HomeMy WebLinkAboutLog346
,
. tJ,
OFFICE OF THE BEARING EXAMINER FOR JEFFERSON COUNTY
~ Preliminary Plat )
application of Pope Resources to )
subdivide 17.87 acres into lots )
and parcels for residences, )
restaurants, marina, inn, common )
areas and open space. )
Variance request from )
requirements of Subsection 6.203 )
was withdrawn at the pUblic )
hearing - see Proposal below. )
FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS,
AND RECOMMENDATION
SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL AND RECOMMENDATION
Proposah The applicant is seeking to subdivide 17.87 acres into:
a. 58 residential lots (53 townhouses and 5 single
family);
b. 2 restaurant parcels (1 existing and 1 for restaurant
parking;
c. 4 marina parcels (existing marina, marina fuel, 2
marina parking areas);
d. proposed 36 room inn; and
e. 3 common area tracts (roadways, parking, utilities,
pond and open space areas).
The proposal includes renovation of marina support facilities,
expansion of an existing man-made pond, parking, landscaping with
new sand dunes, shoreline public access provisions, rip-rap rock
installation, and replacement of underground fuel tanks.
Variance request: The Variance to requirements of Subsection
6.203 of the Subdivision Ordinance was withdrawn in light of the
Board's action to allow the variances to be considered under
provisions of the new Subdivision Ordinance.
Reeommendatiom
APPROVE, subject to conditions.
FINDINGS OF FACT
BACKGROUND INFORMATION
AppUcan6 Pope Resources, represented by David Cunningham, Vice
President.
AppUcant'sAddress: P.O. Box 1780, Poulsbo, WA 98370
Property Address: Not available (adjacent to Oak Bay Road)
LOG ITEM
# .3 <J ( (?_,___>"__~.
Page-L_of_.,~c
Property LoeatiolU The project site is located in the
unincorporated community of Port Ludlow between Oak Bay
Road and the existing marina. It extends easterly and
encompasses the entire restaurant, parking area, mill
pond, and spit south of the Ludlow Maintenance
Commission's "Beach Club."
LeealD~ptiolU Portions of Government Lots 1 and 2 within
Section 16, Township 28 North, Range 1 East, W.M.
Tax Parcel Numbers 821 162 001 and 821 162 002.
ZoDiaeI General Use
Comprehensive Plan Map ~patiOIll The Jefferson County
Comprehensive Plan optimum land use map designates the
site as a Suburban Area.
Property DeseriptiOIU The property contains 17.87 acres. It is an
"L"-shaped property. It has considerable frontage on
the waters of Port Ludlow Bay. A restaurant and marina
along with associated parking facilities have been
developed on the site. The proposed subdivision site
has a gentle to moderate slope toward the waters of
Port Ludlow Bay.
Sunoouncling ConditiollSl The area to the north has been platted and
developed as single family residential lots. The area
to the east consists of the Ludlow Maintenance
Commission "Beach Club." The property is bounded on
the south by the waters of Port Ludlow Bay. Currently,
the area to the immediate west is undeveloped.
Condominiums have been developed beyond the area
immediately west of the site.
UtiUties aad Servicesl
1Va~ Ludlow Water Company
Sewen Ludlow Sewer Company
TransportatiolU Oak Bay Road and Jefferson Transit serve
the property.
~eFacUitiesl Storm water would be controlled on-site.
Schookl Chimacum School District.
~en Fire Protection District #3
PROCEDURAL INFORMATION
Au~orbdag~ncem Jefferson County Hearing Examiner Ordinance
No. 1-0318-91, Section 12, and Jefferson County Subdivision
Ordinance 75-1, as amended, Section 6, "Long Subdivisions."
Bearlne Datel April 19, 1993. The public hearing was continued
to April 26, 1993, (with an action due date of May 10, 1993)
with the concurrence of the applicant's legal counsel to
allow the Examiner time to catalog the exhibits and the two
Environmental Impact Statements.
The .... at Port Ludl..w
LP-G2-91
-2-
Findings, Conclusions,
and Recommendation
Noticesl
Mailed:
Posted:
Published:
April 5, 1993
April 7, 1993
April 7 and 14, 1993
(Port Townsend-Jefferson County Leader)
Site VIsits
SEPAl
April 19, 1993
A Final Environmental Impact statements for the program
and project were issued April 5, 1993.
TestimonYI
Jerry Smith, Jefferson County Planning and Building Department,
presented the Planning Department Report and Recommendations. He
identified and submitted "Corrections" to the staff report,
entered as Exhibit C. He also entered two other pieces of
correspondence received after the staff report had been
assembled.
Jerry Smith explained that the variance request was now being
considered as an administrative variance which was being
processed by the Department of Public Works. This was based on
an action by the Board allowing the use of the newer subdivision
ordinance provisions where the new provisions were less
restrictive.
David Cunninaham, Vice President of Pope Resources, presented the
proposed preliminary plat. He described the history of the
property and the major changes that have taken place. The mill
discontinued operation in 1935, and remained dormant until 1967
began cleaning up the site.
Mr. Cunningham explained how they modified their initial proposal
by reducing the total scale. They reduced the total number of
units, removed proposed houses from a bluff considered as
unstable, increased the marina parking, added open space. They
have two access points - not one. They will sprinkler single
family attached - which is above code requirements. One
important benefit will be fire protection to the marina where
there is none currently.
Mr. Cunningham raised several issues with the recommended
conditions.
a. Condition 4 (page 10 of the Staff Report) would have the
Board of Commissioners approving a technical, legal document. He
argued that the Prosecuting Attorney would be more proper.
b. Condition S (page 10 of the Staff Report) requires the
open space to be dedicated in perpetuity. He argued that a term
of 50 years would be more appropriate.
c. Condition 1S (page 11 of the Staff Report) requires a
contract be negotiated with the Fire District. He argued for
some provision or guideline on dealing with a possible stalemate.
He argued for an agreement deadline of July 1, 1993; failure to
reach agreement would result in the matter submitted to the Board
of Commissioners for resolution.
Tbe Inll at Port Ludlow
LP-o:&-91
-3-
Filldillgs, Collclusions,
alld RecollUlleadatioll
d. SEPA Mitigated Condition 1. (page 7 of the Development
Program Final EIS Mitigations) The condition calls for Jefferson
County to determine appropriate mitigations if an agreement
cannot be reached with Chimacum School District. He argued for a
July 1, 1993 deadline for reaching that agreement.
e. SEPA Mitigated Condition 2. (page 7 of the Development
Program Final EIS Mitigations) The condition calls for Jefferson
County to determine appropriate mitigations if an agreement
cannot be reached with Fire District. He argued for a July 1,
1993 deadline for reaching that agreement.
f. SEPA Mitigated Condition 4(b). (page 8 of the
Development Program Final Ers Mitigations) requires a Water
Resource Monitoring Program.
g. Condition 21. (page 11 of the Staff Report) In rebuttal
to testimony by the Chimacum School District, he suggested that
the condition was vague regarding provisions for a school bus
turnaround.
Bill Reiss, an area resident for 40 years, testified in support.
He was originally concerned over the density and traffic flow -
especially to the Beach Club. He made his concerns known, and
Pope Resources redesigned the project. He recommends the new
plan.
Dave Bolotin, an area resident for only one year, felt he was not
being represented, and sponsored a meeting at his house. It
resulted in a petition, which he submitted as Exhibit 10 (see
below for language). He claimed support by 90% of the residents.
Georqe Randolf, an area resident for 25 years and property owner
for 44 years. Respects the work of staff. Notes that the
amenities were put in by Pope Resources - not the County.
Earl Reillv, an area resident for two years but came over by boat
for the past 30 to 40 years. Commented on the project's meeting
of the legislative intent of Shoreline Management Act.
Herb White, an area resident for 1-1/2 years. Commended Pope
Resources for keeping people informed. Noted that they held
weekly meetings.
Bruce Halverson, an area resident for
see people support the project. Also
for bringing issues before everyone.
supports the project.
Cletus Gasson, an area resident for 10 years. He followed the
proposal over the past three years. Believes that Pope Resources
went out of their way to mitigate concerns.
Frank Siler, an area resident for 7 years. He argued that Pope
Resources listened. The project is less dense and better
designed.
David G. Douqlas, an area resident for 18 years, spoke for the
Greater Port Ludlow Community Council (GPLCC). He explained that
the GPLCC is in support of development, provided that the EIS
conditions are met. He argued two issues are not resolved:
1-1/2 years. Pleased to
complimented the opposition
But in the end still
The Inn at Port Ludlow
LP-Gz-t}1
-4-
Findings, ConclusiollS,
and RecollUllendation
a. Preparation of a Monitoring Plan. He recommends a
monitoring plan and that it should be carried out by an expert
under the direction of the County.
b. He argues for a Fiscal Management Plan, and questions
the distribution of fiscal impact. He noted as an example that
this type of community does not generate fire district
volunteers, which in turn will result in a fiscal impact.
Herman Schweizer, also explained that GPLCC is not opposed to
development. He is pleased with the new plan, but has two
reservations:
a. Monitoring should be by the County - a third party.
b. Need for fiscal impact analysis. What about the
adequacy of water and who will pay. Same question related to
sewers.
Marcia Harris, Superintendent, Chimacum School District. She was
not testifying in opposition, but expressed concerned over
efforts to change the condition on negotiating an agreement.
Argues that there will be some students coming from the
development. The district wants safe walkways to bus stops,
paths or alternative paths to Oak Bay Road.
A. Kent DeWitt, Fire Chief, Fire Protection District #3.
Presented a list of fire safety items (see Exhibit 12), which
would satisfy the district.
Oliver Garner. Believes Pope Resources has done a fin~ job, but
also believes concerns expressed by the other speakers should be
taken into consideration. He disagrees with time limits being
imposed on negotiating unless agreed upon by all.
Exhibitsl
Exhibit A: Jefferson County Planning Department Report and
Recommendation, pages 1 through 11, plus SEPA Mitigating
Conditions, pages 1 through 9, from Inn at Port Ludlow 'Proiect'
Final EIS labeled as Exhibit A to Department recommendations 9
and 10 at page 10. The following Attachments to the Staff Report
are identified in chronological order of origin:
1. Oct 3, 1991, l~tter from Fire Protection District No.3.
2. Oct 29, 1991, letter from Public Utility District #1.
3. Nov 7, 1991, letter from N. Bruce and Joan A. Hannay.
4. Nov 7, 1991, letter from Mary Maddox.
5. Nov 8, 1991, letter from Fire Protection District No.3.
6. Nov 13, 1991, letter from Jefferson County Health Department.
7. Nov 15, 1991, letter from Jerry Smith to JC Fire Dist. No.3.
8. Nov 19, 1991, letter from Fire Protection District No.3.
9. Dec 4, 1991. Jefferson County Long Subdivision Application,
revised and submitted Dec 9, 1991.
10. Dec 4, 1991. Request for Site Development Standard Variance and
received Dec 9, 1991.
The Ian at Port Ludlow
LP-02-t}1
.5.
Fincliags, Conclusions,
and Recommendation
11. Dec 19, 1991, letter from Mr. and Mrs. Alfred N. Larsen.
12. Oct 28, 1992, letter from Chimacum School District #49.
13. Apr 2, 1993. Reduced print of Preliminary Plat, The Inn at Port
Ludlow.
14. Apr 2, 1993. Jefferson County Long Subdivision Application.
15. Apr 2, 1993. Request for Site Development Standard Variance.
16. Apr 12, 1993, letter from ESM Inc., engineer the applicant.
17. Apr 14, 1993, Jefferson County Department of Public Works,
Inspectors Report.
18. Apr 16, 1993, memo from Gary Rowe and Carter Renner.
Exhibit B: Preliminary Plat Map (full sheet), The Inn at Port
Ludlow, April 2, 1993.
Exhibit c: "Corrections" staff Report, April 19, 1993.
The followinq Exhibits were submitted at the public hearinq:
1. Letter from Ann Quantock, President, Protect Ludlow Bay
Committee, dated April 15, 1993.
2. Letter from Jeff Mamm, Jefferson Transit, dated April 19, 1993.
3. Slides
4. Port Ludlow Town Plan, June 15, 1967, excerpts.
5. Port Ludlow Hotel and Conference Center, color renderings.
6. Excerpt from Board of Commissioner's adoption in 1992 of Urban
Growth Area policies.
7. Letter/report from Pope Resources to Shoreline Management
Advisory Commission, Application Justification, dated
April 15, 1993.
8. Color rendering of Site Development Plan, no date.
9. Preliminary Plat map with ownership in color.
10. Petition containing approximately 107 signatures to the
fOllowing statement:
The petition requesting an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS)
submitted last year by the Greater Port Ludlow Community Council (GPLCC)
was directed at the Port Ludlow Inn Project. This EIS was then expanded
to include the entirety of all of the Port Ludlow development. We do
not take issue with the EIS process per se. We would, however, deplore
the use of the EIS by the GPLCC or others to stop future development of
Port Ludlow either directly or indirectly.
The GPLCC does not represent us. Rather, we support the concept of a
democratically elected/appointed group to represent the interests of all
citizens of Port Ludlow.
We support the continued development of Port Ludlow within the
guidelines of a reasonable EIS and controlled by an orderly and
expeditious County environmental review and permit process that includes
consultation and advice from a democratically elected/appointed group
that represents the interests of all citizens of Port Ludlow.
11. Letter from Mark S. Beaufait, attorney for the Port Ludlow
Community Council, dated February 5, 1992, RE: 10 year plan.
The Ina at Port Ludlow
LP-G2-91
-.-
Findings, Conclusions,
and Recommendation
12. Letter from R. Kent DeWitt, Fire Chief, Fire Protection District
#3, dated April 19, 1993.
13. Memo from Chimacum School District dated April 19, 1993,
received after the public hearing but used during testimony.
FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
The general criteria that a subdivision must satisfy are stated
in Subdivision Ordinance Sections 3.20 and 4.50, which state that
all proposed subdivisions of property must comply with the
Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan. The Hearing Examiner has
reviewed the proposal and the evidence of record with regard to
these sections and makes the following findings and conclusions:
1. The proposal will be consistent with the Jefferson County
Comprehensive Plan.
The Planning Department Report and Recommendation analyzes the
proposed development with regard to its consistency with the
Comprehensive Plan, in particular Countywide Growth Policies 1
and 4; Housing and Residential Development Policies 1, 3, 9, and
13; Commercial Development Policies 1, 2, and 3; and utility
Policy 1. The Hearing Examiner hereby adopts the findings and
conclusions of the Planning Department stated in the Staff Report
as Findings and Conclusions 5 through 12 on pages 3 and 4.
2. The ~efferson County Subdivision Ordinance applies to the
proposal. The Planning Department Report and Recommendation
contains a detailed analysis of the proposed plat with regard to
its compliance with the several applicable provisions of the
Subdivision Ordinance. The Planning Department generally
concludes for each respective criteria that, subject to
conditions, the proposal is consistent with each criteria. The
Hearing Examiner hereby adopts the findings and conclusions of
the Planning Department stated in the Staff Report as Findings
and Conclusions 13 through 38 as summarized in the following
table of Ordinance sections:
PLANNING
CONCLUSION
SECTION
~3.30.l
~6.20l.l
SECTION TOPIC
ADDED COMMENT
Contiguous ownership ~4
Lot design ~5
Each of the proposed lots are shaped
and sized to allow sufficient space
for construction of the proposed
attached townhouses. The mixed use
(residential, commercial, and
overnight lodging) features of the
proposal are supportive of such
existing uses as the marina,
conference center, restaurant, and
time-share condominiums and other
visitor activities at the site.
The Inn at Port Ludlow
LP-GZ-91
-7-
F'lDdings, Conclusions,
and Recommendation
~6.201.2
~6.203(2)
~6. 203 (3)
~6.203(4)
~6.203(5)
~6.203(12)
~6,203(13)
~6.203(14)
~6.203(15)
~6.204(1)
~6.204 (3)
~6.205 (1)
~6.301
~6.302
~6. 303
~6.304
~6. 305
~6.306
~6. 307 (1)
~6.307(2)
~6.309 (1)
~6.40
~6.50 (1)
Comprehensive Plan 16
Local access roads 17
Access to public roads 18
Private road width 19
Cul-de-sac diameter 20
Road grades and curves 21
Road maintenance 22
Engineering design 23
Limited access issues 24
10% open space 25
Open space access 26
Utility easements 27
Road improvements 28
Drainage facilities 29
Bridge construction 30
Road signs 31
Water system 32
Sewage disposal systems 33
Fire protection 34
Fire hydrants 35
Survey requirements 36
Inspection requirements 37
Bonding requirements 38
The Inn at Port Luc11<<nv
LP-oz..t)1
The proposed density of 3.25 per
gross acre is less than the allowed
density for the Suburban designation
of up to five dwelling units per
gross acre.
Subject to granting of the requested
variance, the proposal will be
consistent. The applicant proposes a
road right-of-way width of 32 feet.
Subject to granting of the requested
variance, the proposal will be
consistent.
Subject to granting of the requested
variance and conditions for
maintenance of the private road, the
proposal will be consistent.
Subject to acceptance of the private
road and verification of its
construction to County standards, or
the conditions of the variance, by
the Department of Public Works, the
proposal will be consistent.
The adjacent County road, Oak Bay
Road, is an arterial road. A single
access point is proposed.
The proposed open space areas wi thin
tract "B" and "c" collectively
exceed the 1.8 acres of open space
required.
Subject to acceptance of the private
road and verification of its
construction to County standards by
the Department of Public Works, the
proposal will be consistent. All
road improvements are required to be
inspected by the Department of
Public Works.
The Ludlow Water Company water
system will serve the proposed
project with water.
Subject to confirmation of
compliance with State Health
Department regulations and
requirements.
The consultant involved in preparing
the preliminary plat is a licensed
land surveyor,
-8-
Findings, Conclusions,
and RecoJlUllendation
The loUowina randines and Conclusions address Issues raised by neiehborsa
3. Department Recommended Condition 4:
The applicant was objecting to the idea that the Board would
review the maintenance agreement, arguing that the document would
be a highly technical and legal document. He argued that it
would be more logical for the Prosecuting Attorney to approve the
document.
Subsection 6.203(13) specifies the Board as the approving body.
However, the Prosecuting Attorney would logically review the
document, thereby effectively addressing the applicant's
concerns.
4. Department Recommended Condition 5:
The applicant objected to the requirement that the open space
easement be granted in perpetuity, suggesting instead that a SO
year term would be more reasonable.
The applicable provision is as follows:
~6.204(1) Minimum area for parks, open space, greenbelt and
buffer strips shall be provided as ten (10) percent of the total
gross area of the subdivision with at least one-half (1/2) of
said area being suitable for active recreation pursuits.
The purpose of the requirement described in Section 6.204 is to
preserve such lands as the County develops. The Subdivision
Ordinance provides an alternative to the dedication of land by
allowing a "fee-in-lieu" of dedication. Such fee would be equal
to the market value of land in the development and would be used
for purchase of other land.
While the applicant's desire to retain some flexibility in the
future is understandable, the ordinance does not suggest any
policy to support less than a permanent dedication. Further, the
precedent set would be significant if the minimum 10% requirement
were allowed to be less than permanent dedications.
5. Department Recommended Condition 15:
The applicant objected to this and the two following SEPA
Mitigated Conditions. In each case an agreement with another
entity was to be negotiated. The applicant was not objecting to
any particular obligations that might result from an agreement,
but rather to possibility of a stalemate in negotiations.
In the case of Condition 15, Fire Protection District No. 3 is
the other entity, and has been meeting with the applicant. The
fire district submitted a letter at the public hearing listing
their needs. The Fire Chief presenting the list implied that
they were in basic agreement. Applicant did not make rebuttal
testimony. Staff supported the list. This may not be an issue.
6. SEPA Mitigated Conditions 1 and 2:
The applicant is requesting that a time limit be imposed so that
they can move forward to the Board of Commissioners to resolve a
possible stalemate in negotiations. Both conditions end with the
The Inn at Port Ludlow
LP-GZ-91
-9-
Findings, C::onclusloDS,
and Recommendation
statement: In the event that the parties cannot agree, Jefferson
County shall determine the appropriate mitigation.
The conditions envision the two public entities, School District
and Fire District, each negotiating in good faith and in a timely
manner. The heart of the problem might rest in the condition
itself which requires a separate negotiation. When issues are
minor, the process may work well. As the stakes increase,
however, negotiation can become more contentious. Maintaining a
balance to assure "arms length" negotiating is critical.
In the long run, the County may want to look for other methods to
achieve many of the necessary improvements without relying on
such negotiations - in other words, lower the stakes. In the
instant case the conditions provide for resolution by Jefferson
County. Injecting a time limit would change the negotiating
balance without contributing to solving the negotiation. If the
applicant wishes, he can now approach the County. The County's
criteria in determining the mitigation must be based on the
impact being mitigated - not whether the other party is
negotiating in good faith.1
The conditions are best left as stated.
7. SEPA Mitigated Condition 4(b):
SEPA Mitigated Condition 4(b) calls for a Water Resources
Monitorina Proaram which would document the condition of several
aquifers. Two persons, David G. Douglas and Herman Schweizer,
argued that the geohydrologist to be hired by the applicant
should instead by hired by the County. Their arguments at the
public hearing were brief, but were expressed much more
completely in the Final EISs (Letters 10 and 11 in the Project
FEIS and Letters 14 and 15 in the Program FEIS).
Technical specialists, such as geohydrologists, submit their work
to County and state agencies for technical review. There are
sufficient checks on the technical quality of the data to assure
proper studies without the added burden to the County of directly
hiring the specialists.
The condition is adequate as stated.
8. Department Recommended Condition 21:
The applicant argues that the condition, below, is too vague:
21. The applicant shall contact Chimacum School District #40 for review
of school bus turnaround provisions, school bus loading and unloading
facilities, sidewalks, and accommodations for additional students.
Prior to final subdivision plat approval, the applicant shall submit the
recommendations of the school district to the Jefferson County Planning
and Building Department.
The condition does not indicate what the Department will do with
the recommendations of the school district - whether they will be
imposed on the applicant in their entirety or whether the
Department will select from among the recommendations. Also,
For instance, the applicant and School District gave opposing accounts of whether or not there had
already been negotiating meetings.
The Inn at Port Ludlow
LP-02-91
-10-
Findings, Conclusions,
and Recommendation
this condition overlaps with SEPA Mitigation Condition 1
discussed above.
The condition is vague, probably redundant, and should be
stricken.
9. Fiscal Management Plan:
Two persons, David G. Douglas and Herman Schweizer, argued that a
Fiscal Management Plan was needed to properly assess the future
fiscal impact on area residents.
Many of the issues raised are addressed in the FEISs, even though
SEPA does not require a fiscal or economic impact section. Their
concerns are generally valid, but more appropriately directed to
comprehensive planning than a specific project proposal.
RECOMMENDATION
Based on the findings and conclusions above, it is the
recommendation of the Hearing Examiner to APPROVE the Preliminary
Plat Application of The Inn at Port Ludlow, subject to the
following conditions:
1. Based on the rules of Subsection 3.30(1), all of the
property identified as Parcel 821 162 001 within the
subdivision application is subject to the requirements of
the Subdivision Ordinance. The westerly portion of the site
shall be included within the final subdivision plat as a
platted subdivision lot, or as dedicated green belt/open
space.
2. The proposed roadway system shall be constructed to the
standards of the Jefferson County Department of Public
Works. All plans and specifications required shall be
submitted, reviewed and approved by the Department of Public
Works prior to construction.
3. An agreement for the continued maintenance of private roads
shall be established either by recording of a separate
instrument and referencing said instrument, or by
establishment of said agreement by declaration on the large
lot subdivision plat.
4. Prior to final plat approval, the applicant shall provide
for the maintenance of the private roads within the
subdivision. Provisions for maintaining the private road
shall be approved by the Board of Commissioners after review
bv the Prosecutina Attornev.
5. The recreation/open space area of the proposal shall be a
minimum area of ten percent (10%) of the total gross area of
the subdivision. Open space dedications shall be
established by recording of a separate instrument, or by
declaration of dedication graphically shown on the final
long plat. The open space dedication shall be in
perpetuity.
