Counties CONTRACT re: Community Development Reorganization; Jefferson County Public Services; Ken Lynn, Communication Educators DELETE Contract, Amendment, Appendix "A" re: Amendments to Labor Agreement; Add the Position of Adult Probation Clerk, Grade 19; Add the Position of Community Development Technician, Grade 23; Change Position Title Permit Coordinator I to Permit Technician I; Change Position Title Permit Coordinator II to Permit Technician II; UFCW 1001 Accept Recommendation to Pay Claim #C-10-99, $350.55; Physical Injury; Laura Souza Food and Beverage Purchase Request, $170.00; Aggression Replacement Training (ART); Jefferson County Juvenile and Family Court Services COUNTY DEPARTMENT BRIEFINGS/BUSINESS: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Director's Update: Director of Community Development A1 Scalf reported: There is a mobile home replacement permit application in the Brinnon area that is on a water system that does not have potable water. Until this water system is improved, the building permit cannot be issued. Commissioner Huntingford asked if the Building Department issues permits for yurts? A1 Scalf reported that they do not. The Board directed that A1 Scalf meet with the proponents of the Pleasant Harbor Development Agreement to work out the issues. This agreement will be brought back to the Board for their review. Under the GMA integration regulations, SEPA is being used to address environmental impacts for decision making on the Tri Area/Glen Cove Special Study. Commissioner Wojt reported that a petition was received from property owners on the Quimper Peninsula regarding the Bailey PUD project. A1 Scalf explained that this project has been given 60 days to present more information to the Planning Department. At that time the Applicant can either provide the requested information or submit a schedule for the presentation of the requested information. Page 3 Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of June 21, 1999 Discussion re: Shoreline Exemption Permit XMP98-O026; To Construct a Bulkhead Located Adjacent to the Duckabush River; Robert & Karen Shadbolt, Applicant: A1 Scalf reported that the Applicants own 3 lots in the Duckabush River flood plain. The river is diked on both sides and there is urban type development in the area. The ESA listing identifies this area as critical habitat for the Hood Canal Summer Chum and Puget Sound Chinook The Applicants applied for a shoreline exemption to install rip rap in order to protect their single family residence. The SEPA final threshold determination for the shoreline permit was appealed by Mr. Coleman, a property owner downstream. After a site visit to review the project from a SEPA perspective, A1 Scalf concluded that staff made an error on one of the parcels that would require a Shoreline Substantial Permit rather than a Shoreline Exemption. He withdrew the original determination and reissued a Determination of Non-Significance on the other two parcels where the house is located. Commissioner Huntingford read from a letter submitted by Mrs. Shadbolt and asked why there was so much time taken between steps in this project? Commissioner Huntingford asked what course the County is taking on this project? A1 Scalf reported that there is a 14 day appeal period on the new threshold determination, and an open record hearing is required if an appeal is submitted. Mr. Foster, a property owner on the river, presented pictures showing the current state of the riverbank and he described the results of the flooding this year. He also explained the requirements to obtain an hydraulic permit from the State. He stated that the erosion needs to be controlled on the properties in the area. Karen Shadbolt stated that she feels Mr. Coleman appealed their project in order to require them to do a study of the river in the area. A study would cost thousands of dollars and the cost shouldn't have to be borne by one property owner when it would benefit everyone along the river. She added that they have already agreed to do more environmental improvements to this part of the river than anyone else in the area. The Board asked that A1 Scalf provide a time line for this project. A new application will have to be submitted for the Shadbolts' extra lot which will have to go through the appropriate process. Commis- sioner Huntingford noted his concerns about the County's error and asked how the Planning Department intends to resolve the situation in a timely manner without additional cost to the Applicant? Mr. Foster added that there are actually three projects involved: the Shadbolts' residence protection project; the Shadbolts' extra lot project and the Fosters' project. The Planning Department will provide an update on where each of these projects are in the process and the time frame for the remaining steps of the process. Page 4 Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of June 21, 1999 Discussion re: Public Comment Period Extended on the Proposed I~AC Guidelines to the Shoreline Management Act; Washington State Department of Ecology: Associate Planner Lauren Mark reported that the State Department of Ecology has sent a notice that the comment period on the proposed WAC guidelines to the Shoreline Management Act has been extended to August 4, 1999. The draft comments will be brought to the Board for review in July. PUBLIC WORKS Director's Update: Interim Public Works Director Frank Gifford reported: Work will be done at the intersection of Jacob Miller Road and Hastings Avenue and brush removal will be done along Jacob Miller Road. A presentation was made at the IAC Technical Meeting last week on the Chimacum Log Dump property acquisition grant application. Jim Pearson reported that the final EIS for the Tri Area/Glen Cove Study can be issued without a preferred alternative being identified. This will allow the final EIS to be completed more quickly. Bruce Laurie reported that because of this the decision on the plan amendments can be made earlier than originally scheduled. In response to a question from Commissioner Huntingford, Frank Gifford explained that the State Department ofFish and Wildlife has their own crew to do the work on the E. Tarboo Creek culvert replacement project. HEALTH & HUMAN SERVICES Director's Update: Administrator David Specter reported on the following: There was a break in at the Animal Shelter last Friday night. There was no vandalism, but equipment, including 2 computers, a fax machine, and the printers, were stolen. The animals are all okay. A recommended interim management plan was submitted for the Board's consideration. Review Comprehensive Plan Map Correction Application; W. E. and Marilyn Seton: Associate Planner Randy Kline explained that this request for a map correction was received on April 15, 1999. The correction requested is from a density designation of 1 residence per 20 acre to 1 residence per 5 acres. Staff recommends that it be handled as a Comprehensive Plan amendment and not a map correction. The designation was not a technical error. Commissioner Huntingford noted that there was discussion on the designation of this parcel several times before the Comprehensive Plan was adopted. Mr. Seton claimed that this parcel was mapped incorrectly according to the designation criteria. Commissioner Huntingford asked if a portion of the Comprehensive Plan Amendment fee would be refunded if staff determines that Mr. Seton is correct? Randy Kline advised that Mr. Seton Page 5 25 Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of June 21, 1999 would not be given back any of his fee. Commissioner Huntingford asked why Mr. Seton is being required to go through this process if the County misapplied the criteria? Randy Kline explained that he did not review the designation criteria in the Comprehensive Plan before making the staff recommenda- tion on this application. The Board reviewed the designation criteria in the Comprehensive Plan. Commissioner Wojt moved to accept the staff recommendation on the map correction application submitted by W. E. and Marilyn Seton. Commissioner Huntingford seconded the motion which carried. HEARING re: Proposed Ordinance to Amend Ordinance No. 01-0504-98; Increasing the Distressed County Sales and Use Tax: Public Services Director Gary Rowe reported that the law was changed in 1999 (ESHB 2260) to allow an increase in the rate of this excise tax from 0.04% to 0.08% and there were restrictions placed on the types of projects the money can be spent on. It can be spent on typical infrastructure as well as publicly owned telecommunications infrastructure. There is also a requirement to follow an Economic Development Plan or the Economic Element of the Comprehen- sive Plan. The County can develop an overall Economic Development Plan in conjunction with the Port and the City of Port Townsend. If this tax is increased, Gary Rowe suggested that a committee be established to oversee the expenditure of these funds. The Acting Chair opened the public hearing. Hearing no comments for or against this proposed ordinance amendment, the Chair closed the hearing. Commissioner Wojt moved to