HomeMy WebLinkAboutLog138
June 1,2004
[5JfE ~ fE ~ W fE ~
\fI1 JUR -a. lW
A Letter to the Board of the Port Ludlow Village Council
JEFFERSON COUNTY
OEPT. OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
Dear Board Member:
This letter is being sent to you as a Director ofthe Port Ludlow Village Council in
response to the meeting Chaired by Larry Nobles of your Community Development
Committee (CDC). As you are aware, the CDC conducted a Town Meeting on May 24th
at the Beach Club on the subject of the resort development proposal made by Port
Ludlow Associates (PLA). The meeting was advertised as a forum to "seek comments on
the DEIS from a wide spectrum of Port Ludlow residents". In order to put my own
comments on the meeting into proper perspective I would like to briefly describe some
historical events.
-... :
.Ie .'
Under a mandate by the Growth Management Act (GMA) passed by the Washington
State Legislature in 1990, Jefferson County adopted a revised Comprehensive Plan that
designated Port Ludlow as an Interim Urban Growth Area. The State Hearings Board
overturned that designation resulting in a downzone of the Port Ludlow area. From 1993
to 1998 the County, Port Ludlow citizens and the developer worked to restore a
Comprehensive Plan designation in Port Ludlow. That effort resulted in the designation
of Port Ludlow as a Master Planned Resort (MPR).
In addition to a Comprehensive Plan, Jefferson County required a zoning code for Port
Ludlow to guide land use decisions. To achieve this, a variety of interest groups, selected
by Jefferson County, collaborated in a mediation process to craft a zoning code. The
interest groups included Port Ludlow citizens, environmental groups, developers and the
extended Port Ludlow community. After 17 meetings and numerous drafts of a code, the
participants forwarded to Jefferson County a proposed zoning code. All the mediation
members endorsed the proposed code (see Tab 1). The participants included Bert
Loomis, Bill Funke, Stan Kadish, Michael Derrig, Moulton Prossing, Sally Smith, Rae
Belkin, Wendi Wrinkle, Stephen Hayden, Julie Jaman and me. Following this process,
Jefferson County formally,adopted the Port Ludlow MPR Zoning Code in 1999.
During the period of mediation, the developer made a number of significant concessions
with regard to their 1,200 acres of ownership. The concessions included:
.
. Agreement to limit total Port Ludlow development to 2,250 residential
dwellings
. Agreement to limits for total commercial development
LOn ITEM
# r3~
Pas:le \ of!4-
70 BREAKER LANE
PORT LUDLOW, WA 98365
(360)437-210 1. FAX(360)437-2522
WWW.PORTLUDLOWASSOCIATES.COM
. Designation of approximately 400 acres to permanent open space
. Dedication of the Twin Islands as open space
. Established an open space corridor along the Ludlow Creek riparian zone
. Entered into a Memorandum of understanding with Jefferson County to
provide sewer service to any Port Ludlow property owner that requests service
on a first-come, first-serve basis.
. Agreement to supplement the 1993 EIS for all new development in the Resort
Zone
. Agreement to a County-governed process for minor and major revisions to the
plan
These concessions were made in exchange for specific allowable zoning on remaining
properties identified in the zoning code provided that allowable uses and density of any
property did not exceed those identified in the MPR code.
.
Another key feature of GMA, as it relates to Port Ludlow, is the concept of a
Development Agreement. The Washington State Legislature found that the lack of
certainty in the approval oflarge development projects can result in a waste of public and
private resources, escalate housing costs, etc. To avoid this problem the Legislature
authorized Development Agreements to protect large-scale developers from changes in
land use regulations while development is in progress. In order to protect the many years
of work that went into the Comprehensive Plan and the MPR Zoning Code, Jefferson
County approved a Development Agreement for Port Ludlow. The Agreement binds the
County on all PLA development applications to the set of rules that existed at the time of
adoption. The vesting of rules runs for a period of 20 years to provide a predictable,
long-term process for allowing future development. Jefferson County adopted the
Agreement in 2000 (see Tab 2).
During and after the negotiations with various groups for an MPR Code and
Development Agreement, the developer shared proposed language and development
critera with PLVC's predecessor, the Council of Ludlow Owners Association (CLOA).
CLOA formally endorsed the MPR Code prior to adoption ofthe Code by Jefferson
County. The Code provides for specific land use designations for all development
property together with a list of allowable uses and densities for each parcel and defines
the process to implement changes in uses (see Tab 3). The list of allowable uses for the
parcel zoned Resort/Community Facilities is attached (see Tab 4). Note that in the table
on page 12 ofthe Code it outright permits a multifamily residential density of 10
dwellings per acre.
.
The point to all the above dialogue is that Jefferson County invested many years and over
one hundred thousand dollars to finalize the process. In Port Ludlow, hundreds of people
contributed many years of effort, negotiation and process to achieve a zoning code and
LOG iTEi\1
#~b~
Page :A _ of~L
development agreement that was endorsed by the developer, the community and the
County.
Thanks for your patience to this point, now to Monday's Town Meeting. I found the
format and content ofthe meeting profoundly disappointing. As a beginning there was
no historical context provided as to how the plan is allowed. I was less concerned about
the clear bias of the agenda and speakers but more concerned about the magnitude of
misinformation being promulgated. Some highlights of misinformation from the handout
(see Tab 5) appear in quotations with a response in bold italics. They include:
.
. "There is no baseline in the (EIS) report from which to judge the proposed
revisions." The report is a SUPPLEMENTAL document to the 1993 EIS.
The 1993 document is the baseline and is referenced in the Comprehensive
Plan, the MPR Code and the Development Agreement as the baseline from
which to measure proposed changes. The MPR Code only requires the
Supplemental report to discuss any changes to the 1993 plan.
. "The report appears to rely heavily on input from the developer with no input
from the community or from any of the Port Ludlow homeowner
associations." All Port Ludlow residents were invited to the Scoping
Meeting that was facilitated by Jefferson County on July 16, 2003. That
was everyone's time to identify areas of concern. The report is a
RESPONSE to the subjects identified at the Scoping Meeting as potentially
environmentally significant.
. "PLA indicates that changes to the resort plan are necessary to provide a
economically viable resort. No basis for that statement". The EIS is a report
on environmental issues. The County does not regulate or rule on economic
feasibility issues.
. "No analysis of impact to Fire District 3 service." A leuer from the Chiefof
Fire District 3 is in the appendix of the report and identifies the Chief's
planned responses to emergencies. The Chief has reviewed the plan and
influenced changes that have been incorporated as revisions. The 1993 EIS
also obligates the developer to mitigation a described in the EIS.
. "Transportation analysis evaluates in great detail the impact to roads and road
junctions external to the resort but does no analysis to roads within the resort."
The baseline 1993 report requires the developer to provide traffic
monitoring data and service analysis on an annual basis. PL VC receives a
copy of the report annually.
. Some of the comments addressed issues that are too early in the process;
for example, storm water design detail and location of propane tanks. From
a process standpoint, were are at Point A of the Tab 6 chart. The design
detail is at Point B. More detailed to responses are on Tab 9.
.
LOG ITEM
# l breg
Page~ ~ _ofll!-.
In addition to the handout presentation, 4 other presentations were made by opponents of
the plan.
One speaker addressed the subject of the 51 plat conditions and the overwater
construction feature of the 1994 plan. These subjects have been brought up many times at PL VC
meetings over the past couple of years. In a letter to Al Scalf dated August 1,2003 (see Tab 7)
Larry Nobles challenged the County to address the same issues. Jefferson County issued a
definitive response to the PLVC on these subjects (see Tab 8). At the May 6th PLVC meeting I
reported that the issues were resolved by the letter from Jefferson County and also advised the
Council that Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife has already issued the necessary
permits for over-water construction of the Town homes. At a minimum, the CDC had an
obligation to disclose the County's position on these issues. Nothwithstanding these written
decisions and permits, the CDC continues to beat this misinformation drum. The same
individual also commented on parking. Parking is a legitimate issue for which PLA is open to
discussion.
.
Another speaker predicted that the developer's project will cause property values
in Port Ludlow to decline. This position not only lacks credibility, it is irresponsible for a
Committee of the PLVC to endorse such an idea. Are the residents of Port Ludlow being
asked to believe the PLA wants to devalue it's own properties so it can sell out quickly?
I predict that this type of rhetoric from a PL VC sponsored event will only undermine the
PL V C' s own credibility. It will also serve as a lightening rod to galvanize resentment
against PL VC.
Another resident discussed parking and fire issues. I dealt with fire above. The
Chairman of the CDC is well aware that the Fire District has reviewed and commented
on the project. This fact should have been disclosed the audience as part of the
presentation. With regard to parking, again, this is a legitimate concern. We believe we
have addressed the issue but we are willing to continue dialogue on the subject.
A Ludlow Bay Village neighbor talked about the Admiralty condos and open
space. He also stated that when PLA is done with development, all open space in Port
Ludlow will be "gone forever". Do you wish to have the CDC continue to promote this
idea? The issues for Admiralty, however, are legitimate and worthy of discussion.
This agenda of your committee has sunk the bridge of communication between the
developer and the CDC. I am appealing to the members ofthe Board to help rebuild it
and to consider a bigger picture. PLA's bigger picture is that the residential development
program provides the capital for reinvestment into amenities such as the golf clubhouse,
the Yacht Club and a new restaurant. There are many areas of common ground.
.
I believe that PLA and the PLVC understand that Port Ludlow unique because of is its
wonderful natuI:t5~1t mrous open spaces, a growth cap preservation feature,
#J 3 fl
Page~ofJiL
desireable amenities and its proximity to Seattle and the airport. I also believe that PLA
and the PL VC share many mutual concerns. Among the issues that we are likely in
alignment are, for example:
. We share a concern for preserving values of our properties
. We share a concern for maintaining quality amenities
. We share a concern that our utilities are operated in a responsible way
. We share a concern that, when development activity comes to an end, the
commercial properties are all healthy, self-sustained businesses
PLA works closely with the Greens Committee at the Port Ludlow Golf Course, the
Marina Advisory Committee, the Utilities Committee, the Trails and Natural Resources
Committee and the various Homeowner associations where appropriate. I believe we
have been responsible in our management and our response to issues. We have worked
closely the PL VC and the CDC. I believe the propaganda campaign articulated in the
Town Meeting is an agenda that will take our relationship in another direction.
.