The Inn at Port Ludlow
LP-o,,1
-11-
Findings, Conclusions,
and Recommendation
6. Required easements for utility installation and maintenance
shall conform with the standards of Subsection 6.205(1) of
the Subdivision Ordinance. All utility easements shall be
made by a separate recorded easement, declaration of
easements, or dedication of easements, and by graphic
portrayal on the final long plat mylar.
7. All roads shall be constructed to County Standards upon
approval of the Director of Public Works. All roads within
the plat, or necessary for access to the plat, shall be
constructed, ballasted, surfaced with crushed rock and paved
in accordance with Jefferson County standards. All required
road construction must be approved by the Director of Public
Works prior to approval of the final plat.
8. The proponent shall submit an engineered drainage and storm
water plan and report to the Jefferson County Public Works
Department for review and approval. The drainage plan must
incorporate the storm drainage criteria of the Washington
state Department of Ecology Storm Water Manaqement Manual
(current edition). The plan shall be reviewed and approved
by the County Department of Public Works prior to final plat
approval.
9. APPROPRIATE EIS MITIGATIONS FOR STORM WATER PER ATTACHED
EXHIBIT A.
10. APPROPRIATE EIS MITIGATIONS FOR EROSION CONTROL PER ATTACHED
EXHIBIT A.
11. Based on the requirements of Subsection 6.303 of the
Subdivision Ordinance, prior to final plat approval, the
design and construction of the pedestrian bridge across the
pond shall be reviewed and approved by the Director of
County Department of Public Works.
12. All access roads shall be signed in accordance with the
Department of Public Works standards for road name signs, as
per Subsection 6.304, of the Jefferson County Subdivision
Ordinance No. 1-75, as amended.
13. Prior to final plat approval, the applicant shall submit
written certification from the water purveyor verifying
approval of the design to extend water service to the
proposal from the community water system.
14. The design and construction of the Ludlow Sewer Company
sewer lines and connection to the wastewater treatment plant
shall be in accordance with the Washington State Department
of Ecology requirements and approval. Prior to final plat
approval, the applicant shall submit written certification
verifying compliance with applicable Department of Ecology
and Department of Health requirements.
15. Prior to final plat approval, the applicant shall contact
the local fire protection district and secure written
approval from the fire district regarding adequacy of fire
protection and available fire flows to serve the proposed
subdivision.
The Inn at Port Ludlow
LP-G2-91
-1Z-
F....nclings, Conclusions,
and Recommendation
16. The applicant shall demonstrate the a fire hydrant will be
placed within 300 feet of each lot. Fire hydrants shall be
located not more than 600 feet apart. The placement and
spacing of fire hydrants shall be approved in writing by the
chief of Jefferson County Fire Protection District No. 3
prior to final plat approval.
17. In accordance with Ordinance 4-82, Section 5.40, Amendment
to the Jefferson County Subdivision ordinance, the applicant
shall be required to pay all costs of work incidental to
approval of the subdivision before final approval is
granted.
18. Address plates for the lots shall be located in accordance
with Jefferson County 911 Emergency Locator System Ordinance
provisions.
19. Applicant shall select road names in consultation wit the
Department of Public Works to avoid duplication of existing
road names.
20. The applicant shall comply wit all applicable mitigative
measures of the Final project/Program Environmental Impact
Statements issued by the Jefferson County Board of
Commissioners. The mitigative measures are attached and
identified as Exhibit A.
((%%~ ~fte-a~~%~eaft~-sfta%%-eeft~ae~-eft~mae~m-Seftee%-B~s~r~e~
#49-fer-rev~ew-ef-seftee%-bHS-~HrftareHftd-~rev~s~efts,-seftee%
bHS-%ead~ft~-aftd-~ft%eadift~-faei%~~~es,-s~dewa%ks,-aftd
aeeeMmeaa~~efts-fer-aaa~~~efta%-S~Haeft~S~--Pr~er-~e-f~fta%
s~bd~v~s~eft-~%a~-a~~reva%,-~fte-a~~%~eaft~-sfta%%-s~bm~~-~fte
reeeMmeftda~~efts-ef-~fte-seftee%-d~s~r~e~-~e-~fte-aefferseft
ee~ft~y-P%aftft~ft~-aftd-B~~%a~ft~-Be~ar~meft~~))
DATED this 10th day of May, 1993.
~J' 1S..1::
Irv Berteig
Hearina Examiner Pro Tem for Jefferson County
\
,
A copy or notice of this Recommendation was transmitted on the
day of May, 1993, by the Jefferson County Planning
Department to the following:
The Inn at Port Lucl10w
LP-02-t}1
-13-
Findings, Conclusions,
and Recoauneadation
.
e ~
STAFF REPORT
THE INN AT PORT LUDLOW PRELIMINARY PLAT
Preliminary Plat Proposal:
The applicant is proposing to subdivide 17.87 acres as follows:(') fifty-eight (58) residential lots [fifty-three
(53) townhouses & five (5) single family), (2) two (2) restaurant parcels (one for existing restaurant & one
for restaurant parking), (3) four (4) marina parcels (one for the existing marina, one for marina fuel, and two
for marina parking), (4) one (1) parcel for a proposed 36 room inn, and (5) three (3) common area tracts
consisting of roadways, parking, utilities, a pond, and open space areas. The proposal includes renovation
of marina support facilities, expansion of an existing man-made pond, parking, landscaping with new sand
dunes, shoreline public access provisions, rip-rap rock installation, and replacement of underground fuel tanks
with below-ground tanks.
Variance Request:
Variances are requested from the requirements of Subsection 6.203 of the Subdivision Ordinance.
Specifically, variances from the following provisions are requested.
1.
2.
To vary from the requirement that all subdivisions be served by a constructed and maintained
public road. (6.203.3). The request is to allow a private road.
To vary from the requirement that the standard width of public or private road right-of-ways be
sixty (60) feet, fifty (50) feet, or forty (40) feet. (6.203.4). The request is to allow thirty-two
(32') foot wide road rights-of-way.
To vary from the requirement of a minimum 100-foot diameter for cul-de-sacs. (6.203.5). The
request is to allow alternative turnarounds.
To vary from the requirement that the engineering design for all roads conform with Jefferson
County road standards. (6.203.14). The request is to allow flexibility in the engineering design
for roads.
3.
4.
BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
Applicant:
Site Address:
Pope Resources, represented by David Cunningham, Vice President
Not available (Adjacent to Oak Bay Road).
Property Location: The project site is located in the unincorporated community of Port Ludlow between Oak
Bay Road and the existing marina. It extends easterly and encompasses the entire
restaurant, parking area, mill pond, and spit south of the Ludlow Maintenance
Commission's "Beach Club."
Legal Description: Portions of Government Lots 1 and 2 within Section 16, Township 28 North, Range 1
East, W.M. Tax Parcel Numbers 821 162 001 and 821 162 002.
Community Plan: The Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan optimum land use map designates the site as
a Suburban Area. The plan states " Areas of medium intensity development that will
receive the earliest and lor more concentrated growth. The improvement of public
services such as water and sewer systems, roads, schools, parks, fire protection, and
emergency services will be emphasized to serve actual population increases, but not to
promote those increases. Densities of new residential developments w.ill range from large
acreage tracts up to five (5) dwelling units per gross acre for some individual projects."
Preliminary Plat And Variance
The Inn at Port Ludlow
LP-02-91
1
"
.
, ...
Property Description:
The property contains 1 7.87 acres. It is an "L" -shaped property. It has
considerable frontage on the waters of Port Ludlow Bay. A restaurant and
marina along with associated parking facilities have been developed on the site.
The proposed subdivision site has a gentle to moderate slope toward the waters
of Port Ludlow Bay.
Surrounding Area: The area to the north has been platted and developed as single family residential lots.
The area to the east consists of the Ludlow Maintenance Commission "Beach Club." The
property is bounded on the south by the waters of Port Ludlow Bay. Currently, the area
to the immediate west is undeveloped. Condominiums have been developed beyond the
area immediately west of the site.
Applicable Goals and Policies:
Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan
Chapter 7, "County-wide Growth Policies" pages 33 & 34.
Chapter 7, "Housing and Residential Development" pages 35-38.
Chapter 7, "Commercial Development" pages 38-39.
Chapter 7, " Utilities" pages 4 1-43.
Applicable Ordinances:
Ordinance No. 1-75, As Amended, Jefferson County Subdivision Ordinance.
Section 6, "Long Subdivisions" pages 17 - 25.
SEPA:
A Final Environmental Impact Statement for the project was issued April 5, 1993.
NOTICE INFORMATION:
Mailed to Adjacent Property Owners:
Posting of Notices by Applicant:
Publication of Legal Notice:
April 5, 1993
April 7, 1993
April 7 and 14, 1993 (Port Townsend-Jefferson County Leader)
TESTIMONY:
Mary Maddox; letter of November 7, 1991: Written comments incorporated by reference.
Bruce & Joan Hannay; letter of November 7, 1991: Written comments incorporated by reference.
Mr.& Mrs. Alfred Larsen; letter of December 19,1991 :Written comments incorporated by reference.
AGENCY RESPONSES:
County Public Works Department: Written comments dated April , 1 993 are hereby incorporated by'
reference. -
Written comments dated October 3, 1991, November 8, 1991, and
November 19, 1991 are hereby incorporated by reference.
Written comments dated November 13, 1991 are hereby incorporated by
reference.
Jefferson County Assessor: No comment submitted.
Chimacum School District No. 49:Written comments dated October 28, 1992 are hereby incorporated by
reference.
no comment submitted.
No comment submitted.
Written comments dated October 25, 1991 area hereby incorporated by
reference.
Fire Protection District No.3:
County Health Department:
Jefferson Transit:
U S West Communications:
Public Utility District #1
Preliminary Plat And Variance
The Inn at Port Ludlow
LP-QZ-91
2
STAFF FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS:
1. The proposal is to subdivide 17.87 acres as follows:{') fifty-eight (58) residential lu~' [fJiy i.hree (53)
townhouses & five (5) single family], (2) two (2) restaurant parcels (om~ for existinti rOEHl/not & one
for restaurant parking), (3) four (4) marina parcels (one for the existing marina, onc for rM~'rin(' fuel, and
two for marina parking), (4) one (1) parcel for a proposed 36 room inn, and (5) thret' (3& (:(>fllmon area
tracts consisting of roadways, parking, utilities, a pond, and open space areas. The prepu,,1 includes
a request to vary from subdivision standards. (refer to Planning Department file for details and description,
incorporated by reference).
2. The proposed long subdivision is subject to the requirements of Section 6 of the County Subdivision
Ordinance.
3. The variance request is subject to the criteria contained in Subsection 10.302 (Priv(}lC: noad) of the
County Subdivision Ordinance.
4. The County Subdivision Ordinance requires: a) that all long subdivisions be served ty ~ paved road
maintained by the county; b) the standard width of all public/private road rights-of-way to be sixty (60')
feet; c) a minimum cul-de-sac diameter of 100-feet; and d) all public or private roads meet the engineering
design and construction standards of the Department of Public Works. Each requirement must be met
unless a variance is requested/granted. .
PRELIMINARY PLAT REQUEST:
t,
5. The proposal complies with the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan.
The following Plan policies apply to the proposal. They are Countywide Growth Policies 1 and 4; Housing
and Residential Development Policies 1, 3, 9, and 13; Commercial Development Policies 1, 2, and 3;
and Utility Policy 1. Each of these policies are disclJssed below.
6. Countywide Growth Policy 1 states:
The natural beauty and "liveability' of Jefferson County should be a primary consideration
on the location, timing and quantity of growth. Natural amenities identified as important
to the County's character and well-being should be considered.
Subject to conditions, the proposal will be consistent with this policy.
7. Countywide Growth Policy 4 states:
A geographic pattern which results in the least public cost for new facilities .md services
should be encouraged.
To that end, the major share of future growth should be directed toward the areas of Port
Townsend, the Quimper Peninsula, Tri-Cities (Irondale, Hadlock, Chimacum), Oak Bay/Mats
Mats Corridor, Port Ludlow, Shine/South Point, Quilcene, and Brinnon. The level of
services and utilities in these areas should be steadily improved and increased to a level
considered "urban" or "suburban." Improved schools, parks, water and sewer systems,
roads, and other public facilities should be emphasized for these communities to serve
expected population increases.
Subject to conditions, the proposal will be consistent with this policy. The proposed subdivision is
located within the Port Ludlow community. Improvement of facilities has been an ongoing activity in the
area.
i.
~:
Preliminary Plat And Variance
The Inn at Port Ludlow
LP-02-91
3
8. Housing and Residential Development Policy 1 states:
A broad range of housing types and densities should be available for Jefferson County
residents. The diversification of housing types should satisfy a variation of lifestyles and
economic capabilities.
Subject to conditions, the proposed residential project will be consistent with this policy. A mixture of
attached townhouse and detached single family houses will be constructed. The proposed density is less
than permitted within the suburban designation.
9. Housing and Residential Development Policy 3 states:
Concentration of residential development should be related to employment centers,
transportation systems, and public facilities such as water supplies and sewage disposal.
The provision and close proximity of roads, utilities, drainage, emergency services,
garbage disposal, schools, and other community services is deemed necessary to sound
residential development.
The proposed development will be consistent with this policy.
10. Housing and Residential Development Policy 9 states:
Innovative residential development with respect to architectural and structural design,
utility systems, and site layout is encouraged.
Subject to conditions, the proposal will be consistent with this policy. The current preliminary lot layout
is reflective of a creative subdivision layout.
11 . Housing and Residential Development Policy 13 states:
Residential developers should assume all direct costs of their individual projects such as roads,
accesses, parking, surface drainages, water systems, sewer systems, etc. The general taxpaying
public of Jefferson County should not be required to pay those costs in future years due to lack
of, or inadequate, initial construction.
Subject to conditions, the proposal will be consistent with this policy.
12. Utilities Policy 1 states:
Whenever a new utility system is created, or an existing one expanded, it should be done so in
support of the County-wide policies contained in this Comprehensive Plan.
Subject to conditions, the proposal will be consistent with this policy.
13. The County Subdivision Ordinance applies to the proposal. There are several ordinance requirements that
apply to the proposed subdivision. They are Subdivision Ordinance Applicability Criteria 3.30(1);
Subdivision Ordinance Design Criteria 6.201 Lots; Road Design Criteria 6.203 (2),(3),(4),(5),(12),(13),(14)
and (15); Park/Community Sites/Facility Criteria 6.204(1) and (3); Easement Criteria 6.205(1); Road
Improvement Criteria 6.301; Drainage Improvement Criteria 6.302; Bridge Design and Construction
Criteria 6.303; Road Signs Criteria 6.304; Water Supply Criteria 6.305; Sewage Disposal Criteria 6.306;
Fire Protection Criteria 6.307 (1) and (2); Survey Criteria Requirement 6.309; Inspection Requirements
6.40; and Improvement Bonding Requirements 6.50(1). Each of the applicable requirements are
discussed below.
14. The Subdivision Applicability Provisions of Subsection 3.30.1 states:
Parcels of land in the same ownership having contiguous boundaries shall be considered a single
parcel for the purpose of this ordinance;.....
Preliminary Plat And Variance
The Inn at Port Ludlow
LP-Q2-91
4
Subject to appropriate conditions, the proposal will be consistent with this criteria.
15. The Subdivision Design Requirements of Subsection 6.201.1 states:
The design, shape, size, and orientation of lots shall be appropriate to the use for which
the lots are intended and the character of the area in which they are located.
The proposal will be consistent with the lot design requirements. Each of the proposed lots are shaped
and sized to allow sufficient space for construction of the proposed attached townhouses. The mixed
use (residential, commercial, and overnight lodging) features of the proposal are supportive of such
existing uses as the marina, conference center, restaurant, and time-share condominiums and other
visitor activities at the site.
16. The Subdivision Design Requirements of Subsection 6.201.2 states:
Residential densities shall conform with the Jefferson County Comorehensive Plan and any official
control adopted pursuant thereto, and conform to the standards and requirements of the Health
Department and the Washington State Department of Social an Health Services, PROVIDED, in
the event of a discrepancy, the stricter standard shall apply.
The proposal will be consistent with this requirement. The proposed density of 3.25 lots per gross acre
is less than the allowed density for the Suburban designation of up to five (5) dwelling units per gross
acre.
17. The Subdivision Road Design Criteria of Subsection 6.203(2) states:
Roads shall be laid out in accordance with a logical arrangement as local access roads.
Local access roads should discourage through traffic....
Subject to appropriate conditions, the proposal will be consistent with this design criteria.
18. The Subdivision Road Design Criteria of Subsection 6.203(3) states:
All subdivisions shall be served by a constructed and maintained public road which shall provide
access in at least two places wherever practicable.
Subject to granting of the requested variance, the proposal will be consistent with this criteria.
19. The Subdivision Road Design Criteria of Subsection 6.203(4) states:
The standard width of public or private road right-of-ways shall be sixty (60) feet in width,
EXCEPT for local access right-of-ways which may be reduced to fifty (50) feet, PROVIDED dead-
end private right-of-ways four hundred forty (440) feet in length or less and serving twelve (12)
lots or less may be reduced to forty (40) feet in width.
Subject to granting of the requested variance, the proposal will be consistent with this criteria. The
applicant proposes a road right-of-way width of thirty-two (32') feet in width.
20. The Subdivision Road Design Criteria of Subsection 6.203(5) states:
Cul-de-sacs shall have right-of-ways at least one hundred (100) feet in diameter at the closed end
and shall normally not exceed one-eighth mile in length.
Subject to granting of the requested variance, the proposal will be consistent with this criteria.
Preliminary Plat And Variance
The Inn at Port Ludlow
LP-02-91
5
21. The Road Design Criteria of Subsection 6.203(12) states:
Road grades, curves, and intersections shall provide adequate sight distances for traffic safety.
Subject to appropriate conditions, the proposal will be consistent with this criteria.
22. The Road Design Criteria of Subsection 6.203(13) states:
Private roads shall only be permitted in a subdivision by a variance granted in accordance
with these regulations, PROVIDED, as a condition to granting a variance for private roads,
the Board of Commissioners may require a road improvement district or other provisions
to be instituted upon final plat filing to insure future maintenance and improvement of said
roads.
The proposal includes a variance request. Subject to granting of the requested variance and appropriate
conditions for maintenance of the private road, the proposal will be consistent with this criteria.
23. The Road Design Criteria of Subsection 6.203(14) states:
Engineering design of all roads shall conform with Jefferson County road standards.
Subject to acceptance of the private road and verification of its construction to County. standards, or the
conditions of the variance, by the Department of Public Works, the proposal will be consistent with this
requirement.
24. The Road Design Criteria of Subsection 6.203(15) states:
Subdivisions shall incorporate limited-access provisions when adjacent to arterial and secondary
access roads.
Subject to appropriate conditions, the proposal will be consistent with this criteria. The adjacent County
road, Oak Bay Road, is an arterial road. A single access point is proposed.
25. The Park/Community Sites/Facilities Criteria of Subsection 6.204(1) states:
Minimum area for parks, open space, greenbelt and buffer strips shall be provided as ten
(10) percent of the total gross area of the subdivision with at least one-half (1/2) of said
area being suitable for active recreational pursuits.
Subject to conditions, the proposal will be consistent with the requirement of ten (10) percent as open
space with at least one-half (1/2) of the area suitable for active recreational uses. The proposed open
space areas within tracts "B" and "C" collectively exceed the 1.8 acres of open space required.
26. The Park/Community Sites/Facilities Criteria of Subsection 6.204(3) states:
Open space, parks, or common areas should be efficiently located and provided with
adequate access.
Subject to appropriate conditions, the proposal will be consistent with this criteria.
27. The Easement Criteria of Subsection 6.205(1) states:
When required for final plat approval, easements for utility installation and main~nance
shall conform to the standard width of seven (7) feet along front lot lines, five (5) feet
along side lot lines, and ten (10) feet along rear lot lines. Such easements may be made
by a separate recorded easement, declaration of easements, or dedication of easements,
and by graphic portrayal on the final plat.
Preliminary Plat And Variance
The Inn at Port Ludlow
LP-02-91
6
Subject to appropriate conditions, the proposal will be consistent with the utility easement requirements.
28. The Road Improvement Criteria of Subsection 6.301 states:
All roads shall be constructed to County standards upon approval of the Director of Public
Works. All roads within the plat, or necessary for access to the plat, shall be constructed,
ballasted, surfaced with crushed rock and paved in accordance with Jefferson County
standards. All fixtures to be located under the roadway shall be installed before ballast
is laid, including culverts, storm drains, sanitary sewers, water lines, and service leads.
The road bed shall be brought to an approved grade, road ditches shall be graded and
back-sloped, and an inspection shall be arranged with the County Engineer, before the
ballast is laid. All required road construction must be approved by the Director of Public
Works prior to approval of the final plat.
Subject to acceptance of the private road and verification of its construction to County standards by the
Department of Public Works, the proposal will be consistent with this requirement. All road improvements
are required to be inspected by the Department of Public Works.
29. The Drainage Improvement Criteria of Subsection 6.302 states:
1
!
Drainage facilities adequate to prevent erosion, flooding or hazard to the use of the roads,
lots, property, or facilities within the plat, or to adjacent private or public property shall
be installed according to a drainage plan approved by the Public Works Director in
accordance with County standards. The plan shall show full details, including the
locations, lengths, and sizes of culverts, and the method and location of run-off water
disposal.
Subject to appropriate conditions, the proposal will be consistent with this criteria.
30. The Bridge Design and Construction Criteria of Subsection 6.303 states:
The design and construction of any bridge in a subdivision shall be in accordance with Jefferson
County standards and shall be approved by the Public Works Director prior to approval of the final
plat.
Subject to appropriate conditions, the proposal will be consistent with this criteria.
31. The Road Signs Criteria of Subsection 6.304 states:
Road signs shall be installed in accordance with Jefferson County standards. Road names shall
be approved by the Public Works Director.
Subject to conditions, the proposal will be consistent with this criteria.
32. The Water Supply Criteria of Subsection 6.305 states:
A community water system, adequate in quality and quantity, shall be provided for every
subdivision in accordance with the rules and regulations of the Washington State
Department of Social and Health Services and the Jefferson County Health Department
as regards source, source protection, facilities for withdrawal, treatment, storage,
transmission and distribution.
Subject to conditions, the proposal will be consistent with this criteria. The LudloVl Water Company
water system will serve the proposed project with water.
Preliminary Plat And Variance
The Inn at Port Ludlow
LP-02-91
7
38, The Improvement Bonding Requirements of Subsection 6.50(1) states:
As an alternate to complete installation of required improvements before final plat
approval, the subdivider may elect to post a performance bond guaranteeing completion
of the work within a stated period not to exceed one (1) year.
Subject to appropriate conditions of preliminary plat approval, the proposal will be consistent with this
criteria.
Preliminary Plat And Variance
The Inn at Port Ludlow
LP-Q2-91
8
VARIANCE REOUEST:
1. To vary from the requirement that all subdivisions be served by a constructed and maintained
public road. (6.203.3). The request is to allow a private road.
2. To vary from the requirement that the standard width of public or private road right-of-ways be
sixty (60) feet, fifty (50) feet, or forty (40) feet. (6.203.4). The request is to allow thirty-two
(32') foot wide road rights-of-way.
3. To vary from the requirement of a minimum 100-foot diameter for cul-de-sacs. (6.203.5). The
request is to allow alternative turnarounds.
4. To vary from the requirement that the engineering design for all roads conform with Jefferson
County road standards. (6.203.14). The request is to allow flexibility in the engineering design
for roads.
As directed by the Jefferson County Board of Commissioners on October 19, 1992, the County Director of
Public Works has reviewed the elements of this variance request under the appropriate provisions of the
Second and Third Editions of the County Subdivision Ordinance. The Board has directed application of the
lesser standard from each ordinance edition for subdivision applications which were vested under the second
edition. In order to be vested, a subdivision application needed to be submitted prior to July 1, 1992. The
application for "The Inn at Port Ludlow" was submitted and vested on December 9, 1991. The applicant
has verbally requested the County to apply the standards of the Third Edition to the requested variance.