approve ORDINANCE NO. 04-0621-99 amending Ordinance No. 01-0504-98 to increase the Distressed County Sales and Use Tax as presented. Special Event Permit Application; Olympic Music Festival: Julie Garrison, Emergency Management Coordinator, reported that the Olympic Music Festival submitted their application the later part of last week. The insurance is in order and they are using last year's liquor license until the end of this month. They will send a copy of the new liquor license when it is issued. The parking area is the same as last year. Everything else is in order. Commissioner Wojt moved to approve the permit for the Olympic Music Festival. Commissioner Huntingford seconded the motion which carried. The Board recessed their meeting on Monday at the conclusion of the scheduled business and reconvened on Wednesday morning for an update on the Port Ludlow Mediation process. All three Commissioners were present. VOL Page 6 Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of June 21, 1999 Ordinance re: Emergency Interim Ordinance Regulating Land Use and Development within the Port Ludlow Master Planned Resort Ordinance No. 10-1214-98 which Amends Ordinance No. 06-0828-98: Commissioner Wojt moved to repeal and replace Ordinance No. 10-1214-98 with ORDINANCE NO. 05-0623-99. Commissioner Huntingford seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. The Board directed staff to add the following findings of fact for the new ordinance: · The stakeholders in the MPR mediation have participated inl 8 meetings in an effort to complete the mediation process and present a recommendation for the final Master Plan Resort Ordinance. · The intention of the Board in adopting a new ordinance is to create a new 60 day appeal period. No changes will be made to the original ordinance. A public hearing will be held within 60 days of adoption of the ordinance. ATTEST: ~o~a Del(~eyC~, CMC~~ Clerk of the Board JEFFERSON COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS Dan Harpole, Chairman G'i~~ng r Page 7 25 :515 Please publish 1 time June 2, 1999 Bill to Jefferson County Commissioners Office 1820 Jefferson St. P.O. Box 1220 Port Townsend, WA 98368 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing is scheduled by the Jefferson County Board of Commissioners for Monday, June 21, 1999 at 2:30 p.m. in the Commissioners' Chamber, County Courthouse, 1820 Jefferson Street, Port Townsend, WA 98368. This public hearing has been scheduled for the Board of Commissioners to take comments for and against a proposed ordinance to increase the Distressed County Sales and Use Tax as provided below. JEFFERSON COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS Dan Harpole, Ch r~an JEFFERSON COUNTY GUEST LIST HEARING: Final Development Regulations for MPR at Port Ludlow Monday, October 4, 1999 at 3 p.m. PLACE: Courthouse -- Lower Level Conference Room N.&LME (Please P. ri.L~) STR~._.~T~ ADDR~ESS CI Testimony. f ,',, 25 696 JEFFERSON COUNTY GUEST LIST HEARING: Final Development Regulations for MPR at Pod Ludlow Monday, October 4, 1999 at 3 p.m. PLACE: Courthouse -- Lower Level Conference Room NAME (Please Print) STREET ADDRESS CITY Testimony.'? YES NO MAYBE ¼, I I ir,, JEFFERSON COUNTY GUEST LIST HEARING: Final Development Regulations for MPR at Port Ludlow Monday, October 4, 1999 at 3 p.m. PLACE: Courthouse -- Lower Level Conference Room NAME (Please Print) STREET ADDRESS CITY Testimony. YES NO MAYBE NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING AN ORDINANCE REGULATING LAND USE AND DEVELOPMENT WITHIN THE PORT LUDLOW MASTER PLANNED RESORT NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing is scheduled by the Jefferson County Board of Commissioners for Monday, October 4, 1999 at 3.'00 p.m. at the Jefferson County Courthouse located at 1820 Jefferson Street, Port Townsend. This public hearing has been scheduled to take comments for and against an ordinance regulating land use and development within the Port Ludlow Master Planned Resort. The ordinance repeals and replaces Ordinance No. 05-0623-99 and will constitute final development regulations within the Master Planned Resort Boundary. Copies of the ordinance are available at the Department of Community Development, 621 Sheridan, Port Townsend, WA 98368 (360) 379-4450. A summary of the ordinance follows: SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDED ORDINANCE ESTABLISHING DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS FOR THE PORT LUDLOW MASTER PLANNED RESORT. SECTION 1 AUTHORITY AND PURPOSE 1.10 Authority and Table of Contents: Authority to adopt. 1.15 Title: Port Ludlow Master Planned Resort 1.20 Purpose and Intent: Development Regulations for Master Planned Resort Community of Port Ludlow per GMA 1.30 Rules of Interpretation: Standard rules of statutory construction. 1.40 Additional Requirements: Citing other ordinances and regulations that apply. 1.50 Qualified Lead Planner: Qualified lead planner for community is required. 1.60 Public Notice Roster: Public notice roster for land use actions in community is required. SECTION 2 2.10 2.20 2.30 2.40 2.50 2.60 SCOPE OF REGULATIONS Applicability: Applies to all land, waters, uses, and structures. Compliance With Regulations Required: Compliance required. Exemptions: Exempting most utilities, railroads, agricultural buildings, and minor construction. Above ground electrical substations, sewage pump stations, treatment plants, and potable water storage tanks or facilities require conditional use approval. Non-conforming Uses: Allows existing nonconforming uses to remain. Non-conforming Structures: Allows existing nonconforming structures to be rebuilt in event of major damage or destruction. Community Associations and Facilities: Recognizes community associations including Ludlow Maintenance Commission, Inc., and South Bay Community Association. SECTION 3 PORT LUDLOW MASTER PLANNED RESORT ZONING DISTRICTS 3.10 Single Family Zone (MPR-SF) 3.101 Purpose: Maintain and promote single family areas; provide opportunities for reasonably priced housing. 3.102 3.103 3.104 3.105 3.106 3.107 3.108 3.20 3.201 3.202 3.203 3.204 3.205 3.206 3.30 3.301 3.302 3.303 3.304 3.305 3.40 3.401 3.402 3.403 3.404 3.405 3.50 3.501 3.502 3.503 3.504 Permitted Uses, Lot Size, and Density: Detached dwellings, home businesses, accessory uses and structures, trails, parks, open space, playgrounds as part of plat or permit. Min. lot size of 5000 square feet. Density of four (4) dwelling units per acre. Conditional Uses, Lot Size, and Density: Stand alone parks, trails, playgrounds; attached dwellings (duplex, triplex, fourplex); fire stations; substations, pump stations, water tanks. Min. lot size 3500 square feet. Density of four (4) dwelling units per acre. One time expansion for existing fire stations without conditional use. Height Restrictions: 35 feet. Bulk and Dimensional Requirements: Lot width: 40 ft. Front setback 20 ft. Side and rear setback: 5 ft. Max impervious surface 45%, or 2250 sq. ft. for lots less than 5000 sq. ft. Commercial Forest Land Buffers: Standards from Forest Lands Ordinance apply. If buffer is modified, minimum 150' setback with average of 200'. Exclude critical areas and buffers from calculations. Mark setback area in field. Designate as separate tract during platting process. Accessory Dwelling Units Prohibited: ADUs Prohibited. Conceptual Site Plan Requirement: Conceptual site plan required, as shown on Comprehensive Plan map. Single Family Tract Zone (MPR-SFT) Purpose: Maintain and promote larger single family residential tracts. Permitted Uses: Detached dwellings, home businesses, accessory uses and structures, trails, parks, open space, playgrounds as part of plat or permit. Conditional Uses: Stand alone parks, trails, playgrounds; substations, pump stations, water tanks. Height Restrictions: 35 ft. Bulk and Dimensional Requirements: Density: one dwelling per 2.5 acres. Min. lot width: 100 ft. Front, side, rear setbacks: 25 ft. Max. impervious surface: 20%. Accessory Dwelling Units Prohibited: ADUs prohibited Multi-family Zone (MPR-MF) Purpose: Maintain and promote multi-family housing opportunities and provide lower cost housing. Permitted Uses: Multifamily dwellings, assisted living, congregate care, accessory uses and structures, home business, trails, parks, playgrounds as part of plat or permit, single family attached or detached dwellings. Conditional Uses: Stand alone parks, trails, playgrounds; substations, pump stations, water tanks. Height Restrictions: 35 ft. Bulk and Dimensional Requirements: Density 10 dwelling units per acre. Uniform Building Code (UBC) setbacks. Max. impervious surface: 55%. Except single family standards apply to single family use. Resort Complex/Community Facilities Zone (MPR-RC/CF) Purpose: Provide services and amenities for resort and surrounding community. Permitted and Conditional Uses: See table in code. All existing uses, plus planned resort uses. Option for medical emergency helipad requires conditional use. Non-Resort Uses and Properties: Recognizes non-resort uses and properties and exempts them from requirements for Resort Plan (see section 3.90). Height