HomeMy WebLinkAboutM110998JEFFERSON COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
District No. ! Commissioner:
District No. 2 Commissioner:
District No. 3 Commissioner:
I'flqE IqEAP.¥ OF
Daniel Harpole, Member
Glen Huntingford, Chairman
Richard Wojt, Member
~lvM >lC I~E['.IIN.~ULA
Clerk of the Board:
Director of Public Services:
Deputy Director of Public Services:
Lorna L. Delaney
Gary A. Rowe
David Goldsmith
MINUTES
Week of November 9, 1998
The meeting was called to order by Chairman Glen Huntingford. Commissioners
Richard Wojt and Daniel Harpole were both present.
Engaging the Law Firm of Karr, Tuttle, Campbell as Counsel of Record for the
Comprehensive Plan Appeals: Public Services Director Gary Rowe reported that he met with the
Prosecuting Attorney regarding the legal counsel for the Comprehensive Plan appeals. He recommends
that the County contract with the law firm of Kart, Tuttle, Campbell since the County has retained them
in the past for other legal matters. The estimated cost of the contract is $50,000. If the Board approves
the use of this firm, a meeting will be scheduled for 10:00 a.m. tomorrow.
Chairman Huntingford reported that he was informed that the community group in Port Ludlow
(CLOA) retained Karr, Tuttle, and Campbell as their attorneys for issues dealing with the development
regulations. He asked if it would be a conflict of interest for this same law firm to represent the
County? Gary Rowe will contact the Prosecuting Attorney to review whether there may be a conflict of
interest.
PUBLIC SERVICES BRIEFING SESSION: Public Services Director Gary Rowe
reported on the following:
· An Executive Session has been scheduled for 8:00 to 10:00 a.m. tomorrow regarding Planning
Department personnel issues. He asked if the Board would like part of this meeting to be open
to the public? Commissioner Harpole suggested that the 8 - 9 a.m. session be an executive
session regarding personnel and from 9 to 10 a.m. be an open meeting regarding the
reorganization of Long Range Planning and the Permit Center.
Page 1
2974
Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of November 9, 1998
Referendum 49 will provide new funds for law and justice departments. Gary Rowe suggested
that a clear message be sent to the Law and Justice Departments explaining that any Referendum
49 funding will be used to fund current programs and expenses. There are still some questions
about how the Referendum 49 funds can be used and if there are any strings attached to these
funds. The Board members asked that they be briefed on the use of these funds.
There may be an additional two months of employee medical benefits from the UFCW at no cost
to the County. This would be approximately a $100,000 savings to the County. Gary Rowe will
check into this further.
Any increase in property taxes in the preliminary budget can be decreased after the required
public hearing, but the amount cannot be increased from the amount advertised for the hearing.
PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD: The following comments were made:
Concerns about the timing of a workshop with several agencies and the Planning Commission to
discuss performance standards for asphalt batch plants and a hearing on an asphalt batch plant
permit that is coming before the Hearing Examiner prior to that workshop. (Al Scalfreported
that the drastic analysis required by the Critical Areas Ordinance for the conditional use permit
for an asphalt batch plant is what is being reviewed by the Hearing Examiner.)
A question about whether the public notice for the Hearing Examiner's hearing correctly
indicated what is being reviewed.
A suggestion that the County consider aggressively pursuing the recovery of attorney fees in the
appeal actions against the Comprehensive Plan.
A request that the County review the square feet allowed for accessory dwelling units (ADUs.)
If there is any consideration being given to a noise ordinance for the Tri Area.
A man interested in purchasing a commercial property at Teal Lake Road and Highway 104
explained his plans for the property.
APPROVAL AND ADOPTION OF THE CONSENT AGENDA: Commissioner
Harpole moved to delete Items 4 and 10 and approve the balance of the Consent Agenda as submitted.
Commissioner Wojt seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote.
PROCLAMATION re: "America Recycles Day"; November 15, 1998
RESOLUTION NO. 95-98 re: Establishing a Partnership with Clallam County and Other
Governments in Salmon Recovery Under ESHB2496 for the Sol Duc/Hoh Basin of Jefferson
County
CONTRACT re: Professional Services; Providing Health Care Service for Inmates in the
Jefferson County Jail; Jefferson County Sheriff's Office; F.A. Enterprises Health Care Delivery
Systems
DELETE Contract re: Professional Services; Volunteer and Training Coordinator for County Programs; Cooperative Extension; M. Mattie
Young
Page 2
Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of November 9, 1998
10.
TWO (2) AGREEMENTS re: Construction Proposals for 1) Paradise Bay Road, Phase 1,
Project #1698-01 and 2) South Discovery Railroad Overpass, Project #1699-01; Jefferson
County Public Works; County Road Administration Board (CRAB)
Final Long Plat Approval, SUB94-0063; To Divide Approximately 5 Acres into 4 Lots; Located
off of Whispering Cedar Lane, Chimacum; Bishop Logging, Applicant
Request for Septic Permit Fee Waiver; Due to Error in Issuing Original Permit, Applicant was
Required to Submit a Re-Design; Jefferson County Permit Center; Frank and Kathleen Palvino,
Applicants
Appoint Alternate Voting Member Representing Murrey's Olympic Disposal on the Jefferson
County Solid Waste Advisory Committee; Term Expires October 23, 2000; Michele Cox
Application for Assistance from the Veteran's Relief Fund; Jefferson County Service Officers'
Association for $100.00
DELETE Letter to Cleve Pinnix, Director of the Washington State Parks and Recreation Commission re: Jefferson County as Public
Agency Sponsor for Point Harmon Acquisition; ALEA Grant Program 1998 (See item later in Minutes.)
COUNTY DEPARTMENT BRIEFINGS/BUSINESS
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
Director's Update: Director of Community Development A1 Scalf reported that the
Permit Center has received a temporary use permit for a Christmas tree stand, which according to the
Land Use Procedures Ordinance, requires a 30 day public comment period. This means the permit can't
be issued until after December 4, 1998, and this stand would miss part of the selling season. He noted
that there are community groups who may want to sell Christmas trees also and don't realize there is a
Type A Land Use permit required. He will review this further and bring the matter back to the Board
next week. Associate Planner Barry Berezowski noted that there are several changes required in the
Land Use Procedures Ordinance. If these changes are made, the issue of fees for public notice for new
permits needs to be addressed.
A1 Scalf reported that he has been invited to discuss the UGA designation for the Tri Area at a Port
Hadlock/Tri Area Chamber of Commerce meeting tomorrow. He will be making a presentation on
Thursday to the Joint Senate/House Committee on Rural Land Use on the economy in Jefferson County.
The House and Senate will be holding a regional public hearing that night on the same issue.
Barry Berezowski reported that a new process and forms have been drafted for Comprehensive Plan
amendments and Land Use Map amendments. The draft time line for Comprehensive Plan amendments
was reviewed. The window for submitting petitions for Comprehensive Plan amendments is November
through January 31 annually. If a petition is submitted after the January 31 deadline, it is held until the
following year. The process for review of the petitions received in any year will take approximately 8
Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of November 9, 1998
months to complete. Commissioner Harpole expressed concern that the petitions must be submitted 8
months prior to an amendment being finally considered and made. He would like to see more time
given to the public to submit these petitions. The time line will be reviewed to see if petitions can be
submitted later in the year. This will be reviewed and discussed at a later date.
Associate Planner Harriet Beale presented and reviewed a draft agenda for the November 18
informational meeting on the issues around asphalt batch plants. She also reported that Mason County
has a grant for WRIA 16 which includes the Dosewallips. A staff meeting for the initiating
governments (including Jefferson County) has been scheduled. The Board directed that Harriet Beale
attend the meeting to represent the County.
Discussion re: Public Rights-of-way Dividing Parcels (Continued from September 28,
1998): A1 Scalf reported that the Prosecuting Attorney has reviewed this question and noted that the
County cannot legally create parcels when a public right-of-way divides a parcel, due to the current
wording of the Jefferson County Code. Commissioner Harpole noted that the Prosecuting Attorney is
responding to a question about a recreational easement, while the question is actually about dedicated
right-of-way. Al Scalf will review this matter with the Prosecuting Attorney again to make sure the
correct question is being asked.
PUBLIC WORKS
Hearing Examiner's Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendations re: Petition to
Vacate a Portion of Lake Street in the Plat of Captain Tibbals Lake Park, Port Townsend; Robert &
Jacqueline Chisick, Petitioners: Terry Duff, Public Works Department, presented maps showing the
area of the revised request for this petition to vacate a portion of Lake Street in the Plat of Captain
Tibbals Lake Park. The petitioners have agreed to modify the original petition and delete portions of
Moss Street and Fern Street from the petition area. The Hearing Examiner has reviewed and
recommends approval of the amended petition. The petitioner has paid the necessary fees and met all of
the conditions to finalize the vacation.
Commissioner Harpole moved to adopt the Hearing Examiner's findings, conclusion and
recommendation and to approve RESOLUTION NO. 96-98 ordering the vacation as recommended.
Commissioner Wojt seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote.
Director's Update: Public Works Director Klara Fabry reported that the Board reviewed
the qualifications and duties of the Pro-Tech II position which includes grant writing duties. She asked
that the Board approve advertizing for this position. Chairman Huntingford asked if the position that is
to be filled was formerly a grant funded position which will now be funded from the budget? Klara
Fabry reported that approximately 50% of the engineering positions in the Department are paid from
Page 4
Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of November 9, 1998
grant funds. Commissioner Harpole moved to approve the Public Works Department request to
fill the Pro-Tech H position. Commissioner Wojt seconded the motion which Carried by a
unanimous vote.
Klara Fabry reported that she has talked to representatives from the Department of Transportation
(DOT) and the Transportation Improvement Board (TIB) about the possibility of the County
transferring the Upper Hoh Road to the State. These State agencies have asked for a meeting to discuss
this possibility. She asked if the Board would like to meet with the residents of the West End before
this meeting is scheduled? Chairman Huntingford noted that the West End residents he has talked with
do not want to have this road transferred from the County to the State. Klara Fabry reported that the
necessary improvements to this road will be expensive. Chairman Huntingford stated that he feels the
County should meet with the local residents to let them know what the plans are regarding this road.
Commissioner Harpole agreed that he would like to hear from the local citizens. Klara Fabry noted that
there are 2 major issues to be discussed with the West End residents: 1) the Drop Box sites, and 2) the
Upper Hoh Road issue. Due to scheduling problems associated with the end of the year, the meeting
with the DOT and TIB will be scheduled as soon as possible and the public meeting on the West End
will be scheduled for January.