At the request of the applicant, the following provisions of the Third Edition of the Subdivision Ordinance
have been applied to the variance request:
1. 6.309.4 Roads: Long subdivisions shall incorporate standard sixty foot (60') wide rights-of-way where
public roads are to be dedicated. Private road easements shall also be sixty feet (60') wide, and shall
be established by recording of a separated instrument or by declaration of easement dedication....
However, easement width for private roads which (a) do not exceed five hundred feet (500') in length
and serve fourteen (14) or fewer lots; or (b) dead-end due to topographic features such as a shoreline
or river, may be reduced by the Board pursuant to recommendation by the Director of Public Works.
Comment: Based on the proposed preliminary plat, the internal road dead-ends near the shoreline of Port
Ludlow Bay. If recommended by the Director of Public Works, the easement width for the access road
could be reduced to the requested width, subject to conditions.
2. 6.309.5: All dead-end roads shall be designed to include provisions for emergency vehicle turnarounds
in accordance with standards established by the Director of Public Works.
Comment: Within the proposed plat there are three roads which dead-end. Each of the proposed roads
features means for emergency vehicles to turnaround. Assuming the Director of Public Works determines
the proposed dead-end streets are in compliance with the standards, this requirement, would be met.
3. 6.309.13: Engineering design of all roads shall conform with officially adopted Jefferson County road
standards.
Comment: The adopted county road standards were revised with the amendment of the Subdivision
Ordinance. This revision resulted in a lesser standard for access roads. According to written comments
from the Department of Public Works, the proposed road design may be consistent with the adopted
standards for the anticipated traffic volumes, topographic and drainage conditions, public convenience
and safety, and the proposed uses of the land served.
Preliminary Plat And Variance
The Inn at Port Ludlow
LP-02-91
9
STAFF RECOMMENDATION - VARIANCE REQUEST:
Based on the direction of the Board of County Commissioners and the recommendation of the Director of
Public Works, staff recommends approval of an administrative exception from the above Subdivision
Ordinance provisions.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION - PRELIMINARY PLAT:
Based on the forgoing findings and conclusions staff recommends approval of the proposed Inn At Port
Ludlow Preliminary Long Plat, subject to the following conditions.
RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS:
1. Based on the rules of Subsection 3.30 (1), all of the property identified as Parcel 821 162 001 within
the subdivision application is subject to the requirements of the Subdivision Ordinance. The westerly
portion of the site shall be included within the final subdivision plat as a platted subdivision lot, or as
dedicated green belt/open space.
2. The proposed roadway system shall be constructed to the standards of the Jefferson County Department
of Public Works. All plans and specifications required shall be submitted, reviewed and approved by the
Department of Public Works prior to construction. '
3. An agreement for the continued maintenance of private roads shall be established either by recording of
a separate instrument and referencing said instrument, or by establishment of said agreement by
declaration on the large lot subdivision plat.
4. Prior to final plat approval, the applicant shall provide for the maintenance of the private roads within the
subdivision. Provisions for maintaining the private road shall be approved by the Board of
Commissioners.
5. The recreation/open space area of the proposal shall be a minimum area of ten percent (10%) of the
total gross area of the subdivision. Open space dedications shall be established by recording of a
separate instrument, or by declaration of dedication graphically shown on the final long plat. The open
space dedication shall be in perpetuity.
6. Required easements for utility installation and maintenance shall conform with the standards of
Subsection 6,205 (1) of the Subdivision Ordinance. All utility easements shall be made by a separate
recorded easement, declaration of easements, or dedication of easements, and by graphic portrayal on
the final long plat mylar.
7. All roads shall be constructed to County Standards upon approval of the Director of Public Works. All
roads within the plat, or necessary for access to the plat, shall be constructed, ballasted, surfaced with
crushed rock and paved in accordance with Jefferson County standards. All required road construction
must be approved by the Director of Public Works prior to approval of the final plat.
8. The proponent shall submit an engineered drainage and storm water plan and report to the Jefferson
County Public Works Department for review and approval. The drainage plan must incorporate the storm
drainage criteria of the Washington State Department of Ecology Storm Water Manaaement Manual
(current edition). The plan shall be reviewed and approved by the County Department of Public Works
prior to final plat approval.
9. APPROPRIATE EIS MITIGATIONS FOR STORM WATER PER ATTACHED EXHIBIT A.
10 APPROPRIATE EIS MITIGATIONS FOR EROSION CONTROL PER ATTACHED EXHIBIT A.
Preliminary Plat And Variance
The Inn at Port Ludlow
LP-QZ-91
10
,
11. Based on the requirements of Subsection 6.303 of the Subdivision Ordinance, prior to final plat approval,
. the design and construction of the pedestrian bridge across the pond shall be reviewed and approved by
the Director of County Department of Public Works.
12. All access roads shall be signed in accordance with the Department of Public Works standards for road
name signs, as per Subsection 6.304, of the Jefferson County Subdivision Ordinance 1-75, as amended.
13. Prior to final plat approval, the applicant shall submit written certification from the water purveyor
verifying approval of the design to extend water service to the proposal from the community water
system.
14. The design and construction of the Ludlow Sewer Company sewer lines and connection to the
wastewater treatment plant shall be in accordance with the Washington State Department of Ecology
requirements and approval. Prior to final plat approval, the applicant shall submit written certification
verifying compliance with applicable Department of Ecology and Department of Health requirements.
15. Prior to final plat approval, the applicant shall contact the local fire protection district and secure written
approval from the fire district regarding adequacy of fire protection and available fire flows to serve the
proposed subdivision.
16. The applicant shall demonstrate that a fire hydrant will be placed within 300 feet of each lot. Fire
hydrants shall be located not more than 600 feet apart. The placement and spacing of fire hydrants shall
be approved in writing by the chief of Jefferson County Fire Protection District No.3. prior to final plat
approval.
17.ln accordance with Ordinance 4-82, Section 5.40, Amendment to the Jefferson County Subdivision
Ordinance, the applicant shall be required to pay all costs of work incidental to approval of the
subdivision before final approval is granted.
18. Address plates for the lots shall be located in accordance with Jefferson County 911 Emergency Locator
System Ordinance provisions.
19. Applicant shall select road names in consultation with the Department of Public Works to avoid
duplication of existing road names.
20. The applicant shall comply with all applicable mitigative measures of the Final Project/Program
Environmental Impact Statement issued by the Jefferson County Board of Commissioners. The mitigative
measures are attached and identified as Exhibit A.
21 . The applicant shall contact Chimacum School District # 49 for review of school bus turnaround
provisions, school bus loading and unloading facilities, sidewalks, and accommodations for additional
students. Prior to final subdivision plat approval, the applicant shall submit the recommendations of the
school district to the Jefferson County Planning and Building Department.
Preliminary Plat And Variance
The Inn at Port Ludlow
LP-oZ-91
11
OCT. :3 '~31
1:3: 25
STORE
FROM PORT LUDLOW
,~'Cl\~~ 1
.-~ee~~j~Uj a
~'-tOlo . 0
e
..~
l.t", ~
('c:-:- ;-;:- -:',,,}. L .~"':.r~:-'l.."'~'1~"",~) t"_;:L0.:i~-
PO.s:t~It~ bra~d fax 1r2~.~j.smHt~~l rr~~rliO 7{j7"J r~-~:~~::--:"~"'=-:'---
PA(::iE: . 001
..
~
f~;;'
Pllone:;
De~t. .
. PJJ9##/.I./t$ -./. ~("/"?;.f,{
Fal(:;; .385"'-1/ 7S'"
Fax"
o
.~
J~fferson County
P.O. Box 3, Port Ludlow, WA 98385 \'"l COU\'"l\'l
Phone: 437-2236 jEff'E.RSO ~\.D\"'G ngt{.
flV.~~\~G &. ~\l
QC1 - 4: '\99\
Octoher 3, ~99~
Jefferson County Planning and Building Dept.
Attn. : .Te-rry Sm.i i:h
P.O. Box 1220
Port Townsend, WA 98368
Re: Port LUdlow Resort:. and Marina expansion.
Dear Mr. Smith:
In an effort to plan for the safQty of the reso~t
gueetc and to minimize fire loss and damage, I am
submitting the following items for your ~eview. These
~re concerns ot Jefferson County Fire District No.3 and
should be included in the planning stage of this
project.
1. Fire HYdrants. Fire hydrants Shal~ Be placed so
that no building is more than 30Q' from a fire hydrant.
All fire hydrants shall be m~de aeeessi~le from roads
of normal travel, to eliminate the need to go through
properties, fences etc.
~ . Hotp.l ProtQcti.9~
A. Sprinkler System. There Shall be an approved
wet style sprinkler system approved by the
National Fire COde throughout the interior
of the proposed hotel. All exterior covered
areas shall have a dry type sprinkler system.
The sprinkler systems Shall be designed to
havQ immediate exterior access so that the
j, '::'-.,,'"~"."~:'. aQ'.~
\
I
I
~
- --- -
"
fire district may sun~lv extra watar to the
Syrinkl3r GY3tem~waen.ne~ded.
B. Standpipe System. There Shall be a dry
standpipe system apprOVed cy the
National Pire Code and ins~lled in all
Vertical stairways with ~ire department
connections on all floors.
The standpipe system shall have an exterior
fire depar'bnent r.t;\nneotion 111 010se proximity
'to a fire hYdrant so that the fire dAP~cnt:
may SU!,!\ly the at~udp1pe system with adequate
water and water pressure.
C. Alarm System. There should be a fire alarm
system throUC]hoiJt the hotel and rental units.
This should display the location of the fire
alarm at the 24 hour duty front desk or
office.
D. Elevators. Elevators Shall be designed to
accommodate dimension of Emergency Medicnl
equipment to allow evacuation of injured or
incapaCitated guests.
3. Marina Protection.
A. All newl:y construeted floats and docks Shall
haVe a f~re d~partmGnt dry type standpipe
sYl::;tem.. 'l'he design shall enable the fire
department to have the ability to pump water
from shore throughout the dock.
Many vessels that dock at the marina are
equal in size to a small house or larger.
Because of the fuel tranSported on these
vessels it l11akes it necessary for the
fire district to administer foam to
extinguish fires. Water quantity and
water pressure is very instrumental in the
ad~inisterinq of foam for fire
extinguiShment.
Our greatest concern in tha expansion or the resort is
the proposed hotel. The hotel is planned for three
stories, 45' in height. Our fire district is equipped
with 35' ground ladders that when properly extended
will reach a height of 27'. A so' eX'Cc::nsiou laOaer
will ....,,"" only 38' when properly el<1:ended. ~ ~U;ll
ii:n: ~~~ =~!r~~~~~ ~;'l ~~t~~;X ~~2E
,"';kHJ . J~l::loJ
J,:J01'J 1"10 lUll I HJOoJ [...IOU J
~1~:1~1 LL;, L:
1JO
800'39tld
The only safe and reliable pieca of equip~ent for fire
fighting and life safety and rescue for abuil.ding and
OCcupancy load of this nature would be an aerial
platform. truck. The cost of this Particular piece of
apparatus is not in the budget or the planning of this
fire district.
The closest areal platform truck available on a mutua1
aid basis 'would be Port Townsend Fire Department (30
minute response time) or Silverdale fire DePartment if
available at a 45 minute response time.
Even with sprinkler systems, s'tandpipe systems and
alarm systeu:s, fires do and will occur. It is the duty
and responsibility of the fire district to plan for
ways to deal with these inevitabilities. Through our
joint planning, it is our goal to minimize the severity
of these losses.
Sincerely,
e.n 77/~
Brian N. MCFerran
Fire Chief, JCFD #3
cc: Commissioners - Fire D1st. #3
L.a.A.
Ludlow Water Company
3~OlS Mo'an~ l~Od wo~~
1:)0
L2:El t6~:~ --
Public Utility District #1
October 25, 1991
Board of Gornrnissicners:
Richard M District 1
Kenneth Distnct
.Jchn L Reep,Jr.,Dlstric't :3
Jerry Smith
Jefferson County Planning and Building Department
P. O. Box 1220
Port Townsend, W A 98368
Fjc'bert A LOae!l,
Re: Requests for District input
JEFFERSON COUNTY
PLAN"'!M~ It RIII/n'NG DEPT.
OCT 2 9 1991
Dear Jerry,
The following comments are this District's input to various applications for subdivision
and/or other permitting activities:
1. Long Subdivision; Pope Resources: The Inn at Port Ludlow
Water & sewer are not served by the PUD; we have no objections.
2. Short Subdivision; Robert Swanson (deceased): Brinnon
We have no objections.
3. Glenn R. Wood, Trustee, Highlands Trust: SW! Sec 18, Twn 30N, Rg 2W WM.
The current CWSP maps indicate that the majority, if not all, of this area is within
the water service area of Cape George Water Company. The Metsker Atlas shows
the entire quarter section as being part of the Cape George Community.
The environmental checklist indicates that no water is at the site and that individual
wells will be used. In accordance with the CWSP, before four addition private wells
are drilled, the service should be applied for and either approved with conditions or
denied by the utility responsible in that area or adjacent utility if the subject
property is not within a service area.
If you have any questions or comments, please don't hesitate to call.
Sincerely,
/, ~
)1 , ',JJ
WuYd ;,--{
Robert A. Leach
District Manager
(206)385-5800 FAX
JEFFERSON COUNTY
PlANNJN(; R Rf'II OIMr, DEPl
NOV' 1 2 'j991
November 7, 1'991
, ..
Jefferson County Planning & Bldg. Dept.
P.O. Box 1220 '
Port Tbwnsend, WA 98368
You have sent us a Notice of Application for a Long Subdi-
vision, for a project proposed by Pope Resources in Port
ludlow, and have asked for cmnment.
We attended the open meeting on Octob,er 7 and were quite
unimpressed by Pope Resources commen'b:s on the environmental
questions put to them. The answerswfir,e cursory and lacked
the depth needed to judge the propo$.'aI fairly. Similarly,
the staff comments were inadequate;. In our opinion there is
major dou'Qt on the environ..rnental impact of the project as
it has been proposed. For example, the plan to build on the
narrow strip of land extending \vestvlard between Oak Bay Rd.
and the water is almost certain to lead to unacceptable run-
off and erosion. The costruction of 'commercial establish-
ments on the "'spit"" will eliminate for all users, for all
practical purposes, the only remaining green area adjacent
to the waterfront. The absence of adequate parking next to
marina will lead to abuses of the dock area. The density of
housing in close proximity to the water exceeds a..."lY reason-
able level for an exurban area and raises serious questions
about pollution of the bay. No facts were provided to support
the claim that water and sewer utilities were adequate to
support the development.
In our view, a thorough environmental impact study by an
independent and reputable consultant must be conducted before -
any action is taken by you.
Very truly yours,
f.~/!::::~
1~. ~~~~~
201 Condon Lane
Port Ludlow, WA 98365
JEFFERSON COUNTY
0110 ~''''''''~ f( RI III f"'''G DEPT.
NO V. U 8 1991
November 7, 1991
Jefferson County Planning and Building Department
Post Office'Box 1220
Port Townsend, WA 98368
I am writing to express my concern regarding the proposal for a
long subdivision and accompanying variances requested by Pope
Resources for their development at Port Ludlow.
The development itself threatens the lifestyle and character of
the area. It is already the most densely populated development
in the area. Their proposal will increase density and
congestion. It will deny residents the opportunity to enjoy
the area as it was originally proposed and designed. I feel this
new plan is a departure from the original intent of the Port
Ludlow development.
The variance application contains the veiled threat that without
the variance, they will have to fill in the mill pond, reduce
open space and otherwise create even more harm than they propose.
I disapprove of their tactics and their proposal.
Finally, the already taxed sewage disposal systems will be
burdened by additional development.
I hope that you will consider the long-term value of this area as
a recreational development of the proportion and size that is
appropriate for the area and that will preserve the unique and
peaceful climate that we all treasure.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment.
O~o~f ~tty owner
1
~ec\\on
~~o
4&
.~
((
-~
~.1.
~. ~
I~
0/8/1l"
7~1
~
..p
JEFFERSON COUNTY
PlANNING & BUILDING DEPT.
Nav 1 2 1991
Jefferson County
P.O. Box 3, Port Ludlow, WA 98365
Phone: 437-2236
November 8,1991
Jefferson County Commissioners
P.o. Box 1220
Port Townsend, Washington
98368
RE: Jefferson County Long Subdivision App.
The Inn at Port Ludlow
Gentlemen,
Jefferson County Fire district No. 3 requests a delay of
the deadline of Nov. 13,1991 for comments of the expansion
project at the Resort at Port Ludlow.
The copy of the variance request was recieved by the
Jefferson County Planning and Building Dept. on Aug. 8,
1991, we did not recieve a copy until October 25, 1991.
Our fire district will require at least 3 weeks to assess
the impact of the resort expansion pertaining to equipment,
personnel and proceedures in protecting a facility of this
magnitude. We therefore request a minimum extension of time
allowed for response to this application until November 21,
1991
Sincerely,
~~17 /7J~'
Brian N. McFerran,
Fire Chief, JCFD #3
\..oUMMUNlvA~Lt:
DISEASE CONTROL
t'Utl' .. HEALTH
,ING
VITAL
STATISTICS
EN -'RON MENTAL
EALTH
HEALTH
EDUCA TlON
802 SHERIDAN PORT TOWNSEND. WASH, 98368
(206) 385-0722
(X) FOR YOUR INFORMATION
( ) PLEASE RESPOND
( ) PER YOUR REQUEST
Date: November 13, 1991
To:
MICHELLE GREWELL
Address:
JEFFERSON COUNTY PLANNING DEPT
JEFFERSON COUNTY COURTHOUSE
PORT TOWNSEND WA 98368
JEFFERSON COUNTY
PLANNING & BWW/NG DEPT.
NOV 1. 5 1991
pr$GL
From:
Larry Fay
Environmental Health Director
Subject: Subdivision Applications
Message:
This office has reviewed the following applications and where
appropriate, have added comments.
a) Application for Long Subdivision - 7A.t__} /1.1 .~ /07 L. 4r~;..ov
This project is served by a public water and sewer system and
this office has no comments.
b) Subdivision Exemption Application
Aldene and Jim McCUllough, Parcel Numbers 702 133 024, 702 133
023, 702 133 017, and 702 133 019. Each lot is presently served
by an existing permitted on-site sewage system which will not be
affected by the proposed action, therefore we have no objection
to approval of the application.
c) Subdivision Exemption Application - Pacific Funding Corporation,
702 022 003 and 702 024 017 - No comments.
d) Subdivision Application, Mark Moriarty, Parcel Numbers 821 171
004 and 821 171 001 - No comment.
e) SUbdivision Exemption Application, Ben and Helen Levine, Parcel
Number 002 332 006 -
The proposed new parcel meets maximum area requirements (WAC 248-
96-090) and is currently served with an existing permitted on-
site sewage system, therefore the Health Department has no
objection to approval of the application.
r'''/ '~:; -=" --: '.
, f'~r ,fJ ,l "-""oi. -
.c:~.' >:'3..:'~,' _T";; f. ." -,~--:;,<=> ;c..~"
"p,' ,.1 ,. ", r~ 11 .." 'J'....,. ,
tP."":';0 ',,". ,'f.' .J'- . ~'".~';:
.~, ..00 .f,\.._ ',.. I f. .-;;
4. 'j Ui; ", :. ~~: .. .'. ,.;~;;..
, :, ,: . ", ~ ,,,,., '-~".'l;'" A;
~'" T. - " . l.,.-..., -lII;.- '.~ _." .' '. J..i
-( , . .f.,....... \- .- -.- r-: -._- ..:.;1
II' 1 J~' "';,;;r:I ~~ ,_ '.:; lI'~ ':, }(
~:."i].},:, ",~i>>j~~.: .." OIl! \:i:':'
.' l,:{ I ,:r-.::t~'F', -," :-'.:f. , r
;, ~ _1 ~~ ,.i___f~::..... . f 1D; ;~~" ..,,: ,."_ - : .f~;,
I _..,r"-",~,,..t6fJal--- .-. ',y-'
~~~!~~~..;~~:t . ;t~~~.::
JEFFERSON COUNTY
PLANNING AND BUILDING DEPARTMENT
P,O. Box 1220
Port TIlwnspnd, Wa<;hin~ton 983(j8
Planning (20(i) ;J85-9140
Building (2()(i) 385-m41
JEFFERSON COUNTY (,'()URTHOUSI~
Craig Ward, l>irpdor
November 15, 1991
Brian N. McFerran
Jefferson County Fire District No. 3
PO Box 3
Port Ludlow, WA 98365
Re: Long Subdivision Application - The Inn at Port Ludlow
Dear Mr. McFerran:
This is in response to your letter dated November 8, 1991 and the request to extend the comment
period. Upon receipt of an application for a long subdivision, the Planning Department staff starts
the review process as required by the Jefferson County Subdivision Ordinance. This process involves
notice of application and request for comments from numerous agencies and the adjacent property
owners. Concurrent with starting the application notice process, the County begins review of the
environmental checklist of a proposal for the purpose of evaluating probable significant environmental
impacts, if any. Occasionally, one of these two steps in the process are delayed. The most common
delay happens when a projects environmental review schedule is altered. This is the case with this
proposed long subdivision.
The County will continue its review of the environmental checklist during the later part of December,
1991. Upon completion of the environmental review process, which will be sometime in January,
1992, the Planning Department staff will proceed with the long subdivision application review
process.
Due to the above circumstances, Jefferson County will extend the comment period until November
21, 1991 as per your request. Your comments are an important element of the County development
review process. We appreciate your efforts to submit comments in a timely manner.
If you have any questions pertaining to this proposal or the review process, please feel free to call
the Planning Department at 385-9140.
c: Jefferson County Board of Commissioners
.. "
..", .
t\eC\\on
~~O
o
.~
4:
DiSt~"
7~1
~ JEFFERSON COUNTY
o PlANNINl; R BWInING DEPT-
· tP NOV 25 1991
~~
1,~
1~
Jefferson County
P.O. Box 65003, Port Ludlow, WA 98365
District Office: 437-2899 Training/Safety: 437-2236
November 19, 1991
craig Ward
Jefferson County
Planning and Building Department
P.O. Box 1220
Port Townsend, WA 98368
Re: Pope Resources Development projects
Dear Mr. Ward:
Our fire district has been studying the plans for the
expansion of the Inn at Port Ludlow along with the major
residential development already in progress. It is apparent
to us that these projects will create a significant negative
impact on our fire district and thereto on present residents
and future residents.
Our district relies primarily on volunteer staff (92%), with
only 2 career firefighterjEMTs. The current projects
planned within the district, do not include any positive
probabili ty for a labor source that will help with the
projected increased demand on our services. with the
present growth in the district, we are stretched to the
limit to protect the existing population. The bulk of the
Pope Resources marketing is projected toward senior citizen
buyers. This creates a population with a higher likelihood
for our services and a limited resource from which we could
recruit to supply this service.
We are presently developing an impact statement to be
submitted to the Jefferson County Planning Department. This
will identify the impact on our services and what will be
needed to provide protection for life and property within
our fire district.
pp. 2 of 2
11/19/91
We look forward to working with the Planning Department,
Pope Resources and any other business or agency that may
bring an impact on the fire district services.
Sincerely,
:;(jL J2 7JP'~
Brian N. McFerran
Fire Chief - J.C.F.P.D.#3
BNM: jm
cc: J. Smith
D. Cunningham
REVISED DECEMBE:r< 4, 1991
JEFFERSON COUNTY
PLA"'t\lIl\~ ~. Rllll OING DEPT.
DE.e 0 9 1991.,-
J'EFF,ERSON COUNT~ '."', , ,,' "
LONG SUBDIVISION APPL~;g~ti;qJ(t:;;':;2c';;O:i .b'~
. ~1
The Washington State Boundaries and Plat Act (RCW 58.17) requires
that divisions of land for sale or lease comply with the provisions
of the Jefferson County Subdivision Ordinance. The purpose of this
act and ordinance is to ensure that potential purchases have lots
with adequate access, water supply, sewage disposal, legal
description of land, etc., and the general taxpayers of the county
will not later have to unnecessarily contribute toward those
development costs. The ordinance requires that long subdivisions
(the division of land into five or more lots, tracts, parcels, or
si tes) wi thin the unincorporated area of Jefferson County be
reviewed with criteria established by the ordinance. A parcel of
land eligible for long subdivision inc~udes commercial, industrial
or residential land use'(s).