Restrictions: 35 ft., except 50 ft. for hotels is approved by fire district. Bulk and Dimensional Requirements: Setbacks per UBC. Max. impervious surface: 50%. Village Commercial Center Zone (MPR-VC) Purpose: Provide retail, commercial uses and services to residents and resort visitors. Permitted Uses: See table in code. All existing uses. New uses include antique stores, assisted living and congregate care, indoor tennis facility, and single family attached or detached units. Conditional Uses: Stand alone parking structures; conference center; emergency medical helipad; substations, pump stations, water tanks; assisted living, congregate care and multi-family if greater than 35,000 sq. ft. Height Restrictions: 35 ft. 3.505 3.60 3.601 3.602 3.603 3.604 3.70 3.701 3.702 3.703 3.704 3.705 3.80 3.801 3.802 3.803 3.804 3.805 3.806 3.807 3.90 3.901 3.902 3.903 Bulk and Dimensional Requirements: UBC standards for setbacks. Max. impervious surface: 45%. Residential uses subject to residential development standards. Impervious surface reqts, may be met with separate open space tract. Recreation Area (MPR-RA) Purpose: Maintain and promote recreation activities. Permitted Uses: Parks and trails; golf shop, club, restaurant, snack bar, lounge; interpretive center; golf course; recreation club including tennis courts. Height Restrictions: 35 ft. Bulk and Dimensional Requirements: Setbacks per UBC. Max. impervious surface: 45%. Open Space Reserve (MPR-OSR) Purpose: Preserve in perpetuity and enhance amenities around Ludlow Bay, other natural areas. Permitted Uses: Parks, trails, paths, benches, shelters, rest rooms, associated parking. Directional signs and kiosks, private roads. Conditional Uses: Man-made water features. Interpretive center, equestrian facility; substations, pump stations, water tanks; all as near to outer boundaries as is practicable to minimize need for roads. Height Restrictions: 25 ft. Bulk and Dimensional Requirements: Building size: 2000 sq. ft., except substations and potable water tanks may exceed cap through conditional use permit. Development Cap Development Cap and MERUs: Development cap imposed per Comprehensive Plan and 1993 Port Ludlow Environmental Impact Statement: 2250 residential units. Measurement and transfer system established. Measurement ERUs (MERUs) set at total maximum of 2575. MERU Record: County Department of Community Development must maintain up-to-date count of MERUs. MERU Allocation and Assignment: MERUs assigned per current known wastewater flow. MERUs assigned to platted lots. Commercial development MERUs counted at building permit submittal. Initial Allocation of Commercial MERUs: 325 MERUs initially allocated to commercial development. 226 in existing uses. 99 allocated to resort, village center zone, and golf course. Initial Allocation of Residential MERUs: 2250 MERUs initially allocated to residential development. 1813 in platted lots (developed and undeveloped). 437 available. MERU Transfer: MERUs may be transferred between residential and commercial uses, not to exceed residential cap of 2250 dwelling units. MERU Allocation Not Property Specific; Limitations: MERUs stay with properties so long as use or potential for use exists. Unassigned MERUs or those that revert to unallocated status may not be reserved, limited or assigned. Resort Development: Requirements apply to Resort, not to facilities solely for use of community associations such as LMC or SBCA. Resort Plan: Resort Plan defined and limited to specific uses and gross floor areas. 275 guest rooms, 30,000 sq. ft. conference center, two restaurants (one seasonal), one lounge, resort retail, pool, tennis, parking, museum, interpretive center, youth center, marina expansion, amphitheater, yacht club, maintenance and support uses, existing townhomes and limited single family and new townhome development allowed. See ordinance for details. Permit Process for Resort Development: Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement allowed prior to any resort development. County may modify, mitigate or deny based on environmental impacts. EIS and appeal process defined. Requirement to Vacate or Withdraw Existing or Vested Development Rights: Development rights for projects not included in Resort Plan must be vacated or withdrawn prior to any new Resort development. 3.904 3.905 3.906 3.907 SECTION 4. SECTION 5 SECTION 6 SECTION 7 Environmental Review for Resort Plan Development: Preliminary scope for EIS defined including Earth, Water, Plants and Animals, Land and Shoreline Use, Transportation/Traffic, Public Services and Utilities. See ordinance. Scope may be expanded at time of application. Revisions to Resort Plan: Changes to uses, size or types of facilities at Resort are major or minor revisions. Changes to MPR boundary or zone changes require Comprehensive Plan amendment and zoning action. Major Revision: Major revision process required for any new use, substantial change in size, scale, density, or environmental impact. Environmental review, public hearing, and decision by hearing examiner required. Specific criteria established. Appeal process established. Minor Revisions: Minor revision process for changes to gross square footage of 5% or less. No new uses or uses that modify recreational nature and intent of Resort. Administrative decision with appeal process. SEVERABILITY: Standard severability clause. REPEALER: Repeals interim controls. EFFECTIVE PERIOD: Effective date of ordinance. ADOPTION: Adoption date of ordinance. Mike Derrig PORT LUDLOW PLANNING FORUM October 4, 1999 Honorable Board of County Commissioners Jefferson County Courthouse P.O. Box 1220 Port Townsend, WA 98368 Re: Development Regulations for the Port Ludlow Master Planned Resort Gentlemen, You have the opportunity this afternoon to bring closure to what has been a very lengthy and expensive writing of one chapter of development regulations for Jefferson County. You have the opportunity today to honor the results that have been generated through the collaborative process you instituted on December 15, 1998 when you adopted Resolution No. 103-98. You have the opportunity at hand, now, to formally recognize the benefits you had hoped for when you chose the path of mediation in lieu of litigation to create final development regulations for Port Ludlow. You know all too well the significant investment of time and money made into this process; the time spent by you, several county staff members, the mediation stakeholders and hundreds of citizens, and the financial commitment of the tens of thousands of dollars you invested in the mediation process on behalf of Jefferson County taxpayers.' The ordinance before you, for your execution today is the result of the process you originated last December. It's creation took several more months and a significantly greater investment then first imagined. The ordinance does what it is required to do under state law and much more. That is why all of the mediation stakeholders, representing their varied constituents, provided a written endorsement to you to adopt this ordinance. The ordinance will implement the land use goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan as required under GMA. This ordinance establishes specific, measurable caps on total development in addition to the residential cap established by the Comprehensive Plan. 781 Walker Way, Port Ludlow, WA 98365 · 360/437-2101 360/437-2522 fax This ordinance mandates significant additional environmental review for the redevelopment of the resort area, another opportunity to address citizens input and concerns. This ordinance sets limits on th~ scale and scope of development in the resort area, as well as others, and addresses the community's request for ORM to abandon the development of Certain platted and vested property. This ordinance provides additional protection from development adjacent to commercial forestlands. Of significant importance is that this ordinance as written is legally defensible and is in compliance with GMA. Many people look forward to your adoption of this ordinance today and the closing of this process. Further, as specifically called out in the Comprehensive Plan and in the recitals of this ordinance we soon must finalize, through the proper public process, a Development Agreement for ORM owned properties within the MPR. Thank you for your vision in establishing this process and your honoring its outcome. Attached to this letter is a copy, executed by ORM, of the Memorandum of Understanding regarding provisions for sewer service within the MPR. Upon your adoption of the ordinance today this will become effective. Michael Derrig 781 Walker Way, Port Ludlow, WA 98365 · 360/437-2101 360/437-2522 fax TO: FR: RE: Gentlemen, I wish to address the following issues. The Honorable Board of Jefferson County Commissioners William G. Funke Port Ludlow Land Use Ordinance Draft October 4, 1999 Ordinance Section 3.80 DEVELOPMENT CAP: Listed below and attached herewith are copies of various schedules (also described as matrixes) prepared by Olympic Resource Management which schedules were considered by the Port Ludlow Stakeholders