The same meeting format as described above was also used at the Commissioner on the
Road meeting in April. In that meeting the CDC facilitated a panel of four disgruntled
residents, each of whom used the podium to register their complaints and to challenge
County officials. Statements were made that the County is incompetent. One of the
presenters at the meeting, who has had a number of audiences arranged by the CDC, has
recently physically threatened County employees.
The CDC did not arrange for a spokesperson to present another view on the issues at
either meeting. At both meetings there was also a subtle message to the Commissioners
coming up for election later this year. The PL VC, through the CDC, is promoting the
themes that the County is incompetent, property values will decline and the developer is
linked to our problems. Does the PL VC want to sponsor this negative, accusatory
approach to communicating issues with the County or the developer?
Healthy debate has two sides and progress can only be measured against clear objectives.
I challenge each of you on the Board to agree to clear objectives and to foster responsible
dialogue on the subjects of great importance to the future ofthis great community.
Sincerely, ~~
(/
~",/~~
-'.i. '
1/
Greg McCarry
President and C 0
.
LOq ITEM
# t()
Page E of~
~
1
~^ A!lf'~o1l
'lj'C1IC:! ~
"'ilii::...' ",,",,0"
.
/
.
e
,)
Ce- P\ lJ;)()J9~
.
Ty Tice
MEDIATION SERVICES
87 Virginia Street, Unit 4 (Pike Place Market)
Seattle, Washington 98101-1035
phone: (206) 448-5673
fax: (206) 441-8149
a.mail: tytice@halcyon.com
Date:
July 15, 1999
To:
Board of County Commissioners
From: Mediation Stakeholders
Subject: Final Development Ordinance Recommendations for the Port Ludlow Ma<;ter
Planned Resort
---
---
{e
Since mediation convened on February 17, 1999, spokespersons for stakeholder interests have met
17 times, in four hour meetings, to consider difficult and complex issues surrounding the Port
Ludlow Emergency Interim Control Ordinance. The outcome, reached collaboratively, is a
balanced and responsible package of recommendations that resolve our concerns about
development caps, MPR boundaries, forest buffers, and flexibility.
We request that the Board of County Commissioners consider and implement these
recommendations, after formal public review, at its earliest opportunity . We believe the ordinance
to be presented will afford the residents arid business owners in the Port Ludlow MPR and the
extended Port Ludlow Conununity long anticipated z,oning certainty, Although a range of
environmental issues related to resort development will need detailed study in the future,the
.proposed ordinance sets clear standards for undertaking that work and assures opportunities for
effective public involvement.
As a whole, we support the painstakingly crafted and balanced framework of controls contained in
this ordinance recommendation. We also strongly endorse the informal and collaborative process
of mediation, and the professional planning assistance, that have at last resulted in this outcome.
re
P.L. Commercial
~ fAdLJ
E"ded P.L. Community 4. ~ c .
; ~~.. -. L. c'. w~~:;
~~EnVhu~ee.qq-EM V ~- ~ ~.
#J 3C6
Page {p _ of!4-
c::s...~ ~~ o~~~~ ~~c.\
Aug-03-99 12:08P
~~(~~/~~~~ uu.~o ~Q~~~r~Q'U
. /fJ""CII.:ll'"", "'tl;~4 """~"4~-l;j.4;l
....""'Io.,.WI...""" I .....WI ......., ...........,
MEDl4T1ON SEr:NICE:S
e.02
P4G! tl2/0:2
.
1R1~~~~\Q~[D)
JUl 1 9 1999-'"
JEFFERSON COUNTY
SOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
Ty Tice
MEDIATroN SERVICES
.,..,.... .-.v.., (PlkI"" UIdIIl)
...... ~ .101-'.
pIMN: (2IJf)....517S
U (IOI)...t....
""lit ............eom
OllIe:
Ll
Te:
J"ly as, 1999
8Qard of C"'-1nty CommissiOllCn
Mcd.iatia:l StiJIeboldm
Final Developmenr Ordinaaee R.e.commeDdUioA$ for the Port Ludlow Master
PlanMd Retort
From:
SubJed:
.. ~
;.
Sin<< mediati<m eon'iened OD February 1'. 1999. spokesplr'lrOft8 fOI stakeholder interest I have met
17 time.t. ill four hnlw meetil1ls. to CCIl$ider diffiadt &l'ld compJc~ i.sues slIrroundina the Port
Ludlow Emerpncylnterim Control Otdi.uaee. The OUleome., mdIH c;olJaboraliwJy. is II
baJanced and aespouible pICa.. 0( ~daI1OClS that ~501\'t OUt cooeerns about
.,'eloptMDt capt, MR bOuft4lrir$. fote.ll buftera. And flexibility.
We NqUf.s. dMI: the Bon of COUDty Commis.siOncn COIIIider aad J~lement rhae
recoDnend&liOll~. after fonnal public mvi~, It its cvJiest oppof.tWlity. We believe the ord.U1lUlCc
to be presenled wUI afford rbe ruideaU Illd bl.asine.~ O'Wllen lD the Port Ludlow MPR ad rhe
exteodad Port Ludlow Omlm.tllUy lon, ~Qpatt.d ZOftin, ctlllillCy. AlCMusb a nmae of
en"Uonnaellfel iMues rclaad to l'CJOIt dnwlvpmcllt will need det&iJed study in !be (uture. the
propo..ct Otdinanee tees clear Itandcrch for undcrt.... tbat lYOI'lll\d .$U~ opport\lnities (or
.."live pubtic involvement.
At . whole. wr 511ppcrt the pailL5~ crafted and h!anced fiuJewo,k. of ccmtrols contlilled in
this orclilWlC!e ft!eommendafioD. W~ 1110 s1roDIly encIorM dae iftformalud coIWxntive PfOC"ss
ofmediation. and tJaeprofeaioul ,tannin. assr~. thatha~e at Jastlesultedjn this OUlCO~.
StIkct1Q.Iden Su~tioa Fma! Development OIdillance Recommeadalions:
Ol)'ZIIp~ keJouIce Mweemeat
pl. Aff&1iated HO~"r&
~~2
p. . 1& ~'1 ..L....",q
-
"-
EJltended P.L. Conununity
OJ)'t'IIpic: E.a~menw Councll
i.
LOG ITEM
#.-L} ~
Page 7 of!11-
2
.
.
.
,- ll! U\;.V (~ 'I. 01J
,- ~c. n;t.,&s I
III1IIIIIIII :~7;...
J.".rlon Countv. 1M POPE RESOURCES RESO '".M
4,
--.
STATE OF WASHINGTON
County of Jefferson
IN THE MATTER OF A RESOLUTION
to enter into a development agreement with
land owned by Pope Resources per Chapter
36. 70B.170 and Chapter 36.70B.200
Revised Code of Washington
}
}
}
}
}
Resolution No. 42-00
The Jefferson County Board of Commissioners enters the follc;.>wing fmdings:
I. On August 28, 1998 the BOCC adopted Resolution No. 72-98 establishing the Jefferson County
Comprehensive Land Use Plan in accordance with the Growth Management Act Chapter 36.70A
RCW.
2. The Comprehensive Plan established the Port Ludlow Master Planned Resort. The Comprehensive
Plan contains policies in LNG 25.0 of the Land Use and Rural element, which maintain the viability
of Port Ludlow, as Jefferson County's only Master Planned Resort (MPR).
.J.,...:.'..,..
"...
3. On October 4, 1999 the BOCC adopted Ordinance No. 08-1O.Q.4-99 as development regulations for
the Port Ludlow Master Planned Resort. ('M.'Rf- ~)
4. Pursuant to Chapter 36.70B.170 Jefferson County may enter into a development agreement with a
person having ownership of real property within Jefferson County.
5. Land Use and Rural Strategy C, Master Planned Resort, Action Item 3 of the Comprehensive Plan
(page 3-94) allows for the adoption of a Development Agreement between Jefferson County and Pope
Resources (Olympic Property Group) pursuant toC~pter 36.70.B.170 RCW.
6. The Board of County Commissioners fmds that the Development Agreement is consistent with the
applicable development regulations adopted by Jefferson County under chapter 36.70A RCW.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of County Commissioners, Jefferson County,
Washington, as follows:
1.0 The adoption of Port Ludlow Development Agreement (attached hereto as Exhibit A) covering
approximately 1,200 acres of land owned by Pope Resources and located in Jefferson County furthers
the public's health, safety and welfare by allowing development to take place in a predictable manner
consistent with the County's Comprehensive Plan and the Port Ludlow Master Planned Resort Code,
Ordinance No. 08-10004-99.
",..
:\
2.0 The Board intends this Resolution shall apply to all land owned by Pope Resources within the Port
Ludlow Master Planned Resort, to the extent permitted by law.
LOG ITEM
#J3~
Page ~ ofr
//
.j
IIIIIIIIIIII:~~~~...
J.".non County I WA POPE RESOURCES RESO HI . CHI
3.0 Effective Date. This resolution shall become effective on the 8th day of May 2000.
'k.
4.0 Adoption. Adopted by the.. Jefferson County Board of Commissioners this t day of~.
2000. ~", r
SEAL:
AITEST:
.,.t
APPROVED AS TO FORM: ONLY
{1~~
Jue anne Dalzell . ./
Jefferson County Prosecuting Attorney
ity Development
'.,. '
J.
LOG ITEM
#~~1
Page~O~
~~
.
"DiliIBIT A' IIIIIIIIIIIII:~~~,_
J.".non County. WA POPE RESOURCES RESO 151'."
('.
I', "
,'- .'
PORT LUDLOW DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT
1.
PARTIES, PLANNING CONCEPT and RECITALS
.<e,"
F
i
1.1 PARTIES
This DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT ("Agreement") is entered into this I d day of
, 2000, by and between POPE RESOURCES, a Delaware Limited
Partners 'p, its subsidiary companies OLYMPIC PROPERTY GROUP LLC (a
Washington limited liability company), OLYMPIC RESORTS LLC (a Washington
limited liability company), OL YMPIC WATER AND-SEWER, INC. (a Washington
corporation), OLYMPIC REAL ESTATE DEVELOPMENT LLC. (A Washington
limited liability company) (collectively referred to as, ''P'ope'' hereinafter) and
JEFFERSON COUNTY, a municipal corporation under the laws of the State of
Washington. This Agreement relates to real property consisting of some 1200 acres
owned by Pope and located in Jefferson County, Washington within the area known as
the Port Ludlow Master Planned Resort or "Port Ludlow MPR." The term "Pope
Property" as used elsewhere in this Development Agreement shall include and shall refer
solely to the property owned by Pope within the Port Ludlow MPR, as described in
Exhibit 1 (the "Pope Property").