APPLICANT: Pope Resources
ADDRESS:
PO Box 1780, Poulsbo, Washinqton 98370
TELEPHONE: (home)
(business) (206) 697-6626
AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE: David Cunningham, Vice President, Land Use
ADDRESS:
Same as above.
TELEPHONE: (home)
(business) (206) 697-6626 ext. 525
DIRECTIONS
ct Answer all questions completely.' (Please print or type.)
Contact the Jefferson County Planning Department for aid in filling
out this application and for instructions on further administrative
procedures required to complete its processing. ,
,0 Attach any additional information (reports, studies, maps,
illustrations, leases, permits, etc.) that may further describe the
proposed development or m~y be required ,by Jefferson County, in
addition to the preliminary or final plat.
~ Check with appropriate agencies to determine if the proposed
development requires aQditional permits or approvals. An accepted
plat under the Jefferson County Subdivision Ordinance does not
excuse a developer from complying with other local, state, federal
ordinances, regulations or statutes applicable to the proposed
development.
PROPERTY DESCRIPTION
GENERAL LOCATION: In the unincorporated community of Port LIJdlow hptwppn
Oak Bay Road and the existinq marina. It extends easterly and encomrrlC:;C:;pc:;
the entire restaurant, parkinq area, mill pond. and spit south of the LIJ dlow
Maintenance Commission's "Beach Club. II
LEGAL (from property tax statement): Portions of Government Lots 1 and
2 in Section 16, Township 28 North, Ranqe 1 East. WM.
Parcel Numbers 821162001 and 821162002.
OWNERSHIP:
Applicant: ID< Owner
o Lessee 0 Contract
Purchaser
o Other
(Identify)
Owner (name and address):
SUBDIVISION DESCRIPTION
SUBDIVISION NAME (if known): The Inn at Port Ludlow
LAND USE (identify as commercial, residential, industrial, etc.)
Residential/ Commercial
APPLICATION IS FOR
~RELIMINARY PLAT
o FINAL PLAT
1
,.
o Notifications: when
applicable
as pertaining to on-site
sewage disposal, utility
districts, unstable slopes,
or other conditions of final
pIa t approval. Each numbered
accordingly and worded per
the subdivision ordinance
and/or conditions
o Plat identification as
easement, covenant, or
restriction for type filed
under Auditor's record
(number, volume << page)
o Declaration and/or dedication
of easements-label easements
for ingress/egress and/or
utility installation and
maintenance
o Declaration of covenants or
restrictions-state any
covenants or restrictions on
final plat
o Current plat certification
confirming the title of the
land as described and shown
on the final plat
o A $53.00 recording fee,
payable to the Jefferson
County Auditor, shall
accompany the final long
plat
NOTE: Applications for long subdivision which upon initial
'inspection appear to be insufficiently prepared to provide a basis
for adequate review will be returned to the applicant.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
I hereby declare, to the best of my knowledge and belief, the
foregoing information and all attached information is true and
correct.
(applicant
/)~ 4./QQI
( da te ) .
..
,;
.....
REVISED DECEME . 4, 1991.
APPLICr\TIO~ F~E $ 50.00
Req~est for Site De~e~opme~t
Sta~dard Varia~ce
Variances from site development standards may be granted when the
application of the standard would result in practical difficulty and undue
hardship. The following application provides the information necessary for
variance review.
'DIRECTIONS
/2-9-'1/
_ Answer all questions completely.. (Please prlnt or type.) Contact the
Jefferson County Planning Department for aid in filling out this application
and for instructions on further administrative procedures required to
complete its processing. Submit this variance request along with your
permit application.
6- Attach any additional information (reports, studies, maps, illustrations,
leases, permits, etc.) that may further describe the proposed variance in
addition to the site plan.
"
APPL:II::ANT: Pope Resources
ADDRESS:
PO Box 1780, Poulsbo, Washinqton 98370
1
TELEPHONE: (home)
(busines5) (206) 697-6626
PROPERTY DESCRIPTION
GENERAL LOCATION: In the unincorporated community
Oak Bay Road and the existinq marina.
the entire restaurant arkin area mil
udlow Maintenance Commission's "Beach Club."
LEGAL: (from property tax statement): Portions of Government Lots 1 and 2
in Section 16, Township 28 North, Ranqe 1 East, WM.
..
Tax Parcel Number 821162001 & 821162002
VARIANC? R~QUEST
A variance is an exception from the general rule or standard and as such
must be accompanied by sufficient reasoning to justify granting its
approval. Granting a variance is based on a hardship presented by
applying the standard ,to circumstances or conditions unique to the
. "-
property and generally not experienced by other properties. The following
questions will assist in the evaluation of the variance request.
From which standards are you requesting a variance?
Jefferson Count Subdivision Ordinance Section 6.203 (3) requIring public roads;
Section 6.203 4 requiring road right-of-ways to be 40, 50, or 60 feet in width;
Section 6.203 (5) requiring 100-foot minimum diameter for cul-de-sacs; and
Section 6.203 (14) requiring engineering design of all roads to conform with
Jefferson County road standards.
Describe the extraordinary conditions or unusual circumstances which exist
on your property that would justify' deviation from the standard.
The site is uniquely isolated from all other Port Ludlow development properties
by the marine shoreline to the east and south, Oak Bay Road and a canyon to
the west, and developed private property to the north the use of which, by
restrictive covenant, cannot change.
.. . .
Are these conditions unique to your property and not experienced by otf.er
.1)" ..II'
,properties in the area? (If yes, please explain.)
Yes. There are no other properties in the area that exhibit similar physical
conditions or geographical configuration.
.'.
<I
Were any of these conditions or circumstances caused directly by you? (If
yes, please explain.)
No. The conditions are due to natural features of the site and existing
adjoining uses.
Describe the hardship the standard places on the use of your property.
The development of public roads with conventional right~of-way widths and
construction standards would require a completely different project design.
By doing so, impervious surfaces and earthwork would be increased, open
space decreased, and the number of dwelling units substantially reduced.
Is the deviation you request the minimum necessary to accomplish your
project or is there another reasonable way to accomplish your project that
would not require a variance? (Please explain)
It is possible, but not desirable, to fill rather than enlarge the mill pond;
extend cuts and fill; reduce open space allocations; reduce lot sizes; and
increase the size and scale of buildings. However, the project would not
have the small, village-scale, low intensity character or appearance of that
which is propo~ed.
.
Is there anything else you would add which supports your request?
The request for private roads (a) is necessary and desirable for the most
logical development of the land, (b) will provide. physical access adequate to
preserve public health, safety, and welfare, and (c) the design, construction,
and maintenance for the private road system willo-.'be assured to the satisfaction
of the Public Works Director.
SITE PLAN
A site plan must accompany the variance request. It needs to be no larger
than 81/2 by 11 inches, suitable for copying, and graphically illustrate or
identify the fOllowing features:
· North arrow and scale
· Development area (property boundary lines, section lines, etc.)
· Property improvements (existing and proposed structures, utilities, septic
tank and drainfield location, existing wells, etc.) .
· Property features (existing and proposed changes to topography and
.. ground relief, vegetation, shoreline location, outstanding physical
features, etc.) .
· · Setbacks. (required and proposed, if. different)
.. Roads (State, County and private) and easements (road, utility and others)
· Other information that explains the variance request.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
I hereby declare that the information provided in this application is true
and correct to the best of my knowledge. Further, I acknowledge that
development of the proposal may not occur until appxoval has been granted
by Jeffer County.
~ 4) If'?l
(date)
(OFFICE USE ONLY)
CASE NUMBER:
FEE:
RECEIPT NUMBER:
)
r
G') <Xl
;,J 0 ~
N ....<_
..... "'0)> _ en
.X....N
a )> 0
....- 0
...... .
1"1'I....0
0)>....
-X
-.j
<II
III
(JI
.V
V'O~~
-:"..l "I- ~ ,~ ,..\
G' C? ~"~'
o ,. '~, '
'C. /
~..../
....
..........
....
....
....
\
en
.
t'
.,
N
N_
.. .
ITI
CJ)
CJ)
~
'0
~
~
~~ () .
""0 ", /"
~
./
/\j
-0
01
""
<II
:..
II>
...
<9
~
'0
;;
~
..... ..... ~'......
~
l1'1
en
l1'1
~
<
I'TI
" ,.
:...."
",
en
./ co
---
en
CD
en
...,
-
.'1 Ci) Cb
CN -' 0 I\J
,-. ~ -
0) ~ .._
>("-1:
.1:).,. 0
, ,... 0
('I) ~ -
Ill!
OJ
(0 ,
.. -
,...
" III
""('1)
.'b ('I)
"-I
"-I "
III "-I
(:),~
-
C1I:jCb
._I\J
4>(_
I\J ;;
OI~
.1:) 0
oA
;1
>(
....4
"
"-I
~
~
.. ..
, '.
.
.
. , .
..
, COU~1'(
j\:frtR50~\)\~ l}E\'1.
P\J\~~\~G &
" OEe 23 1991.
",._ .~._' f -",
Port Ludlow, WA 98365
541 pioneer Drive
December 19, 1991
..."...... .
l-",....
Director
Jefferson County Planning and Building Department
P.O. Box 1220
Port Townsend, WA 98362
Dear Director:
This is to express our concerns in relation to the
extensive building program of Pope Resources in the Port
Ludlow area. The issue is water.
Pope Resources has dug wells that tap into an aquifer
that Pope is convinced is more than adequate for all their
building plans. However, the residents who live near to the
Pope Resources wells report that since Pope's wells have
been put in place, the supply of water in the neighbor-
ing wells has diminished considerably.
Pope Resources appears to feel that there is no limit
to the number of new houses (lawns, bathrooms, showers and
other water intensive activities) that the supply of ground
water will accommodate.
The question is, is that true? Is there water enough
for everything? A thorough environmental impact study
should include an evaluation of this issue by outside ex-
perts. Residents have a valid need to have this question
answered.
Very truly yo~rf'
cyJ t:'/' ~ (~ A( ~ I~/
/~J~\~/'
l F" /."'" \ t .
, ..q:Lc~' -:-:::"'. O--'U~'
Mr. and Mrs. Alfred N. Larsen
cc: B. G. Brown
Jefferson County Commissioner
......
CHIMACUM SCHOOL DISTRICT #49
...:. I .
" "(1"
P.O. BOX 278 CHIMACUt\l \VA 98325
~1arcia E. Harris, SUl'erinkmknt 385-3922
Elementary Principal
Jody Scott
732-4471
Jr. High Principal
Kathy Wales
732-4219
Sr. High Principal'
Wayne Johnson
732-4481
Director. Student Services
l\1ichad O'Donnell
732-4285
October 28, 1992
Jefferson County Commissioners
Jefferson County Courthouse
Port Townsend, WA 98368
, ,
Dear Commissioners Dennison, Brown and Wojt:
The Chimacum School District has experienced unanticipated and unprecedented
student enrollment growth this fall. Our September and October counts reflect a 8.9%
increase over last year. As a result, oui' permanent facilities have reached capacity
sooner than predicted. Therefore, we request that you delay the approval of any
future developments until such time as adequate facilities are available. Additionally,
we request that unless applicants for future developments work out a voluntary
agreement with the Chimacum Schools on how to mitigate the impacts, the approval of
projects be denied.
We take this action in a~cordance with state law regarding approvals as stated in the
Growth Management J\ct, Section 52 (2): "A proposed subdivision and dedication
shall not be approved unless the...county legislative body makes written findings that:
(a) appropriate provisions are made for the public health, safety, and general welfare
and for...playgrounds, schools and school grounds..."
We are willing to sit down with any developer and explore the possibility of working up
a voluntary agreement on how to mitigate the probable adverse impact on the
Chimacum School District.
" ~
..'
Marcia . Harris
Superintendent
cc: Craig Ward,' County Planning Director
Board of Directors
Janie Amdal, David Braun, Quentin Goodrich, Larry Smith, Lucile Rudolph
1--1-'1- ~
II) , ~ ~\
/:! ~Jt!.- 1
J~ t:!' , "\<
/j I" -:T 7'~ ! \ \
P i '/ ! ;f. \\
~
c=::2J /) fX7 ~ r ~ I:' \
~~ . ~ ~/l/Is j ~~ ;~
'I ~. ~ 1;:::- '\ ...: ! ~
~/iJ ~ .~~~~] ~ ~~ III
1$ '1 'f#Jr~ ~ b'--~dl
IA ~ ,10'! iJN~ Q)j, -
~~ts8 ~~~j III '.4.\ I ~~ 'Z~ ~ ~
.....1!I4dCl ()i!!~ '1',.1 /!!..., .. J:ar r 'N.A~ :ii/If!1I/
Gi!~~; ~JJ.JJJ) Ii ~)~~~.l ~~ # Sr;, > . - ~~~WJ Q
~~ B:f E I-i~ ~~~ ;i~W] 1J#Il . AI:; ili gOt{ ~~~ '\.: ~T!t ,:~~' ~
~ ~ ~ l< a ~ ~J~~ 'f~.. ~i . :\~fti .
(AI/ ,~\\~. i ~ ~ l3mi(r~'1[ ~II "!f . \ .' \ - ~ ~~I~" 1"<)1'-- ~ ;
r~,,'_ ._~ li!yj~//;~'alJ' ',L.~\",:~~ ~------.
~ II( ~ - \~::--j~ t ."~ ~~}?I~S~~'7Y-'!r?"'~' ~J. ~w;:, ,t~~\iJ 1 ~
, L- .~...... .' 7 ;ll P 4! (~~../': "'I::~, 'r '/ (I R
' \ ".... ~ ( '-t lil ~ a ~- II I' , I" i .....~:s ' III
..... ... r . _. ~ y J ......" N ,~_ q '\:t r u... ~
Ii'" - ..... ,.. AI') I\~ ............... /'(F-"";'f'\ ~~ ,..."'~. 'Ii II . ~
:::--:::: I ~. , '---- -t I ....... l' {
"", ........ -.....:;:. D g .-( . lC.l ".. /
. \J ~ \ I _ ~o...- '" '::::.th '/,'1 7: . 1: \ \ .
. .' ( ti-.... . " I. i\ --7'1h....-.J (J ~ / / 1 )
J: '\ ~ ~ r W) j' 7 g~ ~ * . 6 \.." ,.' ~ ~'r I....... .. !Ri il II
fJ; ~i9- -.....; '/~( ~.~ ~..~ ai,
\ \ ~~, 7 i"r!f. ~,.. ,.. : lJ.. '- ~ ./'"A ' ~ .1 'I
\,,\~..::: ~ ~J::f'::1ir ~ i ,,'" . 'Tt'il3 ,.... ~ ~ ~' c ~ ~ ~~ i .II_LII pi ~.
,.,.,~~ --- -~ f i ....sk~ i:l /~ ~ lh Iir /.
,.,........... --=::::::', - .r-.........::::-....o:::::---.,.... i !W1)..~~,. ~. ~ r: -'/.:, P I :II / "
----- -.....;.......~ ",,~"-----o-.. .'~ i ~) ~~.:>, --.............., ~'\, \. <S:.........- Ii : ~ :::: L <.
-~--........... ....... ole ~.......".--- '0 --'. . -......:::::::: l Cl r:
.........,..:::::= -----............." ............... .// --::::::=:::- ~ - ~:~....~ ~ r1 :::: ,
.-----"0.~~.~ ==-- ~-~ ; ~t ii~11 \
--............... ...........:>,~,::::::::..-- ....------------ -- III
............>:::::::::::::=----_____ -- I
.... -- ,. IS
1I oj
I
f
,
t
r
c:::ev.p..i>- m
V ~
j~illl!! 0
~ I ~ i j
I
..
--- S'C
-:=I~
::;~
=:)
)
)
t::::::::(
~,
---j'(
~
I
I
IIi I
~.1I1
it
hi
11-5
:ei-
f.
Il~"
III
'I;;
M.
II
I i::l
~~
~<Y
c:I
.
It
11 W, ~ ,
j!J -....... ...;- ..J.--
'J!p- . ~ ~
a II II ~) - I.
i~ ~~~ ~'
~ ~ ~i 11"- G
illll
I I II
i II
t II
I
il II
PRELIMINARY PLAT
ESM Inc.
a_~__..__.--___
I
.
~
(;
l
~
06 .p II P :
~ ",I,
t 1 ,
i ~ ~ ~ I 5 JEFFERSON COUNTY
POPE RESOURCES
THE INN A TPORTLUDLOW
WASHINGTON
34004 eth AVENUE so.. BLDO, A
nDfftAL WA,Y. WASHNOTON 88003
PHONE: [20e) lS3a-e1l3
JEFFERSON COUNTY
LONG SUBDIVISION APPUCATION
The Washington State Boundaries and Plat Act (RCW 58.17) requires that divisions of land for sale or lease comply
with the provisions of the Jefferson County Subdivision Ordinance. The purpose of this Act and Ordinance is to
ensure that potential purchasers have lots with adequate access, water supply, sewage disposal, legal description
of land, etc., and the general taxpayers of the County will not later have to unnecessarUy contribute toward those
development costs. The Ordinance requires that long subdivisions (the division of land into five or more lots, tracts,
parcels, or sites) within the unincorporated area of Jefferson County be reviewed with criteria established by the
Ordinance. A parcel of land eligible for long subdivision includes commercial, industrial, or residential land use(s).
APPLICANT: Pope Resources
ADDRESS: PO Box 1780, Poulsbo, Washington 98370
TELEPHONE: 206-697-6626, ext. 525
AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE: David Cunningham, Vice President, Land Use
DIRECTIONS
1. Answer all questions completely. Please print or type. Contact the Jefferson County Planning Department for
aid in filling out this application and for instructions on further administrative procedures required to complete
its processing.
2. Attach any additional information (reports, studies, maps, illustrations, leases, permits, etc.) that may further
describe the proposed development or may be required by Jefferson County, in addition to the preliminary or
final plat.
3. Check with appropriate agencies to determine if the proposed development requires additional permits or
approvals. An accepted plat under the Jefferson Countv Subdivision Ordinance does not excuse a developer
from complying with other local, state, or federal ordinances, regulations, or statutes applicable to the proposed
development.
PROPERTY DESCRIPTION
GENERAL LOCATION: In the unincorporated community of Port Ludlow between Oak Bay Road
and the existing Marina. It extends easterly and encompasses the entire restaurant, parking
area, mill pond, and spit south of the Ludlow Maintenance Commission's "Beach Club."
LEGAL (from property tax statement): Portions of Government Lots 1 and 2 within Section 16,
Township 28 North, Range 1 East, WM. Parcel Numbers 821162001 and 821162002.
OWNERSHIP: Applicant
SUBDIVISION DESCRIPTION
SUBDIVISION NAME Of known): "The Inn at Port Ludlow"
LAND USE (identify as commercial. residential. industrial. etc.): Residential and Commercial
APPLICATION IS FOR: Preliminary Plat
-
NOTE: ADDlications for a lono subdivision which UDon initial insoection aDDear to be insufficient Iv DreDared
to Drovide a basis for adeauate review will be returned to the aDDlicant.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
I hereby declare, to the best of my knowledge and belief, the foregoing information and all
attached i ation is true and correct. ORIGINAL SUBMllTAL 8/4/91
FIRST REVIS,ON 12/ ~91
/If'~? 4/C/rS
(Applicant or Authori ed Representative ) (Date)' .
..
REQUEST FOR SITE DEVELOPMENT
STANDARD VARIANCE
Variances from site development standards may be granted when the application of the standard
would result in practical difficulty and undue hardship. The following application provides the
information necessary for variance review.
DIRECTIONS
· Answer all questions completely. (Please print or type.) Contact the Jefferson County Planning Department
for aid in filling out this application and for instructions on further administrative procedures required to
complete its processing. Submit this variance request along with your permit application.
· Attach any additional information (reports, studies, maps, Ilustrations, leases, permits, etc.) that may further
describe the proposed variance in addition to the site plan.
APPLICANT: Pope Resources
ADDRESS: PO Box 1780, Poulsbo, Washington 98370
TELEPHONE: 206-697-6626, ext. 529
PROPERTY DESCRIPTION
PROJECT: ''The Inn at Port Ludlow"
GENERAL LOCATION: The property is located in the unincorporated community of Port Ludlow
between Oak Bay Road and the existing Marina. It extends easterly and encompasses the entire
restaurant, parking area, mill pond, and spit south of the Ludlow Maintenance Commission's
"Beach Club." .
LEGAL (from property tax statement): Portions of Government Lots 1 and 2 within Section 16,
Township 28 North, Range 1 East, WM.
TAX PARCEL NUMBERS: 821162001 and 821162002
VARIANCE REQUEST
A variance is an exception from the general rule or standard and as such must be accompanied
by sufficient reasoning to justify granting its approval. Granting a variance is based on a
hardship presented by applying the standard to circumstances or conditions unique to the
property and generally not experienced by other properties. The following questions will assist
in the evaluation of the variance request.
From which standards are you requesting a variance?
Jefferson County Subdivision Ordinance Section 6.203(3) requiring public roads;.5ection 6.203(4)
requiring rights-of-way to be 40, 50, or 60 feet in width; Section 6.203(5) requiring 1oo-foot
minimum diameter for cul-de-sacs; and Section 6.203(14) requiring engineering design of all
roads to conform with Jefferson County road standards.
Describe the extraordinary conditions or unusual circumstances which exist on your property that
would justify deviation from the standard.
The site is uniquely isolated from all other Port Ludlow development properties by the marine
shoreline to the east and south, Oak Bay Road and a canyon to the west, and developed
property to the north the use of which, by restrictive covenant, cannot change.
Page 1 of 3
f-POZq/. RP T
,
Are these conditions unique to your property and not experienced by other properties in the
area? (If yes. please explain.)
Yes. There are no other properties in the area that exhibit similar physical conditions or
geographical configuration.
Were any of these conditions or circumstances caused directly by you? (If yes. please explain.)
No. The conditions are due to natural features of the site and existing adjoining uses.
Describe the hardship the standard places on the. use of your property.
The development of public roads with conventional right-of-way widths and construction
standards would require a completely different project design. By doing so, impervious surfaces
and earthwork would be increased, open space decreased, and the number of dwelling units
substantially reduced.
Is the deviation you request the minimum necessary to accomplish your property or is there
another reasonable way to accomplish your project that would not require a variance? (Please
explain).
It is possible, but not desirable, to fill rather than enlarge the mill pond; extend cuts and fill;
reduce open space allocations; reduce lot sizes; and increase the size and scale of buildings.
However, the project would not have the small, village-scale, low intensity character or
appearance of that which is proposed.
Is there anything else you would add which supports your request?
The request for private roads (a) is necessary and desirable for the most logical development
of the land, (b) will provide physical access adequate to preserve public health, safety, and
welfare, and (c) the design, construction, and maintenance for the private road system will be
assured to the satisfaction of the Public Works Director.
SITE PLAN
A site plan must accompany the variance request. It needs to be no larger than 8-1/2 by 11
inches, suitable for copying, and graphically illustrate or identify the following features:
· North arrow and scale;
· Development area (property boundary lines, section lines, etc.);
· Property improvements (existing and proposed structures, utilities, septic tank and drainfield
location, existing wells, etc.)
· Property features (existing and proposed changes to topography and ground relief,
vegetation, shoreline location, outstanding physical features, etc.);
· Setbacks (required and proposed, if different);
· Roads (state, county, and private) and easements (road, utility, and others);
· Other information that explains the variance request.
Page 2 of 3
\
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
I hereby declare that the information provided in this application is true and correct to the best
of my knowledge. Further, I acknowledge that development of the property may not occur until
approval has been granted by Jefferson County.
(applicant ~ntative)
ORIGINAL SUBMITTAL 8/4/91
FIRST REVISION 12/4/91
d#/? ?-, /i'/5
,
(date)
(OFFICE USE ONLY)
CASE NUMBER:
FEE:
RECEIPT NUMBER:
Page 3 of 3
,,~ .,..