Mediation Group in developing the draft Ordinance and, as such, are the reference basis for the Stakeholder agreement of Section 3.80. Schedule B covers the MPR"Residential Baseline". setting forth all existing and planned residential lots in the North Bay and South Bay expressed in terms of MERU's. Schedule A listed the "Commercial developmem existing baseline and allowed" expressed in the same terms. Subsequem revised Commercial Schedules, including the most recem which was initially included as part of this ordinance labeled "Attachmem 2" cover the various changes in totals of the commercial MERUs documented by ORM. Both Attachmem 2 supporting the 325 MERU Commercial CAP and the Residential Baseline Schedule B supporting the 2250 MERU residential CAP have been removed from the Dra~ Ordinance. It is requested that prior to accepting the Draft Ordinance before you, the Commissioners include both the Residential and Commercial MERU schedules so those MPR property owners are fully aware of all existing development and potential transfer of building rights within the MPtL Memorandum Of Understanding / Olympic Water and Sewer, Inc. Copy of the most recent draft of this agreement between Jefferson County and the OWS is attached along with copy of my email questions and recommendationsto Faith Lumsdem, copy to A1 Sc. alt; submitted to clarify this Draft Memorandum of Understanding and Ms Lumsdem's email response. The availability of Sewers to all MPR property owners is a paramount issue, and I request the Commissioners include the suggested langu_age and references clarifications in this Memorandum. 3. Jefferson County Planning Commission August 1999 Ordinance Recommenda_t_iot~.q I request inclusion of all recommendations in the final Ordinance. Law firm ofFostcr..Pepper & Shefe!man PLCC. Reference is given to the Certified Letter dataed September 29, 1999 to the Commissioners signed by J. Taylow Washburn of this Law fn'm written on behalf of certain named Owners of Ludlow Bay Village Townhouses.~ ,, Many North Bay residents along with me, concur, as affecting only North Bay property owners, with the observations stated in this communication, specifically "that affected private property owners were denied any meaningful oppommity to participate in the ordinance's planning process, the proposed MPR development build-out does not reflect a community-wide consensus, that none of the residents who bought their units "several years ago" had any reason to think at the time of their purchase that their 17.5 acre tranquil setting would be packed with up to 500,000 square feet of commercial and resort development' and so forte I recommend inclusion of every recommendation offered on behalf of the Ludlow Bay Village property owners in the final Port Ludlow Land Use Ordinance. Respe?fully, ,~, William G:. Funke North Bay Port Ludlow Encls: ORM MERU Schedules 3/25/99. 6/4/99, 6/9/99 and 6/11/99 Attachment 2 to Previous Ordinance, undated. Jefferson County Planning Commission August 1999 Recommendations Foster Pepper & Shefelman letter of 9/29/99 ATTACHMENT 2 ~:QMMER~:ZAL MERUs Use MERU Allocation MERUs TOTAL Existing Uses Harbormaster Restaurant 50 gpd per Seat 41 165 seats Conference Center 1993 FEIS 4 Laundry/PL Property Sales 1993 FE]~S 20 The Inn 130 gl3d per room 48 Harina 1993 FEIS 15.5 Village Center - Moriarty 4074 si: @ 200 gpd/lO00 sf 4 Coldwell Banker Bldg 4000 sf @ 200 gpd/lO00 sf 4 Village Center - Loomis 3000 sf @ 200 gpd/lO00 sf -3 Village Center 15,000 sf @ 200 gpd/lO00 sf (1993 15 FEIS) Beach Club & Bridge Deck 1993 FEIS 25 Church Actual Flows .5 Treatment Plant and Pump 1993 FEIS 5 Stations Olympic Property GroUp Offices Actual Flows .5 RV Park 1993 FE]:S 10 Bay Club (Recreation Center) 1993 FEIS 22.5 Ludlow Bay Realty Actual Flows .4 Pro Shop/Golf Support Facilities 1993 FE]:S 8 TOTAL EX~STZNG 226 Initially Allocated New Resort Commercial 2500 sf @ 200 gpd/1000 sf 2.5 1993 FETS Village Center Moriarty #2 5000 sf @ 200 gpd/1000 sf 5 Estimated max. potential Village Center' Loomis 5000 sf @ 200 gpd/:1000 sf 5 Estimated max. potential Village Center Expansion 45,000 sf @ 200 gpd/:1000 sf :1993 FEIS 45 Pro Shop/Golf Support Expansion 1993 FEIS 4:1 TOTAL ZNZTZALLY ALLOCATED 99 TOTAL COMMERCZAL MERUs 325 Total MERUs reflect rounding from .5 up. !vol 25 Date: TO: From: RE: June 11, 1999 Port Ludlow Mediation Stakeholders Mike Derrig, Olympic ReSOurce Management Revised Schedules · At Wendi's request ! have revised Schedule A and the Worksheet for sewer ERUs for the "Conceptual Resort Plan' comparing those to the Existing Res. ort ERUs and ElS Program ERUs. I have now labeled this schedule Schedule C. I have made the following changes: ; 1. The ERU schedule in Schedule A now is the same as in-Schedule C. 2. On ~chedule A .i have footnoted each source of ERUs to be either DOE guidelines, ElS allocations or in the absence of these, the actual flow.' 3. i have added the Laundry to Schedule C 'Conceptual Resort Plan' which increases the total ERU estimate by 20 to 335. I hope this meets your current needs. Call me with any questions. Please keep these schedules confidential at this time. Thank you, Mike Ludlow O(fi,'e,. 78 [ Walk=r Way, Parc ~ucllow, WA 983~-4 (360) 437-210[, F~: (3dO) 4.T7-3533 Schedule C NOTE: THIS WORKSHEETASSUME8 100% OCCUPANCY OF ALL FACIUTIE8 365 DAYS A YEAR. ACTUAL ERU CALCULATIONS WILL BE LOWER DUE TO OCCUPANCY AND FACILITY USAGE PORT LUDLOW RESORT Guest rooms Restaurant Restaurant (c[or~d in winter) Bar/Lounge Resort Commercial All Seuam Sport~ Comp{ex= dmree indoor tennis courts iudoor lap pool work-out room Community Cgn~/Youth Center Mmn~ (exp~ncled @ 15 lm'g~) (~]S Al]oca~on) Laundry (£IS ^l]oc~tion) Total Harbermas~r 1~ Configure Cente~ront Desk/Admin ~ Launctry/PL Prope~ ~ales (Hik) The inn - Guest Rooms The Inn - Restaurant Rgsort Commercial Marina (EIS Allocation) Admiralt~ Rental Units Total Total Ne~l~l to Transfer 06/!1/99 275 ~ 130 ~ 179 125 ~ ~0 ~ 31 36 moms t30 gpd/mom lO0 sins 50 ~/~ 2,500 square ~ 200 gix]/l,O00 sf I75 rooms 130 gpd/ruom 3 3 3 22 2O 41 4 20 23 2.5 114 245 NOTE: THIS WORKSHEET ASSUMES 100% OCCUPANCY OF ALL FACILITIES 365 DAYS A YEAR. ACTUAL ERU CALCULATIONS WILL BE LOWER DUE TO OCCUPANCY AND FACILITY USAGE PORT LUDLOW RESORT 06n~4~99 Conceptual Resort Plan Description Unit flow Sewer £R U Guest rooms Restaurant Restaurant (closed in winter} Bar/Lounge R~sort Commercial All Seasons Sport~ Complex: three indoor tennis courts indoor lap pool work-out room Community Center/Youth Center Marina (expanded (~ 1/3 larger) Total £xisting Resort ERU$ and ElS Program ERU$ (from Schedules/1 and B) Harborma~ter Restaurant Conference Center/Front Desk/Admin Offices Laundry/PL Property Sales (Hilb~t) The Inn - Guest Rooms The Inn - Restaurant Resort Commercial Marina Admiralty Rental Units ' 'v]'"lLl- Total Total Needed to Transfer 275 Rooms 130 gpd/room 179 200 Seats 50 gpd/seat 50 125 Seats 50 gpd/seat 31 125 Seats 30 gpd/seat 19 2,500 Squaxe Feet 200 Spd/1,000 sf 2.5 50 user, day 10 gpd/user 3 50 users/day 10 gpd/swimmer 3 50 users/day 10 gpd/user 3 30 users/day 30 gpd/user 5 165 ~eats 50 gpd/seat a. ! 41 {..- 4 r~ / 20 36 rooms 130 gpd/room ] ~ 23 I00 seats 50 glO/seat ~2~ 25 '~'' 2.5 <V ls.s J175 roomz 130 gpd/room 4- ~4 114 NOTE: THIS WORKSHEET ASSUMES 100% OCCUPANCY OF ALL FACILITIES 365 DAYS A YEAR. ACTUAL ERU CALCULATIONS WILL BE LOWER DUE TO OCCUPANCY AND FACILITY USAGE PORT LUDLOW RESORT 03/25/99 Conceptual Resorf Plan Description Unit flow Sewer ERE; Guest rooms 275 Rooms 130 gpd/room 179 Restaurant 200 Seats 50 gpcl/seat 50 Restaurant (closed in winter) 125 Seats 50 gpd/seat 31 Bar/Lounge 125 Seats 30 gpd/seat 19 Resort Commercial 2,500 Square Feet 200 gpd/1,000 sf' 2.5 All Seasons Sports Complex: three indoor tennis courts 50 users/day I0 gpd/user 3 indoor lap pool 50 users/day 10 gpd/swimmer 3 world-out room 50 users/day 10 gpd/user 3 Community Center/Youth Center 30 users/day 30 gpd/user 5 Total 293 Existing Resort ERUs attd EIS Program ERUs (from Schedules A and B) Harbormaster Restaurant 165 seats 50 gpd/seat 41 Con ference Center 6 Laundry/PL Property Sales (Hilbert) 7 The Inn 16 Resort Commercial 2.5 Ludlow Bay Village 44 Units (72 studied in EIS, 14 Built) 58 Admiralty Ill 36 Units (50 studied in EIS) 50 Total Total Needed to Transfer 181 112 Date: To: From: RE: June 9, 1999 Port Ludlow Mediation Stakeholders Mike Derrig Olympic Resource Management Attached Schedules Attached are some new schedules and a revised schedule A & B which was originally distributed to you on February 25, 1999. Schedule A & B is revised to reflect a change in the number of Ludlow Bay Village "Residential Baseline Total" lots/units and consequently the "Potential Future" units also changes. The change of 44 lots/units is because the 44 units on this site will not be built if the resort plan is developed. This change does not impact total units of 2,250 nor ERUs of 2,449. Attached is a copy of the DOE criteria for Sewage Works Design and a schedule reflecting sewage flow for resort and commercial development. Also attached is a revised schedule that compares the ERU flow of the Conceptual Resort Plan