1.2
PLANNING CONCEPT AND VALUE
A plan for future buildout of the Pope Property within the Port Ludlow MPR
promotes growth management and planning objectives of the County, including
reasonably priced housing; innovative and sensitive land development with clustering and
critical area tracts; environmental protection; creative mix of resort, commercial and
residential uses; and sustainable economic vitality.
1.3 RECITALS
1.3.1 The Washington State legislature finds that the lack of certainty in
the approval of development projects can result in a waste of public and private
resources, escalate housing costs for consumers and discourage the commitment to
comprehensive planning which would make maximum efficient use of resources at the
least economic cost to the public. RCW 36.70B.170.
1.3.2 Jefferson County is a municipal corporation under the laws of the
State of Washington with authority to enact laws and enter into agreements to promote
the health, safety and welfare of its citizens, including the approval ofland use plans and
development.
/Ie
devagmtfinal
February 11, 2000
LOG ITEM
#.J ;f6
!::>agejO of 4l
1
\.'
11111111111- :~~~;...
J.".non Countv. WA POPE RESOURCES RUO 188.1.
.
1.3.3 The County is authorized by state law to enter into a development
agreement that will set forth the requirements for future development in the Port Ludlow
MPR. RCW 36.70B.170.
1.3.4 Port Ludlow has been designated formally as a Master Planned
Resort, as defmed in RCW 36.70A.362, in the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan
adopted on August 28, 1998, in Resolution No. 72-98.
1.3.5 The County has allocated and reserved from its population forecast
prepared by the state Department of Community, Trade and Economic Development
2250 residential dwelling units (at buildout) to the entire Port Ludlow MPR, including
Pope Property. Residential dwelling units do not include transient, resort units or
commercial properties.
1.3.6 In keeping with the Growth Management Act's purpose of
promoting wise use ofland through coordinated planning efforts, the Jefferson County
Countywide Planning Policies and the Comprehensive Plan anticipate completion of the
resort/residential community of Port Ludlow.
.
1.3.7 This Agreement relates to the future development of real property
owned by Pope or any of its subsidiary icompaniesJocatedinJefferson County,
Washington. The Pope Property is comprised of approximately 1200 acres of land and is
part of the Port Ludlow MPR.
1.3.8 The Port Ludlow MPR has a variety of designated uses including
residential, resort, community facilities, Village Commercial Center, open space' and
recreational areas, including a golf course and marina.
1.3.9 The coordination ofland use decision-making involving large land
areas, such as Port Ludlow, provide unique opportunities for the benefit of the County
and the existing and future residents of the Port Ludlow MPR.
1.3.10 The County has determined that the coordinated planning of Port
Ludlow furthers the goals of the County, as reflected in the Countywide Planning Policies
and the Comprehensive Plan.
1.3.11 The parties to this Agreement acknowledge that the Zoning
Ordinance for the Port Ludlow MPR is in conformance with the standards set forth in the
Countywide Planning Policies and the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan and is
consistent with the goals and requirements of the Growth Management Act.
1.3.12 As of the date of this Agreement, Port Ludlow has approximately
.
devagmtfinal
February II. 2000
LOG ITEM
#J~~
Page --LL- ofJiL
2
IIIIIIIIIIII:?~~;~
Je"erlon County, WA POPE RESOURCES RUO III."
\.
.
1791 developed homes, condominiums and platted lots, as well as a small resort, marina
and commercial center. All parties acknowledge there is a development cap for the Port
Ludlow MPR set forth in the zoning chapter as "Measurement ERUs" (Measurement
Equivalent Residential Units or MERUs). Total allowed development within the Port
Ludlow MPR is 2,575 MERUs, with a residential unit maximum of 2,250, as set forth in
zoning chapter adopted by the Board of County Commissioners on October 4, 1999 in
Ordinance 08-1004-99.
1.3 .13 Buildout of the Pope Property is expected to occur over the next
ten to twenty years. Pope, Jefferson County, Port Ludlow community groups and
members of the public at large will invest considerable time in the County permit and
review process for the future buildout of the Pope Property. A development agreement is
an appropriate way of providing certainty over time with respect to permitted densities,
uses, development standards and other aspects of the de!elopment review process.
1.3.14 The parties to this Agreement acknowledge the separate document.
entitled Memorandum of Understanding regarding the provision of sewer service (Sewer
MOU), which document was approved by the Board of County Commissioners on
October 4, 1999.
1.3.15 Pursuant to RCW 36.70B.200, this Agreement was the subject ofa
fifteen (l5}daycomment period, which ran fromApril 19, 2000 to May 5
~. 2COOO, .~~ a hearing wMa' as he lId b2eofOoroethThe JeBffersdon fCCounty Bcoard o~ C:ounty . d d
' J OmmISSloners on y , . e oar 0 .. ounty OmmISSloners revtewe 'an
took official action adopting this Agreement on May 8 ,2000.
2. POPE PROPERTY ELEMENTS
2.1. POPE PROPERTY
The Pope Property consists of approximately 1200 acres. The Pope Property is
described with particularity in Exhibit 1. A map showing the location of the Pope
Property within the Port Ludlow MPR is attached as Exhibit 2.
2.2 PORT LUDLOW MPR DESIGNATED ZONES
The Port Ludlow MPR includes the following designated zones, with permitted
uses as defined in Port Ludlow MPR Zoning Chapter of the Jefferson County Code,
attached as Appendix A hereto:
· Single Family (MPR-SF)
· Single Family Tracts (MPR-SFT)
· Multiple Family (MPR-MF)
(i.
devagmtfinal
February II, 2000
LOG ITEM
# -.l ?/g
Page-LL-- _of-S.+-
3
3
.
.
e
/
.
.
i.
.
:.
.
EXHIBIT "3"
LAND USE DESIGNATIONS
---- MASTER PLANNED RESORT BOUNDARY
~ RESORT COMPLEX!COMMUNITY FACILlllES!
I!I!lll!!lIIIli RECREAllON (MPR-RC!CF !R)
I::::::~ VILLAGE COMMERCIAL CENTER (MPR- VCC)
[:::::::::::::::::::1 RECREA llON AREA (MPR-RA)
W. MUL llPLE FAMILY (MPR-MF)
1\1 SINGLE FAMILY (MPR-SF)
I~~~~~~~~I SINGLE FAMILY TRACTS (MPR-SFT)
~ OPEN SPACE RESERVE (MPR-QSR)
n
SCALE : 1--2000'
LAND USE DESIGNATIONS TAKEN FROM
JEFFERSON COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE
PLAN DATED AUGUST 28, 1998
LAND USE MAP
Ow Name: zone-bw3.dw
#(~
}:>ageJ ~
ofL
otes
.
4
.
.
LOG tTEM:ivl Page 11 of 26
#_t ?Jf6
Page~of~
.
i
'\ "
:( "
\.
ORDINANCE NO. 08-1004-99 repealing the interim development controls of Ordinance 10-12/4-98 and adopting new development
regulations for the Port Ludlow Planned Resort
SECTION 3.30 MUL TI-FAMIL Y ZONE (MPR-MF)
Section 3.301 Purpose: This zone recognizes, maintains and promotes multifamily housing
opportunities within the MPR, in part to provide lower-cost housing units.
Section 3.302 Permitted Uses: The following uses are permitted within the MPR-MF zone:
1. Multi-family dwelling~ts including condominiums.. .
2. Assisted-Living, congregate care, and long-term care facilities.
3. Accessory uses and structures, such as garages, carports, storage buildings, pools, and
recreation buildings supporting the residential environment, when clearly subordinate
and supplemental to a permitted use.
4. Home-based business.
5. Trails, parks, open space and playgrounds approved through a platting or development'
review process.
6. Single family attached (townhouse style) or detached dwelling units.
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 ofa platting or development review
process.
Above-ground electrical substations, sewage pump stations and treatment plants, and
potable water tanks or storage facilities.
f;. 2.
Section 3.304 Heiebt 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 and Dimensional Requirements: Bulk and dimensional requirements shall
be as provided in Table MPR-MF below. Single family residential uses are subject to the
requirements of section 3.10; provided that conditional use approval shall not be required for single
family attached development. .
TABLE MPR-MF
Density Minimum Minimum Front Side Rear Maximum
Lot Area Lot Yard Yard Yard Impervious
Width Setback . Setback Setback Coverage
10 DUlAC N/A N/A UBC UBC UBC 55%
SECTION 3.40 RESORT COMPLEX/COMMUNITY FACILITIES ZONE (MPR-RC/CF)
Section 3.401 Purpose: The MPR-RC/CF zone provides amenities and services associated with a
resort and the surrounding community, and supports existing residential uses. Uses allowed in the
I.
~
,. .'
ORD INANCE NO. 08-1004-99 repealing the interim development controls of Ordinance /0-/2 J 4-98 and adopting new development
regulations for the Port Ludlow Planned Resort
RC/CF zone recognize the recreational nature of the resort and include the existing and planned
resort complex, as well as limited permanent residential uses, and non-resort community facilities
including a beach club and Kehele Park. KehelePark is located north of the actual resort area and
serves as a community park.
Section 3.402 Permitted and Conditional Uses: The following uses are permitted Within the MPR-
RC/CF zone. Within the resort area, for resort facilities only, the uses set forth below are further
described and limited by the Resort Plan, as set forth in section 3.901.
RC/CF USE CHART
".
USES RC/CF RC/CF
Resort Area Kehe/e Park
Hotels (Inn) and appropriate associated uses
Conference Center/Banquet Facility
Parks and Trails as part of a platting or development review
process
Recreation Centerl Club/ Yacht Club
RestaurantILounge/Bar
Marina'''.'' ..
Seaplan(Dock C
Helipad for Medical.Emergencies Only C
Resort Related Retail Use
Library~useur.n
Interpretive and Informational Kiosks .'
Community Organization Activity Facilities, e.g. LMC Beach club
and R V storage properties
Multifamily and Single Family Residential Structures (10 du/ac)
Tennis Courts (indoor or outdoor)
Amphitheater
CHART INTERPRETATION: a means a use is permitted;
"e" means conditional use approval is required.
";.
(e
,
3.403 Non-Resort Uses and Properties: Those non-resort controlled uses and activities which
currently exist within the RC/CF zone are recognized as valid uses and activities and may continue,
expand, or change in accordance with the provisions of this ordinance. These non-resort uses,
activities, and properties are not regulated by the provisions for the Resort Plan as set forth in
section 3.90.