"
ESM inc.
11
A CIVIL ENGINEERING, LAND SURVEY, AND PROJECT MANAGEMENT CONSUlTING FIRM
April 12, 1993
Job No. 528-17-930
Mr. Jerry Smith
Jefferson County - Planning
P.O. Box 1220
Port Townsend, WA 98368
FAX 206-385-9357
RE: Port Ludlow Inn Preliminary Plat
Dear Mr. Smith:
At the request of Mr. David Cunningham of Pope Resources, I would like to provide you
with this additional information that is relevant to the Port Ludlow Inn Preliminary Plat
application. Both of these items are referenced to our drawing dated 4-2-93.
1. The total number of Parcels applied for is 68 consisting of:
53 Townhouse Lots
5 Single Family Lots
4 Marina Parcels
2 Restaurant Parcels
1 Inn Parcel
3 Open SpacelUtility/ Access Tracts
2. The totai Open Space provided is 7.35 acres (41.i% of total site area)
consisting of:
. Tract A
. Tract B
· Tract C
. Total
82,165 s.f
116,050 s.f
122.050 s.f
320,265 s.f
(remainder of Tract A is for Access/Parking)
34004 9th Ave. So., Bldg. A . Federal Way, Washington 98003
Federal Way (206) 838-6113 . Tacoma (206) 927-0619' Seattle (206) 623-5911 . Fax: (206) 838-7104
'"
Mr. Jerry Smith
April 12, 1993
Page 2
If you have any questions on this information, or on our drawing as submitted, please call.
Very truly yours,
ESM, Inc.
c1~s(iMn~
Project Manager
cc: Mr. David Cunningham, Pope Resources
S28:528171
1
r
f
.. ,.....
JEFFERSON COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
INSPECTORS REPORT
Date: April 14, 1993
Re: Road Variance Request, The Inn at Port Ludlow
I was asked by Carter Renner to review the Preliminary Plat of the Inn at Port Ludlow,
prepared by ESM, Inc., dated April 2, 1993, for the purpose of a requested variance of Road
Standards for the typical section, right of way width, and cuI de sac (turn around). Scott
Kilmer also reviewed the plat. It is our understanding that all roads are to be private and not
maintained by the County.
Findings:
1) The Typical Section shown consists of an "inverted" cross section with two 11 foot driving
surfaces, a 2 foot wide (1 foot each side of centerline) grass swale between the driving surfaces,
and two 4 foot (grass?) shoulders outside each driving surface for a total width of 32 feet,
symmetrical about the centerline. The driving surface consists of 2 inches of AC pavement
over 1.5 inches of C.S.T.C, 2.5 inches of C.S.B.C., and minimum of 6 inches of gravel base,
for a total of 12 inches of structural section for the driving surfaces. The grass swale consists
of 6 inches of unknown material over 6 inches of gravel base. The shoulders indicate no
structural section and consist of native material in cut and compacted structural fill in areas of
embankment.
2) The "right of way" is shown as various widths and consists of the areas that are not part of
other tracts or parcels and designated, along with some parking areas, as Track A. The
narrowest portion of Tract A that the roadway is to occupy scales 20 feet in width.
3) CuI de sacs (turn arounds) consists of un-designated hammer heads, the "loop" isle in the
parking lot at the Inn.
Conclusions and Recommendations:
1) The typical section is adequate for width, and the structural section is probably adequate, but
is dependent on the existing soil condition(s) with the final section to be determined during the
design process. The grass swale is probably not a good idea for this section due to traffic
considerations that could result in the degradation of the grass and the area turning to mud.
Also the runoff (water) from the paved portion of the roadway will migrate into the sub-grade
causing a break down in the structural integrity of the roadway. I recon1'mend that an
alternative, such as "paving blocks", "brick pavers", or poured concrete gutter be utilized, along
with appropriate surface and sub-surface drainage structures, for this typical section. This
would include, typically, appropriately placed catch basins to minimize standing water on the
roadway surface that could cause safety concerns, and sub-surface drainage structures when
conditions merit, especially for "bath tub" typical sections. The shoulders are adequate.
2) The right of way, at its narrowest (20 Feet) is NOT adequate. The paved portion of the
roadway will not "fit" in this right of way, much less the shoulders. I recommend that the
right of way include at least the width of the pavement and should also include the shoulders
. -
,
for ease of maintenance.
3) The cui de sacs (turn arounds) are adequate. I recommend that they be designated on the
Preliminary Plat and that as a condition of approval that they be ~uired to be properly signed
for no parking and as fire lanes or emergency vehicle access as appropriate.
Respec2:;ullY Sub itted,
~ -
Bruce rie, Inspector
xc: file
A' ,.
JEFFERSON COUNTY
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
1820 Jefferson Street
Po. Box 1220
Port Townsend, WA 98368
(206) 385-9160
Gary A. Rowe, PE., Director
Robert G, Nesbitt, PE., County Engineer
TO: Jerry Smith
FROM: Gary Rowe ~
Carter Renner (/
SUBJECT: INN AT PORT LUDLOW--APPLICATlON REVIEW
DATE: April 16, 1993
Recommended Improvements
Roads:
The applicant has requested that the following requirements of the second edition of the
subdivision ordinance be reviewed under the third edition of the subdivision ordinance.
6.203.3--Private Roads.
6.203.4--Reduction in right of way width.
6.203.5--100foot minimum diameter for cul-de-sacs.
6.203.14--Engineering design standards.
The Director of Public Works has approved the request to review under the third
edition.
The proposed roadway shall be constructed to the standards of the Jefferson
County Department of Public Works. All plans and specifications required shall
be submitted, reviewed and approved by the Department of Public Works prior
to construction.
Private Road Agreement
An agreement for the continued maintenance of private roads shall be established either
by recording of a separate instruinent and referencing said instrument, or by
1
100% Recycled Paper
".
--
establishment of said agreement by declaration on the large lot subdivision plat.
Drainage
The proponent shall submit an engineered drainage and storm water plan and
report to the Jefferson County Public Works Department for review and
approval. The drainage plan must incorporate the storm drainage criteria of the
Washington State Department of Ecology Storm Water Management Manual
(current edition).
Prior to commencement of any clearing, grading or filling on the site, a
temporary erosion and sedimentation control plan shall be developed to
the standards of the Washington State Department of Ecology Storm
Water Management Manual (current edition), for review and approval by
the Department of Public Works.
Signage:
1. Address plates for the lots shall be located in accordance with Jefferson
County 911 Emergency Locator System Ordinance provisions.
2. Proponent shall select road names in consultation with the Department of
Public Works to avoid duplication of existing road names.
Or, in accordance with Section 10.301 and 10.302 of the Subdivision Ordinance, the
applicant may apply for a variance from these conditions.
In accordance with Ordinance 4-82, Section 5.40, Amendment to the Jefferson County
Subdivision Ordinance, and Ordinance 12-1214-92 the applicant shall be required to
pay all costs of work incidental to approval of the subdivision before final approval is
granted. .
REFERENCES:
Jefferson County Subdivision Ordinance
2
~
,
ST AFF REPORT
"CORRECTIONS"
THE INN AT PORT LUDLOW PRELIMINARY PLAT
A discussion of the following polices from the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan was
inadvertently omitted from the staff report distributed Friday, April 16, 1993.
1 . Commercial Development Policy 1 states:
Commercial development should be located in areas where a reasonable
demand can be expected for needs of the nearby community or to provide
tourist-oriented services.
The proposal is consistent with this policy because of the development of the existing
marina and restaurant at the site. The proposed inn will provide overnight
accommodations for tourist arriving either by water or land.
2. Commercial Development Policy 2 states:
Strip commercial development along roads and highways leads to unnecessary
traffic congestion, automobile accidents, proliferation of signs, and the
diminishment of adjoining property values. Therefore, commercial,
development should be located adjacent to existing commercial development
in a block-like fashion, or at the intersection of two or more arterial roads, or
within a planned unit commercial mall.
The proposal is consistent with this policy. The proposed inn is located adjacent to
existing commercial development, the restaurant.
3. Commercial Development Policy 3 states:
Commercial developments should provide parking and off-street loading areas
sufficient to serve the size and type of the proposed business. Such parking
and loading areas should be well lighted and well drained.
Subject to appropriate conditions, the proposal will be consistent with this policy.
.Corrections. Staff Report
The Inn at Port Ludlow
April 19, 1993
1.
~:
,
EXHI BIT A
SEPA MITIGATING CONDITIONS
FROM INN AT PORT LUDLOW "PROJECT" FINAL EIS
EARTH
A detailed erosion and sedimentation control plan using the
best management practices set forth 1n the Washington
Department of Ecology's storm Water Manual for the Puqet Sound
Basin shall be prepared in conjunction with final site design
and a construction phasing schedule. Grading on the project
site shall not begin until the erosion control plan has been
approved by the Director of the Jefferson County Department
of Public Works or his designee. The objectives of said plan
are to (a) control dust and mud and stabilize the construction
area including entrances and roadways; (b) prevent surface
water runoff from eroding areas to be cleared and graded; (c)
prevent sedimentation from entering the waters of Port Ludlow
Bay. Erosion control techniques may include, but are not
limited to, piped slope drains, subsurface drains,
hydroseeding, surface roughening, interceptor dikes and berms,
check dams, swales, gradient terraces, rip-rap, gravel filter
berms, storm drain inlet and outlet protection, and filter
(silt) fences. A maintenance program shall be implemented
during the course of construction to insure the proper and
effective functioning of erosion and sedimentation control
features. Inspection of erosion control features., shall be
conducted daily. SDP, Plat .
I
~. "
2.
soil disturbance associated with major grading activities
shall be minimized during the winter wet season extending from
November 1 through March 31. SDP, Plat
3. During construction, to the extent practicable, existing
vegetation shall be maintained on those portions of the site
planned as permanent open space. Only during the course of
utility installation or revegetation/landscaping shall
disturbance occur. SDP, Plat
4. Grading stockpiles shall be located on the uphill side of
excavation areas to act as runoff diversions. Any large
stockpiles shall be shaped and covered or seeded. SDP, Plat
5. Soil, sediment, water, or debris generated during pond
enlargement shall be confined to specific areas on the site
as identified on the erosion control plan. Dredged pond
material and other site material unsuitable for project fill
shall be disposed of at a location approved by the Director
of the Jefferson County Department of Public Works. SDP, Plat
,
6. Following construction, all cleared and graded areas shall be
permanently revegetated according to an overall landscape
plan. Revegetation shall be completed as soon as practicable
after grading and construction is complete. SDP, Plat
7. Dunes proposed for the Inn area shall be stabilized through
the use of vegetation and underlying foundations so as to
minimize sand and soil redistribution during storm events.
SDP, Plat
8. The proponent shall designate a qualified, trained, and
experienced individual or firm who shall ensure that (a)
erosion control devices are correctly installed; (b)
inspection and maintenance schedules are regularly kept; (c)
corrective actions are employed in the event erosion control
.measures fail to perform effectively and (d) reports and
inspections are coordinated with the Jefferson County
Department of Public Works. SDP, Plat
9. A complete geotechnical investigation shall be undertaken on
slopes steeper than 15% where buildings or infrastructure are
proposed. Particular attention will be paid to possibilities
of earthquake-induced subsidence or liquefaction. structures
shall be designed, engineered, and constructed in conformance
with the Uniform Building Code, other adopted standards
pertaining to landslide and seismic hazard protection, and
specific construction practices recommended by the
geotechnical consultant. The con~ultant shall be a qualified
professional selected and paid by the project proponent. No
construction of buildings, or installation of infrastructure
on slopes steeper than 15% shall take place prior to
completion of the geotechnical investigation. SDP,. Plat,
Building
WATER
1. A permanent stormwater drainage system shall be installed,
the design and construction of which shall be to the
satisfaction of the Department of Public Works. System
components shall include grass-lined swales, oil/water
separators, and a detention pond to manage both water quantity
and quality. SDP, Plat
2. The proj ect' s stormwater management system shall be
incorporated into the ongoing Port Ludlow Bay "Water_Quality
Monitoring Program - Nonpoint Sources". SDP, Plat
3. A maintenance program shall be developed for oil/water
separators and biofilters and approved by the Jefferson County
Department of Public Works. SDP, Plat
2
\
4. Eelgrass (zostra marina) shall be planted in the eastern
sector of the pond to prevent the growth of sea lettuce
(Ulva). SDP
5. During construction, water levels in the on-site pond shall
be lowered and sediment removed therefrom prior to discharge
into the Bay. SDP, Plat
6. Two pumps shall be installed in the pond for redundancy in
case of failure and to improve flexibili ty for periodic
maintenance. A standby mobile power generator shall be
provided in the event of periodic power outages. SOP
7 . The maintenance schedule for the pond shall avoid pump
shutdown during warmer weather, thereby lessening stagnation
of water and related water quality problems. SOP
8. Final infrastructure design shall minimize impervious cover
and stormwater runoff through the use of gravel surfaces as
permitted by the Department of Public Works. SOP, Plat
9 Drainage lines shall be installed behind retaining and/or
basement walls, and around building footings to prevent build-
up of hydrostatic pressure and to intercept ground and surface
water. SOP, Building, Plat
10. Groundwater seepage encountered during construction in upland
areas shall be directed by sloping excavations to shallow sump
pits. Any collected water shall be discharged to the
construction-phase stormwater control system. SOP, Plat
11. Portions of structures subject to periodic tidal inundation
shall be sited and constructed in compliance with Jefferson
County's "Flood Plain Management Ordinance No. 1-89." SOP,
Building, Plat
12. Landscape design and planting materials for the perimeter of
the pond shall eliminate the need for herbicide application.
Native plant materials shall be utilized to the maximum extent
throughout the entire proj ect si te to reduce the use of
fertilizers, pesticides, and herbicides. When the application
of such chemicals is necessary, they shall only be applied by
state-licensed personnel. SDP
PLANTS AND ANIMALS
1. Buffers of grasses, low growing plants, shrubs, and trees
shall be planted along the shoreline and around the pond,
providing habitat, water quality enhancement, and protection
from human disturbance. SDP
3
J
2. Trees, shrubs, grasses, and herbaceous cover, including
Douglas firs, Western red cedars, vine maples, wax myrtles,
and wild strawberries shall be the primary landscape materials
installed on the site to provide food and cover for wildlife.
SDP
3. Enlargement of the existing pond shall make provisions for
improved aeration and circulation to discourage algae growth,
maintain consistent water quality, and improve its value as
fish habitat. SDP
4 . Interpretive signs shall be installed at pertinent points
throughout the site to describe important habitat features
and wildlife. Pamphlets and brochures shall be distributed
to residents and guests to increase awareness and respect for
wildlife which inhabit the project site. SDP
5. Filtration shall be provided at the pump water-intake pipes
to reduce the incidental capture of fish. SDP
6. The weir outlet to the pond shall be designed to prevent fish
entrapment in the pond. SDP
7. The pond shall be designed to provide some .shallow area along
the south shoreline, suitable for wading birds, isolated from
public access. SDP
8. Pond shoreline length equivalent to at least 50% of the
existing shoreline length shall be provided for bird loafing
area. This shoreline area must be buffered by landscape
vegetation to discourage public disturbance. SDP
ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH
1
Excavation shall be minimized to reduce
encountering contaminated soil materials
development of the site. SDP, Building
potential for
from previous
2. Lead concentrations from previous testing in the vicinity of
Test Pit 10 (TP-10) shall be reported to the Washington
Department of Ecology if encountered in quantities in excess
of 10 cubic yards. SDP, Building
3. Excavated soils at locations other than TP-10 shall be
monitored for presence of potentially hazardous materials.
SDP, Building
4. In accordance with DOE Policy #101 (Site Discovery and Release
Reporting), a qualified hazardous waste specialist shall be
contacted if more than 10 cubic yards of charcoal-like
material is encountered in order to properly assess
implications for disposal. SDP, Building
4
l
5. Excavation shall be reduced through the use of pile-supported
foundations as opposed to spread-footing foundations.
Building
6. Prior to initiating excavation, a qualified hazardous waste
specialist shall orient the construction contractors and crew
regarding field identification of potentially contaminated
soil and materials. SDP, Building
AESTHETICS
1. The proponent shall establish legally enforceable
architectural design guidelines which address such matters as
roof materials, siding, exterior colors, appurtenances, and
other factors that affect the overall aesthetic character of
the project site. SDP, Building
ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES
1. The proponent shall comply with all regulations of the State
Shoreline Management Act (RCW 90.58), RCW 217.44.040, RCW
27.53.060 and WAC 25-489 regarding archaeological sites.
These regulations prohibit intentional disturbance of
archaeological or burial sites without prior approval and
provide protocols for actions following discovery of such
sites. SDP, Building, Plat
2.
Prior to excavation, a qualified archaeologist shall orient
the construction contractors and crews in identification of
potential archaeological resources that might be uncovered,
and how to proceed in the event of an unexpected discovery.
SDP, Building, Plat
~.
3. If cultural resources are discovered during construction, a
qualified archaeologist shall be immediately dispatched to
systematically analyze the findings. All construction or
excavation on that portion of the project site shall
immediately cease and measures shall be taken to prevent
further disturbance prior to analysis by a qualified
archaeologist. SDP, Building, Plat
TRANSPORTATION
1. The proponent shall cooperate with the Jefferson County
Department of Public Works to designate construction truck
routes and to install permanent directional signage to divert
automobile traffic toward State Route 104 via Beaver Valley
Road (State Route 19) rather than Paradise Bay Road. Public
Works
5
J
FIRE/EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES
1. The following above-code fire and life safety features shall
be provided in the Inn structure: quick-response sprinkler
heads; automatic alarm notice to Fire District #3; tamper
protection for the automatic sprinkler system; hose cabinets
at each floor; diesel generator back-up power source; an
indicator panel for all building safety systems; smoke
detection on HVAC systems; interior stairway to the roof; and
a wet-sprinkler in the covered drive-through. SOP, Building
2. The proponent shall develop a plan for the Inn which
identifies applicable emergency actions to be taken during
such unlikely events as fires or earthquakes. The staff shall
be trained in fire behavior, built-in fire and life safety
systems in the Inn structure, and proper responses to
emergencies and safety needs of all guests. SOP, Building
3. A maintenance schedule for fire and life safety equipment
shall be developed. All such equipment and related systems
shall be tested at least annually in cooperation with
Jefferson County Fire District No.3. Records of all
maintenance and system tests shall be retained at the Inn and
copies transmitted to Jefferson County Fire District No.3.
SOP, Building
4. Exit maps and instructions on emergency procedures shall be
installed on the inside of all guest room doors. SOP,
Building
5.
A public relations videotape which
emphasizing building safety features,
guest responsibilities for safety in
shall be available in all guest rooms.
includes a prologue
exit locations, and
emergency situations
SOP
6. The Inn's resident manager shall b~ required to participate
in Fire District #3's Emergency Medical Technician training
program. All other on-site staff, as a condition of
employment, shall be trained in basic first aid and CPR. SOP
7. Fundamental emergency aid equipment shall be provided at the
Inn for staff use. SOP
8. All mUlti-family dwelling units shall be provided with
automatic sprinkler systems with quick-response- heads.
Building
9. Hea t and smoke detectors in any structure, to the extent
required, shall be hard-wired to an alarm system with an
autodial alert to appropriate authorities. Building
6
\
10. The location of fire hydrants on the project site shall be
prescribed by the Chief of Jefferson County Fire District No.
3. Plat
EXHIBIT A
SEPA MITIGATING CONDITIONS
FROM PORT LUDLOW DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM FINAL EIS
1. The proponent shall negotiate with the Chimacum School
District and reach a written agreement regarding school impact
mitigation, subject to approval by the Jefferson County Board
of Commissioners, prior to final plat approval. In the event
that the parties cannot agree, Jefferson County shall
determine appropriate mitigation. Plat
2. The proponent shall negotiate with the Fire District and reach
a written agreement regarding Fire District impact mitigation
subject to approval by the Board of County Commissioners prior
to final plat approval. Such mitigation could include, but not
be limited to, cooperation with Fire District No. 3 in
recruiting and maintaining adequate volunteer staffing (i.e.
by publicizing volunteer opportunities to Port Ludlow and
other areas if necessary); assistance in finding solutions for
station 31' s sleepover facility needs; and assistance in
acquiring land for construction of new facilities. In the
event that the parties cannot agree, Jefferson county would
determine appropriate mitigation. Plat
3. The proponent shall contribute a proportionate share towards
improvements at the SR-104/SR-19 (Beaver Valley Road)
intersection, consistent with WSDOT's preference of this
intersection over Teal Lake Road and Paradise Bay Road for
Port Ludlow traffic. The Washington state Department of
Transportation would negotiate with the proponent to establish
the amount and timing of this mitigation. Plat
4. In order to assess cumulative impacts from this project, the
proponent shall:
(a) Continue the existing Water Qualitv Monitorinq Proqram
which documents nonpoint source effects on the Class A
"Extraordinary" designation of Port Ludlow Bay and it's
tributaries. Sampling shall include the water column,
sediments, and shellfish as appropriate.
If monitoring indicates that activities of the prQponent are
causing reduction in the water quality of Port Ludlow Bay
below the Class AA "Extraordinary" designation, the.proponent
shall, in its annual report, so advise Jefferson County. The
"scope of work" for each year's program shall be notified
where necessary to obtain the most meaningful scientific data.
The ensuing year's scope of work shall be approved by
Jefferson county each Autumn.
7
1
Each year's monitoring results shall be reported to Jefferson
County by March 15 of the following year. The proponent shall
be responsible for employing a qualified water quality
research firm at proponent's sole expense. SDP, Plat
(b) Conduct a Water Resource Monitorinq Proqram which
documents the condition of several aquifers utilized as a
domestic source by the proponent. Attention should be focused
on static groundwater levels and saltwater intrusion. Should
groundwater monitoring indicate an inadequate yield to support
development of the proponent's proj ects in the context of
water rights and projected water use, the proponent shall take
necessary action to insure an adequate supply of potable
water. This action could include, but is not limited to,
development of additional sources, supplementation of existing
sources, and/or implementation of additional conservation
measures.
If mutually agreeable, the proponent shall includeOlympus
Beach Tracts' wells in ongoing groundwater monitoring efforts.
The proponent shall be responsible for employing a qualified
geohydrologist to design, direct, and conduct said monitoring
program. The expense of said geohydrologist shall be the
proponent's. Results of the monitoring program shall be
reported to Jefferson County and the Washington Department or
Ecology by March 15 of each year. SDP, Plat
(c) Conduct a Traffic Monitorinq Proqram in cooperation with
Jefferson County Department of Public Works and the Washington
Department of Transportation a Traffic Monitorinq Proqram to
assess effects of proponent's projects on the roadway system
in the immediate area. Attention should be focused on trip
generation, traffic counts along selected roadways, and Level-
of-Service conditions at selected intersections. The
proponent shall contribute it's fair, pro-rata share toward
roadway improvements necessitated by any adverse impacts from
its projects and/or take steps to reduce traffic volumes.
The proponent shall be responsible for employing a qualified
traffic engineer to design and direct the Traffic Monitoring
Proqram in cooperation with other appropriate public agencies.
The cost of retaining the traffic engineer shall ba at the
proponent's sole expense. Results of the monitoring shall be
submitted to Jefferson County by March 15 of each year. Plat
(d) Conduct a School Monitoring Proqram in cooperation with
Chimacum School District No. 49 which documents the effects
of the proponent's projects on local school facilities.
8
l
.
Attention should be focused on the number and age of "resident
school children" generated; number and age of "employee school
children" generated; number of new dwelling units constructed
in proponent's proj ects relati ve to the remainder of the
District; and property tax contributions fro new development.