A few complaints were received last week about the Dabob Post Office Road. Last summer there were
7 culverts replaced along this road and originally the road was to be chip sealed after that work was
completed. The chip sealing project on the Dabob Post Office Road has been postponed until next
spring. She added that the Dabob Road will be chip sealed this year.
Old Gardiner Road Project: Klara Fabry asked for direction on the Old Gardiner Road Project. She
asked if the Board wants to maintain the existing resolution and direction or if they want to reconsider
that decision? Commissioner Wojt asked if FEMA will be giving the County a fixed funding amount
and if the bridge project could be completed with those funds? Klara Fabry reported that the Board
previously approved the funding, the replacement in the same location as the previous road, and the
bridge option for this project. She noted that the level of uncertainty about chosing another option at
this point is higher than staying with the current project as approved.
Chairman Huntingford asked if the bridge could be taken out if the Highway 101 culvert is blocked
again and the water builds up behind the blockage? Klara Fabry reported that this could possibly
happen in an emergency situation, but she feels it is unlikely. The bridge will be designed to withstand
a washout of the Highway 101 culvert. Commissioner Itarpole moved to continue with the current
project to rebuild the current Old Gardiner Road and to build a bridge. Commissioner Wojt
seconded the motion. The Chair called for a vote on the motion. Commissioner I-Iarpole and
Commissioner Wojt voted for the motion. Chairman ltuntingford abstained from voting on the
motion. The motion carried.
Page 5
_ 297S
Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of November 9, 1998
Sale of Timber on Specific Parcels of County Property: Klara Fabry noted that she recommends that
the timber sale proceed now. Commissioner Wojt moved to approve the timber sale as requested by
Public Works. Commissioner Harpole seconded the motion and asked if a 2 year or 1 year contact
would be better? Chairman Huntingford stated that he would prefer a 1 year contract. He asked if the
Board would be interested in doing a selective bid for the sale? He suggested that a Forester be hired to
manage the sale and not make the sale in a lump sum. Klara Fabry advised that she doesn't feel that a
managed or selective timber sale will work in this instance because it is a small sale. Commissioner
Harpole accepted a friendly amendment to his motion from Commissioner Wojt to add a one (1)
year contract for the timber sale. The Chairman called for a vote on the motion for a timber sale
with a one year time frame. The motion carried by a unanimous vote.
Solid Waste RFP: Klara Fabry requested that the Board take action based on last week's discussion on
the Solid Waste RFP regarding long haul services. Commissioner Wojt moved to direct the Public
Works Department to enter into negotiations with Regional Disposal Company for long haul
services. Commissioner I-Iarpole seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote.
The project for the replacement of the septic system for the Tri Area Community Center will be started
next week.
Commissioner Harpole asked that Klara Fabry contact the necessary parties to discuss the possibility of
putting a trail over the City waterline that is being installed from A & G Auto to the Chimacum School
along SR19. Klara Fabry reported that she is sure the State would support such an improvement if the
funding came from another source. The Board asked for an update on this at their meeting next week.
Letter to Cleve Pinnix, Director of the Washington State Parks and Recreation
Commission re: Jefferson County as Public Agency Sponsor for Point Hannon Acquisition; ALEA
Grant Program 1998: (See also Item 10 on the Consent Agenda) Commissioner Harpole moved to
approve the addition of"as well as public restrooms and other sanitary amenities" to the end of bullet 1
of this letter and that copies of the letter be sent to Representatives Buck and Kessler and Senator
Hargove. Commissioner Wojt seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote.
HEARING (2) Continuations re: 1) Emergency Interim Controls Ordinance No. 06-
0828-98 and 2) Emergency Interim Controls for the Master Planned Resort at Port Ludlow:
Chairman Huntingford reported that this is a continuation of these two hearings and the public comment
for these hearings has been closed. Barry Berezowski reported that the Board directed that the list of
clerical, non-significant corrections be made to the EICO except for #8. Other public comments were
reviewed by staff and a report was submitted to the Board. The staff recommends that the other
comments be addressed in the final development regulations.
Page 6
Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of November 9, 1998
Commissioner Harpole clarified that these changes are non-substantial and clerical in nature. Barry
Berezowski answered that these are the changes reviewed at the public hearing on October 26, 1998
which included some changes to the use tables. The ordinance was continued for 6 months from the
date of the original hearing on August 28, 1998 by action of the Board.
Commissioner Wojt noted that a comment was received regarding private airports. Barry Berezowski
reported that this issue is being reviewed by staff. Commissioner Wojt asked about the comments
received regarding small scale tourist and recreation related activities? Barry Berezowski reported that
this issue would be better addressed in the final development regulations.
Chairman Huntingford noted that there were 3 other comments on the EICO which he reviewed along
with the staff report regarding these comments. The Board concurred with the staff recommendations
on these comments. Commissioner Itarpole moved to include the following statement in the
Transportation Element, "In the event of a conflict between standards contained in the Zoning
Code and Goals and Policies in the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan, the Comprehensive
Plan shall rule." Commissioner Wojt seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote.
Commissioner Harpole moved to adopt the amendments to the Emergency Interim Controls
Ordinance No. 06-0828-98 as presented previously with the addition of the language change made
today. Commissioner Wojt seconded the motion.
Russ Tillman questioned the wording regarding Planned Unit Developments. Barry Berezowski advised
that he reviewed this language, but he does not agree that Commercial/Industrial Plats and Planned Unit
Developments are the same thing. Commissioner Harpole noted that the Board needs more information
on this before any type of amendment is considered. He asked staff to provide a report regarding this
issue to the Board on November 16, 1998 and that the Prosecuting Attorney review the information that
is presented. Deputy Prosecuting Attorney Paul Mcllrath stated that he has reviewed this issue before
and all that may be needed is an administrative clarification.
David Cunningham, Olympic Resource Management, asked if the Board extended the EICO for 6
months at the hearing and now they are extending it again? The Board reported that the EICO was
extended with this amendment for 6 months from the date of the hearing (August 28, 1998.)
The Chairman called for a vote on the motion. The motion carried by a unanimous vote.
Barry Berezowski reported that a new map has been drafted which reflects the change to a commercial
designation of Lot 1 of Melwood Terrace in Port Hadlock. Commissioner Harpole moved to adopt
the modified Rural Village Center Interim Commercial and Residential Map for Port Hadlock.
Commissioner Wojt seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. Barry Berezowski
reported that this revision is allowed under the policies of the Comprehensive Plan which give the Board
the authority to make changes in the map based on inaccurate information or technical errors.
Page
Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of November 9, 1998
Barry Berezowski reviewed the staff report on the comments and recommendations from the hearing
testimony on the proposed interim regulations for the Master Planned Resort at Port Ludlow. He also
reviewed the options available to the Board regarding the proposed regulations.
Chairman Huntingford noted that there are 3 or 4 Planning Commission members and some Planning
staff members who have exhibited a bias against ORM and the Port Ludlow Community during the
Public Hearing and he doesn't feel there is any point in sending this back to the Planning Commission
for their review. Barry Berezowski noted that the staff recommendation is for the Board to schedule a
workshop to review the draft regulations further.
Commissioner Harpole stated that a variation of Option 2 would be appropriate with a hearing
conducted jointly with the Planning Commission and the County Commissioners. He added that the
sooner the County can come to resolution on the interim regulations, the sooner the community can start
the work necessary for the final development regulations.
Chairman Huntingford stated that he would like to see the Board take the information from the last
hearing and the Planning Commission draft regulations, and schedule some workshops at Port Ludlow
to review these regulations. Commissioner Harpole suggested that the Planning Commission be invited
to the workshops and that a public comment period be allowed during the workshops. Barry
Berezowski suggested that the same format be used for these workshops that was used for the
Comprehensive Plan workshops. The Board agreed that format would be acceptable.
Commissioner Harpole moved to approve Option No. 2 of the Staff Report dated November 9,
1998, Adopt the Planning Commission proposed draft as interim regulations and allow development
that exceeds the previous Master Plan as reviewed in the 1993 EIS within a zone only after the existing
Master Plan has been amended through a revisedMaster Plan for one or more entire zones. This is
consistent with phased development as allowed under SEPA. This reviewed plan may be adopted as a
subarea plan for the MPR which provides a measure of certainty that future amendments to the Comp
Plan will not alter the approved MPR plan. Final development regulations to implement the plan for
the entire zone wouM be adopted concurrent with the amendment of the Master Plan and its adoption as
a subarea plan, adopting ORDINANCE NO. 07-1109-98, and modify the recommended process as
follows: once the draft interim ordinance is released to the public, the Board will schedule a series
of two or more advertised workshops for the public; any other persons who have an indicated
history in this issue be notified, and that the Board hold a final hearing without the Planning
Commission. Commissioner Wojt seconded the motion and asked for clarification if the Board
will have a new hearing on the regulations for the Master Planned Resort after the workshops?
Commissioner ltarpole answered that is correct. The Chairman called for a vote on the motion.
The motion carried by a unanimous vote.
VOL
Page 8
Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of November 9, 1998
Judi Morris, Treasurer re: Re-Issue of the Solid Waste Bond: Judi Morris introduced
the Bond Counsel from Foster, Pepper and Shefelman, Jean Baker, who reported that they have
prepared the necessary documents for this bond re-issue which is being done because the interest rates
are at their lowest since 1973. This will save the County approximately $190,000 or $137,000 in
present value.
Lee Vorhees, Bond Counsel, presented the draft bond resolution for the Board to review. He
recommended that the Board approve the documents as presented. Chairman Wojt moved to adopt
RESOLUTION NO. 97-98 relating to contracting indebtedness; providing for the issuance, specifying
the maturities, interest rates, terms, and covenants and fixing the form of $2,260,000 par value Limited
Tax General Obligation Refunding Bonds, 1998, to provide part of the funds with which to pay the cost
of advance refunding the County's outstanding Limited Tax General Obligation Bond, 1991
(Performing Arts Center), Limited Tax General Obligation Bond, 1991 (Community Center), Series A
and B, and Limited Tax General Obligation Bonds, 1993, and paying the administrative costs of such
refunding and the costs of issuance and sale of such bonds; providing for and authorizing the purchase
of certain obligations out of the proceeds of the sale of the bonds herein authorized and for the use and
application of the money derived from those investments; authorizing the execution of an agreement
with Chase Manhattan Trust Company, National Association of Seattle, Washington, as refunding
trustee; providing for the call, payment and redemption os the outstanding bonds to be refunded;
providing for bond insurance; and approving the sale and providing for the delivery of the bonds to
Seattle-Northwest Securities Corporation of Seattle, Washington.