LOG ITEM
#-l3€6 Page 12 of 26
Page-.l~ _of~
("
-.
.a!.~
~:'
~.: ~
.
Specialty Food Stores
Clinics (Medical, Dental,
Mental Health, Chiropractic)
Social Services
Police Facility
~
ORDINANCE NO. 08-1004-99 repealing the interim development controls of Ordinance /0-/2/4-98 and adopting new development
regulations for the Port Ludlow Planned Resort
Section 3.404 Hei&ht Restrictions: No building or structure shall be erected, enlarged or
structurally modified to exceed 35 feet in height, excluding roof projections, as measured by UBC
standards, except that Hotels and associated Conference Center facilities, as specified in the Resort
Plan (see section 3.90) may be allowed to a height not exceeding 50 feet as measured by UBC
standards when the Jefferson County Fire District (#3) finds that fire-fighting and life safety issues
have been adequately addressed.
Section 3.405 Bulk and Dimensional Requirements: Bulk and dimensional requirements for
commercial uses in the MPR-RC/CF zone are contained in the table below. Single family residential
uses are subject to the requirements of section 3.10; provided that conditional use approval shall not
be required for single family attached development. Multi-family uses and structures are subject
to the requirements of section 3.30.
. ,
Density
Minimum Minimum
Lot Area Lot Width
N/A N/A
TABLE MPR-RC/CF
Front Yard Side Yard
Setback Setback
UBC UBC
Rear Yard Maximum Impervious
Setback Coverage
UBC 50%
N/A
'../.,'.' ,
,\
.r
SECTION 3.50 VILLAGKCOMMERCIAL CENTER ZONE (MPR- VC)
Section.3.501' Purpose: The MPR- VCzoneprovides retail and commercial uses and other services
to meet the needs of resort visitors and community residents. In addition to retail and commercial
uses or services; other uses such as government or community offices and facilities, long-term care
facilities, residential uses, and visitor services are permitted within this zone.
Section 3.502 Permitted Uses: The following uses are permitted in the MPR-VC zone:
RETAIL
Bank and Financial
Institutions
Variety Stores
Grocery Stores
Hardware Stores
Pharmacy and Drug Stores
Liquor Stores (state)
Personal Medical Supply
Stores
Florist Shops
MPR- VC PERMITTED USES
SERVICES
Travel Consultant
OTHER
Art Gallery
Dry Cleaner/ Laundry
Barber and Beauty Shops
General/Business Offices
Professional Offices
Real Estate
Day Care Center
Theater . .
Post Office
Recycling Drop-off Facility
Library
Museum
Community Center
Fire Station
LOG ITEM Page 13 of 26
#.J;~
Page --4- of <.f ~ - _
'f.
LOG ITElv. Page 19 of 26
# --1.~ f6
Page l7 of err
~
ORDINANCE NO. 08-100<&.99 repealing the interim development controls of Ordinance /0-12/4-98 and adopting new development
regulations for the Port Ludlow Planned Resort .
the MERU allocation associated with the use, plat, preliminary plat, or building permit
for as long as the use or plat exists or the preliminary plat or building permit maintains
its active status.
2. The Village Commercial Center zone shall have an initial allocation of 55 new MERUs.
3. The Resort Complex/Community Facilities zone shall have an initial alloca.tion of 3 new
MERUs on the resort property.
4. The Recreation Area zone (golf course pro shop and golf support facilities) shall have an
initial allocation of 41. new MERUs.
5. All remaining MERUs and any MERUs that revert to unallocated sUitus pursuantto
sections 3.803(7) or (8), are available for future residential or commercial development,
With no limitation, assignment or reservation.
6. This allocation of MER Us shall be updated by the Department of Community
Development as set forth in section 3.802. .
(;.
SECTION 3.90 RESORT DEVELOPMENT
This section describes the "Resort Plan" for facilities to be located in the Resort
Complex/Community Facilities zone.. sets out a required environmental review process for any
future resort development, and provides processes for reviewing major or minor revisions to the
Resort Plan.. These provisions apply to the resort and associated development whether on resort
. owned property or on other property. These provisions do not apply to any future development
proposed solely by and for the LMC, SBCA, or any other community association.
Section 3.901 Resort Plan: The Resort Plan for future development of properties in the MPR-
RC/CF zone shall be limited and shall not exceed the scope of development set forth below and
shall include no uses except those setforth below, unless a major revision is approved (see
section 3.905). Changes to this Resort Plan that decrease the sizes noted below are allowed. As
- ~-
of the effective date of this ormnance, the Resort Plan shall be as set forth herein. -
1. Gross square feet of resort development: 498,300.
2. Hotel Guest Rooms: 275
3. Restaurants - total square feet: 59,000
One 200 seat year round restaurant
One 125 seat seasonal restaurant (near marina)
Also includes hotel lobby and registration area,
Spa area, kitchens, offices and storage rooms.
4. Lounge, one year round, 125 seats, square feet: 5,000
5. Resort retail square feet: 2,500
Plus associated storage square feet: 1,400
6. Conference Center, associated with and physically
part of Hotel buildings, squar~ feet: 22,000
Plus support areas and storage squarefeet 8,000
~
ORDI;'IlANCE NO. 08-1004-99 repealing the interim development controls of Ordinance /0-/2/4-98 and adopting new development
regulations for the Port Ludlow Planned Resort
7. Indoor tennis courts, square feet: 26,000
8. Indoor sports and pool complex, square feet: 13,500
9. Structured/underground parking, square feet: 119,000
10. Museum or Interpretive Center, square feet: 7,500
11. Support Buildings, square feet: ' 12,000
(Maintenance, Warehousing, Housekeeping)
12. Youth Center, square feet: 4,000
13. Marina expansion, slips: 100 slips.
14. Amphitheater.
15 . Yacht Club.
16. Four detached single family residences and one five-unit townhome structure, provided
that these structures are not included in or limited by the gross square feet of
development for the Resort Plan noted in 3.901(1) above.
17. All existing townhomes, provided that these structures are not included in or limited by
'the gross square feet of development for the Resort Plan noted in 3.901(1).
're
Building heights and impervious surface limits shall apply as set forth in section 3.40. Surface
parking in addition to the structured or underground parking noted above may be provided.
Miscellaneous support areas including laundry facilities and administrative offices may be
included, but shall not increase the gross square footage for the resort complex, except that the
minor revision process may be used to permit these facilities with up to a 5% increase in gross
square footage.
(e
,
Section 3.902 Permit Process for Resort Development:
1. A project level Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (SEIS) analyzing the
resort plan is required prior to issuance of building permits for any new resort
development. Environmental 'review of the Resort Plan shall not be piecemealed or
broken into small segments. The applicant may choose to develop a new Environmental
Impact Statement rather than a Supplement. '
2. Notice of application for environmental review of the Resort Plan shall be provided to all
persons on the Port Ludlow MPR Roster established by the Department pursuant to
section 1.60, as well as to any other persons or agencies entitled to notice pursuant to the
County's Procedures Ordinance.
3. Actual building permit plans or construction drawings are not required during the SEIS
process. Architectural drawings including a detailed site plan, and architectural sketches
or drawings showing approximate elevations, sections, and floor plans are required,
however, to ensure that the SEISconsiders project-level details.
4. The Department of Community Development may impose mitigating conditions or issue
a denial of some or all of the Resort Plan based on the environmental review and using
authority provided pursuant to the State Environmental Policy Act, RCW 43.21C. A
LOG ITEM
# .\ ~eg
Page _\<6 .of!1L
Page 20 of 26
/_u,
~"..
,
"t
"~'..':
.t,f>:
ie'
1
\ ,,)
f.."
4.
fe
" '
ORDINANCE NO. 08-1004-99 repealing the interim development controls of Ordinance 10-/214-98 and adopting new development
regulations for the Port Ludlow Planned Resort
report detailing ,any such conditions or denials shall be issued within 30 days of issuance
of the Final SEIS, and prior to issuance of any Resort Plan building permits. This report
and the conditions, approvals or denials contained therein shall be treated as an
administrative decision of the Department under the County's Procedures Ordinance
(Type A decision) and shall be appealable to the county hearing examiner. ,
5. Following completion of the SEIS and the Department report (>n the Resort Plan,
building permits may be issued, following appropriate plan review, for projects analyzed
in the SEIS. If the Department report is appealed, no permits shall be issued until the
administrative appeal is resolved.
6. Actual resort development may be undertaken in phases, but only following completion
of review and approval of a full resort buildout plan through the SEIS process. A
phasfng schedule may be proposed as part of the environmental review or inay be
, developed at a later date..
7. In conjunction with the environmental review process, the Department shall calculate the
total MERUs needed to support the Resort Plan. This calculation shall also establish the
Net New MERUs needed for resort development. These Net New MERUs shall be
transferred from those initially allocated pursuant to section 3.805 to new residential
development on the resort property, and shall be removed from the count of available
, MERUsfor as long as the resort use or its development rights exist. .
Section 3.903 Requirement to vacate or withdraw existin~ or vested, residential
development ri~hts. Concurrent with issuance of any permit for new resort development, any
existing, pending, or vested development rights for projects or parts or phases of projects that:
1) have not been developed, and
2) are located in the RC/CF zone, and
3) are not included in the described Resort Plan
shall be withdrawn, vacated or otherwise permanently released. For any subdivision that has
, been approved and recorded, but only partially developed, a plat alteration shall be applied for
and processed as set forth in state law and in applicable county ordinances. Nothing in this
ordinance is intended to affect the process or the specific outcome of any application for such a
plat alteration. ' ,
Section 3.904 Environmental Review for Resort Plan Development:
1. Detailed environmental review for future resort development shall be required pursuant
to RCW 43.21C.031 and the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA)Rules of WAC
197-11. A project level Supplement to the Port Ludlow Development Program EIS
(fma!ed April 1993) shall be prepared, or a new stand-alone EIS may be prepared. Prior
to defining the scope of the document, a public scoping hearing shall be held.
2. The scope of the SEIS or EIS shall include, but not be'limited to, the. following elements:
a. Earth, including grading, erosion control, and dredging;
LOG ITEM
#-1,3~
Page--13-of~
Page 21 of 26
,~
ORDINANCE NO. 08-1004-99 repealing the interim development controls of Ordinance 10-/2 }4.98 and adopting new development
regulations for the Port Ludlow Planned Resort
3.
4.
(.
5.
3.905
1.
2.