Resul ts of the analysis shall be transmitted to Jefferson
County no later than March 15 of each year with copies to the
School District. Plat
(e) Conduct a Fire and Emerqency Medical Services Monitorinq
Proqram in cooperation with Jefferson County Fire Protection
District No. 3 which documents the effects of new development
on District operations and facilities. Attention should be
focused on the number and value of new dwellings constructed
by the proponent; property tax contributions toward District
expenses; and the number and character of emergency calls
generated by proponent's projects. Results of the analysis
shall be transmitted to Jefferson County by March 15 of each
year with copies to the Fire District. Plat
,..;
-1>
(f) Conduct a Sewaqe Treatment Plant Monitorinq Proqram which
documents effects of the proponent's projects on capacity of
the secondary wastewater treatment plant. Attention should
be focused on the number of connections; effluent flow volume;
and effluent quality. It is acknowledged that the sole
authority to monitor and regulate operation of the sewage
treatment plant rests with the Washington Department of
Ecology. Nothing in this SEPA mitigating measure is intended
to supersede or conflict with requirements of the proponent's
National Pollution Discharge Elimination system (NPDES) Permit
No. WA-002120-2 issued pursuant to the Federal Clean Water Act
and companion statutes. Results of the monitoring contained
in this SEPA mitigating measure shall be transmitted to
Jefferson County and the Washington Department of Ecology by
March 15 of each year. SDP, Plat
5.
If groundwater monitoring in the South Aquifer indicates that
the Final EIS projection of sustainable yield for the South
Aquifer is found to be an overestimate, and there is not
adequate yield to support full development in the context of
water rights and projected water use, the proponent shall take
actions necessary to ensure an adequate supply of potable
water. This could include measures such as: development of
additional sources; supplementation of existing sources;
and/or implementation of additional conservation -measures.
SDP, Plat
C:\Pope\InnEIS.Mit
9
Protect Ludlow Bay Committee, lnt.
1201 LUDLOW BAY RD.
PORT l UDLOW. VolA 98365
Jff! tl~:..~;>; C..~U: ~TY
PI' .', ;: .i!r~(:' 8. BUll fm)l'i li1r-I'PT15 1993
. ....' ., ^pr ,
APR 16 19~H
. (\~ (11 (\
^ ~ ,"
r. e j
Jefferson County Planning Department
P.O. Box 1220
Port Townsend, WA 98368
, .n....."..
Re: ~Jl9.est'htQ..;varYjf:n?l!1..;jI9~::~!:V.~.~~~~_j s t~ndard8;' @e.....InnJ:~ t" Port.. Ludlpw ~k:.,
Gentlemen:
It seems to me to be a distortion of appropriate procedures to consider a request
for a road variance before the accompanying project has been considered or
approved. Changes to the project may be mandated or recommended that would
make this process useless.
However, the request does require an answer to specific questions, no
matter when it is conisdered. What special feature of the property justifies
the requested variance? Is the property unuseable without the variance?
~Can reasonable use be made of the property without the requested variance?
These questions must be fully answered before any special privilege is granted
to the developer to ignore standard sub-division requirements. You will note,
of course, that these are not casual questions, but are essentially those
questions required by 'law to be satisfactorily answered before any variance is
approved. The burden of proof in satisfying these questions rests on the
applicant.
;crelY, 1aJc
Ann Qu~reSident
Protect Ludlow Bay Committee
I' !.I :
I. . ! .
,f
I' ;.
'i." .
"EXHIBIT NO.
Fife No.
t Date
,
LP-o~-q/
4//1/93
2)
~
JEFFERSON TRANSIT
1615 W. Sims Way, Port Townsend, WA 98368 206/385-4777
April 19, 1993
Craig Ward, Director
Jefferson County
Planning and Building Department
P. O. Box 1220
Port Townsend, WA 98368
JEFH,-.I'~SON COU! ny
PI.' I : 'i,..!:: X. BUUJiH'I( j LFP'l
I !~ i9lH
Subject: Pope Resources Long Plat Application and Subdivision Variance Request
Dear Mr. Ward:
Jefferson Transit has reviewed the Inn at Port Ludlow development plan, long plat
application and subdivision variance request. We have the following comments:
The clustering and density of development at the site provide favorable
conditions for use of public transportation by patrons and by users.
It is unclear what provision is being made for internal pedestrian and
bicycle circulation that will provide safe, easy access to public
transportation stops on the Oak Bay Rd. ,
Some passenger shelter provision should be made along Oak Bay Road
for transit riders traveling to and from the Inn at Port Ludlow.
The higher activity and density of development will increase the traffic
and the number of employees at the site. Consistent with the adopted
Countywide Planning Policies the County should consider requiring the
proponent to develop a transportation demand management program.
The program would establish actions that could be taken to reduce
vehicular traffic by employees and pab.'ons. Jefferson Transit is willing
to assist in the development of any program.
If you have any questions on these comments, please contact me.
Sincerely,
QuI- d~/6'{
~fff~~
cc: Steve Iden, Operations Supervisor
EXHIBIT NO. 2
File No. LP- 0:1.. - 91
- Date "///9/93
--- ..,--------
1111_11.
~
0
00
~
<
=
0
~
4
~
~ ~
<
< P:
~ J:Q
p..
~ ~
~
I-t
0 < lI)
E-4 ...
J:Q QJ
s::
s::
tV
....t
~ Po.
s:: <4
0 0
.... ril lI)
~ 00 ...
s:: QJ s::
~ .... p:: QJ 0
.s:: s:: ....
I:J lI) .... 00
~ 0 00 s::
s:: ....
~ ~ .c
.. ~ lI)
~ .. tV
lI) ~
....t < ....
't:I U ..
E-4 ::s p:: QJ QJ
...:l .... ....t
P: .... ....
.... < .c ....
0 ... U tV
0 ... QJ
p.. Po. ~ < en
..;t
0
rot
Z CO
0\ k e I 'l-l4-1
0 ~ ::s CU o s::
OCU'O CO
UJ 4-1 (/)4-1
E-4 .. 4-1 CU (/) k
Z c m CO k CU 0
Z ~::s s:: ~
H k 4-1 ..c: a
< = tlllCO::S tlll.....
t:I) 0 11-I ::s
= ~ k>> eta
~CU'O
0 .. :> s:: 0
~ CU c:: co ..c: (/)
.., ~ ..c:o 4-1.....
. 4-ICJ4-I
f:: .., c:: c::
k ....0 CU '0 co
~ 0 0'" (/) c::rot .
Q. CU CO~ ..,
t:I) CU CD k c::
~ k 'I'4..c: Q. 4-1 ~ cu
CD (/) fo ~
.. CD >>'S cu
~ '1'4 rot .c 'l'4E-40
ofi tU .., (/) k
Z ti ~ 0 CUCU.....
~ ~ k lS :>
~ .., o c::
Q k c:: 11-I cu
is ::s co CU
< '0 orot:> cu CU
CU ~..... ..c: 0:>
Z .., CU (/) 4-I:J.....
P: ~ s:: .a(/)c:: 0'"
:> CU' '1'4..-40 k rot co
I:Q ~ CD k.c Q. 0'0 c::
t:I) CU CJ4-I(/) 'l-l::S..-4
..;t k (/) CU ~tlll
Q. CU.c k '04-Im
0 '0'"
0\ '0 ..-4'0 CUk..-4
fa (/) :;t c:: '0 0
tlll co S::~ ..
c:: CU rot
'0 ..-4 CU ~ 'l-l ::s
Z t:I) cu ~ orot 011-I
c.:: '0 (/).0 (/)
k kS::..-4 CJ4-I(/)
.... ~ 0 'Oox c:: CU
< ~ CJ ..-4 CU 0 GJ CU CJ
GJ 'O..,rotC:: .aaCJ
k c:: co 11-I 0 ~::s
I:Q ....:l lIS '0 ..-4 o (/)
c::L. CD s:: UI .., o rot
~ GJ ..-4 4-1 CU ..... co 4-IGJCO
::s x ~..,'3 :>
~ s:: ; CU (/)CUtlll
GJ .., co ~ ..-4 '0 s::
.. :> rot CJ.cO ..-4
~ <0 ~ 'l-l GJ .., Q. o CU '0
t:I) . rot 0 k CJ.c..-4
c.:: CJ4-IN ~ .cbO S::4-I:>
P: ~ c::c::,... (/) k .., c:: H 0
~ (/) H 00\ GJ::s3;..... o k
Z k k E-4 tlllOO~ ..,~
0 H 0 .. fo. s:: co k
t:) ..,.., 0 ~ p., '0 co k 4-1 s::
Z CJ 0 4-1 bO tlll~>.OO O.c .....
~ ~ ....... cu.o UI CU rot .aCJ
\0 krotCUk -g s:: .., UI rot CO '0
.. 0\ .....coAo .....UI......., co 0 k
< t:I) rot ~E-4 ,.J ~c::s::..... E-4 k co
E-4 4-1 .. c:: o ::s 'O~~ ~
U 'l-l'Ok'O GJ .., rot.....~1I-I
P: ~ I/) O~~~ ~ k rot UI 0 c:: co 0 GJ
t-< r-I 0 o ::s 0 co 11-I k
< H '0 rot rot ~ Il-lrotCJUI k CU
-
... CU kGJO'" .., CJ '0 CU..-4 p., CJ
U c:: co p.,,... k g GJ GJ c:: k c:: p.,CU CU ~
Z c.:: ::s 000 0 .c ~OOCO o.c ..,
< ..., lXl~Mc::L. C t-< CJ 11-I S ~4-I (/) t:I)
111111
II' .
11111111
II
II
II
1111
II
rtJ
E-t
~
~
E-t
~
o
o
fa:t
o
~
~
r:Q
<
E-t
..
-
en
Z
o
t-4
E-4
<
~
E-4
en
::J
~
~
H
III
z
o
H
E-4
U
::J
Q
o
~
H
en
~
H
~
Q
~ I
Oenu
~~tz.1
Z ~~ClI::
~ ~c.'J~
u .c.'Jc.'J
stH~~~~
~~~~lS
H~~~en
tz.1
Z
o
ClI::
tz.1
E-4
~
<
::c
u
-
..
en
tz.1
Z
....
~
~
H
t:)
C-'
c.'J
Z
~
~
Q
~
II
~
Q
~
g
....
~
Cd
"
='
ID ~
.Z~O
."O....~
....H:E:
E-4~ "
4( 00 Cd
.,,~c::....
c::::J....~
ID CIS ~" c::
Gl O"Gl
~ ~~ 9l:;:
~ GlQcS.
= '5~~:1
ro:. ~CIS CIS
,c.!Q....."
"Q.-i~ Gl
CIS Cd c::~
CJ~'" GlU
.... 00. ." Gl
.0:tQ........,
~p.U IDO~
Z .cO....E-4Gl~1
o ~E-4>~~~
1-Itz.1
c.'JE-4
~~ en
Q
~
...
tz.1
E-4
1-1
en
...
~
1-1
c.'J
~
o
~
E-4
~
tz.1
E-4
~
<
::c
u
II
1111
II
-
b
t'
....
B
e
u
.....
~
~
~
~
Gl ID c::
~." 0 00
c:: 0 .... ....c::
Gl 0 ~
U-e ~= ~
c:: 0 ~ ~ U
0.0 ~U ID
-r:fo~en:1 ~
c:: .... ~ tz.1 . Cd
GlGlC::I-I"'."'~
~z~~s=SGl
0" ~ ~o."
UClS~I-IGl<~""
Z ....c::UU 00.
Z < ." ~ Gl -< CIS >>>>."
O~C::C::Ei~P.ClSClSQl
I-I~ClSGl>> en~~o
E-4 .,,0>< ~~ClI::
Utz.1e....~E-4c::
::J en t) . ~ 1-1 Gl
~::JE-4:1tz.1~8' ,
~~ ~
1-1;3 U
~
o
E-4
tz.1
tz.1
~
::c
E-4
ClI::
tz.1
E-4
~
<
::c
u
~
..111111
.....
.....
-
-
--
.."""-.
'~~
....
-
-
-..-.
-
-
-...
-
Il)
.....
o
...
U
=
o
u
,...
~
CIJ
::s
=
ori
u
c::
o
CJ
-
,....
"0
CIJ
_::s
"0 c::
C1J~ Il)
::s 401 CIJ
C::C::..!<l
oriOCO
4oIU,..:l
c::-
o "0
U c::
- c:: CO
o CIJ
~ .. CJ
4oIll) COll) Z
~~~ ~g~ ll)~ Il) S to
,..:l~CIJ c:: oriCIJ C1JU "0 ~ U
~U~ 0 c::UU uc:: ~ < =
C1JU 0 C1J::SC:: ~CIJ CIJ coa ~ ~
tt:l~en bO o.uCIJ >U CJ a"OCIJ Z =
~ CIJ CO OoriU ~ ori ~C::U ~ CIJ
H"O"ll)...:l U C1JC:: ~> ~CIJ -cGlI)::E: c:: >
~c::m~ >.m>. tt:lO Q)~ C1JbO ll)u>, ~ 0 0
H CO "O::s till >.... c:: U lI) ori ~ r~ ~ ~ z c:: >.en en ...:l .... (..)
...:l C::O c::...~Horill)CIJ.....U Ow lI) w~ <oen ~ u
HQ)COUCOoriCIJ~ C::~~COC::Z~ C::~ enori ...:lori uc:: ::E: ~ C1J>
UU~ c::auo>.::soCJCJCIJ< CIJo~ CO ~U~Q)CO H u
<COQ)~oriaCIJo.Uao~ori>...:lUC::ori >.~ CJCOCIJori = ori
~o."O~"'oriaaoria~::s"Oc::~~oll)"'" "'_CIJ z::s~~~uQ~CIJ u
tt:loriOCO~CIJClJC::oCJ~CIJO "'~ori~ CO till O"O::SUu...zc::a~CJ
~ ~~~enu~::suenu~uenuo.>"''''USCOll)HOCJenll)O<oriCIJ=CIJ
~c:: S ~CJClJCIJ::SCIJori~~"O~"'ori Q)~ Il).........u
HQ) , a HCIJ.....~UUc::o~co<U~ "O...~CO~=o
ZOo 0 ~~CIJClJCOCOcG~COO...:lc::CIJ C1J....<z~ao...
~O u H~~~z~enen~~~H> ~ H~HN~
~ ~ ~ ~
U :J U ~
~
~
gb
ori
to
CIJ
Q
"0
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
::J:l
~
~
~
~
~
<
::J:l
u
~
o
.-4
'tJ
='
...:I
'tJ
Ql 1+-1
(/) .-4
o ~ 0
Cl.0t.:)
0.-4
).c 'tJ 'tJ
Po. =' Ql
...:I (/)
).c 0
0~Cl.
1+-1...0
o ).c
~Po.Po.
Ql
~
...
as
::<:
X
H
Q
ffi
Po.
~
~
Ql C
tJ Ql
C S
Ql Cl.
).c 0
Ql.-4
1+-1 Ql
C >
o Ql
UQ
(/)'tJ'tJ
QlCQl
'" as (/)
~ ~ 0
... ,"CCl.
o .-400
Po.Q ,","I-l
:2j U ~ Po. ><
I-l S lil C ~
O.....{/)f:"QlOH
1+-Itz:l'tJ >~...:I
QCo.oC H
CI){/) QlCOenJ:J:l
.-4.-4~I-l,"UQlH
asastz:l~~ .....enc
OO~ 11l1+-l~<:0
t.:)t.:)Z.-4 Cl.0.....tz:l'"
tz:lass .-4f:,,~H
.-4tJUtJOC..... tJ
as," ',-lUOtJtz:l='C
CI+-IZI-l -rililen'tJO
0,"001ol~~~0..-l
.....tJH~Oas ;:I).c~
o.oQl~ en.,..,.-4 0 ~ tJ
Ql Cl.Z," as Ql U C Ql
en~entz:l::C:O::~ Ht/)
...:I:> f:"
<: Z ...:I
o 0 0
t.:) U t.:)
~\I.l
as 0
Ql >-
(/) ~
.-4........
as ='.-4
'"0.....
.&.IU,o
C .....
Ql \I.l (/)
.&.1.-4 as
o 0 Ql
Po.t.:)~
<:
~
u
co
C
....
tJ
~
Ql
(/)
).c
='
o
U
Q
~
tz:l
Q
Ql
C
.....
Ql ...
C as 'tJ
..... ~::<: CI) C
... 0 Ql as
as .-4 'tJ .....
::<:'tJQl ~CO
='(/) .....C
......:1 0 >.....
o Cl. ..... CI)
\I.l.&.lO ~....
...... tJ ='
~OPo. <:... COCO
Ql Po. U c:: c::
~ 1+-1 Ql .... ....
).c.&.l0 C'tJ .c:....>
IlSIlS .....Ql 1O~""
::0:: >-~"'NOO""'CI)Q
CI).&.Icas.....c::\I.l
.-4Ql.....Ql::<:c::......-4).c1lS
IlS ......-4 S as .c .-4 Ql .0
CO .... ~..... Cl. 'tJ CO (/) Ql ~ :I
C ~.....'OOQl).c......alllU
....'tJC.-4......-4~O~en::a:CI)
~c::Gl.....enGlas
as='.&.ItJas>.-4
o 0 0 as Ql Ql Ql
J:J:ltl)p.,~~Q~
~
Gl
CO
='
Po.
Ql
..c:::
~
H
H
C
o
-ri
.&.I
tJ
Ql
en
Q
~
tz:l
Q
CI)
'E ~
IlS 0
"0 ::c
C ~ .&.I
1lS{/)~QlQl
.&.IGlZ~~
en.....tz:ll-l).c
~::<:asas
00..... ~::o::::<:
C .-4 ~
..........H~Ql><
"OtJ~Ce~
.-4as~QlOHC::
c::.....~~ S.::C...:l 0
t/)O=' Ql H,"
Q.....J:J:l>-Q).c.&.lJ:J:l~H
~.&.I ~Z.,-lCHtJ
<:as'tJ.....<~l1lt/)='C
Z Qr-4CC QlC<:'tJO
o Z=,as='E-<~as~O"'"
H <:tJ ez S~).c~
Ht/)H).c.&.lSr.:IQlI-l .&.ItJ
<...:It/)..-lOOI..c:::l1l<:CQl
t.:l0 U...:IU ~Po.ZHen
~Ot.:l H
U::CE-i ~
ga~~ ~ ~
C
o
.,-l
.&.I
tJ
Ql
, en
~
(/)
'tJ
c::
Ql
I-l
~
H
H
H
:>
H
C
o
.....
.&.I
()
Ql
en
t/)
H
Z
~
t.:)
Cf.lQ
~tz:l
~!i
ZO
~~
OU
~<:
H
H
C .
o
'"
.&.I
()
Gl
t/)
tI)
~
Z
~
::0::
~
g
~
5
~
U
<:
Qt.:l~
t.:)
::c
~ ~
;:I :>
0 H
~ ~
~ ~
~ ~
~ ~
Po. Po.
<: <:
::c ::c
U U
-...-
-
-
-
-
---
.....
...
...
-
-
..
-
--
. r:: Q,I ~ 00 CU I II) I . \1-4 Q,I ~ . ~ o Q,I Q,I I ~ .. (I)
4-1 o..c:CUQ,l ..... ..... a"t:l 0 at "CI J-o cu 4-IJ.<..c: 0 co (I) r::
II) 04-1..... U at at Q,I Q,I QlQlO r:: .....4-1 J.< S ~ 0
Q,I co 4-1 J.< cu (I) r:: 4-1 '0 Q,I ..c: adJ.. 0 '0 =' P. 0.....
'Ocuar::o 0 0 Q,I"t:1E-iOa..... Q) 0" (I) 0 4-1
.....~OQl\1-4 P. ..... (I) Q,I..... ~CU4-1 Q,ICJ\1-4 Q,I r::..c: ='
~ J.<4-I r::"t:1 (I) cu r:: (I) Ql4-1 cu c:: J.< 0 4.1 J.< U4-1
Q,I\1-4o-rtQ,l r:: > Q,I co III {I)"'"
1I)..c: p.Ql{l) Ql cc 00 ..c: oQlatJ-o 'O..c: =' 4-1 4-1
4.lE-4 r:: J.< =' '..c: p. Ql Q,I4-1 Ql "CI CU u r::u~ 0"4-1 .. (I)
..... 0 CU 4-1 )C r:: J.< =' U Q,I CO.....~ Q,I co ~ r::
0 Ql Ql Q,I ..... CU 0 CU Ql"t:l ~ ..c: Q '0 p.Q,I.....
4-1 co..c: .c .c CU II) p.~Ql ~:J co 4-1
CU r::CU4-1 "CI ~ 4-1 >> (l)ClSat~ CU \1-4 U r:: Ql
O~ ..... '0 Ql 0 r:: Ql Ql =' 0 u 0 4.I.....Ql..c:
4-1 o :J"t:I~ ~ \1-4 .......c:..c: r:: >> \1-4 0 ;:)aU4-I
Q,I co Q,I ~ =' Q,I CIS 4-1 4-1 Qj Ql Q,I ~ II) (I) .c 0
QlCC..c:~ =' 0 \1-4 Ql a p.,c.ou Q,I"t:1 r:: >>
\I-4~4-IO o U 'l-t U r:: 04-1 ..... >>-rt Ql "04-1\1-4
.c u 0 CIS Ql ~ 0 O~ ~4-Icu: Ql u..... 0
(I) CO~ r:: p. .c-rt >> 4-I.g LJ.....r:: . 4-1 Ql r::
O'r'4r:: CIS Ql 0 4-1 en 4-I~ ~~ u~ Q co =':J
lI'\..c:-rt..c: cu 0 ..... '0 r:: ~ CIS..... at P. ..-4 ..... Ql: 'O'O~Q,1
~4.l4-I > co ~ =,CC~LJ CIS ~U..c: r:: 'l-t
CC Q,I Ql CC Ql =' p.g.s cu cu ~ CIS 4-1 >> J.< CC 0
4-1 J.<..c:~~ 1O 0 Ql ~.c 1O'l-t 4-1 Ql U CC
=,\1-4 CC 4-1 :3 c:: ..c: U Ql a CC4-1 -rt 4..l~
o 0 P. Ql Ql CC -rt (I) cc..c: Q,Ip. Q,I 4.1 c: CC l\1 Ql Ql
.c Ql\l-4..c:..c: u CC p... 4-1 ..... ~ >> ~>>cu=, ~..-4..c: ~
co ~ at 04-14-1 Ql a 4.1 (I) ,ccu.o l\14.1CU~ UE-- Q
r:: ..0 Ql c: '0 (ft ... ..... a co 0
'0 Ql Ql Ql ~ Ql c: c: (ft J-o 'ii 00 (I) c: 0 (I) 0
~ aQlNJ.<"t:1 Ql a Q,I l\1 tll cuo Ql 'O='OU 4.1 '0
p.>-rtO r:: 4.1 ~ p.p. e:: CI:l g~4.I cc COQl ~
o Ql (I) tll cc ~ o 0 ~ :3 II) r:: r:: Q,I
CO~~ ..... -rt ~ "00 0 .r:: 0 cc 4.I'rlr:: 4.1
s::: Q,I Q,I ~ ~ Ql U c: Ql e:: Ql J.<U'O ~ cocc c:
o > Ql ..c: p. >'r'40'r'4 o 0 ..0 0 Ql .. ..... r:: ~ cu
~Ql..c:4.I >>r:: 0 4.1 Ql~O'l-tU"'" ,o~'O ~ :3 CC P.U
'OE-4 4.1..-4 ~ 'r'4 '0..0 ell'r'4 r::4.I r:: ..c:Ql cu Q,I ,o..c:
Ql'r'4 p. 0 P. ='CCCl:lHCd CC co..c: Ql 4.1 UQl r::
4.1 Ql (/)~4.I P.CC CIl J.< p...-i (I) ..... u .....4-Ir:: r:: Ql CIl 0
Ql..c: . CC'r'4..c: Cd Q,I Ql Cd ...u QlO Ql ..0 O'rl
Q,I 4-1 Q,I Ql U co J.< Ql 4.1 >>Q,I~4.lO Q,I e:: OJ u . ..c: 4-1
\1-4 4.1 J.< CC =' 4-1 CC ..c: CC J.<..c: u 0 CI:l (/) J.< >> 4.1 4.1 r::
J.<'rl u \1-4 0 1O 4.1 ~ Cd 4.1 ,olOQ,I o cc ~ CC r:: Ql
0 0 (I) c: J.< 0 co ~ (/)~CIS..c: ~ (I) a CC "-4 >
11'\\1-4 'rl cc.c a r:: \1-4 J.< 0 ~ Q,I tll E-4 CC" J.< C 4.1 0 r::
r-- ell r:: .f"4 0 0 p.Ql UE-i >> 'rl 'r'4 0 4.1 ~ ~ 0
r::'O'r'4 '0 ~ \1-4 a 4.1 CC 4.1 4.1 r:: 0 o r:: U
>>'Oof"l~ J.<'O 4.1 Ql'rl p."t:1 'rl r:: :3 a OJ ~ P.O
r-l Q,I '0 =' cc r:: Ql .,-l CIl 4.1 1O (/) r:: c: (/) III Ql..c: Q,I E'rl
QlJ.<F'"'\oaCC ~.~ Q,I '0 CC :3 OJ '0 co..c: 4.1 ,o'rl.4.l'O
4.lQ,lof"l~ CIl Ql 1O ~ Ql ~ a 4.1'0 .,-l r:: 4.) Cd r::
cc"t:l :3 Cd 0 '0 a'Or-i 4.1 Qla.....Ql lOof"l r:: '0 1O r:: tll
6of"l.c (/) ~ CC 'rl ~ '0 ae::'rl r:: P.OCll'O OJ~S:::of"l Ql .,-l 'rl
'rl (I) 'rl CIl '0 Ql CIl Ql r:: cccoaCCOu Ql ~~..... ..0 a
x c:cc..c: CC Q,I ~ c: 4.1 CC ~ .4.IP- ~ Q,I OJtll'O 'rl.4.l.....