HEARING re: Budget Appropriations/Extensions; Various County Departments: The
Chairman opened the public hearing on the budget appropriations and extension requests submitted by
various County Departments. Gary Rowe, Budget Manager, reviewed the individual requests. He
explained the Public Works Department will be submitting a new request for the ER & R Fund.
The Chair opened the hearing for public comment. Hearing no comments for or against the requested
appropriations, the Chairman closed the hearing.
Commissioner Harpole moved to approve RESOLUTION NO. 98-98 with the deletion of the budget
appropriation request for the ER & R Fund and approving the balance of the appropriations/extensions.
Commissioner Wojt seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote.
Application for Assistance from the Veterans' Relief Fund: Commissioner Harpole
moved to approve the Application for Assistance from the Services Officers' Association in the amount
of $240.00. Commissioner Wojt seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote.
The Board met in Executive Session with the Health and Human Services Administrator
and Deputy Director of Public Services from 3:30-4:00 p.m. regarding personnel and then met from
4:45-5:00 p.m. in Executive Session with Prosecuting Attorney Elect regarding potential litigation.
Page 9
Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of November 9, 1998
The meeting was recessed at the end of the business day on Monday and reconvened on
Tuesday morning with all three Board members present. The Board met in Executive Session from 8 to
9 a.m. with the Director and Deputy Director of Public Services and the Director of Community
Development regarding personnel. They then met in a workshop from 9 to 10:00 a.m. to discuss the
reorganization of the Community Development Department; and from 10:00 a.m. to Noon in Executive
Session with the Director and Deputy Director of Public Services, the Prosecuting Attorney and the
Director of Community Development regarding potential litigation.
MEETING ADJOURNED
k' 1.4 ...'
ATTES~*.~ o ~; '
Loma Delaney, CMC
Clerk of the Board
JEFFERSON COUNTY
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
Daniel Harpole,~er
Page 10
9983
SENT BY:DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE ;11- 8'B8 ; 4:20PM ; DWT SEATTLE~ 0503858082;# 1/ 4
Davis Wr romaine tar
(206) 622-3150 ' Fax: (206) ~28-7~99
FA~ Cogt~t SHEET
PL~SE OELIVER THE FOLLOWING MATERIAL AS S~ AS POSSIBLE.
PL~SE ~TI~ ~ IMMEDIATELY AT {206) 622-~t~ IF NOT RECEIVED PR~.
THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THIS FACSIMILE MESSAGE MAY RE PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION
INTENDED FOR THE USE[ OF THE INDIVIDUAL OR ENTITY NAMED BELOW. IF YOU HAVE RECEIVE[} 't'HtS COMMUNICATION
iN ERROR, PLEASE NOTIFY US iMMEDIATELY BY TELEPHONE, (COLLECT IF NECESSARY} AND RETURN THE ORIGINAL
MESSAGE TO US AT THE ABOVE ADDRESS ViA THE US. MAIL
THANK YOU!
t Total Pages To Be Sent: 4
Date: November 3, 1998 Time In: (illcluding cover pasie)
TELEPHONE: (206) 628-7718 FAX: (206) 628-769g
FROM: Katherine Laird
SEND TO: ,,
NAME FIRM/COMPANY/CONFIRMATION NO. FAX NUMBER
Board of County Commissioners Jefferson County Courthouse 360-385-9382
Al Scaif, Director Jefferson County Planning Department 360.385-9357
David Skeen, Prosecutor prosecuting Attorney's Office 360-360-gt 56
COMMENTS/SPECIAL INSTRUCTIONS:
Floor Sent From:
RETURN TO SENDER:
Time Sent: AM PM Operator;
VIA INTRAOFFICE MAIL [] WILL PICK UP [3 EXTENSION:
Posting Date: ~,,
Entered by; .
A(~C OU'NT]~G INFORMATION
Client Billing Number: 4~s3~1 Client Name: orm
COS'['~: Total Page~ Sent __,. x $30 ~- S__
Plus 'Long di,~tane¢ Ch~ges +
TOTAI, FAX CI IA R(3ES = __
183\ I,W~I{)I 5FAX,D(~';
S~NT BY:DAVIS WRIGHT TRI~AINE ;11- 8-~8 ; 4;28PM ; DWT S~ATTLE~ 06058~3882;# 2," 4
Davis Wright Trcmaine
KA'I'ttEt~INI~ KRAMI..'R I,^1R1"3
(206) 62S-77! tl
~..MAIL: kathet'il~elaird (~.}d wLco m
2600 C'I-;n'/'U£LY 3~LJARI!
150[ l-'OUl,t, lll AYENItJI(
× K/x'~ ,~ r,~% wA 98101 ..'1688
November 3, 1998
VIA FACSIMILE 360-38~9382
Jcffcrson County Board of Cmmty Commissioners
Jefferson County Courthouse
Port Townsend, WA 9836g
Re: Comments on the Emergency Interim Controls for Port i,udh',w
To the Jeffermn County Board of County C, ommissioners:
Thank you for Ihe opportunity to comment on the proposed emergency interim controls
ibr Port Ludlow dated October 16, 1998. On behalf of Olympic Re~urce Management, I am
providing comments on the proposed regulations and findings.
ORM, fl~rough David C'unningham, offered to the County a proposed zoning chapter for
Port Ludiow. We t~lieve the ORM zoning chapter is consistmtt with and thlly implements thc
Master Planned Resort designation adopted fbr Port Ludlow in thc Comprehensive Plan. The
draft interim controls prepared by thc Planning Staff ('dated October 16, I. 9981) is riel consisten!
with the MPR designation, therefore the proposed regulations are not itt compliance wilh
¢Irowth Management A¢l. The OMA requires the County to adopt devel~,pment regulations that
are consistent with and implement the Comprehe~mive Plan. RCW 3670A,040; WAC 36%195-
800. In lieu of the draI~ chapter prepared by the Slaff', ORM requests that the County work with
proposed regulations submitted by OKM. Otherwise, the Staff-generated draft must be amended
to be consistent with the OMA and the desires of the Port I,udlow community.
Thc Staff also distrjbuled a proposed ordinance to adopt the Port I ,udlow interim
controls. This draft Ordinance, dated October 16, t 998, contains finding that the Board cannot
mtd should tie! adopt. Thc propo~d findings are not accurate at~ reveal a t~ndamental
misunderstanding of how environ mcntal rev iew work~ under the S tale Enviromnental Policy Act
(SEPA) and thc requirements for designating an MPR m~dcr GMA.
ORM r~lttests that proposed Findings 9 through 19 be deleted. The statements that
appear in these "findings'~ mggesl that GMA requires a formal "master plan" or "resort plan"
Se. aide
SENT B¥':DA¥1S ~RIGHT TRE~AINE ;Il- 8-~8 ; 4:24PM ; DWT SEATTLE~ ~603859382;# ~/ 4
Jefferson County Bom:d or'County Comm{ssioners
November 3, 1998
Page 2
prior to the adoption of developmcnt regulations lbr thc now-designated MPR of Port Ludlow.
The GM^ does not contain any such requirement, la a letter dated October 26, 1998, addressed
to the Board of Cmmty Commissioners, O[LM provided an analysis of the statutory requiremcms
for designating an MPR, In mmmary, and without repeating all of that m:gument here, the GMA
do~s not require a formal Master ?lan prior to an MPR designation or adol~tion of development
regulations. Xe.¢ letter dated October 26, 1998, hereby incorporated by refcrence~
The proposed findings also suggest that no development regulalk)n,,~ may be adopted that
permit development beyond that analyzed in the 1993 Programmatic EIS for Port I~udlow. This
argument h'.a,s been Imard rel:~atedly in the past few months at Planning Commission meetings
and various public workshops and hearings relating to Port Ludlow. Such an atgumcm distorts
SEPA and its application to land use matters.
The County has ',adopted a Comprehensive Plan that ideniifies and maps permitted
u~s within thc County. Under GMA, thc C'ounty is now required to adopt devetol~ment
reg~flations that implement the Comprehensive PI~ designations. RCW 36.70A.040; WA(.'. 365-
195-800. The Comprehensive Plan designated Port Ludlow as a Master Planned Resort wifl~
~even internal land use zones. The development regulations the County must adopt are required
to bc consimnt with and implement each of those internal permitted hand uses, tbr example,
residential, commercial or open space. The developmertt regulations do not authorize any
particular development proposal and therefore the 1993 ElS i.~ being misused a~ the level of
development that may be permitted t~ough fl~e regulations.
The proposed findings incm'rectly indicate that the 1993 ElS for Port Ludlow is the road
map for what the development regulations may permiT. In fact, the Comprehensive Plan is the
road map ibr the development regulations, What. 'the County i,s mandated to d, is adopt
regulations that 'implement the Comprehensive Plan land use designations. The proposed
findings, and the proposed interim controls, do not do that.
ORM respectfully requests that the ORM proposed zoning chapter for Port l.udlow bc
used as the basi~ for thc interhn controls al Port Ludlow. Further, stall'proposed Findings 9
SENT BY:DAVIS I~ICJItT TREb]A1NE ;11- 3-98 ; 4:24PM ; DWT SE^TTLE~ ,~008~%q~32,# 4/ 4
Jefferson Cuunty Board of County Com m}sstoners
November 3, 1998
Page 3
through ] 9 must bc deleted ,because they lac not accurate at~d do not suppor',, adoption of
development regulations to implement OM ^.
A1 Scalf
David fikeen
(3reg McCarry
David Cunningham
Craig Jones
Mike Den'ig
Very truly years,
Davis W~ight 'l'mmaine t,LP
\kSEA_A Ltl4(¥TTxT:X)C b*l )O1'~S\461 tt3\l\OOtM I
cc: FI. 11-5-fig
2863438683
i888 FRIENDS OF W~
Friends gWashington
~lc, W~htn~on 98101 ~ ~'F~' ?~ ~',~ ~.~..~;: ¢~ ~
Jefferson Cowry ~d of Coif Cm~issioners
leffer~n Coif ~o~
Pon To--nd, WA 9g368 .-
November ;3, 1998
PAGE
O2
Re: Amendment of the Emergency Imerim Controls Ordinance (ELCO)
To the Honorable Jefferson County Commissioners:
1000 Friends of W~hington would like to offer the following comments on the process
and substance,of amendments to the Emergency Interim Controls Ordinance that would
guide the development of the Port Ludlow Resort.