(e
b.Water, including runoff and water quality issues, including those associated with
marina expansion, and public water supply;
c. Plants and Animals, including impacts on fish and wildlife migration and
threatened or endangered species;
d. Land and Shoreline Use, including relationship to existing land use.plans and
estimated population, housing, light and glare, aesthetics, noise with respect to
potential amphitheater uses, recreation, and historic and cultural preserVation;
e. Transportation, including trip generation, traffic congestion, traffic systems,
vehicle and pedestrian hazards, parking and spill-over parking; and
f. Public services and utilities, including water, storm water~ sewer, and fire (as may
be related to building heights in excess of35').
The 'Land Use element of the document (see 2D above) shall provide information about
expected occupancy rates, size of conferences (expected attendance), any possibilities for
expanded conference center use of resort facilities such as the indoor tennis courts, as
well as possible conference center use of other community facilities or privately owned
properties.
The Utility element (see 2F above) shall review information on aU affected utility
< systems, including sewer and water systems monitoring. The effectiveness of such
monitoring shall be evaluated. Supplements or changes to the monitoring and reporting
systems shall be considered if necessary to ensure that water quality and water supply
ar~1adequately protected and impacts to natural resources minimized.
,This preliminary scope is based on the described Resort Plan. Use of the term
"including" shall mean "including but not limited to." Other elements, issues, and
specific levels of detail may be included based on information available at the time the
Resort Plan development application is submitted. Elements noted above may be
combined in the EIS analysis to reduce duplication and narrow the focus on potentially
significant adverse impacts.
Revisions to Resort Plan:
Any proposed changes to the MPR boundary or zone changes within the MPR shall
require a Comprehensive Plan amendment and related zoning action. Such changes are
outside the scope of the Revision processes described below and in sections 3.906 and .
3.907. The County may approve an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan only if all
requirements of the Growth Management Act (RCW 36.70A) are fulfilled
The County shall accept building permits only for projects included in and consistent
with the Resort Plan. A revision to the existing Resort Plan shall be submitted to the
County for approval prior to the acceptance of any proposal that is inconsistent with the
Resort Plans set forth in this ordinance. Upon approval of a revision, all subsequent
development proposals shall be consistent with the revised Resort Plan and development
regulations.
~ rvt=M
LOG iT~ Page 22 of 26
#-1 ~~-r;r
Page J:.u oi1[
!" ".
."i~
,._u
-'
.
" /
ORDINANCE NO. 08-1004-99 repealing the interim development controls of Ordinance 10-12/4.98 and adopting new development
regulations for the Port Ludlow Planned Resort
3. Proposed revisions to the Resort Plan shall be submitted to the Department of
Community Development and the DCD Director will detennine whether the proposal
constitutes a major or minor revision. Upon making a determination, the proposed
revision shall follow the appropriate process for plan revisions as outlined in Sections
3.906 or 3.907.
, Section 3.906 Major Revis'ions: Revisions to the Resort Plan that will result in a substantial
change to the resort including: changes in use, increase in the intensity of use, or in the size,
scale, or density of development; or changes which may have a substantial impact on the
environment beyond those reviewed in previous environmental docUIJlents, are considered to be
major revisions and will require application for a revised Resort Plan.
(.'..,..',.'.'
I
,
'c.
1..
Application for a Major Revision to the Resort Plan.
An application shall be prepared describing the proposed revision in relation to the
approved Resort Plan and providiIig a framework for review, analysis and mitigation of
the revised development activity proposed. The Resort Plan revision proposal shall
include the following information:
a A description of how the revised Resort Plan would further the goals and policies
set forth in theCoD4prehensive Plan.
b. A description of how the Resort Plan, revision complements the existing resort
facilities of the MPR.
c. A description of the design and functional features of the, Resort Plan revision,
setting out how the revision provides for unified development, integrated site
design ahd protection of natural amenities.
d. A listing of proposed additional uses and/or proposed changes to density and
intensity of uses within the resort, and a discussion of how ,these changes meet the
needs of residents of the MPR and patrons of the resort.
e. A description and analysis of the environmental impacts associated with the
proposed revision, inc1udingan analysis of the cumulative impacts of both ~e
proposed revision and the approved Resort Plan, and their effects on surrounding
properties and/or public facilities.
f. A description of how the proposed Resort Plan revision is integrated with the
overall MPR and any features, such as connections to trail systems, natural
systems or greenbelts, that have been established to retain and enhance the
character of the resort and the overall MPR.
g. A description of the intended phasing of development projects.
h. Maps, drawings, illustrations, or other materials necessary to assist in
understanding and visualizing the design and use of the completed proposed
, development, its facilities and services, and the protection of critical areas.
1. ' A calculation of estimated new demands on capital facilities and services and
their relationship to the existing resort and MPR demands, including but not
LOG tTEM Page 23 of 26
#J~~
Page_~A Of~
.
, /
.i.
..~.
.{e
ORDINANCE NO. 08-1004-99 repealing the interim development controls of Ordinance /0-/2/4-98 and adopting new development
regulations for the Port Ludlow Planned Resort
2.
limited to: transportation, water, sewer and storm water facilities; and a
demonstration that sufficient facilities and services to support the development
are available or will be available at the time development permits are applied for.
Major Revision Process
Major Revisions shall be processed as a hearing examiner decision (Type B), with a
required public hearing prior to the decision. Public notice of the application, the written
decision, and appeal opportunities shall be provided to all persons on the Port Ludlow
MPR Roster (see section 1.60) and such other persons or agencies as required by the
County Procedures Ordinance. Any proposed major revision involving a change to the
boundaries of the RC/CF zone shall require a Comprehensive Plan amendment (a Type C
county commissioners decision) prior to any decision on the Resort Plan amendment.
Decision Criteria: The hearing examiner may approve a major revision to the Resort '
Plan only if all the following criteria are met:
a.The proposed revision would further the goals and policies set forth in the
Comprehensive Plan. ,
b. No unmitigated significant adverse environmental impacts would be created by
the proposed revision.
c. The revision is consistent with all applicable development regulations, including
. j~~.J(, those established for critical areas.
d.J;'i;"'- On-site and off-site infrastructure (including but not limited to water, sewer,
H"stonn water and transportation facilities) impacts have been fully considered and
mitigated.
e. The proposed revision complements the existing resort facilities, meets the needs
of residents and patrons, and provides for unified development, integrated site
design, and protection of natural amenities.
i.~ .
3.
Section 3.907 Minor Revisions
1. Minor Revisions. The County recognizes that the Resort Plan may require minor
changes to facilities and services in response to changing conditions or market demand '
and that some degree of flexibility for the resort is needed. Minor revisions are those that
do not result in a substantial change to the intent or purpose of the Resort Plan in effect'
and which: '
a. Involve no more than a five percent (5%) increase in the overall gross square
footage of the Resort Plan.
b. Will not have a significantly greater impact on the environment and/or facilities
than that addressed in the development plan.
c. Do not alter the boundaries of the approved plan.
~d. Do not propose new uses or uses that modify the recreational nature and intent of
the Resort. -
Ie
'1
l,~ __
LOG ITEM
#-l ~ f6
Pane ~ of~
Page 24 of 26
SECTION 5
REPEALER
(./-' ,
\ ;
ORDINANCE NO. 08-1004-99 repealing the interim development controls of Ordinance /0-12/4-98 and adopting new development
regulations for the Port Ludlow Planned Resort
2. Minor Revision Process:
Applications for minor revisions shall be submitted to, and reviewed by the Jefferson
County Department of Community Development to determine if the revisions are ,
consistent with the existing Resort Plan and Resort Plan SEIS, the Jefferson County
Comprehensive Plan and other pertinent documents. Those proposals that satisfy the
above-referenced criteria shall be deemed a minor plan revision and may be
idiiiimstrativelyapprove<f(as- aUfype-Adeclslon-iiitder the county's Proe,edures
Ordinance) by the Director of the Department of Community Development. Public
notice of the application, the written decision, and appeal opportunities shall be provided
to all persons on the Port Ludlow MPR Roster (see section 1.60) and such other persons
or agencies as required by the County Procedures Ordinance. Those revisions that do
not comply with ,the provisionS contained within this Section shall be deemed a major.
revision, subject to the provisions outlined in Section 3.906 above. .
SECTION 4
SEVERABILITY
'.'., ,
t{ ,
"Severability: ,If any section, subsection, or other, portion of this Ordinance is, for any reason,
held invalid or unconstitutional by any court of com petent jurisdiction, such section, subsection,
or portion thereof shall be deemed a separate portion of this ordinance and such holding shall not
affect the validity of the remaining portions of this Ordinance.
Repealer: Effective immediately upon its adoption, this Ordinance repeals and replaces
Ordinance No. 10-1214-98.
SECTION 6
EFFECTIVE PERIOD
Effective Period: This ordinance shall become effective on the 4th day of October, 1999.
'-r.
LOG ITEM
#~~
Pager~~ _ofq{
Page 25 of 26
~
ORDINANCE NO. 08-1004-99 repealing the interim development controls of Ordinance [0-/214-98 and adopting new development
regulations for the Port Ludlow Planned Resort
Section 7
ADOPTION
Adopted by the Jefferson County Board of Commissioners this 4th day of
October, 1999.
JEFFERSON COUNTY
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
~.u
Dan Harpol~, C .
',- APPROVED AS TO FORM:
$.
;:~'t;!~~J~~:;d
.
LOG ITEM
#.J~ t6 Page 26 of 26
.Paqe~of~
i!::.~-~.:
5
.
.
.
.
rJ1
~
~
rJ1
Q
~,.-....
~~
~~
~~
o~
If)
~~
~'
~
>
~
.
i.
LRP ITEM
~~:.;q: of!lL
~ ,
.
.
~
o
rfl
~
o
~
rfl
~~
~~
~
u~
CI~
~~
~ffi
~CI
~w
~~
~
o
~
~
~
rfJ.