to the flows that existed or were studied in the ElS as resort related or commercial flows. In both schedules we have used identical flow allocation as per the DOE schedule. Mike -- Original Message--- From: William G Funke [mailto:wgfunke~olypan.com] Sent: Friday, September 17, 1999 2:56 PM To: Faith Lumsden Cc: nsolhein~_~co.jefferson, wa.us Subject: MPR Sewer Memorandum Faith: Comments: Paragraph 5 "OWSI believes". This belief should be stipulated as part of this memorandum with reference to current and approved additional capacity, in gallons per day or however rated, as acconmaodating the approved 2550 MERUs. I donl think this is necessary. The document is tied to the zonin0 ordinance and the 1093 ElS, so this is implied. Paragraph 6. why has "within the boundaries of the Port Ludlow MPR" been eliminated I think this was just editing for style. Paragraph 6, 1. what are "the provisions of the Washington Administrative Code", what is the code reference and stakeholders should be given copy of this code. I don't know the exact chapter citations. There are several that deal with sewer issues. It's probably best to leave it open ended. Paragraph 6, 3. It is necessary to clarify this statement by including the wording "Unless prepaid", e.g. My neighbor who purchased 3 lots, has already paid OWSI for one hook up $4000, even though he does not plan to build for several years. This is already what the document means. Paragraph 6, 5. "in accordance with the conditions of the OWSI Sewer Extension Agreement". What is this agreement. Conditions should be known and apply to this memorandum. This is their standard sewer extension agreement. The MOU does not attempt to regulate the terms of the sewer extension egreement. Paragraph 6, 6. This added caveat should be taken in context with the Paragraph 5, "OWSI believes" statement. MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING REGARDING THE PROVISION OF SEWER SERVICE WITHIN THE BOUNDARIES OF THE PORT LUDLOW MASTER PLANNED RESORT~ WHEREAS Olympic Water and Sewer, Inc. (OWSI) is the owner and operator of the sewer collection, conveyance and treatment facilities serving the Port Ludlow Master Planned Resort (MPR) defined in the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan; and: WHEREAS, the property lies in Jefferson County, Washington and the County has jurisdiction over the development of property within the Port Ludlow MPR; and: I WHEREAS, the County wishes wav2s to ensure that sewer service is publicly available on an equitable basis within the MPR; and: WHEREAS, the County and the or, wets of the Po~ Ludlow 5.L~R Mve has been engaged in a mediation process involving the resort owners and other residents and property owners to resolve issues associated with the future developmem of the MPR; and: WHEREAS, OWSI believes that the sewer system within the Port Ludlow MPR has capacity to serve the population allocated and the level of development authorized in the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan. NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the above recitals and other good and valuable cons. ideration, the parties enter into the following Memorandum of Understanding regarding sewer . servace OWSI will provide geqqaest~fov-sewer service -:All only be-grame6-within the established boundary of the Master Planned Resort or in accordance with applicable provisions of the Washington Administrative Code-WAGs. o Requests for sewer service will be processed by OWSI on a first come, first served basis~ as limited only by the capacity of the OSWI facilities and the applicable permits and approvals issued to OWSI. At time of connection or connections, a property owner within the MPR seeking sewer service shall pay the then-prevailing connection fee in accordance with the OWSIhs fee schedule. Any sewer connection must comply with the conditions of the NPDES permit issued to OWSI by the State Departmem of Ecology. Any extension of sewer facilities, conveyance lines or other requirements to bring service to a property within the MPR shall be at the expense of the !VOL 25 property owner and in accordance with the conditions of the OWSI~s I Sewer Extension Agreement, which agreement must be executed prior to service being extended. Sewer service to properties within the MPR shall not be denied so long as capacity exists and the terms and conditions of paragraphs 1 through 5 above are met. This memorandum of undemanding is binding between the parties, successors and assigns, for a term of (20) years or the life of the Development Agreement to be signed between Jefferson County and Olympic Property Group, whichever is lesssooae~. AGREED TO THIS DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 1999. OLYMPIC WATER AND SEWER, INC. By Its JEFFERSON COUNTY Commi~ioner Co~ioner Approved as to form: Commi.qsioner Prosecuting Attorney JEFFERSON COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS Agenda Item Information/DescriPtion X Consent Agenda Item Regular Business (check one) ~~-----~WEEK OF: October 4, 1999~ Description - a bdef description of the agenda item: Please include project, road, contract, grant, etc. number if one is available for the Commissioner Index. Planning Commission Report to the Board in regard to the Port Ludlow Master Planned Resort Ordinance. Issue - a short outline of the issue: including policy issue falls within; strategy or objective issue supports; key reference areas (law/policy/regulation): The Planning Commission held a public hearing on August 18, 1999 on an ordinance regulating development within the Port Ludlow Master Planned Resort. The attached list of concerns stems from that public hearing. Opportunity Analysis -What is the type of action Board is being asked to take: Discussion/decision- -if decision-what is the ~nge of possible solutionS, considered by the department in preparing its recommendation. The Board is holding a public hearing on the Port Ludlow Master Planned Resort"Ordir~ce on October 4, 1999 at 3:00 p.m. The Planning Commission's Report to the Board is intended to a~sist the Board in their review of the§e final development regulations. Specific Departmental Recommendation - why was the action recommended and what woUld be the impact of not taking the action: What specific action is necessary by the BOCC approval - adoption - deny - remand back to department. No action recommended. The Planning Commission Report to the Board is informational. Review Process - If this issue was sent back for further review by the Board, .please indicate the additional reviews undertaken. place. Risk Management Fiscal/Budget Public Services Director Other impacted Departments - Please list If the review is simply good.business policy-indicate what reviews have taken Legal/Prosecuting Attorney Department Head Board Management Team Work Plan including What, Who, When and How has been completed. YES (Please provide copy) NO (Why Not?) (Check one) Planning Commission Report to the Board An Ordinance Establishing Development Regulations for the Port Ludlow Master Planned Resort August 1999 The Planning Commission reviewed the proposed ordinance at its August 18th meeting. The following concerns were raised: 1. The 1993 EIS should be referenced in the ordinance under a "Whereas" or in Section 1.30, as the baseline from which proposals needed to be measured. The Commission wished to make the following statement: "We [the Commission] recognize that property owner rights may be altered in the plat alteration process and recommend that established open space and shorelines should be preserved." The Commission wanted to ensure, that the conditions on the 1993 EIS were reviewed in the event of any plat alteration. 3. The Commission wished to express its concern about the language in the ordinance regarding a development agreement as it would relate to the Zoning Code and the Memorandum of Understanding about future sewer hook-ups.~The.effect of the development_, agi, reement_, w__ould be. that the provisions of the ordinance would be locked ~nto place for the hfe ofihe agreement. While the stakeholders had had input into the ordinance,,, the group h, ad not reviewed any develol>ment , ,~l~° agreement. The at, reed ut>on statement was based upon our understanding, the stakeholders group ~'~ 0~/~'~c~id not h~'""--'ave any s~ttleme~t on the development agreement." ~ ~' fi~J 7 ~.~ The Commission recommended that the Board plan to send the fina?'development agreement back to ~//~l the stakeholders for review or that the stakeholders participate in the final development agreement. '~']*' 5. A concern was raised that the purpose of the "conceptual site plan" referenced in Section 3.108~.. ~ needed to be clear, i.e. that the "conceptual site plan for the MPR is required prior to' development within the comprehensive land use conceptual area." The section qhmfld irldicate that the entire c_onceptual plan of the MPR was required orior to the platting of the area outlin, ed on the Land Use Map as needing a conceptual site plan prior to development. A concern was raised that section 3.904 regarding the scoping of the SEIS should include noise associated with the amphitheater. -- The Commission expressed concern about the implications of the provision in the beginning of the ordinance that vested preliminary plat applications within the MPR would be subject to the provisions of this ordinance. The discussion clarified that this would apply only to two plats that did not have preliminary approval. ~ The Commission was concerned about the nature of the uses in the use table, and whether or not they were in conflict with the intent of the RCW concerning existing master planned resorts. 