The final development regular(ohs to implement the Master Planned Resort (MPg.)
shruld b~ completed after a deliberative public process -- interim or emergency controls
are not tho appropriate vehicle for changes to the location, mix of uses, or intensity of
development on the MPR site. The interim controls should not permit changes from the
resort pl$.n established in the 1993 Port Ludlow Final Environmental Impact Statement.
Any ordinance provisions that would represent a significant departure from current
County regulations should only be considered in the process of developing final
development regulations. These final development regulatiom,related to the MPR can
and fllmfld be developed independent of the Submission of a Master Plan application, In
that'way, the County could work with a broad range of stakeholders to establish the
appropriate location and intensity of additional development on the resort site. The
County would not b~ v0mtrain~d or unduly influenced by a Master Plan submission ~a:
was d~veloped in the absence cfa set of final development regulations, The r~gulations
would guide the development of the resort proposal, rather than the other way wound. In
addition, it would g)ve greater certainty to all the interested parties.
Finally, :he regulations that implement the master planned resort designation must
include a requirement that all on-site and off-site infrastructure impacts are fully
considered and mitigated. The County cannot m,ake a determination that this requirement
has been m~t before the Master Plan ~tppllc, ntion is ~ubmitted, However, both the interim
and the final regulations must assure thn,t this requirement of the Growth Management
'Act is m~t,
Tracy Burrows
Planning Director
A Pope Resources Company
December 4, 1998
Jefferson County Board of County Commissioners
Jefferson County Courthouse
Port Townsend WA
Dear Commissioners:
After attending many public workshops, hearings and meetings with regard to Port Ludlow
zoning regulations we understand that it is your intention to adopt interim controls and then
.final regulations. We further understand that it is your desire to achieve several basic goals
for the Port Ludlow Master Planned Resort zoning regulations that include the followihg:
1. That such regulations are legally sound and defensible by Jefferson County.
2. That a process is followed for establishing regulations that allow for appropriate
public involvement,
3. That all SEPA issues are properly addressed. Any potential significant changes
to the environmental impacts evaluated in the 1993 Progammatic FEIS and the
Project EIS for the Inn at Port Ludlow shall be reviewed and allow for public
comment as part of the development application process.
4. That your expectations for setting forth development criteria (targets such as
uses, building heights, impervious surface ratios, etc.) are met. Such criteria
shall be used to judge development proposals that may alter impacts from prior
evaluations as they relate to the County's SEPA determinations.
5. That your expressed support for the development of Port Ludlow can be realized
if the above conditions are met together with other applicable requirements.
We support your goals notwithstanding that some are beyond legal requirements. We have
included with this letter a guide sheet (Attachment A) that highlights by topic, page number
and section our suggested changes to the November 9th staff version of the EICO and a line-
in/line-out copy of that EICO with the changes incorporated (Attachment B). Each of our
proposed changes supports the above goals.
Also included with this letter are copies of three legal opinions from Davis Wright Tremaine
on the subject (Attachment C). Two of the opinions have been provided to you earlier and a
third one is dated December 4, 1998. While none of these opinions support any requirement
for the new Master Site Plan review process, our company did offer on October 23ra, to
follow that type of additional layer of review. We respectfully request that the new review
process incorporate the following conditions:
19245 To'nth Avenue Northeast, P.O. Box 1780, Poulsbo, Washington 98370-0239
(360) 697-6626, Seattle: 1206) 292-0517, Fax: (360) 697-11.56
1. The process would include a SEPA review as has historically been the case since
the adoption of the FEIS. That is to say that new project applications will be
evaluated on a Phased Review process. The Phased Review process has been
supported by Planning Staff.
2. ORM will provide a cumulative impact analysis on any significant changes.
3. The review process would be zone-specific and evaluated under predetermined
criteria including uses, building heights, bulk dimensions, impervious surface
coverage, etc.
4. The review process would be conducted by the Hearing Examiner as set forth in
Jefferson County's Land Use Procedures Ordinance (Ord. 04-0828-98), a public
process (see legal opinion dated December 4, 1998).
Despite the legal opinions that this new review process is not required under any existing
statute or regulation, ORM will still honor this commitment as outlined in section 3.90 of our
proposed revisions to the EICO. This is a full public process with public hearings and allows
the right to appeal. We have included in the proposed revised section 3.90, several review
criteria offered by staff.
Our other major outstanding concerns include:
1. ORM's right to develop to the limits studied and mitigated in the 1993 programmatic
FEIS, specifically the 45,000 square feet of commercial retail on our property.
2. As of this date ORM has not developed to the limits of the Inn at Port Ludlow EIS.
Limiting future development levels below those studied in that EIS is unacceptable.
3. The letter from Davis, Wirght, Tremaine of November 3, 1998, stipulates that certain
findings of fact (findings 9-19) for the Port Ludlow EICO are incorrect and not supported
by law. Theses should be corrected per that legal opinion.
Gentlemen, ORM has spent over $1,000,000 during the past two years in developing a
community-supported plan and process to continue with the development of Port Ludlow.
This process is consistent with the goals of the Comprehensive Plan and will meet the
criteria and processes outlined in the 1993 Port Ludlow FEIS (Project and Programmatic)
and your ordinances. It is a public process at each stage of approval. Today we are at a
significant threshold, and the determination of Port Ludlow's future is yours. ORM, on
behalf of the Port Ludlow community and business interests, our investors and employees
have no more concessions to make.
Greg ~c!~Sincerely~'"~ yours,
Sr. Vice President
Real Estate
ATTACHMENT A
~0 .- ,-o?_
(D CF 0 0 ,~--, ~ -~_
~ 0 ~ ~~ '--
- ~ ~ ~ ~._
~'= ~ ~ ~ 8 ~ ~w
8~ ~ E ~ ~ ~
8o ~ E ~ 8-0 '-
- - o - = ._
o ~ ~8 ~ ~
~ o ~ o
c E · ~ ~ o c 8
~ 0 0 -- ~ ~ ~
._ o~
~ ~ .--
-- ~ E .--
........ ~VOL
ATTACHMENT B
SECTION I
STATEMENT OF AUTHORITY AND PURPOSE
Section I. 10 Statement of Authori .ty: 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 that identified in the 1993 FEIS.
Until a new or revised Master Plan is completed in accordance with RCW 36.70A.362 and adopted by
Jefferson County, 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 build out 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.
there ~ tctal c ,~,~-~ .~:.~,~ .._:~ ..... ,_.~,~.~ .... ,~.~ ..... :~.~ ...:,~:~ ,~ ~ ~
Section 1.30 Rules of Interpretation: 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.
2. Words used in the present tense include the future tense.
3. The plural includes the singular and vice-versa.
4. The words "will" and "shall" are mandatory.
5. The words "may" and "should" indicates that discretion is allowed.
6. The word "used" includes designed, intended, or arranged or intended to be used.
7. The masculine gender includes the feminine and vice-versa.
12/04/98 '¥0L ~ ~t~[ 3~)9 3
SECTION 2
SCOPE OF REGULATIONS
Sections:
2.10 Territorial Application of Regulations
2.20 Intent
2.30 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 land 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, Slate and Federal regulations including, but not
limited to, the County Building Ordinance, Interim Critical Areas Ordinance, the Shoreline Management
Master Program and SEPA.
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 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 less than twenty-five (25) feet in width. This
exemption shall not include substation located on or above the surface of the ground or any such
distribution facility located in an easement or twenty-five (25) feet or more in width.
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.
o
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.
12/04/98 4
SECTION 3
PORT LUDLOW MASTER PLANNED RESORT ZONING DISTRICTS
Sections:
3.10
3.20
3.30
3.40
3.50
3.60
3.70
3.80
3.90
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 Single Family Zone (MPR-SF)
Section 3.101 Purpose: This 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 dwelling units per acre ....... avl~.,,~r
~ .......... /, The land remaining in that acre shall be dedicated as open space in perpetuity.
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
d ity f fo (4) d lli it nm .........
ens o ur we ng un s per acre ............... cf ~-'~ :~ '~:-':'~'~ :-+^ ~^+~ ~-- +~-, ~ n 9an
o,,,,,,,,, ....... -'-'-,*'~+ v.,,. f: ~ % acrc),-The land remaining in that ,~,,,,, .... ~.~ shall be dedicated as open space in
perpetuity. Existing subdivisions shall not be further subdivided.
3. Single family attached dwellings including duplexes, triplexes, and fourplexes as part of a new
subdivision not to exceed a gross density of ("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
provided in Tables MPR-SF below.
12/04/98
lot requirements for detached
32,11
dwelling shall be as
5
TABLE MPR-SF
Density Minimum Minimum Front Yard Side Yard Rear Yard Maximum
Lot Area Lot Width Setback Setback Setback Impervious Surface
4 DU/AC 5,000 sq. ft. 40' 20' 5' 5'
Section 3.20 Single Family Tract Zone (MPR-SFT)
Section 3.201 Purpose: This zone is intended to recognize, maintain and promote larger, single family
residential tracts within the MPR.
Section 3,202 Permitted Uses: The following uses are permitted within the MPR-SFT zone:
4.
5.
6.
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.
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 Conditional Uses: The following uses are permitted conditionally within the MPR-SFT zone:
1. 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 feel 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
Lot Area Lot Width Setback Setback Setback Impervious Surface
1 DU/2.5 AC 2.5 AC 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
multifamily housing opportunities, in part to provide lower-cost housing units.
Section 3.302 Permitted Uses: The following uses are permitted within the MPR-MF zone:
1. Multiple family dwelling units including condominiums.
2. Assisted-Living and long-term 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 ap~proved through a platting process.
12/04/98 ~'01. 24 321Z 6
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 8.1-8.1 1.
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.
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 MFR-MF
below.
TABLE MPR-MF
Density Minimum Minimum Front Yard Side Yard Rear Yard Maximum
Lot Area Lot Width Setback Setback Setback Impervious Surface
10 DU/AC N/A N/A UBC UBC UBC 55%
Section 3.40 Resort Complex/Community Facilities Zone (MPR-RC/CF)
't ~-~ t ............ gquare foot cap
zone~,~aJso~m[enoea~9,~ ~
DUllO~gs~: IaCllmeS,':-~o 'acrlV1D ,:~
the reso~ ~d co~um~2fgcfl~ :sJ'~
Section 3.402 Permitted 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 permitted within the MPR-RC/CF zone which are
directl~related to the resort facilities and/or operations~~ 'ar ~. __~'L~ en
s~rve~'as a commum~ p~l~ .