0 0 E-- COCU 0 CC eo{l)Cl)~ OJ 0 c: :3 4.1 Q,I "'Ql~ (/)
J.< U (/) r::'O 0 :J ..c: o CC 0 or::..c: 0 Ql'OlO4.I U (I) OJ Ql
P. CC o Ql co 4.1 ~Q,I~ C::lo..... 4.1 ..c: Q,I ... =' C'3 (I) .u U
-
C::loQ,l o J.< r:: (ft e J.< p.J.< a u ~ 4.1 u: U Ql ;:)~'rl
ccJ.<'O o CO '0 ..... CIS 0 tll of"l o tI) CC 0 0 '0 00>
QlQl'OCC ~ :3 CC r:: ~ U '04.1 C::4.I Or-i J.<
(I) ~ tI) Ql ~ r:: :J 04.lof"l J.< Q.I Ql CIl Cfl ..-4 4.1 tIl Q,I (/) Ql r::
'rl ='> 0.... Q.I >> tI) ~ o r:: e::..c:~ z >> Q,I Qj..c:Q,1 tI) CC
tIl 0 ~ 0 :J > CC J.< Ql '0 Q.I 0 ..-...-4 Ql 4.J 0 0 '04.1 r:: J.< .f"4 .4.1 .... r-i
r::Ql'OSQlCOtl) .... Ql U QlJ.<4.I CCCU> 0 H Qj.... 0 CC 4.1 .4.1 P.
o > r:: Q,I e CC .4.1 co 4.1 CC > 0 (I) a4.l....<U..c: ~ LJe.... ....4.1....~
O....ccJ.< ~~ CC r:: Ql C::lo ~\1-4"" QJl:ll~U CU .... 4.1 r-l CC~CU QJ
004.1 0 Ql c:.... a en Ql - III J.< co 1O E-i U ~ CU \I) ..... ....U..c:
.-
c:: CCCC'OQl\l-4Q.1w ~LJ QJ tI) .c Ql H OO~ 4.1 U auof"l....
0 r-ie~,o ..c: CC Ql CC U r:: 1lI~ <II 4.llU,o Q,I~ E-i ~~:3C:: Ie lUCC'O
.() 4.1 :J 4.1 C1I Ql J.< 11l..c: .c u .... en p..P.lU \I-4..c:\I-4Qlt:
00 C1Ir-i'O Ql ~~ 00 P. ...4.1 -ICU.4.1 Z (/) 0'0 4.1 a.0f"4
CU F'"'\4.I.....~,c ...e III U c:: 0 (/) =' C1I ~ p.c: H Ql Q,I p.'rl Ql ~
....:l CUr-i"-4='4.I of"4 Ql4.1 J.<~'r'4 tI) =' tJ (/) (/) ..c: J.< Ql '0
J.< CU 0 ~CIS "CI \1-4 4.1 . >> U CU "'11l~ ~ ~ 'rl0~ Ql 4.1 o c:: ~ Ql
00 =' III U co ~ :J ~ 0 >> (/)00 J.< III c: 4.1 ..... c:: (/) >~Ql~ \1-4 (/)4.1
c:: 4.lF'"'\.c c::..... ..... $.4 of"4 lU CC P. 'r'4>>~>>QlQl H $.4U4.1 "-4 Ql Ql III
..... III tll J.<.....\1-4 Ql ,c >> Ql )COO J.< tI) ~P.CU Ql P.(/) i Ql cu (/) o c:: J.<..c: Q,I
~ C:$.4"t:1 0 (/) :3 w4.1 .4.1 Ql.... 0 (/),o(/),coo \I) c: Ql- 0..... U c::
lU r-l ..0 =',c go ..... Ql > C::lo C::CU 1114.1 P. .....~S Ql of"l ::l J.< of"l
.... Ql > ::l J.< 4-1..... Ql~ a Ql 0 a Ql~QlQlQl >>J.< Ql ,Cl) a CIl O"::l~
~ ..c: Ql 011l'l-t'r'4C:: ,c..... lU ..c:J.< Ql p. 0 ..c: ..c: $.4 $.4 ... ::l ..c: Ql 0 O.,-lIll..c:Ql
tIl E-4t1l u..c: c :J :3 E-i,o U E-iC::lo E-4 0 P. E-4 4.1 CU 0 co p. U E-i,otll4.1 tIl >J.<U'O
-
Jot
Q)
~
Q)
U
>.
......
....
g
g
o
U
....
...
"tI
g
o
Jot
bO
>-
c1S
.....
At
"
-
-
-
c1S
Q)
Jot
<
>.
c1S
.....
At
tI)
Q)
lI.l
J..<
:j
o
U
R
o
o
bO
c1S
~
bO
R
....
E
E
....
~
tIl
to-
~
.....
o
o
'If
bO
R
....
.....
....
11:1
tIl
It)
11:1
R
....
J..<
11:1
~
CD
:3
Q)
1<
~
1""'4
P-4
kl{l)kd...
O..Q Q) 0 lIS,"'" d
\Io4s'"\Io4....", lIS 0
,"4.1 k", U
(I)....'">.UlISlD......
lISu........lD kk
Q) ,","Q)dQ)QJ
k "U k~H.c 4.1
lISlDlISlISQ) ud
k\lo4Sc::1. OQ)
lIS.... U
....'Okk ok
as Q)c::1.QJUOR
'".....s::: .cR\Io4;l
4.1 lIS 4.1 ..uQJ 0
dUOllS ~lDU
QJ d QJ \104 '" ....
'QO kOlD....QJ
,"N'QlIS Q)as.s:::
lD,"d UkUU
Q)kllS>.k
kO CdllSUd
.s:::lD....c::1.lDCdd
R Q) c::1. Q).... '1"4
'"...... QJ.s:::c::1.
.s:::lDU.cSU 'Q
4.1 CO," U 0 k Q) d
Tld.s:::CdUCd>lIS
;J,"Q)~Q)\Io4,"
;l> .0 lD
CI) Q) d ..
'Q >,0~.s:::Q)'Q
Q)kCdddu.s:::O
4.10.... Q) 111 Q)O
Cd\lo4c::1.k \Io4k.s:::
U ~.cOc::1.k
OQ)kI""'4U SO
....UO....-r4UO.o
Cd\lo4,c;JQ)U,c
c::1. U Q) CO
>. CI) CO \104 Q) ....
~ Q) =~ go-5~
111 ~ Q) 1""'40'..
k,..kUI1l0..c
u>CdlD I""'4l1SU
RO QJ~ Q)11l 0
Q)k'QkQ)dkQ)lD
U c::1. Q) QJ c::1..... lIS 4.1
>UO.s::: d'1"4
Q) .... Cd C 1""'4 4.1 >..... d
.0.... c::1..... Q) -S .... ='
-S....Q)t i=>.
.... ....,c'QQ)lISJot....
....Q)mU 'O\lo4as....
-S~lD~~1""'4 kl
.s::: 1""'4 ....QJQ)\Io4
Q)~ 00,......4.1.
k ".cU;lCOd-r4
~ ~ CI)'Q~~~
Q)CI)~-g""SlD>.a
ddkllS.. dU
00111 <4'S........~
Cl)c::1.U....Q) d...
uJotc::1.U UlD='k
=' Q) 111 111 0 lD Cd a Q)
0c::1. kU>'Q)E!lD
..c CO 4.1 lD Jot 0
CdodU<4' lISuO
all '1"4 lIS Q) 4.1
\104 ..... .... 'Q U >. Q)
o :'OQ)lISCd.cllS
o Cd 4.1 CO c::1.1""'4 4.1 Q)
CI) 4.1 k 111 ro c::1. k
111 U 0 111
Q)O ~dd 4.1
JotO'QQ)Q)Q)O R
Cd\OdkkCloUUO
Cd'l"4~O d....
>..s::: ;2 .... d Q) 4.1
lIS U CO go'l"4~ 0 U d
....CdcQ),cd'"l1lQ)
P-4Q),"kUlISU..,>
Q)
U
c1S
~
tIl
s::
Q)
~
o
:;...
J..<
c1S
Jot
o
~
E
Q)
[-4
GO
-
-
-
>.
Jot
11:1
J..<
,.Q
....
~
Q)
CI)
~ Q)
.... .....
11:1 ,.a
J..< 11:1
[-400
Q) be)
..... R
"tI ....
.... "tI
J..< ....
I!l ~
sa
.c
U
11:1
Q)
(:Q
be)
R
....
E
E
....
~
tIl
...
...
>..kGJI
I""'4k O.c Jot
1""'4Q)\Io4uGJ
CdClo c::1.
=' Q)k
0"0 U 0 ..
GJ 0 111 \104 lD
all c::1. U
I""'4ro_'1"4
", rod
Q) ,c.... GJ U
UUCd'l"4....
;2 Cd d 4.1 c::1.
.0 Q) 0'1"4
.... ....>
kkU,"
4.1 0 1114.1 lI.l
(I)....Q)Uu
'1"4 JotCdd
~'g~QJ~
Q) ;2 Jot ~ GJ
.o~Q)c::1.u
CO 'Q k '"
.s::: >.'1"4 g,u
U Cd > . Q)
Cd 1""'4 0'1"41""'4
GJ c::1. k u.s:::
(I) GJ c::1..... ~
GJdl""'4a;2.
k 0.... d
U Tl 0
Cdro;J'gC
GJ~>'CdJot
>,.. GJ ..0
'1"4 >.c 1""'4 \104
\10404.1....
k Cd Q) 0
c::1. ,.. U d
\104 "-CdO
o (I) 'Q ~ c::1.,"
(I):a1to{l)~
~~o\lo4GJQ)
d 1""'4 ..'1:1 Jot
;2 GJ ....U
o > (I)>Q)
k oGJ'aOJot
coro"Odk
>'Cd Q) c::1.k
~~~u1::Ig
c::1.Cd Cd ..-l'Q
;24.1
Q)....{I)~O;2
~~] I1lUO
.cU='~ro"O
UdOroCdQ)
~ ~ Cd ~~
U'">.eCd>
Cd (I) lIS k
,cQ)1""'4 Q)Q)
Ukc::1.{I)CI)c::1.
uQ);2
~ is (I)
c::1. 'Q
lI.l d
Cd
CI)
'Q
9
o
Jot
co
>.
lIS
1""'4
P-4
ro GJ GJ
QJ.s::: ro
(I) 4.1 GJ
o .c
c::1. \104 4.1
o 0 k 0
k d 0 lI.l ..
c::1..c GJ 0 4.1 (I)
u.J:::'Q....;2
dCd:3U;2U
CdGJ ;2'QJot
1""'4 0 111 '"
c::1. d u.
'1"4 0 Jot co
.c{l)Od{l)
GJUd..,='c::1.
,cTlOCdOCd
~ ;J ro e >..c
-
J..<
Q)
......
11:1
Q)
..d
[-4
"
....
E
::I
....
lI.l
c1S
R
E
:;...
(J
CI)
....
Q) >. .
~Jots
'l"4CdGJ
>su
o '1"4 CI)
Jotk>.
c::1oc::1oro
"OQ)Q)
d.c U
C'OUI1S
c::1o
(I) at lI.l
.....0
d
4.1....
c....
e-s
C
at
Po
o
at
e 'Q .:::
:s 0 4.1
....0
c.c~
.... k 0
e 0
0.0 4.1
"'.ck
C eo C'O
0.... 0.
U at
Cr-I
'tIS
"O.c....
C U ..
C'O cu C
Q) GJ
ro lI.l
Q) d lI.l
r-I'I"4at
C'O.c
lI.l .. C
Q) -S C'O
c:l Q)
tIS 001 e
k C 0
;2 .... U
o > at
u.....o
cr-I
Q) r-I
(l)r-I
4.1 ....
"Oc:l
I""'4GJ
;2 'U lI.l
o '1"4 Q)
:l lI.l >
Q)r-I
~ k ~
k Q) S
co.c Q)
o E-4 .1:
k ..
Po
(I)
C . C'O
o Q) at
,"kk
4.1 ;2 tIS
tIS 0)
Q) 0 GJ
k c::1o.s:::
u~..
Q) Q)
k 'd
>.c
k 4.1 tIS
Q),"
f:lg;
~ ~ :
< U :J
J..<
Q)
......
R
Q)
U
R
o
....
......
R
Q)
>
R
o
U
"If
...
-
(I)
.....
o
o
..d
U
U)
>-
J..<
11:1
.....
s::
Q)
E
Q)
.....
~
~
-
-
.
.....
o
o
..d
U
tIl
..d
be)
....
:r:
.....
R
Q)
E
R
....
c1S
......
J..<
Q)
.....
R
~
..a
::I
.....
u
.....
..d
be)
....
Z
Q)
....
.g
.....
U
lI.l
"tI Q)
R .~
11:1:::::
RO
.g .....
..... 11:1
11:1 p..
E '8
J..< ....
o R
..... ::I
.s~
GO
....
.
Jot
tIl
"tI
R
c1S
.....
r-1
o
(J
~
.
J..<
..
i
t..')
d
'1"4
P.
Cd
U
ro
~
c
C'O
...:l
at
"0
'"
ro
'Q
111
o
~
"OOCU~{I)U>,
Cll.lCCk,c.o
C'O '"C'OattlO
Q)\Io4 \104,"~
roO) \Io41""'4Q)
1""'4 ;2.s::: ..::s ~ CI)
Cd 111 co k.o C'O 0
,"U;2Q) cup.
kQ)OUCU.cS
CU.okC~ '"
4.1 .s:::CU'1"4
kUUU>~m
tIS C 0 C
'-"C'O{I)CkaS
UO)OPo 1""'4
k C'O'1"4 Q).o
lI.lOo.U_O)O
'QPo CCU'l"4k
C'OB cu'Ooo.
0........ >.... C
k ....c:l "0
>.'1"4 0 Q) Cd
"O....:luu"oo
aJ'" CU'l"4'"
(I) C'O'" aJ 0)
o r-I aJ .. \I-l "C ...
Po;2>'" C'OO
OU'I"4Q)oo~
k.......u\O~
c::1o""O d aJ
k Q) 0 U
dQ)Uu C'O
"C o...c: . Po
C ~ 0 en lI.l
Cdll.l dNCU
.... ;J '-".... cu
co 00 U'Q
dll.l'QU '1"4....
'I"4....C'O lI.l>>
...cOaJC'O....O
lI.lE-4....caJUk
.... ukUc::1o
X Q) C'O tIS
aJ.s::: 0
o 4.1 \104 '0 r-I lI.l
r-I'Q OCUtlS....
r-I aJ a Po.... C'O
C'O 0. 0 ro C'O 4.1
C'O k :l U C lI.l
ou....aJlI.laJC'O
4.1 lI.l '!"l "0 "0 cu
'QlI.l>C....k
C '1"4 C'O lI.l Cd
UC'O Ur-ICU
Cr-IUC kCU
Q) C C'O 4.1 lI.l
UQ)Q)roccocu
C'O.oSC'OaJC.c
.., p. aJ U.... E-4
"Or-I 01""'4 C'O'"
C'O r-I.... c::1..., aJ
,.. Q) "C 'Q 0
"O;J> 111"'''0 0
C aJ-C OCUll.l
Cd-"OuaJ;QUC
r-I lI.l ......c: ::s 0
kQ):lf-4 "0....
o.c "OCUu
\1044.14.1 en C.......
OU aJ Cd "0
Q).c c::1o' >.C
C....UC'O{I)"C1""'40
O....TlUtlSC'OUU
,"O;JlI.lQ)OC'O
uu ~kkaJ""
... 4.1 C tIS ... tIS
Or-lUlll aJCOU
c::1.tlSCd....d..c: '"
....4.1 OUCU.c
aJUC .... "'Clo
ClOCO....4.ldC'OC'O
"'Q)UC'OtlSCU k
111 "0 k CU aJ CU tlO
.........c;2k:lkO
(l)UUuuasp.
Q);2C'OQ)at....O
<...Sd...'OCOU
-
lI.l
......
Jot
::I
o
U
ro
....
R
R
Q)
[-4
i
\-,
-
:;...
J..<
Q)
.....
Q)
E
Q)
u
ro
Q)
u
.~
Jot
Q)
tIl
ro
CU
..d
u
k
::s
..d
U
tI)
N
...
01
.....
11:1
u
....
"tI
Q)
~
"
"
.......
. ...="1
. '-.~,
, -
~, ,x:~,~~~
\,', , ' .~.-:i'7":'i.:~, =-..- . " j::":'-" '! 'J:":.
\ J.' I' '/-'''';'"~,,,.,=~, ,'. " _'-'-;' '. f',ij'--
. /' . , '-'~"'" '-' "'If. '
/..<. ,,: \,,/,;:(/~,:~~~. --~F~~'-';
". '~'/" ','./.'.'. .....--: "
---_/ /' .~. --::~~"" : /;, /~:~~~-~:~~~. ", ,'-
.$1' ~~~~= ~-~~ ..../.'~... ~ <.----:--......'" _~
,;,'" .~ .~ ~~'>lli~t
" (::',~:"~>T=~c~~~>
\. ."'" 1 >'--<.
\ y-;
\ .(('
\ \"J
. \' ~.~
\
,
'\
\
1
!
,..
z
<
~
P-4
f/l
~
1--4
E-4
~
~
1--4
~
~
'. -,
"____,.;f' .~
.~ ~ ,,-o~ I
.;:{I._ ._._'. _....~ :
,." .... 7?~"" "".3'. .~ BL ..,,-- :3 ....- .a:JI C'"' ~
'} . ..:.'/ . .~~:J r
'--......-..........- /"" . -~,j'--- -":;~~.:'~..A.~' '. i E-4
".;,;- MJ' . '~2~'-1 ~
t . .' ,.a." '.. ::::1..,
.' .~.;',-._--- V 1 ~
\ -. '~'-'--\ "" '_:~ ~
., . i' . ~~. '-. :'J ....,
", . ~ ~
',~ -
..i; .:~ . d-- .
"'. =,"~ c:/ ':::::" ~.'= ~~..~...:! ~
~~:"::' '.- . .., < ,=~..~ 0
"-4 .~. W , \1 .' ;.j
.~ ' . Je '-.' . ' .1,' . '.>-'~:>~j] 0
.~~.=~.~..._..~...~i:.~=~.J. . _",_ r" , ", ':. _ I . " '. ....""". ......1
::..,..." . - ---. '. J. ~ ,_/ / ',~~ ~ ' "_'.:"'r;--:: .', ~
. , J I'~ ", ,,* .. .'.: C;-"...,-.A:~,
'~~';1~'~f:c>~. .,',~ ;'?,~<~~'F" -:','~
j j 'it ,- , . '~--'~~:i;"', ,- _"' !J;
..' '1. 1>1...32""",-"" u. .,-_ 6lIfi:. -'. 1
~-t~<' '~'~~<~. ' ,.' _ '-, ~.'~~~<'~;~} -~~j~-: r , ., -0'.; ,; .:::>.~~;
I, ,'... ". ,~.,'{(~, I ._' OJ _
'-1 ... .-/' II: -.:.,.. ~ . C- \ ~ r 1\, ~ r ) ,. ~ ~, ~-
--' . < ~, . , 'o'\h" ,. '" ( ~ ~ -/7. _,
. ~.......J'--;,---..'-- -"--,;"'-:-r"~,.,="'" .1';.. , ':"I"S:,;V.:_::-:._~~j,~,;,,>~-. -,_.~
:f'V . -.<.----~ - . ,\ " ~-> . ''''~t' "'," ._."c-. '- J - '~
~-_/'. -~~:~" <'--..-/ ..-' (.Jt \> -' '--,' -- ( .; ;I.'...~ .;;r-' -~ ,,"'"' "1
'\. >~$. ~ ';. -' ;:-..:.-:-~i-, < ~7 -~,.?:~-,..;. .-,':':- ',; / .~~, o/~. -_7~:" .,,~_ )( ",,-:'; ...)// ' J) \ \ 1
.' jl"" -..-:---.,,-...--. "-, ,.~.'^.,~,."~--,--:_--c: ,~, /,' <,<.. ,
,)~~"" ". ~'~.:-.~ -~~~:;':.:-r, ~ '->-:-<~~".- <'.~:';~"';I~k~~:"~~) ..,~'~"~~~~~"~1f--~/','J
r- ... tX. '. .. t ~ A,..... ". .,. --"~'. .~ \, ..' .~'''~- ,-. "..;~ '-;:::'--'-1
..' --, '--: - ..-- --". ",' -' " -.---..,. -~~~;\\\ ~\~\,:::::..(::>~ ',., - ~"c~=4"=~J:~/%J;'-
. 0.--. -- -- -. '---... -- '----------l":.);lr.:~''':.;.:. .:;;.- '. -'/1.2~:'=oI
~:ci=-~>~~" :~}<~L~ ~ j_:?~::~~':~G~' ~~~~!~-2~-"~~~~~
,/f\"'~:'-_-_--:-: >~,:-~.;(-;,,__/,._'~~' .\~~.~~--:~=~ cr'.....;..-iJ>"' .-- :,:":_ '. ~.~_';... ..... "~~~~..''''
- ";:~' ,"<>~<';,~;' ",. -' ,;. "'-~:""5'/'::='--;;-':""-::'s.,,-."''''- -- :.':Q., C"',,, '..::,.- "....' ~(, "~,I
',C /-?':/~'I\\ ,:~~_..e. "-'~'-'~lf:~. '". '-.. . .,' '::_f"-':'.-<:-",'" ,...~_c:_.-,- :'!QO :]I
r. ,/ t ,~/ I ~ -" .. ~ ~.~ "-=-Jca_":'~ ~ ;jp:...... '" __'il_ - . ,,' ~.:'~::-"~'"'< .\.... J~ ._.;-__ ~~~
A'L:.J ,\', ~C:-'~gr~"'\":?' ,. 1 ,. -c.... . - ~""iii;."'-ir'" "1
;:is~,~' A'.~-"''''' ./ ,....... ;j" /._"r-o.r-:~~~'~.:;~:~.~.:~.:::~.?::.~:~_;'
"""'''\- ,\" T.:. . /'. j '" _ /. r._ .. ~-. ."..., '-. I
"" ...' 0.':2' j , ::~. _ _"/~:~"'-"- ~.::-=-'~""_:_, _ '
. .' .
;5;i~-=~.~.,
-- -:_-~~'~ ~ --~l':'-
- -- "... '. II" t.~
- -- . -
. .
-r---
~~'~-";..->'
--
~
;'1" .....~:E .."] :..r=;)., ."
'"
.,/-
-/
'.
---~--..:._-".
--
."~...~."
.'