9. Section 3.602.3 should read "interpretive center, interpretive signage". 10. The Commission recommended including a "WhereaS" in the beginning of the ordinance clearly stating the relationship betWeen Section 3.901, which def'mes the resort plan, any required SEIS, and the issuance of any subsequ~ent building ~i'ts. 11. Section 3.802~ make it clear that it is the Department of Community DevelOpment that will be responsible for keeping track of the MERUs. ~. 12. The Commission wanted the criteria Under which condit~ional uses are reviewed to be included in the ordinance. A concern was rai~a~there' may be other applicable sections of the Zoning Code that should be referenced in the ordinance. The Commission was concerned that there might be a perception that this ordinance was the only applicable ordinance as far as the MPR was concerned. They wanted to make sure that all other applicable County ordinances still applied and suggested that the ordinance should make this clear. 13. The Commission suggested a finding be included in support of diminishing the forestland buffers in order to I) satisfy ORM, 2) satisfy the DNR and 3) make it clear that the provision was not in conflict with the Forest Land Ordinance. FOSTER PEPPER ~ SHEFELMAN Al' 1'o ~ N ~' Y S A T L n w PLLC September 29, 1999 VIA FACSEMI, E ~ VIA CERTIFIED MAIL RRR #Z215 332 315 SEP 3 0 1999 Jefferson County Board of County Commissioners P.O. Box 1220 Port Townsend, WA 98386 JEFFERSON COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS Re: Port Ludlow Master Planned Resort Proposed Ordinance Dear County Commissioners: This law firm represents the following owners (the "Owners") of residential lots in the Plat of Ludlow Bay Village (the "Plat"): the Browns, the Ferrises, the Lantermans, the Hills, the Masters, the Josephs, the Clarks, Jan Kennedy, Scott Gibson and Burke Gibson. This letter sets forth the comments and concerns of our clients regarding a proposed Jefferson County ordinance which will adopt new development regulations for the Port Ludlow Master Planned Resort ("Draf~ Ordinance"). It also includes suggested refinements to the Draft Ordinance which, if adopted, will resolve many of these concerns. A public hearing has been set for the Board of County Commissioners' consideration of the proposed ordinance on October 4, 1999. The Dmf~ Ordinance has been developed to implement the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan designation of the Port Ludlow community as a Master Planned Resort. However, the only actual resident from the Plat that was invited to attend the planning process leading up to the proposed ordinance is the MPR developer's designated representative, Mr. Greg McCeary, of Olympic Resource Management ("ORM"). As ORM's representative and advocate of the MPR, Mr. McCeary naturally concerned himself with ORM's paramount interest,, in securin~ maximum development possible for the MPR.rOur clfer~ts, as significantly affected private property owners within the Plat, were thus denied any meaningful opportunity to participate in the ordinance's planning process. As such, it is not surprising that the Draft Ordinance and the proposed MPR development build-out under consideration for the MPR do not reflect a community-wide consensus, contrary to the recital language in the proposed ordinance. Had there been a meaningful oppommity for public participation by the Plat residents, many of the substantive concerns outlined below might have J~etgn addre~ed earlier in the process. [VOL ED Direct Facsimile (IQ&) 749-2026 WashJ('aJfoster.¢a m ~VENUE Sutt¢ SEATTLE Webstte Alaska ~EATTLE September 29, 1999 Page 2 None of the residents who bought their units at Ludlow Bay Village several years ago had any reason to tlaink at the time of their purchase that their 17.5 acre tranquil setting would be packed with up to 500,000 square feet of commercial and resort development. You can then appreciate why our clients are concerned with the impact on existing open Space areas, impacts on access within the Plat, and impacts on the established residential portion of the Plat of future development of the Master Plarmed Resort ("MPR") allowed by the Draft Ordinance. The proposed size, scale, form, quality and character of future development in the community, which will be governed and authorized by the Draft Ordinance, is significantly different than that represented to our clients at the t_ime they purchased property in the Plat. While our clients are' not unalterably opposed to any expansion of the resort, or revision of the Plat, they desim to preserve and protect their legally protected rights of due process, and fight to consent to future plat alteration, as affected property owners. Such issues may be addressed through the Draft Ordinance, if certain minor amendments are made, as proposed herein. Alternatively, given: (1) the lack of meaningful oppommity to participate up to this point, (2) the dramatic impact and scale of the MPR development permitted under the Draft Ordinance, and (3) the extent to which the additional 500,000 square feet of development allowed under the Draft Ordinance will impact the existing residents, our clients may have no recourse other than to pursue litigation, starting with a possible appeal of the Draft Ordinance, in order to assure, that their legal rights will be protected. As now proposed, the Draft Ordinance may fail to comply with several requirements of the Growth Management Act ("GMA"). The County's Draft Ordinance adopts new development regulations for the MPR, and thus must be consistent with the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan. RCW 36.70A.040(3); see also KCW 36.70A.362. As such, our clients' concerns must be addressed and resolved now, instead of waiting until the time the actual resort plan is considered by the BOCC. While later in the process is an appropriate time to deal with design details and project-specific mitigation, the BOCC needs to ensure at this important juncture that the rights of existing residents are given due consideration and that the. Draft Ordinance includes clear policy language and substantive direction on the key issues of open space, dedicated common areas, buffering of existing residences and alteration of the existing Ludlow Bay Village Plat. Lmplementation of the MPR and adoption of the proposed ordinance must be consistent with a range of GMA policies found in the County Plan, Countywide Planning Policies, and GMA statute. Such policies include, but are not limited to, the eight policies limed in LNG 25.0 of the County Plan. La particular, policy 25.6 states that greenbelts, open space and wildlife corridors in MPRs should be preserved and protected. The proposed resort plan allowed under the Dra~ Ordinance does not preserve or protect open space and greenbelts within the Plat. ~0126901.01 September 29, 1999 Page 3 Thus, the Dra~ Ordinance is not consistent with the County Plan, in violation of GMA. However, with the inclusion of additional language in the ordinance regarding property owner consent for plat revisions, discussed above, our clients would not be inclined to appeal the proposed ordinance to the Growth Management Hearings Board, because our clients would work with the developer in the plat alteration process and project permit stage to ensure preservation and protection of open areas through the state and local consent requirements. Our clients are concerned about impacts on the vested fights of existing property'owners in the Plat. The proposed_develo.p, ment of 50~feet is significantly larger than the . original development planned tbr the. site, re_suiting in a substantial change of character that i_.s inconsistent with the character represented to our clients at the tlme"~ey purcn'hsect property in, · 8' plat. Our cl~nts woulct l~ce t6'ensure mit me resort plan retains the existing network of roa'8'i"d~in the Plat, or that comparable alternative access is provided. In addition, the quantity and quality of currently designated open space reflected in the existing Plat should not be diminished in any future resort plan. Our clients are particularly concerned with preservation of greenbelt areas and publicly accessible shorelines, and changes in the use of designated common areas. They are also very concerned about protecting existing residential areas from incompatible adjacent uses. This may be accomplished by having the Draft Ordinance retain the existing residential zone over those areas already developed ~Mth residential uses, and requiring that the additional single family residential units