12/04/98 7
USES RC/CF Kehele Park
Hotel (Inn) and appropriate associated uses ~
Sh°rt ten visit°r aCbommo~ti6hg md ap~'roP~i~e ~6~ia~:~-u-s~ ~
Conference Center/Banquet Facility ~'
Parks and Trails as part of a platting process ~ ,/
Recreation Center/Club/Health Club ~
Restaurant/Lounge/Bar ,/
Marina ~
Seaplane Dock C
Resort Related Retail Use ¢'
Library/Museum C
Interpretive and Informational Kiosks ¢'
Community Organization Activity Facilities, i.e., club house ,/
Multifamily and Single Family Residential Structures (10du/ac) ~
Tennis Courts ~ ~
teleco~tiifi~iifi6iii:~ an~l"-""' ¥o'~ff~r] ~ ~
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.
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), ~ ~-~ u~:.^~ tv, ~o ........ :'~*:~ "~:* ..... tv, nv,t cxcccd tho
MPR2
Section 3.403 Height Resthction~: No building or structure shall be erected, enlarged or structurally
modified to e,ceed 35 feet in height, exc~ding roof projections, as measured by UBC standards, except for
Hotels ~.o.~~[~ef~~~c~.e.~ whmh shall not exceed 50 feet in height as measured by
UBC standards.
Section 3.404 Bulk RequiremenB: Bulk and dimensional requirements for the MPR-RC/CF zone are
contained in the table below.
TABLE MPR-RC/CF
Density Minimum Minimum Front Yard Side Yard Rear Yard Maximum
Lot Area Lot Width Setback Setback Setback Impervious Surface
N/A N/A UBC UBC UBC 50%
Section 3.50 Village 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. In accordance with the 1993 Port Ludlow Final
Environmental Impact Statement, the MPR-VC zone is limited to a total of 45,000 additional square feet of
resort-related retail/commercial ~
retag,commermal,:space i:]s
resmennm or omer
Section 3.502 Permitted Uses: The following uses are permitted in the MPR-VC zone as long as the total
amount of built structures does not exceed the cap of 40;0002 ~ square feet of new permitted non-
residential building square footage:
Permitted Retail-Commercial Uses
Bank and financial institutions
· Variety Stores
· Grocery Stores
· Hardware ag¢i~.S~q
· Pharmacy and Drug Stores
· Liquor Stores (state)
· Personal Medical Supply Stores
· Jewelry Stores
· Photographic and Electronic Shops
· Computer and Office Equipment
Related Services
· Music Stores
· Farmer's Market
· Barber and Beauty Shops
· Art Gallery
· Interior Shop
· General/Business Offices
· Professional Offices
Real Estate
· Theater
· Food Service Establishments
· Day Care Center
and
· Travel Consultant
· Dry cleaner/Laundry
· Florist Shops
· Specialty Food Stores
· Sporting Goods and related Stores
· Book and Stationary Stores
· Car wash
· Transportation Service
· Utility purveyor offices
· Recycling Drop-off facility
· Library
· Museum
· Community Center
· Public agency or utility offices
· Policy Facility
· Fire Station
· Post Office, mailing and
businesses
· Parks and recreation
packaging
9
· Clinics (Medical, Dental, Mental Health,
Chiropractic)
· Social Services
· Miscellaneous Health
· Home Health/Home Care
· Vehicle RePair and Gas Station
· ~t~que St6r~
Permitted Residential3 Uses:
· Multi-family
· Assisted living
· Single family in association with
retail/commercial uses (i.e. 2nd story apts)
· ~~mg~~h ~ ~ '~ ~
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.
Secti0D 3.503 Conditional Uses: The following uses are permitted conditionally within the MPRVC zone:
· Parking Structure
· Meeting Facilities4
· Kecreauonal vemclesp~.~
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.
TABLE MPR-VC
Density Minimum Minimum Front Yard Side Yard Rear Yard Maximum
Lot Area Lot Width Setback Setback Setback Impervious Surface
N/A N/A UBC UBC UBC * ~0;~
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.
3 Residential uses proposed in the MPR-VC zone are not considered part of the square footage limitation in this zone
but are part of the 2250 limit on residential units.
4 Meeting facilities, if constructed, are also bound by the overall square footage cap for the MPR-VC zone.
12/04/98
vol 321_{;
10
Section 3.602 Permitted Uses: The following uses are permitted within the MPR-RA zone:
1. Parks and Trails
2. Golf Shop/Club House/Snack B ar/R. e'~.~-a~f~i~i i~di'fL29?~g~
3. Interpretive Center, signage
4. Golf Course and Related Offices/Maintenance Buildings and Facilities
5. 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.
Section 3.604 Bulk and Dimensional
~T~
TABLE MPR-RA
Density Minimum Minimum Front Yard Side Yard Rear Yard Maximum
Lot Area Lot Width Setback Setback Setback Impervious Surface
N/A N/A UBC UBC UBC N/A
Section 3.70 Open 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 permitted in the MPR-OSR
zone.
Section 3.702 Permitted Uses: The following uses shall be permitted in the MPR-OSR zone:
1. Parks, trails, paths, bridges, benches, shelters, and restrooms
2. Directional and interpretative signage and kiosks.
Section 3.703 Conditional Use~: The following uses shall be permitted conditionally in the MPROSR zone:
1. Man-made water features or enhanced natural water features, such as ponds, wetlands, wetland buffer
enhancements and storm water detention ponds.
2.
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 500 2,000.' 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:
1. Ordinance No. 05-0509-94, Interim Critical Areas Ordinance.
2. Ordinance No. 10-1 104-96, Stormwater 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
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 nte m eve opment start ar s
the ....... on ....../ .....t, .............................
Section 3,90 Master Site Plan Revisions:
Prior to the County accepting any specific project development application within the Resort
Complex/Community Facilities; Village Commercial Center; or Recreation zones, a project proponent shall
prepare an submit to the Hearing Examiner, a generalized Master Site Plan which conceptually depicts those
projects or series of projects to occur within the zone. The Master Site Plan shall provide sufficient detail as
to uses within the zone; the scale of proposed improvements; the bulk and general form of improvements
and the relationship of improvements to a resort/community facility use.
Section 3.901 Contents of Master Site Plan:
The application shall include, where applicable:
a. An Environmental checklist prepared pursuant to the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA).
b. A fully dimensioned site plan of the entire site or applicable portion thereof drawn at a scale of one
inch equals two hundred feet (1" = 200') or other scale required by the County.
c. A written description addressing the scope of the project, the nature and size of each use.
d. A vicinity map showing site boundaries and key project features in relationship to surrounding
properties, projects, or natural features.
e. Subject property, abutting streets and intersections.
f. Approximate location of building footprints and size of proposed structures with an appropriate
gross floor area, number of stories and other indices of size and bulk.
g. A generalized circulation plan illustrating proposed vehicular access points for the site as well as
major vehicular and pedestrian/bicycle pathways, parking areas and the like.
h. ~.r. oposed types~ses to be housed in proposed structures.
1;
· ~ recreauon
Sit'~Tl~-i~
12/04/98 ¥01_ 24 32-1-8 12
uses59¢ithm~e
Section 3.902 Hearing and Appeal:
A heating to consider a proposed generalized Master Site Plan will be held before the Hearing Examiner as
a Type B application pursuant to Jefferson County Ordinance 04-0828-98 (Land Use Processing Ordinance)
following a SEPA threshold determination as applicable, and publication of public notice. The Hearing
Examiner may determine that it is appropriate to issue a generalized Master Site Plan approval, approve
certain elements of the site plan, or conditionally approve and/or defer other elements or issues to the
administrative project approval process. The standard of review for the Hearing Examiner for the
generalized Master Site Plan shall be to determine whether the plan is consistent with and supportive of the
requirements and conditions of subject zone including allowed uses and other height and bulk requirements
as well as the additional allowable uses and increased impervious surface ratios described in 3.901 above.
The final decision of the Hearing Examiner on a generalized Master Site Plan may be appealed to the
Appellate Hearing Examiner pursuant to Jefferson County Ordinance 04-0828-98 (Land Use Processing
Ordinance).
12/04/98 VOL 24 :3219 13
Section 3.903 Revisions: It is recognized that a Master Planned Resort may require changes to uses,
facilities, and services in response to changing conditions or market demand. In determining whether a
minor or major modification has been proposed, the Director of the Department of Community
Development will consider if the basic design plan, overall project, intensity and density have changed.
1. Minor Revisions; A minor revision shall be a modification that:
a) Involves no more than a ten percent (10%) increase or decrease in square footage of the overall floor
area over that proposed in the Master Site Plan;
b) Will not have a significantly greater impact on the environment and facilities than the approved
plan;
c) Does not change the boundaries of the originally approved plan.
2. Major Revisions: Major revisions involve a substantial change in the concept intensity, density, use or
phasing of the approved Master Site Plan. Major revision to an approved Master Site plan will require a
hearing before the Hearing Examiner and an amended application pursuant to this section.
12/04/98 14
ATTACHMENT C
Davis Wright Tremaine kkP
IC-XTHERINE KILAMER LAIRD
(206) 628-7718
E-SLAIL: katherinelaird gdx~t.com
2600 CENTURY SQUAIKE
1501 FOURTH AVENUE
· : . . WA 98101-16fl8
TEL
FAX 2 ,' 2
www. dwt.com
December 4, 1998
HAND DELIVERED
Jefferson County Board of County Commissioners
Jefferson County Courthouse
Port Townsend, WA
Re: Processing of modifications for Port Ludlo~v MPR site/master plan
Dear Commissioners:
In the Port Ludlow' Emergency Interim Control Ordinance (Ordinance 07-1109-98),
Jefferson County requires that any modifications to the Port Ludlow master plan be reviewed and
processed by the Planning Commission. See § 3.90 of PLEICO. This portion of the PLEICO is
not consistent with the County's own regulations for land use permit processing. Thus, this
portion of the ordinance should be amended when you consider amendments to the PLEICO on
Monday, December 7. The Planning Commission is the not the appropriate body to consider site
plan modifications for Port Ludlow, either under the Planning Commission's enabling legislation
or the County's Land Use Processing Ordinance adopted this summer as part of the State-
mandated Regulatory Reform.
The Planning Commission's jurisdiction is limited to those areas set forth in Resolution
54-97. As the name suggests, and as the enabling legislation indicates, the Planning Commission
"shall recommend planning and shoreline policies" to ensure consistency with the County
comprehensive plan. See § 3 of Res. 54-97. Now that the Comprehensive Plan and Port Ludlow
EICO have been adopted, the Planning Commission's role has been fulfilled vis-/t-vis Port
Ludlow planning (at least until the final development regulations are considered). Under the
County's new Land Use Procedures Ordinance (Ord. 04-0828-98), any revision to a Port Ludlow
site plan or master plan would be a Type B Land Use decision.