00
V)
~
o
~
~
~ <
~ j ~
~ ~ ~ ~
~ 55 r/1 :> @
r/1 ~ ~ ~ 0
~ 6' ~ S ~ ~
S ~ ~ ~ g 7:
~ ~ B H ~ ~
<I" 8 ~_ ~ifJ~~ ~
H .... f-< ~ "E--< >-<......, "
E-< ;:::;' g '" Z >-< :>-<;j ~
~ ~~;~~~~~~ ffi
~ E~~~~~~~~ ~
p:::: ~:>-< ~ 8 ..... ~ ~ ~:::> ~
~ ~~C)"'!z: r/1 ~ ~ E-<~
~ t;:I~",~~ ~ lZl ~O g; ~~
> ~ ~ C:',:>< Q 0 ~ ;;> ....... on
~ ~~~e~~~~3 ~~
~ fB~o~C'1::q_z~ ~~
<<E-<....:l~~Sl u....:::> ~ ~
~~ ~~~~C5 ~ ~ ~ ~oo ~~
E-< < E-< ~ ~ '" ~ r/1 E--< ~ s:J~ ~ ~
ZE-< z~"''''E-< 0 0 9 UE--< ~u
:s ~ ~ 00 · · ~ p.... E--< ':'< > 7:
pa~:1;on ~ I I I o~
8~ I I I p.... .
.
.
.;
."
ifJ.
~
rA
rFl
Q
~
::q
~
~
o
r/l
~
~
o
~
~
~
o
~
~
~
~
1--4
>-
~
.
o
~
~
~ u
S ~
23 8 ~
<Y~ ~
~ ~ ~
8 ~ ~
~ 0 ~
~ ~ ~ u
~ rT'1 0 ~
:> 5:l l-4 ~
~ ~ ~ s
o~>....
ga ~~
~ ~ Q ~
o ~ ~ ~
~~rJJo~
~ J-I-4 Z
~ < ~ 0
~ ~ ~ U
~ 0 ~ ~
~ z ~ ~
~ r/J ~ 0
:> ~ ~ ~
~ ~ ~ ~
?2~~?2
. .
LOG ITEM'
#~.J3~
Page~ 7 _ of~
~~
o~
#'. ~ ~
~ ~
~, ~ ~ ~
8~~ ~O~
urJJo ZUO
0::J< o~~
~~Z ~?2~
~3j' d~~
~~~ :>o~
~<~ <~o
~~i5 ~e:~
~ ~ ~ rT'1 ~ ~ ~
0000 ~7~
z8t)o ~~~
r/J~<u o'Zo
>-<~~~ t-< ~
~~g?2 ~?2~
~Q25~ <~~
?2~~O ~~~
~ ~~o
(/}~~rJJ ~~ (/)
~o?2~ ~~~z
~Q~~~~~~
t-<~~~~>:;ES
~~BS~cs~g
~<<CY~~~r/J
~~~~~~o<
. .
.
~
Q
~
~
~
r/J
~
~
(/)
~
:>
~~
r/JO
I~
6~
~~
<~
~~
~O
~~
p:::~
<.~
~~
<~
~~
o~
Z~
r/J~
~~
8~
.
.'
~
o
~
~
~
~
z
o
u
'-'
r./)
~
~
r./)
Q
~
~
~
~
o
r./)
~
~
o
~
~
~
o
~
~
~
~
~
>-
~
~ 0 ~ g
-< f-< J:;L. ....:i
~ rT) ~ ~ ~ Q
~~ ~ O~;:J
~~ u ~o~ Z~~
A-. a::1 ffi Q ....:i Z Q 8 Z E--i
E--i< ~ Z <.0 ~ ~
[5> ~ :l z~u ~23~
r.n~ Z ~r./l <o~ E--iOO~
~~~ 0 ~~ Q~7 <z~
~~ffi ~ dZ Z~~ ~oo
~u~ ou U~ <~~ ~E=:~
f-<~~~::1 ~3 df-<-< ~23~
~O~:2@ ~~ ~~~ f-<~f;J
r/)~E--i bO-1 ~~ ~UOO r.nSH
~u~~. ~ ~8 Q~o '~o~
\".I~< z~ ~r./l ~z~ ~~~
~ -<::.r:: ~ ~ ~ ga Q CJ ~ ~ ~ 2
~~E--i ~> ~~ ~VJ~ ~'-'r-'
uo~ o~ 80 NooO ~<~
f-<>~ ~f-< ~~ :s~~ U~~~~uf-<
< 0 E--i ~ d,.,..., .A4 .A422 ~
~,J~~~~~~~ ~
~~~ ~6 j~ ~~~~ ~~~~
~E--i~ ~~ ~r./l oE--iu~z EjOQS
~~oz ~~ ~f;3 zQo~ ~>-<EB~
u~ d~ 6~ ~oo~ ~U~d
S~~ ~"" ~ga ~!;i~~ E=:~~:$
~~~o ~~ ~U S2~~;:J r/)a~. H
-<Or/)uo~~~rg-<O'j:.Llj:.Llf-<~
~~~ I ~~~~~~~~
.
.
.
.
.
LOG ITEM. .
#--L~'6
Page 2<6 of~
...
.'
.
..---.
o
~
~
z
~
~
z
o
u
'-"
rFl
~
.~
rFl
Q
~
o
rFl
~
~
d
~
~
~
d
~
~
~
~
~
>
~
.
1-1
~ ~ ~ ~
l--l 0 ,~ r:./J ~ ~
~ r--~ ~2 0>-1
iLl 0 0 >-< 0 C/}C/} ~
~ ~~ ~~ <Vl~
OZ~t4 Qz8~Q
Z ~ ~ ~~~
o~ ~g ~<~
~~,~ <~U)~~
g z~ ~~ ~o:::l
ES80 ~~~ f@
L"~ ~L"~UZ
r:./J Z ~ ., l--l
l--l U ~~ <~<
~ ~~ iLl 0 ~~~
~ ~~ ~: ~~>-1
o ~~' ~ H 1-1 ~ <
r-- ;:O~~;: ~S~
~ ~gaz r:./J~ j:Ll~~
~ ~~e ~~ ~~~
~ ~~r:./J l--l~ ZQ
~ ~~~ ~~ <~~
b ~ <. >-< ~ ~ ~: ~ ~
r:./J ~o~ ~ 1-1~~
l--lOZ~~b~ ~
~ ZQ~ ~O se2:i
~ g~~ 2:i ~>-1e3s
~ r-- ~ Q Q C/} .....
~ 3~5 8~ ~ju~
. .
.
.
LOG ITEM
p~f~'1 _O~
r:./J
~
~
r:./J r:./J
~ ~~
~ ~~ ~
<Z~~
~OQ<
QI-1~~
>-1~2:i~
~><~
~~~~
~~Z~
uOO~
~7:U~
~~J:I.l~
S3~~o
UO<~
~~oo~
<r:./JZ~
~oo<~
r:./J 0 ~. U5
j, ..2:i ~ rg
~,.,,'~ 0 u,
~~3~
[;3Q~~
Q r:./J~ ~ <
~~<~
duC/}~
~r--6r--
~~I-1C/J
Qr:./J~~
O~U~
ZO~O
.
.
'ie
~
o
~
~
~
~
Z
o
u
'-"
rFl
~
~
rFl
~
~
o
rFl
~
3
~
S
o
~
0::
S$
~
~
>-
'~
, '.','..
t ....
d~ ~
~ ~ J~~ ~~~ <r:u
~~ ~~re ~~~ ~~
~~. ~n~~ ~~~ ~;2
00 :<t:ZE-< ~mm ~E-<
~Zl"""\ ;E<~ ~zQ ~Q
~I"""\~ ~Qo O~..J~
~~~ ~~~< 7>-lOU ..r./1
~ Z f--4 ~ ~ r:.L1 H f--4 ,.J ~
z<e:U ~61l;~ mUo f]~
om::J ~E-<~<e: ~~E-< ........u
8~~ mE-<~b <e:~m 7:
0::80 <e:UE-<o ::J.QVl ~H
.Q~U .Q~Om ~~~ <e:2
~~~ ~~Q~ >~z< z~
Or/J~ ;::J~Z~ ~ ~;-I
:sZ~ ~<e:~ m~<e: >:-J.Q
E-< 0 <e: ga ~ ~~ E-< ;;:: <e: 0 ~ ~
() ;z; ~O~ E-<~. ~ ~ ~ 0 Z rfi ~
~i$<e: <e:............. Z<e:rfi @~
N~~ ~;::Jzr/Jf--4 ~oo ~~
t;) ~ 0 ~ ~ rT) ~ ~ Q
\1../ f--4 ~ ~ po Z ~ ~ L...
Q f--4 r/J 0 >: r/J r/J 0 0 f--4 0 ~ r-'
Z 0 ~ ~ ~ 0"' ~ ~ ~ ~ r:Fl ~ ~
<e:zo 0 ~-< <e:E-< E-< Vl.Qm
Zrfiga ~~ffi~ ~~~~ ~~~
8~~ ~~~~ E}j~~f2 ~~~
<~~ I ~~ z~~~ ~~~
s~~ ~..~~~ ~~~~ ~~~
.
.
.
.
LO~ ITEM
p~~ ~() _o~
.:
~
Q
~
~
~
~
6
u
~
.
.
r.Fl
~
~
r.Fl
o
~
o
r.Fl
~
~
o
~
~
~
o
~
~
~
~.
~
>-
~
~ 0 0
~ ~ ~ 6
~ r./J~ < ~
p, E9~~o ~o
~ p,;S0~ ;Sz
:::>o~~ ~<
VJ U VJ 0 ~ < ....:I
~ Uo~O ~ >-<6
o 0 VJZ~t-<~
~ ~~2~ < do
~ --.... ....:IOu ::r: u Z
...... ....:I < ~ u < <
~ p, ...... p, ~ < J:.I.. VJ
~ (:;:l s.3 VJ ::r: ~ ....:I ~
~ ...... ...... ...... t-< i:Q < U
t:r:: t-<~~VJ 0 Zz
~ 7: "'" ....:l ...... t-< 0 ~
VJ ~;st-<~ VJ ~o
~ @8ffiffi gs ~~
s:@ C5@8;s 8 e3~
~~ t3zgst3 < ~o
~u ~o~~ u ~<
t;j 0 P-< N 0 ~ j....:l....:l
Z....:l gs>-<~~ ~ $~VJ
o~ u~oo P-< u>~
Z i:Q Z Z N ....:I ~ >-< ~
00 ~;8>-<< ~ ~<e:~
. ~ t-< 8 pa ....:I U ~ ;S i:Q 0
(] ~gs ~ ~ ~~ ~ 0 g ~
a< ~u;8 ~ u....:It:2
~~ ~~~o ~ ~g~
~S~~uuo ~
.
. .
.