as represented in the NBB.r conceptual plan presented by ORaM be built to ensure compatibility with the e.,dsting single-family residences. As recognized by the Planning Commission in their August.. t 999 Report to the Board of Commissioners, "property rights may be altered in the plat alteration process and [the Planning Commission] recommend[s] that established open space and shorelines should be preserved." The Planning Coi'nmission also wanted to ensure that the conditions on the 1993 EIS were reviewed in the event of any plat alteration. In order to ensure that our clients' concerns are sufficiently considered by the County and the developer, our clients must be able to exercise their legal rights under County and state law as propervy owners to approve future plat revisions. Since our clients are understandably concerned about retaining some control over the furore development of the plat, ~ey want to ensure they have a voice in current and future discussions regarding such development, regardless of who the developer may be. The Draft Ordinance is silent on the process for plat alteration, a step which will be necessary for the proposed future development of the partially developed Plat. See Section 3.903 of the Draft Ordinance. The ordinance should clearly set forth state and local plat revision requirements, and should require demonstrated compliance with such requirements before any future resort plan is considered or adopted by the County. September 29, 1999 Page 4 Section 14.201 of the/efferson County Subdivision Ordinance has two subsections with different owner consent requirements. The fa'st requires "signatures of all of thase persons having an ownership interest in that portion of the subdivision subject to alteration." The second, which applies to a subdivision subject to restrictive covenants filed with the plat and if the alteration "would result in the violation of the covenant or covenants," requires an agreement signed by all property owners "~to alter or terminate the relevant covenant or covenants in order to accomplish the purpose of the subdivision alteration." These local plat alteration provisions generally track similar requirements in the state subdivision laws. RCW 58.17.215 states that an application'for a plat alteration requires the signatures of a majority of those persons ha .,fro. g.an ownership interest in the lots, tracts, parcels, sites or divisions in the subdivision. Further, RCW 58.17.218 states that alteration of a subdivision is subject to RCW 64.04.175, which states that easements' established by a dedication are property fights that cannot be extinguished or altered without the approval of the easement owner or owners, unless the plat or other document creating the dedicated easement provides for an alternative method to extinguish or alter the easement. Easement rights are granted to the lot owners of Ludlow Bay both in the Plat and the Plat's covenants, conditions and restrictions ("CCRs"). As such, each lot owner must consent to a change in the boundaries of a common area because they have easement rights to that property as well as being beneficial owners of that property. They also constitute a majority of the property owners. To the extent: there is any inconsistency between local and state requirements governing plat revisions, state law requirements supercede the County's requirements. In summary, many of our clients' substantive concerns regarding the future development of' the resort may be addressed and/or mitigated if they are allowed to exercise their legally protected "voice" with regard to future proposed development of' the MPR within the Plat. The Draft Ordinance should specifically state that future plat alteration must comply with local and state laws requiring all affected property owners' consent to alter the plat. The following. language should be added to Section 3.903 of the Draft Ordinance protect this vital concern: [fa plat alteration requires a change in the boundaries or use ora common area tract(s), as designated in the existing plat, the consent of all property owners shall be required as part of the plat alteration process, as required under state and local laws. Finally, our clients are concerned that the environmental impacts of the MlaR development may not be consistent with the conditions set forth in the project's Envirom~ental Impact Statement ("ELS"). Deferral of additional environmental review may not comply with the State Environmental Policy Act CSEPA"), which requires environmental review at the earliest possible point. WAC 19%11-055; King County v. Washington State Botmcta~ Review Boa.L'd., 122 Wn.2d 648, 663-64, 860 P.2d 1024 (1993). The County's failure to require additional environmental review prior to its adoption of the proposed ordinance may constitute an additional ground for appeal. ~0126g01.01 September 29, 1999 Page 5 Thank you fo~ your attention to our clients' concerns and comments. We hope that, at a m~n~m~m~ yOU add the lallgtlage and other specific suggestions proposed in this letter. We look forward to the opportunity to participate in the County's adoption of the Draft Ordinance in order to ensure that the adopted ordinance addresses other issues of import to the existing residents. Sincerely yours, FOSTER PEPPER & SHEFELMAN PLLC J. Tayloe Washburn CCi Clients Katherine Laird Steve Day FOSTER PEPPER a T T O R SHEFELMAN PLLC LAW September 29, 1999 VIA FACSIMLE ~ VIA CERTIFIED MAIL RRR #Z215 332 315 SEP ~ 0 1999 Jefferson County Board of County Commissioners P.O. Box 1220 Port Townsend, WA 98386 JEFF£RSON COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS Re: Port Ludlow Master Planned Resort Proposed Ordinance Dear County Commissioners: This law firm represents the following owners (the "Owners") of residential lots in the Plat of Ludlow Bay Village (the "Plat"): the Browns, the Ferrises, the Lantermans, the Hills, the Masters, the Josephs, the Clarks, Jan Kennedy, Scott Gibson and Burke Gibson. This letter sets forth the comments and concerns of our clients regarding a proposed Jefferson County ordinance which will adopt new development regulations for the Port Ludlow Master Planned Resort ("Draft Ordinance"). It also includes suggested refinements to the Draft Ordinance which, if adopted, will resolve many of these concerns. A public hearing has been set for the Board of County Commissioners' consideration of the proposed ordinance on October 4, 1999. The Draft Ordinance has been developed to implement the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan designation of the Port Ludlow community as a Master Planned Resort. However, the only actual resident from the Plat that was invited to attend the planning process leading up to the proposed ordinance is the MPR developer's designated representative, Mr. Greg McCeary, of Olympic Resource Management ("ORM"). As ORM's representative and advocate of the MPR, Mr. McCeary naturally concerned himself with ORM's paramount interest in securing the maximum development possible for the MPR. Our clients, as significantly affected private property owners within the Plat, were thus denied any meaningful opportunity to participate in the ordinance's planning process. As such, it is not surprising that the Draft Ordinance and the proposed MPR development build-out under consideration for the MPR do not reflect a community-wide consensus, contrary to the recital language in the proposed ordinance. Had there been a meaningful opportunity for public participation by the Plat residents, many of the substantive concerns outlined below might have been addressed earlier in the process. 'VOL Direct Phone (206) 447-8948 Direct Facsimile (206) 749-2026 E-Mail WashJ(~foster.com AVENUE Suite 3400 SEATTLE Washington 98roI-3Z99 Telephone (z06)447-44oo Facsimile (zo6)447-97oo Website WWW.FOSTER.COM ANClfORAGE Alaska BEI. LEVUE Washtngton PORTLAND Oregon SEA'r rLE Washington SPOKANE Washington 5012690801 September 29, 1999 Page 2 None of the residents who bought their units at Ludlow Bay Village several years ago had any reason to think at the time of their purchase that their 17.5 acre tranquil setting would be packed with up to 500,000 square feet of commercial and resort development. You can then appreciate why our clients are concerned with the impact on existing open space areas, impacts on access within the Plat, and impacts on the established residential portion of the Plat of future development of the Master Planned Resort ("MPR") allowed by the Draft Ordinance. The proposed size, scale, form, quality and character of future development in the community, which will be governed and authorized by the Draft Ordinance, is significantly different than that represented to our clients at the time they purchased property in the Plat. While our clients are not unalterably opposed to any expansion of the resort, or revision of the Plat, they desire to preserve and protect their legally protected rights of due process, and right to consent to future plat alteration, as affected property owners. Such issues may be addressed through the Draft Ordinance, if certain minor amendments are