F: ,DOCS,46183\ 1 00081LTR.DOC
Seattle
Jefferson County Board of County Commissioners
December 4. 1998
Page 2
The Land Use Procedures ordinance defines T),'Re B decisions as including the following
types of decisions:
Planned Unit Developments
Special Uses
Conditional Uses
Variances (zoning, critical area, subdivision)
Long Subdivision
Commercial/Industrial Park Divisions
Shoreline Conditional Uses.
Modifications to the Port Ludlow master plan or site plan would be consistent with this list of
Type B land use decisions and should be styled and treated as such.
Significantly, the Planning Commission does not have any responsibilities for land use
permit processing or decisions under the Land Use Procedures Ordinance. The three types of
decisions Type A, TuRe B and Type C are made by the Administrative staff (Type A), the Hearing
Examiner, with an appeal to an Appellate Examiner (Type B), and the Board of County
Commissioners (Type C). If the Planning Commission is responsible for Port Ludlow site plan
modifications, it is extraordinary, arbitrary' and discriminatory under the Land Use Procedures
Ordinance.
The County is required by law to treat Olympic Resource Management the same as all
other land use applicants are treated under the County's Land Use Procedures Ordinance and
other applicable taws. The fact that ORM has previously asked the Planning Commission to
recuse itself in any proceedings relating to Port Ludlow makes the process in the Port Ludlow
ElCO particularly troublesome because we do not believe the Planning Commission members
can be, nor have they been, objective and fair ~vhen it come to ORM. Members of this Board of
County Commissioners have acknowledged the unwelcome "special" treatment of ORM by the
Planning Commission.
F: ~DOCS\46183 P,00081 LTR. DOC
Seattle
vol
Jefferson County Board of County Commissioners
December 4, 1998
Page 3
Thank you for the opportunity to provide these comments. We trust you will amend the
Port Ludlow EICO to make it consistent with Resolution 04-0828-98, the Land Use procedures
Ordinance.
Very truly yours,
Davis V/right,re, maine LLP
Gary. Tucker, President, OPdM
Greg McCarry, Vice President, ORM
David Cunningham, Vice President, ORM
Craig Jones, Vice President and Counsel, ORM
Mike Derrig
F:\DOCS\46183\ 1 \00081 LTR. DOC
Seattle
VOL
ATTACHMENT C
Davis Wright Tremaine ]_er,
l:lt)l',E ' CHAP-Lt3TYE H()NL)LLL',. L()'~ ~>,~;ELE', ~E',t' YORK
~,,~.?';FP. ~.NCIbC(.) '~L.'~ FTL[~ WASHI %(; toN, D.C. 5HA,",GNAI
KATHER./NE KRt~tER L~IPJ2
(206) 628-7718
E-I~I.: katherinelaird;~ dva.com
2600 CENTURY SQUARE TEL (2U6) 622-3150
1501 FOURTH AVENUE FAX (2U6) 628-7699
SEATTLE, WA 98101-1685 www. dwt.com
November 3, 1998
VIA FACSIMILE 360-385-9382
Jefferson County Board of County Commissioners
Jefferson County Courthouse
Port Townsend, WA 98368
Re: Comments on the Emergency Interim Controls for Port Ludlow'
To the Jefferson County Board of CounD' Commissioners:
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the proposed emergency interim controls
for Port Ludlow dated October 16, 1998. On behalf of Olympic Resource Management, I am
providing comments on the proposed regulations and findings.
ORM, through David Curmingham, offered to the County a proposed zoning chapter for
Port Ludlow. We believe the ORM zoning chapter is consistent with and fully implements the
Master Planned Resort designation adopted for Port Ludlow in the Comprehensive Plan. The
draft interim controls prepared by the Planning Staff (dated October 16, 1998) is not consistent
with the MPR designation, therefore the proposed regulations are not in compliance with the
Grov, xh Management Act. The GMA requires the County to adopt development regulations that
are consistent with and implement the Comprehensive Plan. RCW 3670A.040; WAC 365-195-
800. In lieu of the draft chapter prepared by the Staff, ORM requests that the County work with
proposed regulations submitted by ORM. Otherwise, the Staff-generated draft must be amended
to be consistent with the GMA and the desires of the Port Ludlow community.
The Staff also distributed a proposed ordinance to adopt the Port Ludlow interim
controls. This draft Ordinance, dated October 16, 1998, contains finding that the Board cannot
and should not adopt. The proposed findings are not accurate and reveal a fundamental
misunderstanding of how environmental review works under the State Environmental Policy Act
(SEPA) and the requirements for designating an MPR under GMA.
ORM requests that proposed Findings 9 through 19 be deleted. The statements that
appear in these "findings" suggest that GMA requires a formal "master plan" or "resort plan"
~\S E A _A B B OTTxDOCS', 12K)CS\46183\ I \00041LTR. DOC
Scanl¢
3224
Jefferson Count.',' Board of County Commissioners
November 3, 1998
Page 2
prior to the adoption of development regulations for the nov'-designated MPR of Port Ludlow.
The GMA does not contain any such requirement. In a letter dated October 26, 1998, addressed
to the Board of County Commissioners. OR.M provided an analysis of the statutory requirements
for designating an MPR. In summary,, and without repeating all of that argument here, the GMA
does not require a formal Master Plan prior to an MPR designation or adoption of development
regulations. See letter dated October 26, 1998, hereby incorporated by reference.
The proposed findings also suggest that no development regulations may be adopted that
permit development beyond that analyzed in the 1993 Programmatic EIS for Port Ludlow. This
argument has been heard repeatedly in the past few months at Planning Commission meetings
and various public workshops and hearings relating to Port Ludlow. Such an argument distorts
SEPA and its application to land use matters.
The County has adopted a Comprehensive Plan that identifies and maps permitted land
uses within the CounD'. Under GMA, the County is now required to adopt development
regulations that implement the Comprehensive Plan designations. RCW 36.70A.040; WAC 365-
195-800. The Comprehensive Plan designated Port Ludlow as a Master Planned Resort with
seven internal land use zones. The development regulations the County must adopt are required
to be consistent with and implement each of those internal permitted land uses, for example,
residential, commercial or open space. The development regulations do not authorize any
particular development proposal and therefore the 1993 EIS is being misused as the level of
development that may be permitted through the regulations.
The proposed findings incorrectly indicate that the 1993 EIS for Port Ludlow is the road
map for what the development regulations may permit. In fact, the Comprehensive Plan is the
road map for the development regulations. What the County is mandated to do is adopt
regulations that implement the Comprehensive Plan land use designations. The proposed
findings, and the proposed interim controls, do not do that.
ORM respectfully requests that the ORM proposed zoning chapter for Port Ludlow be
used as the basis for the interim controls at Port Ludlow. Further, staff-proposed Findings 9
',\S E.4,_A B BO'rT',DO('S' DOCS',46183\ 1\00041 LTR. DOC
Sca[~lc
Jefferson County Board of County Commissioners
November 3, 1998
Page 3
through 19 must be deleted because they are not accurate and do not support adoption of
development regulations to implement GMA.
Cc:
A1 Scalf
David Skeen
Greg McCarry
David Cunningham
Craig Jones
Mike Derrig
Very truly yours,
Davis wright Tremaine LLP
\\S E A_AB BOTT~DOCS\DOCS\46183\1\0(X)41LTR. DOC
ATTACHMENT C
Davis Wright Tremaine r .p
LAWYERS
ANCHORAGE mELL£VUE mOIS£ CHARLOTTE
KATHERINE KR.~dER LAIRD
(206) 628-7718
E-MAIl_: katherinelaird:~dwt.com
HONOLULU
LOS ANCELES PORTLAND RICHLAND
2600 CENTURY SQUARE
1501 FOURTH AVENUE
SEATTLE, WA 98101-1688
October 26, 1998
SAN FRANCISCO 5E-~TTI.E WASHINGTON, D.C.
TEL (206) 622-3150
FAX (206) 62~;-.7699
www. dwr,com
SHANGHAI
HAND-DELIVERED
Jefferson County Board of County Commissioners
Jefferson Count)' Courthouse
Port Townsend, WA 98368
Re: Master Planned Resort requirements under GMA
To the Honorable Jefferson County Commissioners:
On behalf of Olympic Resource Management, I am writing to respond to the issues raised
by the Olympic Environment Council in a letter dated October 14, 1998. In the letter over the
signature ofJulie Jaman, the OEC asserts that the Growth Manaaement Act requires that a
"Master Plan" be adopted prior to development regulations bein~ adopted for Port Ludlow'.
The Growth Management Act does not require that a "Master Plan" be approved at the
time of the Master Planned Resort designation. Any suggestion to the contrary, is not supported
by the stat-ute. Section 362 of the GMA does not refer to a master plan as a designation
requirement. However. it does refers to a resort plan in the following provision:
An existing resort may be authorized by the county only if: ... (4) The County
finds that the resort plan is consistent with the development regulations
established for critical areas.
This general reference to a resort plan does not require a "Master Plan" prior to approval.
While the statute does refer generally to a resort plan, neither resort plan nor master plan is a
term of art or a defined term in the statute. If the Legislature had intended to require a Master
Plan as a pre-requisite to MPR designation, it would have listed it as one of the specific
requirements for approving an existing MPR. The statute does not contain such a requirement.
Further, the regulations promulgated by the Department of Community, Trade and
Economic Development to guide comprehensive plan adoption do not refer to or require a
Master Plan as a pre-requisite to designation of either a new' or existing MPR. See generally
F \DOCS',46183\ I ~00037LTR,DOC
Seanle
'Jefferson Count),' Board of County Commissioners
October 26. 1998
Page 2
WAC 365-195-210, 335,830(3). In sum, other than the general reference to a resort plan, which
I believe means an over'Jew of the resort development, including acknowledgement of the
existence of the resort, a map showing the proposed uses and zones within the MPR, discussion
of future development within the MPR (all of which exist in the Jefferson County Plan), the
statute does not specifically require a "Master Plan" as a pre-requisite to approving an MPR.
The fact that a specific Master Plan is not required as part of the Comprehensive Plan process is
consistent with the fact that the Comprehensive Plan is a general blue print for complying with
the GMA and is not a site-specific approval for any particular proposed land use.