LO~ ITEM
#--13~
Page~ot!1L
e}
.
o
~
z
o
~
rFJ
r/l
~
~~
~~
~5
~o
Zu
~z
~o
~rf1
o~
u~
~~
~g:;
~
~
o
u
e
o
r:/J z
;; ~ ~
Cl ~ 00 ffi
Z 0 .. ~ ~
~~ ^ CIJ ~
~~ ~ ~ V1 ~
~~ r:: 0 t::~ <
g5~~ Ci ~ ~o V1~
,-., 7. ~ ~ ::J ~
;;; Cl >=< 0 :;8 :: ~ Cl
~~ >< ~ ~~ ~~
~c.? ~ < ;;:~o ~~;g
9~ ~ Q o~ r:/J~o
~~ g5 Ej ~~ ~~N~
ga~ Cl ~ ~.~ Et Q~
00 Z ~ ~~ ~ ~~
~Vi ~ ~ ~o ~~~
~g ~A ~ filffi ~ ~z
dUZ ffi~ ~ ~~ f:S ~o
~ 0 ::;s c.? ~ E-< C'l >- ~ ::;s
... u ::;s < Cl Z \00 ~ ~ ,:l;
~ 0 ~ ~ 5~ ~ ~
8~ u88 ~~ ~~~
ffio~ t)~ ffi ~~ ...1 ~:Ez
>< ~..... z ~ J:<: ....:1 ~....:1 CIl <
~8d 0>< ~ d f.i:~~;;S ~ ~~
..... "-..!!l Vi.....:l z .<< ~ r.r:l ~ . ~ ~ ~
~~r:.nd~~~QO\~ ~~
~~~Z ~. ~.~~
U~~O ~ ~ ~E-1
O'~~ ~~ Ou I 8j
u ~ < r:.n r:.n
.
.
.
.
L~-9 ITErVl,
#J3()
Page3-Lof~
.
.
.
~
~
o
r./)
~
~
~
~~
~ffi
~~
~~
~o
o~
~~
00.>
~~
>Q
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
Qf5
~~
r./J 0 J:I.:l
< ~ u
~z
~ ~-<
ffi ~~
~ ~ 0
~ E-iu
o Z U
~f@ ~~
~oo ~~
Q Q u<
~ ~ ~~
~ ~ ~ "-l.;
,~~ ~ ~
Q ~ Q ~
~ 0 ~ 0
~~ ~oo
U ~ U~
o ~ 0 ~
~ Q ~ 0
I ~ I ~ rl-l
~t:O NZ'-'
~Q ~~~
<~ <~~
~~ ~~~
~~ ~~~
~C;I~>~
~~ ~CS~
.
.
LOG ITEM
#J3'6
Page ~~. of~
"
~~
~S
SS2
O~
u~
~ffi
~~
~Q
, Z
~<
<~
s:~
Q~
~~
~~
<~
J:I.:lU
~U
<<
~oo
~~
O~
d<
J:I.:l~
ZE-i
:~oo
M~~
~~~
>Ot)
~~J-'.l
~~<
<>~
~~~
~Q~
~Q<
~ZO
<<~
.
6
.
.
.
Individual Project Permitting Process
.,:./,..~~~'...
7)
Development Agreement
Memorandum of
Understandin
Individual Project Review
fe
he
~0)
,W~A~
H~~E
bt--5 I6tN 1 S
H ~Ae...
LG,G IT
#jb<6
Page~of~
7
.
.
'-
.
02/17/2004 11:19
3603794473
JEFF CO DCD
PAGE 82
(e
August 1, 2003
;~., v
....
Mr. Al Sca1.f, Director
Jefferson County Depar~t of Conmunity Detrelopnent
'621 Sheridan Road, . '
Port Townsend.., WA 98368
-< ~ Al,
The Port Ludlow 'Village Council:haS BUbni tted a stat~nt rega.rding the,
' soaping of the Enviro:rimental Im:pact. Statement' for the MPR-:RC/CF Zone' in the Port
Ludlow MFR. I want:ed to call your attenti~ personally to thx~ questions raised
iri the 2\.l11111larY of our statement that are no:t striotly rela.ted to soaping of the
, BIS.
(1) Can the lot designations stipulated in the 1993 approved plan for the
Ludlow Bay Village development be changed \oj'ithout further CountyapprovaJ.?
re:,
. ,
(2) Are certain of the platted lots in LudJ.ow ~ Village ,that lie
:Partially ,wi thin the lagoon act~lly buildable lots? If buildable, is
permission ~quired from the Department of, Ecology, Fish and Wildlife, or
other responsible environmental, agencies?
(3) Can the Port. Ludlow c01lJllUlli. ty be assured that Jefferson Crnmty will,
fi-naIl-y enforce the conditions that were set down in the 1993 Shoreline
Substantial Developnent. puinit and will the County monitor and insist on
,compliance wi t.h any new con4i tions imposed upon the ourrent proposal?
We would very much a.ppreciate it if your Department cou+d rese~h these
questions and provide us with timely answers. They are of, vi tal conoern to us
as we address the proposal for the final build.,..out of the MJ?R-.RC/CF Zone.
We will look fot'Ward to your answers.
~ ~~ re ;:re~
Sincerely,
kM~
::::!~. Nobl"". Chair
~/:Jevelopnent Con:ani ttee
Port Ludlow Village Council
tl~ I.
,'.... , /. h'" :,:i.. -
'". .. ..,....
.~~~';I
I (,.. -
,A.o ". .
,'... '
y, ~ ,~
(" f."~ I
\l<i, ~
tl~ . .
~,til, .
~
ie
JEffERSON COUNty
OEPT. OF COMMUNITY OEVELOPMEJIlT
# LOG 11f
Page ! of-/-
ITEM
"
".
v
8
.
.
.
JEFF CO DCD
PAGE 82
David Goldsmith
1820 Jefferson Street
PO Box 1220
Port Townsend, WA 98368
10) IE lC IE B \VIle ~
Ul1 1M' 0 III l1lJ
March 9, 2004
Port Ludlow Village Council
Larry Nobels~ Chair
81 Hanns Lane
Port Ludlow W A 98365
JEFFERSON COUN1Y
DEPT. OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
Re; Response to Concerns Raised at the Public Meeting on February 25, 2004
.
Dear Mr. Nobles and Members of the Port Ludlow Village Council:
This letter is a follow-up to five identified issues/con~ems raised at the February 25, 2004
meeting with the Board of County Conunissioners~ County staff, Port Ludlow Village Council
(pLVC) and members of the , public. The five issues raised are identified as follows: (1) over-
water construction of town homes, (2) Shoreline Substantial DevelopmentPennit (SDP91-017)
and the 51 co~ditions, (3) Wedgewood Short Plat tree cutting~ (4) two mooring buoys, and (5)
drainage/stonnwater.
The following paragraphs are an attempt to explain/clarify each of the identified issues:
1. Town homes: Over water construction of the town homes was reviewed by County and
State agencies during environmental and subdivision review of the plat of Ludlow Bay
Village. The pond is within 200 feet of the shoreline jurisdiction of Ludlow Bay but the
pond was considered a man-made feature from years ago' and therefore allowed the to'Yll
homes to be constructed over the water. The Assessor's Office lowered the ,property
taxes for several reasons: difficulty of over water construction requirements such as
engineering; the town homes adjacent to th~ bay have a better view; the town home lots
cannot be sold separately due to the zero lot line (a platted group of town home lots
would need to be purchased by someone to construct a town home before it could he sold
at which point ~e assessed values would be increased.)
2.
SDP91-017 and the 51 Conditions ofApprova1: A memo dated February 10,1994 from
James W. Pearso~ Associate Planner to .Mike Ajax, Building Official stated that "Pope,
Resources has demonstrated compliance with the permit conditions as they apply to
construction of the proposed Inn at Port Ludlow. You may therefore issue the referenced.
building permit." Additionally, on June 6~ 1994 before the Board of County
Commissioners (BOCC), Jerry Smith, Associate Planner reported that ~~all the conditions
related'to the preliminary long plat and shoreline permit have been met and that the
.
Phone (360)385~91 00 # --1 ~
Page ~(o of~
dgoldsmith@co.jefferson.wa,u.s
03/16/2004 09:53
3603794473
JEFF CO DCD
PAGE 03
.
Port Ludlow Issues
Page: 2
necessary County departments have signed off on the plat." The BOCC by unanimous
decision voted to grant final subdivision approval. The Inn received final building
occupancy on October 19, 1994.
..., ......~. ......... .,A._~.....,..__....,....,....................~
3. W edgewood Sh~~'~lat. Jr~ Qut#h~.,:Th~ ~;P1nment of Community Development
issued a letter d~~4jfovemoer'1 ~;"20U3'"I'6. 91~ic Ridge to allow the removal of alders
on the 3 lots within; ~,atd~ RIft. gmided:tb.at any buffer disturbance to Tracts A and B
shall be replant~i:h:rBe YeketUft8n in a serpentine pattern. Staff reviewed the plat
conditions and ~oun~~ tpe"propo~~.,~~ rerrioval was consistent with the "Notice to
Potential Purc~~" .on ,the, face ofthe:~cor4ed plat. Trees were fallen within the
streambed, whib'lrresulted 1n'a'Viohition with the Department ofFish and Wildlife
(WDFW). Staff worked with the developer and WDFW and consequently WDFW did
issue a Hydraulic Project Approval (liP A) with conditions on December 19, 2003 under
Log Number ST-F9923-01. The HPA expires on October 31,2004. On March 1. 2004,
Staff received a phone call :from Tony Hernandez. Code Enforcement Officer, that a
neighbor contacted him regarding the developer cutting more trees. Staff contacted the
developer and left a message for him to contact Michelle Farfan. The developer left a
voice message stating that no trees were being cut but that he was cleaning up dead brush.
4. Mooring buoys: The County has ordered abatement of the buoys.
.
5.
Drainage/Storm water: Jefferson County has stonnwater requirements identified in the
Unified Development Code (ODe) as well as the recently adopted Department of
Ecology 2001 Stormwater Management Manual for Western Washington. Port Ludlow
Associates is subject to the DOE 1992 Stonnwater Manual per the Port Ludlow
Development Agreement. Private property owners would be subject to the UDC and
2001 Stonnwater Manual. The County has received several copies of the Port Ludlow
Drainage District manual dated October 2003. It is the determination of the County that
the County per letter dated January 27,2004 signed by Glen Huntingford. Chairman
BOCC. will not adopt the Drainage Plan; however, the Drainage Plan will be used as
reference material in the approval of development proposals.