made, as proposed herein. Alternatively, given: (1) the lack of meaningful opportunity to participate up to this point, (2) the dramatic impact and scale of the MPR development permitted under the Draft Ordinance, and (3) the extent to which the additional 500,000 square feet of development allowed under the Draft Ordinance will impact the existing residents, our clients may have no recourse other than to pursue litigation, starting with a possible appeal of the Draft Ordinance, in order to assure that their legal rights will be protected. As now proposed, the Draft Ordinance may fail to comply with several requirements of the Growth Management Act ("GMA"). The County's Draft Ordinance adopts new development regulations for the MPR, and thus must be consistent with the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan. RCW 36.70A.040(3); see also RCW 36.70A.362. As such, our clients' concerns must be addressed and resolved now, instead of waiting until the time the actual resort plan is considered by the BOCC. While later in the process is an appropriate time to deal with design details and project-specific mitigation, the BOCC needs to ensure at this important juncture that the rights of existing residents are given due consideration and that the Draft Ordinance includes clear policy language and substantive direction on the key issues of open space, dedicated common areas, buffering of existing residences and alteration of the existing Ludlow Bay Village Plat. Implementation of the MPR and adoption of the proposed ordinance must be consistent with a range of GMA policies found in the County Plan, Countywide Planning Policies, and GMA statute. Such policies include, but are not limited to, the eight policies listed in LNG 25.0 of the County Plan. In particular, policy 25.6 states that greenbelts, open space and wildlife corridors in MPRs should be preserved and protected. The proposed resort plan allowed under the Draft Ordinance does not preserve or protect open space and greenbelts within the Plat. 5012690801 September 29, 1999 Page 3 Thus, the Draft Ordinance is not consistent with the County Plan, in violation of GMA. However, with the inclusion of additional language in the ordinance regarding property owner consent for plat revisions, discussed above, our clients would not be inclined to appeal the proposed ordinance to the Growth Management Hearings Board, because our clients would work with the developer in the plat alteration process and project permit stage to ensure preservation and protection of open areas through the state and local consent requirements. Our clients are concemed about impacts on the vested rights of existing property owners in the Plat. The proposed development of 500,000 square feet is significantly larger than the original development planned for the site, resulting in a substantial change of character that is inconsistent with the character represented to our clients at the time they purchased property in the plat. Our clients would like to ensure that the resort plan retains the existing network of roads in the Plat, or that comparable alternative access is provided. In addition, the quantity and quality of currently designated open space reflected in the existing Plat should not be diminished in any future resort plan. Our clients are particularly concerned with preservation of greenbelt areas and publicly accessible shorelines, and changes in the use of designated common areas. They are also very concerned about protecting existing residential areas from incompatible adjacent uses. This may be accomplished by having the Draft Ordinance retain the existing residential zone over those areas already developed with residential uses, and requiring that the additional single family residential units as represented in the NBBJ conceptual plan presented by ORM be built to ensure compatibility with the existing single-family residences. As recognized by the Planning Commission in their August 1999 Report to the Board of Commissioners, "property rights may be altered in the plat alteration process and [the Planning Commission] recommend[s] that established open space and shorelines should be preserved." The Planning Commission also wanted to ensure that the conditions on the 1993 EIS were reviewed in the event of any plat alteration. In order to ensure that our clients' concerns are sufficiently considered by the County and the developer, our clients must be able to exercise their legal rights under County and state law as property owners to approve future plat revisions. Since our clients are understandably concerned about retaining some control over the future development of the plat, they want to ensure they have a voice in current and future discussions regarding such development, regardless of who the developer may be. The Draft Ordinance is silent on the process for plat alteration, a step which will be necessary for the proposed future development of the partially developed Plat. ~ee Section 3.903 of the Draft Ordinance. The ordinance should clearly set forth state and local plat revision requirements, and should require demonstrated compliance with such requirements before any future resort plan is considered or adopted by the County. 5012690801 September 29, 1999 Page 4 Section 14.201 of the Jefferson County Subdivision Ordinance has two subsections with different owner consent requirements. The first requires "signatures of all of those persons having an ownership interest in that portion of the subdivision subject to alteration." The second, which applies to a subdivision subject to restrictive covenants filed with the plat and if the alteration "would result in the violation of the covenant or covenants," requires an agreement signed by all property owners "to alter or terminate the relevant covenant or covenants in order to accomplish the purpose of the subdivision alteration." These local plat alteration provisions generally track similar requirements in the state subdivision laws. RCW 58.17.215 states that an application for a plat alteration requires the signatures of a majority of those persons having an ownership interest in the lots, tracts, parcels, sites or divisions in the subdivision. Further, RCW 58.17.218 states that alteration of a subdivision is subject to RCW 64.04.175, which states that easements established by a dedication are property rights that cannot be extinguished or altered without the approval of the easement owner or owners, unless the plat or other document creating the dedicated easement provides for an alternative method to extinguish or alter the easement. Easement rights are granted to the lot owners of Ludlow Bay both in the Plat and the Plat's covenants, conditions and restrictions ("CCRs"). As such, each lot owner must consent to a change in the boundaries of a common area because they have easement rights to that property as well as being beneficial owners of that property. They also constitute a majority of the property owners. To the extent there is any inconsistency between local and state requirements governing plat revisions, state law requirements supercede the County's requirements. In summary, many of our clients' substantive concerns regarding the future development of the resort may be addressed and/or mitigated if they are allowed to exercise their legally protected "voice" with regard to future proposed development of the MPR within the Plat. The Draft Ordinance should specifically state that future plat alteration must comply with local and state laws requiring all affected property owners' consent to alter the plat. The following language should be added to Section 3.903 of the Draft Ordinance protect this vital concern: Ifa plat alteration requires a change in the boundaries or use of a common area tract(s), as designated in the existing plat, the consent of all property owners shall be required as part of the plat alteration process, as required under state and local laws. Finally, our clients are concerned that the environmental impacts of the MPR development may not be consistent with the conditions set forth in the project's Environmental Impact Statement ("EIS"). Deferral of additional environmental review may not comply with the State Environmental Policy Act ("SEPA"), which requires environmental review at the earliest possible point. WAC 197-11-055; King County v. Washington State Boundary Review Board, 122 Wn.2d 648, 663-64, 860 P.2d 1024 (1993). The County's failure to require additional environmental review prior to its adoption of the proposed ordinance may constitute an additional ground for appeal. 50126908.01 September 29, 1999 Page 5 Thank you for your attention to our clients' concerns and comments. We hope that, at a minimum you add the language and other specific suggestions proposed in this letter. We look forward to the opportunity to participate in the County's adoption of the Draft Ordinance in order to ensure that the adopted ordinance addresses other issues of import to the existing residents. Sincerely yours, FOSTER PEPPER & SHEFELMAN PLLC J. Tayloe Washburn CC: Clients Katherine Laird Steve Day 50126908.01