Nov,' that Port Ludlow has been designated as an MPR in the Comprehensive Plan, the
statute mandates that development regulations be adopted that are consistent with and implement
the land use designations in the Comp. Plan. RCW 36.70A.040(4). As is true of the
Comprehensive Plan itself, ',.,he development regulations dc not approve an3' particular'
development proposal. The development regulations set forth the permitted and conditional uses
within each land use zone in the Comprehensive Plan, along with other development- related
requirements such as set backs, height limits, lot coverage restrictions, etc.
The OEC states that "no ordinance should be created to permit development inconsistent
with or that exceeds density and intensity as considered in the original Port Ludlov`' EIS, 1993
and page 331 of the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan." As stated above, the development
regulations do not approve any development. As for the 1993 EIS for Port Ludlov`', that EIS was
a programmatic EIS. That is, the 1993 EIS was not prepared for any particular project. Pursuant
to the State Environmental Policy Act, the Port Ludlow EIS was intended to be phased review.
WAC 197-11-060. In the future, on a project by project basis, the County will have the
opportunity to reviev`' and consider an environmental checklist for each proposed phase of
development and potential impacts from the particular project. To the extent the proposed
project's impacts are not considered in or mitigated by conditions in the 1993 ElS, the County
will require either additional environmental review or ,,,,'ill impose mitigating conditions.
Adopting the development regulations to implement the Port Ludlow MPR designations is not
inconsistent with the SEPA process since the development regulations do not approve
development. It is unclear how the OEC believes adoption of development regulations is not
permitted, but any suggestion that the SEPA process will be avoided for Port Ludlow projects in
the future is false.
With regard to an3' argument that the MPR designation for Port Ludlov`' does not meet the
criteria of the statute, we believe the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan contains all of the
elements required for designation of an MPR.
The GMA requires that the following five criteria be met at the time of an MPR
designation:
F 'DOCS\461 g3', I ',00037LTR DOC ., 0[- ['A ~'i~
Scat'lie
Jefferson County Board of County Commissioners
October 26. 1998
Page 3
An existing resort may be authorized by the county only iff
(1) The comprehensive plan and development regulations include restrictions that
preclude new urban or suburban lands used in the vicinity of the exiting resort [];
(2) The county includes a finding as part of the approval pro~ess that the land is
better suited, and has more long term importance; for the existing resort than for
the commercial harvesting of timber or agricultural production [];
(3) The county finds that the resort plan is consistent with the development
regulations The comprehensive plan specifically identifies policies to guide the
development of the existing resort;
(4) The County finds that the resort plan is consistent with the development
regulations established for critical areas; and
(5) On..site and off-sire infrastructure impacts are full>' considered and mitigated.
RCW 36.70A.362 (full text attached).
In adopting the Comprehensive Plan, Jefferson County included policies for guiding the
development of Port Ludlow. The policies appear in Policy LNG 25, on page 3-92 of the Plan.
See attached Plan p. 3-92. All of the five GMA requirements are addressed. As for
environmental considerations, the first policy adopted by the County relates to critical areas and
on-site and off-site mitigation. "Ensure that development in Port Ludlow complies with County
development regulations established for critical areas and that on-site and off-site infrastructure
impacts are fully mitigated." Id.
Additionally, in the resolution adopting the Comprehensive Plan. the Board of County.
Commissioners found that the development of Port Ludlow to date "is consistent with the
development regulations established for critical areas. The BOCC further found that "All
applications for new development are reviewed for critical area concerns." See Res. 72-98.
adopted 8/28/98. Thus, the BOCC found that past development has complied with critical area
regulations, and that future development will be review'ed for critical area compliance.
With regard to on-site and off-site mitigation, potential impacts from development and
appropriate mitigation are reviewed under the State Environmental Policy Act at the time a
development application is submitted for approval. An.,,, suggestion that SEPA mitigation must
be in place at the time of the Comprehensive Plan designation is putting the cart before the horse.
All the County can do is ensure that future development proposals are reviewed for and mitigate
on-site and off-site impacts since, as mentioned above, the Plan does not approve any particular
project.
In sum. the record does not support an.,,' argument that the Count,,- failed to satisfy the
requirements of RCW 36.70A.362. Port Ludlow was properly designated an MPR.
Now' that the Comprehensive Plan has been adopted, the Growth Management Act
mandates that implementing development regulations be adopted. In the emergency interim
'Jefferson County Board of County Commissioners
October 26, 1998
Page 4
controls ordinance adopted by the BOCC in August, the County failed to include regulations to
control development within the MPR-MF and MPR-RC/CF zones. Without implementing
regulations, there is a de facto moratorium. In order to comply with the GMA, the BOCC must
adopt an ordinance that includes all the MRP zones. Otherwise, the County will be in violation
of the GMA. We urge you to amend the EICO to include regulations that address all of the
zones within Port Ludlow or adopt a separate ordinance that relates to Port Ludlow anti provides
development regulations for each of the MPR zones. Anything short of this will not satisfy the
GMA mandate to adopt implementing regulations.
KKL/kl
Enclosures
Sincerely)
Dq?~ Wnght Tremaine.4.LP
',,._..J Ka,t?~rine K~amer Laird /
Gary Tucker, President, ORM
Greg McCarry, VP, ORM
Craig Jones, General Counsel and VP,ORM
David Cunningham, VP, ORM
Mike Derrig
David Skeen, County Prosecuting Attorney
Scanlc
1i
Growth Management--Planning by Selected Counties and Cities
36.70A.300
(d) Thc county ensures that the resort plan is consistent
with the development regulations established for critical
areas; and
(e) On-site and off-site infrastructure and service
impacts are fully considered and mitigated. [1998 c 112 §
2:1991 sp.s. c 32 § 17.]
Intent--1995 c 112: 'The primary intent of this act is co give cffe, c~
to recommendations by thc 1994 department of community, trade, axed
economic development's m~tcr plznned resort task force by clarifying thai
master planned resorts may make use of capital faciliucs, utilities, and
services provided by outside service providers, and may cater into
agreements for shared facilities with such providers, when all costs directly
altnbutablc to the resort, including cAoacity incre, a.~s. are fully borne by the
resort.' [1998 c 112 § I.]
36.70A_'~2 Master planned resorts--Existing resort
may be included. Counties that are required or choose to
plan under RCW 36.70A.040 may include existing resorts as
master planned resorts which may constitute urban growth
outside of urban growth areas as limited by this section. An
existing resort means a resort in existence on July 1, 1990,
and developed, in whole or in part, as a significantly self-
contained and integrated development that includes short-
term visitor accommodations associated with a range of
indoor and outdoor recreational facilities within the property
boundaries in a setting of significant natural amenities. 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 of the resort.
An existing resort may be authorized by a county only
if:
(1) The comprehensive plan specifically identifies
policies to guide the development of the existing resort;
(2) The comprehensive plan and development regula-
tions include restrictions that preclude new urban or subur-
ban land uses in the vicinity of the existing resort, except in
areas otherwise designated for urban growth under RCW
36.70A. 110 and '36.70A.360(I);
(3) The county includes a finding as a part of the
approval process that the land is better suited, and has more
tong-term importance, for the existing resort than for the
commercial harvesting of timber or agricultural production,
if located on land that otherwise would be designated as for-
est land or agricultural land under RCW 36.70A. 170;
(4) The county finds 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.
A county may allocate a portion of its twenty-year
population projection, prepared by the office of financial
management., to the master planned resort corresponding to
the projected number of permanent residents within the
master planned resort. [1997 c 382 § 1.]
*Reviser's note: RCW 36.70A.360 w~s ~'nended by 1998 c 112 !
2. changing subsection (1) to subsection (4)tm),
36.70A.365 Major industrial developments. A
county required or choosing to plan under RCW 36.70A.040
may establish, in consultation with cities consistent with
provisions of RCW 36.70A.210, a process for reviewing and
(19gff Ed.)
approving proposals to authorize siting of specific major
industrial developments outside urban growth areas.
(1) "Major industrial development" means a master
planned location for a specific manufacturing, industrial, or
commercial business that: (a) Requires a parcel of land so
large that no suitable parcels are available within an urban
growth area; or (b) is a natural resource-based industry
requiring a location near agricultural land, forest land, or
mineral resource land upon which it is dependent. The
major industrial development shall not be for the purpose of
retail commercial development or multitenant office parks.
(2) A major industrial develgpment may be approved
outside an urban growth area in a 'county planning under this
chapter if criteria including, but not limited to the following,
(a) New infrastructure is provided for and/or applicable
impact fees are paid;
(b) Transit-oriented site planning and traffic demand
management programs are implemented;
(c) Buffers are provided between the major industrial
development and adjacent nonurban areas;
(d) Environmei~tal protection including air and water
quality has been addressed and provided for;
(e) Development regulations are established to ensure
that urban growth will not occur in adjacent nonurban areas;
(f) Provision is made to mitigate adverse impacts on
designated agricultural lands, forest lands, and mineral
resource lands;
(g) The plan for the major industrial development is
consistent with the county's development regulations
established for protection of critical areas: and
th) An inventory of developable land has been conduct-
ed and the county has determined and entered findings that
land suitable to site the major industrial development is
unavailable within the urban growth area. Priority shall be
given to applications for sites that are adjacent to or in close
proximity to the urban growth area.
(3) Final approval of an application for a major industri-
al development shall be considered an adopted amendment
to the comprehensive plan adopted pursuant to RCW
36.70A.070 designating the major industrial development site
on the land use map as an urban growth area. Final approv-
al of an application for a major industrial development shall
not be considered an amendment to the comprehensive plan
for the purposes of RCW 36.70A.130(2) and may be
considered at any time. [1995 c 190 § 1.]
36.70A.367 Major industrial developmenLs~Master
planned locations.' (1) In addition to the major industrial
development allowed under RCW 36.70A.365, a county
required or choosing to plan under RCW 36.70A.040 that
meets the criteria in subsection (9) of this section may
establish, in consultation wieh cities consistent with provi-
sions of RCW 36.70A.210, a process for designating a bank
of no more than two master planned locations for major
industrial activity outside urban growth areas.
(2) A master planned location for major industrial
developments outside an urban growth area may be included
in the urban industrial land bank for the county if criteria
including, but not limited to, the following arc met:
[Title 3~5 RCW--pale 115]
MASTER PLA~ED RESORT
LNG 25.0
Maintain the viability of Port Ludlow ns Jefferson County's only Master Planned
Resort (MI'R).
LN'P 25.1
LNP 25.2
LNP 25.3
25.4
LNP 25.5
25.6
Ensure that development in Port Ludlow complies with County development regulations
established for critical areas and that on-site and off-site infrastructure impacts are fully
considered and mitigated.
The provision of urban-style services to support the anticipated growth and development
at Pon Ludlow shall occur only within the designated MPR boundary.