The meeting with your Committee and the community pointed out the need 'for close
coordination and communication between Jefferson County ~d Port Ludlow. To this end, ~
suggest that a member of the Village Council be seleCted to be the point of contact with the
Cormty. Issues which arise through the Council or the community would then be funneled
through this person. I would also suggest that this person attend the Board ofCommissiollers
business meetings that occur every Monday. Your designee will be provided with an agenda on
the ThursdaylFriday prior to ~e Monday meeting and would be able to address the Board with
specific inquiries or to dialog with them Oll progress towards our mutual goals.
r.
LOG. ITEM
# 13'i .
Page.~ 7 ofJiL
03/16/2004 09:53
3603794473
JEFF CO DCD
PAGE 04
e
Port Ludlow Issues
Page: 3
To foster communication from the County's en~ we have tasked Michelle Farfan with the
responsibility to oversee development activities in Port Ludlow. This is an addition to her
already ambitious workload. Ms. Farfan will attend as many Village Council meetings as she can
and make herself available to the Co~cil to address pertinent issues for the implementation of
the development agreement Having a designated contact person from the Council will greatly
enable Ms. Farfan to provide customer service to the Port Ludlow community.
I tlumk you for the opportunity to address issues in the Port Ludlow area and I would be happy to
address the Council on other topics of mutual concern. I trust the above answers the questions
raised and provides a mechanism from which to rebuild relationships between the Port Ludlow
community and the County.
~/~
~( ,~~,{
David Gol .
County Administrator
fe
cc: County Commissioners
A1 Scalf: Director of Community Development
Michele Farfan, Associate Planner~ DCD
Ie
LOG-!TEM
#_t3'6
Page _g~ of t{I
9
.
.
.
.
REVIEW HIGHTLIGHTS OF THE DSEIS
~THE OVERALL REPORT IS OF VERY POOR QUALITY" There is no reason stated why the
report is believed to be poor quality. Experts in the various disciplines reported on prepared it.
"THERE IS NO BASELINE IN THE REPORT FROM WHICH TO JUDGE THE PROPOSED
REVISIONS" The baseline is the 1993 Project E1S and 1993 Progranunatic EIS which inchule two
volumes and an additional two volumes of technical appendices. The baseline documents were identified
as such in the 1998 Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan, the 1999 Master Planned Resort Zoning
Code and the 2000 Development Agreement. The zoning code requires a Supplemental report only to
measure any proposed changes from the 1994 Ludlow Bay Yi1lt1ge plan..
"THE REPORT CONTAINS SIGNIFICANT ERRORS" No errors were identijied in the presentation
other than those alleged and responded to below. If there are e"ors they need to be corrected. Please
identih them.
"IN MOST CASES THERE IS NO REFERENCE TO COUNTY, STATE AND/OR FEDERAL
CODE TO ALWW US TO EVALUATE THE ADEQUACY OF THE PLAN AGAINST
REQUlREMENfS OF THE CODE. The Comntittee is confused alJout what purpose the Supplemental
report serves. This is an'nwironmentill review of the issued :rcoped by the Community and the County in
the July 2003 $coping Meeting. The study is of environmental issues related to the developer's proposaL
An environmental report does not compare a plan to any federal, state or local codes. That comparison
occurs in the development permit process.
.
"THE REPORT APPEARS TO RELY HEAVILY ON INPUT FROM THE DEVEWPER WITH
NO INPUT FROM THE COMMUNITY OR FROM ANY OF THE PORT LUDWW
HOMEOWNER ASSOCIATIONS" The developer met with the Ludlow Bay Village Association
before and after the draft report was prepared. Many revisions were made to the plan as a result of input
from neighbors, the fire district and experts in the fields required to be evalunted. The entire Port
Ludlow Community WflS invited to iden/ify areas of concern at a public meeting held at the Be8ch Club
in July 2003. The Supp/ementtII report is a response to those concerns.
"DOES NOT APPEAR THAT ANY ON-SITE VISITS WERE MADE IN THE PREPARATION OF
THE REPORT" This comment is pure speculation and has no basis in fact Photos, illustrations and
technical analysis that appears in the report can only have been prepared by site visits.
"PLA INDICATES THAT CHANGES TO mE RESORT PLAN ARE NECESSARY TO
PROVIDE A ECONOMICALLY VIABLE RESORT. NO BASIS FOR THAT STATEMENT"
This is an enviro1Plll!ntal report, no an econOmic report. The County does not rule on economic issues
related to a development proposaL If one buys property already zoned for proft!$sional ojJices in order to
construct and operate a doctor's office, the County can only judge is the building and use meets the
requirement of the zoning of the land. They cannot deny a permit if they feel the County does not need
another doctor in town.
"PARKING WT NOT ANALYZED IN DETAIL AND ANALYSIS PRESENTED CONTAINS
SIGNIFICANT ERRORS. NO ANALYSIS OF PARKING AGAINST CODE REQUIREMENTS"
Again, there is no identification of any e"ors. However, parking is a legitimate concern and the
developer is wining to meet with any group to discuss this issue. The developer is not interested in
building collllne1'Cial buildings that customers cannot get access to. AU residenti8l parking proposed is a
signifu:a:nt increase over the current permitted plan.
.
LOG IT, EM
#_I~'6
Page :s 9 .of 4,
.
.
.
"NO ESTIMATE OF INCREASE IN STORMWATER RUNOFF SO ADEQUACY OF DRAINAGE
MODIFICATIONS CAN BE DETERMINED. NO INPUT OBTAINED FROM THE PORT
LUDLOW DRAINAG:t DISTRICT." Stormwater is discussed in the report in a general way. Storm
drainage plans are a requirement of the development plan that foNows the environmental study. The
developer is oIways required /() design sttuuIIIrds tlu1I are in wmplitmce with the stille and Iocol
requirements. The Drainage District does not publish stormwa/er design sttuulards against which /()
metlSllre a proposal nor does the District have jurisdictioll over development proposals.
"NO ANALYSIS OF IMPACT TO FIRE DISTRICT NO.3 SERVICE" In the appendix of the
Supplemental EIS is a letter from the Chief of Fue District No. 3 that identifies how the District will
hmulJe emergencies in the resort zone. Thejire Chief has thoroughly reviewed theplan and hos also
i1rj/ue1Icell60me chtmges in the pltm /() meet emergency needs.
"WCATION OF ADMIRALTY m RETENTION POND NOT SPECIFIED. NO ANALYSIS OF
INPACT OF RETENTION POND ON ADMIRALTY RESIDENTS." The retention pond design
foNows the environmental process. It is not a part of the environmental report because it is not required
at this sfllge of the project It is covered when the projedis octuoIly designed.
"ADMIRALTY l, II, AND NEW m AREA CLASSIFIED AS LANDSLIDE HAZARD-MEDIUM
RISK.. NO ANALYSIS OF CHANGE IN RISK TO ADMIRALTY I AND n IF ADMIRALTY m IS
BlJa T" This issue was lIot $Coped aruI did not require study to be included in the report However, the
issue will have to be addressed when the project is actually designed It appears that the risk was not
sufjicient to stDp the COnstnu:lioll of Admiralty I or II as they have been therefor 30 years and the
proposedAtlmirtrlty fH is over 3(J(J feet from the shore1ine..
"NO DETAILED SITE PLANS, ARCHITECTURAL DRAWINGS OR SKETCHES, DRAWINGS
SHOWING ELEV ATION8, SECTION AND FLOOR PLANS ARE CONTAINED IN TIlE DSEIS
THAT ARE NECESSARY TO FULLY EVALUATE THE SEIS". Detailed architectural plans are
not required for an environmental report They are prepared after approval of the development permit.
The report does contain conceptual site p1ans,jloor plans and architectural renderings of the building
designs 6lIJ}icient /() underslllluI /() 1Dcotio1l and scope of improvements.
"A 12-YEAR OLD REPORT IS USED AS THE PRIMARY DATA SOURCE TO EVALUATE TIlE
IMPACT TO ENDANGERED, THREATENED, SENSISTIVE, AND OTHER PRIORITY
SPECIES AND HABITATS WITHIN TIlE RESORT AREA" The outline previously slated there was
no baseline report but now identifies a 12 year old report This is an apparent reference to the 1993 EIS
documents. Jefferson County has alreIIdy ruled tlu1I those documents should serve as the baseline and
no spede6were identijied in the $Coping meeting beyond the original report The Suppkmental report is
Ollly requires to measure the impact of changes from the 1994 Ludlow Bay Village plat:'
"TRANSPORTION ANALYSIS EVALUATES IN GREAT DETAIL THE IMPACT TO ROADS
AND ROAD JUNCTIONS EXTERNAL TO RESORT BUT DOES NO ANALYSIS TO ROADS
WITHIN THE RESORT" The Suppkmental report deals with roads outside the Resort bect1use the
1YHU/s inside the Resort are evaIuaJ~d every year. Eaeh March, the development suIJmits till impad
report to the PL YC and to Jeffersoll County to measure changes ill traffic impacts withill tlte Resort
"NO ANALYSIS OF PEDESTRIAN AND BICYCLE TRAFFIC AND INCREASED SAFETY RISK
DUE TO INCREASED TRAFFIC WITHIN THE RESORT" This issue was not identified as a
concun in the Scoping meeting and was not determined to be a potentially adPerse environmental
imptIct by Jeffersoll Collllty.
"NO INDICATION ON SITE PLANS WHERE TIlE VARIOUS TYPES OF UNITS ARE
WCA TED" 11ie types of units and locations are on the site plan.
L& ITEM
#--1
Page-YD-of~
.
LOG ITEM
#--1~~
Page-=4- of.iIl
.
"SOME RESIDENCES PROPOSED IN PLAN OCCUPIES LAND CURRENTLY ZONED
COMMERCIAL AND SOME LAND CURRENTLY ZONED ~IDENTIAL IS PROPOSED FOR
COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT. IS THlS CHANGE LEGAL? All proposed changes are in the
Resort Zone mul the Resort Zone Sec/ion 3.9 of the MPR code identify the pennitIed uses mul the
process for maJdng cIu1nges. Tbe developer is complying witll the rules oftbe zoning code.
"DECREASE IN PUBLIC ACCESS TO BEACH AREA" The developer is not proposing any dumge
in increase or decrease of access to the beach area. The beach access easement is tkdictlted to the public
and developer h,as no power to change it.
"NEW COMMERCIAL RECREATIONAL FACILITY LIMITED TO LUDWW BAY VILLAGE
RESlDENfS AND INN AND MARINAGUESTS" This is not 1m environmentlll issue. However, the
improveme.lds ore being construction for tIuIl purpose in the same w~ that the lJetJcb U1lb and the B~
Club were constructed for their members.
.