No new urban or suburban land uses will be established in the vicinity of the Pon
Ludlow Master Planned Resort.
The total number of residential lots allowable within the MPR boundary shall not exceed
the 1993 Pon Ludlow FEIS total of 2,250 residential dwelling units.
Port Ludlow shall accommodate a variety of housing types, including affordable
housing, single family and multi-family housing and assisted living care facilities.
Support efforts to preserve and protect Port Ludlow's greenbelts, open spaces and
wildlife corridors.
LNP 25.7
LNP 25.8
/.aNT 25.6.1 Support the establishment of a Ludlow Creek Nature Preserve.
No preliminary plats will be processed by Jefferson County for the 200-acre area south
of the Port Ludlow Golf Course within the MPR boundary (as depicted on the official
Jefferson Coun.ty Land Use Map) until such time as a conceptual site plan has been
approved by the County.
The Pon Ludlow Master Planned Resort commercial area shall be designated as the Port
Ludlow Village Com'nercial Center.
Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan
3-92 ,a.~g~ 2s, 1998
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
FOR
INN AT PORT LUDLOW
JEFFERSON COUNTY
Prepared for the Review and Comments of Citizens,
Groups and Governmental Agencies
In Compliance With
The Washington State Environmental Policy Act of 1971
Revised Code of Washington Chapter 42.3 lC
Revised SEPA Guidelines,Effective April 4, 1984
Chapter 197-11, Washington Administrative Code, and
Jefferson County SEPA Policies and Procedures
Date of Issue: April 12, 1993
CHAPTER 2
ALTERNATIVES INCLUDING THE PROPOSED ACTION
INTRODUCTION
This Chapter presents a description of the proposed action and reasonable alternatives to the proposed
action. A comparative evaluation of the alternatives can be found in Chapter 1. This project description is
the same as presented in the Draft EIS.
SITE DESCRIPTION
Location
The site of the proposed project is located in the unincorporated community of Port Ludlow in Jefferson
County. Port Ludlow is located in northeastern Jefferson County, approximately 15 miles south of Port
Townsend (see Figure 1). The community is oriented around Port Ludlow Bay, an extension of Puget Sound
north of Hood Canal. The general vicinity is accessed from State Route 104; access to Port Ludlow from SR-
104 is via Paradise Bay Road, Teal Lake Road, or Beaver Valley Road/Oak Bay Road (see Figure 2). Access
to the site from the north is via Oak Bay Road or Swansonville Road.
Background
The Port Ludlow community was established during the mid-1800s as a logging, shipbuilding, and sawmill
town. Pope & Talbot, the predecessor organization to the current proponents, purchased the Port Ludlow
sawmill and adjacent property in the 1870s. By the 1880s, Port Ludlow was comprised of a sawmill, log dump,
numerous houses, a hotel, and other facilities. The sawmill was closed and reopened several times during its
existence, but permanently closed operations in 1935.
In 1967, Pope & Talbot initiated a multi-phase development based on the Port Ludlow Town Plan. The plan
envisioned a community of 6,000 dwelling units with attendant recreational facilities and a resort/convention
center. Over time, modifications were made to the plan. Jefferson County ultimately issued approvals for the
development of approximately 1,200 dwelling units, of which, about 560 have been developed to date. The
following components also have been constructed in conjunction with the 1967 Town Plan: a 285-slip marina;
restaurant; beach club; an 18-hole golf course; and a small retail center (15,000 square feet). Development
was primarily located north of Port Ludlow Bay, with the exception of the golf course and some residential
units.
Since 1988, development has proceeded under the 1987 Port Ludlow Development Plan, resulting in the
permitting of approximately 350 additional residential units located south of the bay. To date, 104 have been
developed with residential units. As part of the 1987 plan, a 16,000-square-foot recreation center, recreational
vehicle park, and a 9-hole, 3,426-yard, golf course expansion were also developed.
Site
The proposed project would be located on approximately 17.5 acres at the site of the original Pope & Talbot
sawmill. It adioins the existing 285-slip marina in Port Ludlow Bay. The site is irregularly shaped, extending
primarily from west to east, with a peninsula, or spit, extending southward off the eastern boundary. The
topography slopes upward from the marina to its northern boundary beyond an existing access road.
2-1
Port Camanc
Townsend Island
Chimacum
Whidbey Island
Quilcen,
Kingston
Edmonds
r~OhOn'~sh Co.
King co.
Poulsbo
Brinnon
Silverdale
Winslow
Seattle
~' Project Site
Sou~co: The ;,~n',. Corr~amy, 1992
No Scale
Inn at Port Ludlow
~]235
Figure 1
Regional Map
Key
Project Site
Source: The i:e~n~ ~¥, Igg2
Inn at Port Ludlow
No Scale '
Figure 2
Vicinity Map
The site currently contains a 150-seat restaurant, resort administration offices and conference rooms, a small
gift shop, on-shore marina facilities, a landscape maintenance shed, and accessory uses such as parking lots
and utilities. A man-made pond is centrally located between the restaurant and the marina. An informal boat
launch is currently provided at the marina, and a manicured lawn along the site's eastern boundary offers
miniature golfing. A large circular cement burner pad, a remnant of the sawmill, is located on the southern tip
of the peninsula.
PROPOSED ACTION
The Inn at Port Ludlow project proposes a mixed-use residential and commercial development on the 17.5-
acre project site. The project proposes: a 36-room inn; 72 residential units (23 single-family and 49
multifamily); 2,500 square feet of commercial space; the addition of a deck to the existing restaurant;
construction of a new marina manager's office; expansion of the existing man-made pond; parking for 400
vehicles; construction of a ~Town Hall"; landscaping, including construction of dunes; rip-rap installation
along the western end of the existing marina parking lot; and, replacement of underground fuel tanks with
partially above-ground tanks. The site plan for the project is presented in Figure 3.
The Inn
The Inn at Port Ludlow would be a three-stoEt (50-foot maximum height) structure with 36 guest rooms,
located adjacent to the northeast corner of the marina (see Figure 3). The 34,171-square-foot Inn would
feature wood frame construction, wood siding, gabled roofs with composition shingles, stone base details, and
a driveway passing 'through" the structure. In addition to the guest rooms, the Inn would have a lobby (1,600
square feet), dining room (1,232 square feet), kitchen (1,120 square feet), and laundry facilities (320 square
feet). The structure would have a footprint of 11,345 square feet.
Elevations of the proposed Inn are presented in Figures 4 and 5.
Residential and Commercial Development
Residential development on the project site would consist of 23 single-family platted lots and 49 multifamily
units. Overall project site density would be 4.1 units per acre.
Single-family lots would be a minimum size of 3,586 square feet, with an average lot size of 4,361 square feet.
Eleven single-family lots would be located near the shoreline north of the marina, and twelve lots would be
north and east of the pond (see Figure 3).
Multifamily development would consist of 20 townhouse units, 17 villa units, 11 units in mixed-use structures
and 1 'carriage house' unit. Total multifamily square footage would be 58,282; the average area per unit
would be about 1,200 square feet. The proposed layout of multifamily development on the site is shown in
Figure 3.
The Carriage House would be a two-story structure with a single-level residential unit above a ground-level
parking garage for six vehicles. It would have a maximum height of 25 feet.
A three-story (35-foot maximum height) mixed-use complex containing retail and some multifamily uses
would be located in the northeast corner of the project site. Eleven single-level apartment units would be
located above ground-floor retail space totalling 2,500 square feet. Anticipated retail uses would be a
bakery/coffee shop and souvenir shop.
2-4
~ourc.: GGLO, 19~2
Inn at Port Ludlow
VOl_
-TOIM
-TO~
-- TO
1'1 I ~, I.
IIOHD
II)IT
Figure 3
Project Site Plan
Marina Support Development
A new 800-square-foot marina manager's office and store would be constructed to replace the existing office
and store space. The new building would be located midway between the Inn to the east and existing marina
buildings to the west (see Figure 3). The facility would house the manager's office and also sell marina-related
merchandise. The existing marina manager's office would be demolished, with restrooms and marina laundry
facilities housed in a new structure at the same location.
To allow for Inn construction, underground fuel and propane tanks would be removed and relocated to a
partially above-ground containment bunker. The new site would be near the new marina manager's office (see
Figure 3). The tank holding area would be designed to provide stable footing, security, and adequate safety
against accidental leaks or explosions.
Other Development
A Town Hall, to be used for meetings and community activities, would be located adjacent to the mixed-use
complex in the northeast portion of the site (see Figure 3). The Town Hall would be a maximum of 50 feet in
height, with a footprint of 1,030 square feet and a total of 1,850 square feet.
Open Space and Recreation
Approximately 10.5 acres (60 percent of the site) would be in undeveloped open space. Sand dunes and beach
grasses would be established on the spit south and east of the Inn replacing domestic vegetation. Sand would
be imported from an off-site location. Other areas of the site would be landscaped in native vegetation such as
fir, maple, dogwood, willow, salal, azalea, grass, and fern.
As part of the project, the existing man-made pond would be expanded and planted with wetland vegetation to
enhance aesthetics, pond water quality, and wildlife habitat value. The proposal includes: increasing the
surface water level from approximately 8.5 feet above mean lower low water (MLLW) to 11.0 feet MLLW;
increasing the typical surface area from 1.4 acres to 2.2 acres; and increasing the typical volume from 280,000
cubic feet to 455,000 cubic feet. The bottom of the pond would be reconfigured to slope more steeply at the
edges and then gradually meet the existing 10 foot depth at the pond center. The pond would be supplied with
water from Port Ludlow Bay via a recirculation pump located at the western end of the pond. The pond also
would receive stormwater from a collection system draining the site. Overflow from the pond would pass
through a rip-rap lined channel and a weir (dam-like structure) prior to entering the Bay.
A newly constructed reflecting pool would connect to the northeastern portion of the pond via a waterfall.
The reflecting pool also would be supplied with a pump located at the eastern end of the pond.
A pedestrian bridge approximately 180 feet long would span the pond, providing a safe, scenic path from the
marina to the restaurant and retail areas. Pathways would provide public access to over 2,000 feet of
shoreline. Existing paths in the vicinity would continue to provide access from other areas in the Port Ludlow
community to the developed project site.
Signs
At least five new informational and directional signs would be installed: two at marina access points; one
adiacent to Oak Bay Road; and, two along the main internal access road. These signs would be 6 to 12 square
feet in size, and would not be backlit. Outdoor lighting standards would be designed to direct light only onto
the immediate area where it is needed, minimizing glare to surrounding areas.
2-6