.--- ....;:'-
.,::....,-.-,.-. /;a
";, W
-- -,-:-;~-..i;'~... ^.,.."- "
.-#_.... ";[::'.i~'
.;:;.t"~,,- ~
../"~~
~-. .
..,
'3
:-'
-----,
,
-.. \
. \.J
~l -
, .
"
-' . ~
> . - Z :l.
.....
Jl \1 S
z
<
~ e~~
:Jl
'. ,
Q
S
~
c
S
p...
p::a
;:J
...:3
U
f-4
~
0'
U
~
f-4
...:3
~
~
~
c
~
~
o
j
s
p...
'1'4
01
(l)
"if
10
~
~
E-f
B
u
fD
1
r
i
i
lj ,',
1---
i. -~...'
i
i : . - .
. .
. .,,\~.
..~
:..""'""....-......
.~.
~
~~
o
ffi~
f-40
~
H
U
~
~
~
U
~
H
~C
1:24
HH
E-fen
...:3;:J
;:JO
~:x::
o
'1"'4
~
~
'1"'4
'1"'4
!
en
~
H
E-f
H
...:3
H
E-t
;:J
01
'1"'4
~
i
to-
CX)
Q)
~
~
~
P-4
~
o
. toot
Eo4
~
Eo4
~
fit
~
~
P-4
~
toot
Q
~
~
o
~
toot
fIJ
~
=
p..
>>-'"d
c:: U) c::
m to tlI
QI co
~ >>~
QI 0 c::
>N c::
QI ClI
~'O....
;J:lgQ,
>>...
QI 0
.c1H
.
..c:: (/).
CJ'o~(/)
~ij.s~
o CJ
(/) 0 Q, 0
... ~ ...
ClI c:: Q,
QI 0
>> Q,"" ~
::s (/) c::
~ c:: 'S ~
....ClI""Q,
IH Q, '0 0
(/) ....
>> ~QI
r-tQlC::>
..c::aQlQl
co.... (/) '0
::s ~ QI
o ... U)
... Q, ::s
... QI 0
IHQI"'::S
o CO c::
c::: ....
U)O~~
~r-t: c::
c:: 0
QI tlI '"d CJ
13 c::
QI ... tlI tlI
... QI
CJ> IH
c:: 0: 0
.... ..
~tJU)
~..-I: ~
::S.... ...
O::S tlI
1H.c: Q,
..
C::QllQQI
"".0: ...
CO
~
.... r-t: >>
........ .. QI
::s....<.c::
.0 ~: ~
QI (/) (/) ..
.cQlQl(/)
""""QI
~~(/)
............0
..-I;:se
'SCJS::S
tlISQ,
EIH8co
5 QI c::
~..c::QI""
~ r-t (/)
QI .... CO
..c::1H..c::..c::
HO:3Q,
~
:z;
H
~
..-1...1 >>1 U)QI..;t..
..-IClI.....-Ic::....>N.c::
'TfQlQl""QI.c::""M~
~>>~m~HIH ~
= QI~IHQI ~ 0
<:> 1 - U) ..IH
""QI""QI(/)"'~
1H.c::~.c~""(/)QI
>> H..-I 01H.....c::
~~ ::s....r-t ....~
'1"4(/) Sr-t QlIH
S~~'O~~~QI;;
IIHQlC:: .... ..c::
~ClIU)> ~'O
QlC:: ~ c::
o..c::QI "OCO.c::ClI
~CJU)""C::'"dH
QI, '1"4 0
c:: >>.... ~ Q,"" '"
.....~~c::o... '"
(/) 'I"4'1"4or-tQl..r-t
'0'0 c::....... U) Q,U)
QI QI ::S'l"41H ~..
QlQ,~CJ"'QlQlC::'O
c::o ClIQI.c::SQI...
r-t 1H~~""S'1"4
QlQICJ ClI ~QI..c::
...> ..-I~U) ...~
::SQl'OCll tlI...CJ
~'OC::C::QI GlC::QI
::s tIS 0 .c:: >>1lO'I"4..c::
....QI 'l"4Hr-tC:: ~
.c"~ '"dO'"
c:: c::tlI ........::sc::
Gl OQl Q, 0'1"4
Qlr-to... -COtlllH
(/)..-ICOCJC::'" ..
QI'I"4tl1Q1tl1 "'00\
...~....... Q,U) Gl ~N
o U)ClI>C::N
IHU)CO" 0....
C::~C::O)Qlr-t ..
::SO'l"4Q1sr-tU)'O'O
r-tS""'I"4Gl~GlC::
... !=l~~U)0'"d0
0~""'1"4 r-t'r"lCJ
IHCU~"""'O :>cu
""U)'I"4CU~ ....(/)
:> CJ co ~ '"d
c:: .. tlI c:: '0 c:: .0 cu
O....U)IHOCUO::s.c::
'l"4tl1CU r-t~...U)~
(/)'I"4....r-t CJIH
.... ~ ~ tlI tlI cu ... U) c::
> c:: '1"4 .... Q,CU .... ....
ocur-tCJ"'><~
...'"d.......CJCUtll: ..
Q,'1"4 ~ cu > ~ < '"d
U)::SSO~ : cu
u)cu S 0 Q,
....... "0'"dC::1H>>0
U)CJCU O~..-I
CDCU'"d Q,CU ....cu
t:l..c::co o...>>c::>
....HO ..r-ttllr-t::scu
U) "'tlICU Q,S'O
ClI C::>CUQ,!=l
.c:: cu.... cu ... ::s 0 cu
Q,...c::...'O 0 U)tJ.o
~ ~ tlI IH
CU(/) SCUCUtll...r-t
.c::.....-I .0'" 0..-1
~""..-I CUCUIH'1"4
OIH~ ui'....'fi ~ cu ~
~ ~..-I U)U)(/)
~(/)O'r"l'"dc::tlI~
>>.... tlI r-t ~ c:: cu..c:: 0
cu '1"4 tlI Q, ....
.sl::SCU~U)
.cU)S::~CU"""'~ .
cu tlIo....>....tlICJ..;t
..c:: cu..c::... s::........ cu tlIco
H.c Q,IH::S U) ~ >>.cN
I Q,I QI tlI..-I I U) QI<
tlI ::s~.c QI..-I PoQl.c::
~~::s ~'r"I::S..-l~
U) O..-l.,,~U)ClI -
..-I Ul '"d
r-t ... '"d '1"4 co fit 0 cu
QlQlS::~~C::::S ~Q,
::s ~ tIS '1"4 '1"4 0 0
.... tlI co Q, Q, QI .. ....
~~;;....~ij~~~~
tlI O~QlU)..-IC::'I"4CU~
...c::'" >'O..-I::S"''"d s::
'"dCOU)tlIClIC::QlOQl QI
c::s:: Q,...ClICJ..-I~QI'"d
tIS....QI OO..-lU) tlI.c....
,lII..c::QI ......-ICJ U)
....~...QI'OS'1"4 ....cu
..c:: ClI o..c:: c:: aI .......
~Q, X~t'Ct UU)'Tf
... 0 ..~ QI ~ ~
aJQI~ C::aJu)CJ'1"4 c::
.013 'I"4"'QlO~ Q)
or-t - O'l"4CJ'I"4-s::
OUlCUU)'"d~'" .....t'Ct
M r-t.c::S::(/)4) ....CJs
'"d..-l~t'Ct CJ "CJ~f..i
Qlc::tlI... - O~alQlGl
:>ClI"'QlQlU)",C::1H Q,
t'Ct ClI.c$.lQ,COillS
..c:: .. Q, 0 .... $.I .. QI
(/) ..-I~.c:: 4) ::s r-t (/) $.I
QI~tlIUlUl'"dalt'Ct$.lO
..-I'I"4U)S:: 'r"I~'I"4cua
..-I~Q)O- CU:>U)CJ~
'Tf....~....U)..c::oCU"'$.IQI
~ .... ~ PoE-4 $.I $.I cu tlI ...
.... cu '1"4.... Q, s..c:: tlI
:~..c::'"d..c:: aCJ
<::S~'"dU) ..-1"0 QI
: t'Ct,. ..-I U) CJ co ...
"0 cut'Ct......-I c::cu
>>U)~o..c::C::~ClI"'......c::
~'"d o~.... ~QI..c::~
'l"4tl1'"d-:t $.I~c::..c::U)
c::ocu IHt'CtHCU~""C::
::S"''"d os ...OIHCU
13 c:: 0 ..c::
a..tlI~..c::cu r-t.. ~
OU)Q, ~..c:: -ClIU)"
tJS><O$.l~CUC::""u)'"d
ocuoo U)o..c::cucu
~o Mc::IHt'Ct....~U)...
tlI ... cu o..c:: ~ ........
~.c .. Q,t'Ct ::S::S
ClIU) 'Ot'CtU QI"'$.IO"
c::cur-tc::c::(/)~$.ICUCJCU
....$.Ir-ttll....cuU)CJ~ ...
... 'Tf $.I~...CUIH~
t'CtCJ~U)ClI 'I"4...<tlICU
13'1"4 p..S'"d1H 0.0
QI:ci~gQlij4)" e>>
.c::::s....Q,..c:: ..c::cu - t'Ct
~p..... ~'O~r-t~ a
t'CtCU t'Ct ~co~
..a $.I 00 COCJ e cu cu
..cu 0~$.Ic::t'Ct0~'"
cuCJcus ....6.1$.1$.10
U)......c:: ~U)$.I 'OtlI~
t'Ct1H~cuS::U)::S'"dc::aU)
..c::1H '"dcucu'OC::::S
Q,O 'l"4CJCJ t'Ctt'Ct r-t
..>t'CtCJ ........co
~..._0....,t'Ct'"d~ tlI$.I
U)0U)"''"d cu....'O~cu
....c...Q,t'Ctcu p..ClIC::S::S::
....$.It'Ct ..c::o.otlSCUQl
IHC'lScuO'OU..-I $.ICO
..c::>>~cu cu 1
QI 'OU)> "CUCU$.l
..c::..o .... en cu en CJ s:: QI
~ S::N'"d > 0'0 QI'I"4.... co
o $.10$.1 ....IH$.I...
s::....Otll...CJCU..-lIHClItlI
H ~ ~ ~ p..C'IS.o p..o 13....
t' '"d co '0..-1 .
tlIliiBlii;:::
~ 0 ~....
c:: ... >> ~
cucu .. '1"4
s~ ..c::$.I..-I
cu c:: ... CJ cu ....
r-tQlOtll~CJ
CUCJIHCUC::t'Ct
.cCUIH
cu_ CJ
..c::C::U)r-t en
~ O'"d C'IS >>....
....c::c::~c::
~::S0'l"4S::
'"dCllO....SCU
Iii ~ ~~ a ~
CJ >>'"d a '"d
encuC'lS'"dOC::
'"d ... r-t co CJ tIS
c:: ~ Q,
::s '"dcu....
o c::.c::o
"'>>"C'IS~O
OO~(/) p..
>>'I"4cur-t
C'lSC::U)O co
.... ::s U) 0 - c::
p..mCll-5~-a
...oeen~ll
OCJCU t'Ct....
IH '"d>>..-I ~
cu c:: $.I en
..c::::st'Ct'"d
~~ ~cu....
IH '"dC::PoC'lS
CU'OC::cuos::
r-tc::t'OS..-IO
tlI cuaJ....
cu en..-l>~
.0 ..c::cucu....
.. ~ '"d '"d
'OtlICU '0
.... cu Q,..c:: cu t'O
r-t~ ~.c
-;:lii ..-Ilii
....... ......
CUCJ"'C::'Tf>>
CJ ~cu~.c
C'lSCUU)$.I
Q,.c cu '0 U) >>
U) 'Or-tcu..-l
cu.........c
r-tp....c::~....
...... CJ .... U)
cu 'Tf .... U)
en~ $.1....0
tlI -OCJQ,
..c::U)'"dIHt'Ct
Q, ~ cu ......
r-t Q, U) >>
~CUOtll........
U).c....cut'O....
$.I s:: cu $.I c:: aI
....cu>ClIo::S
IHCUCU ....~
"''"d>>UC::
cuCO COC'lSCU
.c:: cu....cu>
~ cu .0 p.. $.I cu
..c:: CJ
co ~ r-t cu '"d
c:: ....'"d$.lCU
~ ~;'O]
::S.. c:: ClI.
'"dr-tc::U)ClIQ,
oo~ ><
oOO....~cu
en ..c:: co::s ....
r-t CJ ClI '"d p.. QI
<(/)..-IC'lSU).c
0
...
...
... flI
'" ~
... ...
... .
... ..
0 .A
...
... ~
...
'"
... ~
...
... .
co 0
... ..
~ III 0 !:l ...
...
If) ~
cif~
:z: ~
<J
I-cl~
- --J '"
CQ ~
:c ci~
>< z ,CD
CD -
LL.I u:: ~
1 ", , ':,
I "\", ,',~~h, \,,:>,>, ,,'\;,.',
t... v \,~. ...... \~.,' '.'\ ~~"" <,<, '" "'''''\''' .
'I ' ' , " ,,', t..~~ "". . ';. ",\.. \1~ "'. '\ . ;.;.~ .\ \. '''., -..\.~ -",0\ '" " '.,
\::r' {. "'''.' \""'\' ,",'\ "'''''\' ',,'" '\., ,
~ 1 h.. ".. \i. . " ~ ,".,. .' t ~;':. ~>\, "'~ "\....' ',. ,,': . .>' < "", ~
" "," '. . \ \.
~. ' '\ \
~> .' <" ..,
I . ,
" : ',.
. . .
~ 'l '" . " '~.l """',"""
' ~..' ~\';;; \, ";", ,~~~~'.,,::~~~ .~-~"
~ "'\', ~:~~~~.......... -- --.
-+
.~~
~-i
rJI,
~e
0,
mo
rJI:E
J:
o
--f
m
r
)>
Z
o
()
o
~
m
:0
m
z
()
m
()
m
z
~
:0
,i.'" \
,_.~ "" .~ ~~~,
.", ,."" ,.-.. II, ", ~ \....-
~._w .". t \ ~~.:,. \
'\: " ~ :-\,. \'" ,
~, ~., " \" ' ," , ."'--
'. '\ '\'~\" '. \ ~.,' ~ 1...-
\\"'~<''\\'~' ~~
~,"~~~"'~" \.',.\ \,- .--. \~..:...:'
. " ',', \ , , --
\'\~ "\'''''' '\' '. '. \\, ~
\." .' "",. '0, \', _ .
\.\ "', \"\ ~ ~~
en · ,'" . " ' .- \.or:!
=< ;'\\~\', \, \ .--' ~' .
m "(', , '...."'" ;of- \
. \ '. '.~'-.'
-0 \ \, " , \', \ -.
<;, '\ . '\, ',.,-,:," '-:::) '';':''I'~
Z . '. \ , '-!,..; '0
>"\.)'-.->< .\ ~y"l'~' .~C
\ \, '. .. · ',,-,>, \\ b
',,\, , - "
\ "', '" ,..,." , , '-
. '.,,, ~ ,,~ . '.cp'.~lj..,Jl I,
'.\' \,\,., . 3' ~_
': . . , ~ ",..,., '.
'\ - ~ I......
'~I-
~~"
"IT,
'. ,
\;-"" \. \\
1 \~ , ' . ,
\,' \
"I\'~' :'1...:\,
" . \. . \~ '. '. \'.~
t'i\.. ....' "'\,,' "
1\\,\' \
r"~, \;~\,\\ :, ,~
l \ '. (
,oi! \"". \ '
'\ " ~
" ,
"
'. '
/;,\
f}O/ '. J")~
1>-:. 0f'!7 Q}
/ I ,t4'{I/ ".J ,I-"L / .
/ flf! (I ff J .
()
I.
.,
,\
I
'\ : ,\\
'~ ., \
',~ \ '~',
' "\,
.., '.-"-
~
~
rI: '~I"-
I I . ,'I; \
,\1 'I')
, '. . "\,','. ,;
~ -' ',,' ""<"
~-'L li/I/L. ( , ~t ". .i "~".
t};, ~i .' ", 'l
I /t "(;, ,i . : " ',: ..' :~, /!~I..(\,
" , .j) . \'
" /"."'f .\;
" {\ '''~.'\" ,:.
; I /"'.,'-' \,\, '. ':', ,-
,.,.,... '\,'( \
. , '.....c::;(.' ,"". '. \
\ ":'.~:.- .' ':.
"~,,:, . , ~.,...:... ~ -,' i
7"\ ",. '. ",' ,
.~" >....."1: /'- , . ,~ ... . _.....
~
~
, '.
. "
\... .
."^\,,
~-1
\ I
"~
. '-.;
I!! ~
m 0
' <...
" '~ F
, 1 ;
'" ..
CD
"
"
-..:-.--
~ - :~. >,,~.
:' !:o.....'-_:i..
--;~:_- '-.
'''',
. ----...-..
'~ .-. .-'OJ;,,,,, ,
./ I - .:Lh
Exlllbt" 5
LP-oZ. -"1 I
JI.
~~ ~~ -t
m m
z JJ
-t JJ
;ft-i JJ jR-i >
I~ > ~E 0
z m
0 m
m ~~ rn
00 m 00
~ r ~ <
m >
~ < :I: g
>
-t ~ z
<5 m r-
,... z ,... 8
> r- >
0 "
z 0 z Z
0 " 0 C)
(") z (") ~
0 C) 0 m
Z (J) Z (J)
~ 0 " -t
Sl m
:0
m :t m
z m Z
>
(") (J) ~
m -t
~ ~
~ Z
-i
m m
:0 :0
I
--- rr I
I 'I
;' if! I
I' ';
! I I
. " !I r'(f
~
l' I .1
j' ~r
..... ...
.... ....
... .....
m .. m
- ;, IJ -
I I
... ~ ., .....
b b
- . --! -
Exlti!';15 3h
LP-o'2.-C)/
J./11'1h3
3. The size and delineation of boundaries of UGAs will be determined by the following
criteria:
· adequate amount of developable land to accommodate forecasted growth for the
next 20 years based on the joint population forecast.
· sufficient developable land for residential, commercial and industrial uses to sustain
a healthy local and regional ,economy.
· lands within incorporated city limits.
· lands already characterized by urban development which are currently served or are
planned to be served by roads, water, sanitary sewer and storm drainage, schools
and other urban services within the next twenty years; provided that such urban
services which are not yet in place are included in a capital facilities plan.
· the type and degree of existing urban services necessary to support urban develop-
ment at the adopted interim level of service standards.
· sufficient area for the designation of greenbelts and open space corridors.
· topographical features or environmentally sensitive areas which may form natural
boundaries such as bays, watersheds, rivers or ridge lines.
4. Port Hadlock and Port Ludlow are considered being "characterized by urban growth" for
the purpose of designating UGA in the unincorporated County. The Tri-Area Community
Plan and the Port Ludlow Master Plan will be utilized as a guide in the delineation of
UOA boundaries based on the criteria above.
5
EXHIBIT NO. lc
File No.
Date
LP-02.-Q3
4/1'1/<:;3
I ~.: ~:m
Pope Resources
A Limited Partnership
19245 Tenth Avenue Northeast
P.O. Box 1780
Poulsbo. Washington 98370-0239
(206) 697-6626
(206) 697-1156 FAX
April 15, 1993
Shoreline Management Advisory Commission and
Mr. Jim Pearson, Associate Planner
Jefferson County Planning and Building Department
PO Box 1220
Port Townsend W A 98368
Re: Substantial Development Permit Application No. SDP91-0017; The Inn at Port
Ludlow
Dear 11r. Pearson and COllLmission Members:
\Ve are confident that you will find our proposed project consistent with all relevant goals,
policies, and performance standards of both the Shoreline Management Act (RCW 90.58)
and the Jefferson County Shoreline Management Master Program.
Please consider the following analysis as an integral part of our permit application. The
format first underscores pertinent parts of the Master Program. Thereafter, we have briefly
described how our proposal meets the particular policy or performance standard.
SECTION 4
SHORELINE DESIGNATIONS AND PROJECf CLASSIFICATIONS
Section 4.105. Urban - Policies:
1. Development in urban areas should be managed so it enhances and maintains the
shoreline for a variety of urban uses. 'with preference given to water-dependent and
water related uses. Water-enjoyment uses that provide access to and enhance
enjoyment of the shoreline for a substantial number of persons should also be given
priority in urban areas.
Our proposal should be considered a priority use in that it enhances enjoyment of
the adjacent shoreline area for a substantial number of people utilizing the existing
marina and restaurant; living in water-oriented residential units; abiding at the Inn;
and the general public who may use over one-half mile of dedicated access along the
shoreline.
EXHIBIT NO. 7
File No. LP-oZ -q(
Date t./!1<f!13
2. Efficient utilization of existing urban areas in a manner consistent with this program
is encouraged before further expansion into non-urban areas occurs.
The proposed project is "infilling" an area proposed for development since the 1967
Port Ludlow Town Plan and since the site's designation as an 'Urban" shoreline area
by Jefferson County in 1989.
3. Pedestrian and visual access should be provided to and along the urban waterfront
area. Public access to and along the water's edge should be coordinated in a
walkway system and linked to adjacent existing or future walkways.
The scale and placement of structures will ensure the continual provision of visual
access along the waterfront area. Over 2,600 feet of public access (90% of perimeter
shoreline) will be dedicated along the marine shoreline and facilitated by a
pedestrian pathway system. Additional public access will be available along 1,000 feet
of the perimeter of the pond.
4. Urban development should provide for public views to the ~ater. Wherever possible.
the waterside of shoreline buildings should include windows. doors. and public areas
that enhance enjoyment of the shoreline and present an interesting. attractive view
of the development from the water.
Public views to the water are provided throughout the project including along roads
and pedestrian pathways; from the restaurant; from the marina park and gazebos
intermittently dispersed; from 2,600 feet of public access shoreline; and from inside
the Inn, as well as outside along its extensive covered porch.
5. Development in urban areas should preserve and enhance significant architecture
. and historic buildings.
Certain elements of both the site plan and architecture are intended to be
reminiscent of the townsite as it existed nearly a century ago.
6. Unique natural features of the urban shoreline. such as bluffs. dunes. and wetland
areas. should be preserved and protected.
The project proposes to replace existing domestic landscaping and lawns with dunes
and beach grasses over the spit and along its shorelines. Wetland vegetation and a
more natural edge are planned around portions of the pond.
7. Parking facilities should be located on the upland side of buildings away from the
shoreline.
All new and reconfigured existing parking areas have been located as far landward
on the site as possible.
8. Internal and perimeter landscaping should be incorporated and maintained to screen
parking facilities from the shoreline and adjacent properties.
No parking areas should be visible from the water or shoreline. Extensive
landscaping is proposed to screen parking areas from adjacent properties.
-2-
9. Development within the shoreline urban area should be consisteJJLVyith..QtJl~r
adopted plans. programs. or policies.
The proposal is consistent with the Growth Management Act and has b((~n
nominated as an. 'Urban Growth Area" pursuant to the Act. The proposal b
consistent with the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan, the Je:fferson.':ounty
Subdivision Ordinance, the Jefferson County Flood Plain Ordinance, the Jefferson
County SEP A Implementing Ordinance, and will meet, and in some instances exceed\
the Jefferson County Building Ordinance and Code.
Section 4.105. Urban - Performance Standards:
1. Development shall be limited to those uses which can be classified as ac.water-
dependent. water-related. or water-enjoyment use. Non-water-oriented development.
while not preferred. may also be authorized as a conditional use provided said
development recognizes the public access directive of the Shoreline Management Act
and makes provisions for the public's continued and enhanced enjoyment Q(Jh~
shoreline. Such provisions could be the' preservation of shoreline views, ~he
establishment of a public access easement across and to the shoreline. enhancement
of an adjacent street-end or park. or other consideration commensurate vtith the
degree of impact caused by the development.
The proposed project is a "water-enjoyment use:'
2. Provisions to enhance the public's use and enjoyment of the shorelines and waters
of the state shall be included with new substantial developments or any change in
principle property use to a new conditional use occurring along the shoreline.
. The proposal will provide over 2,600 lineal feet of dedicated public access along the
marine shoreline as well as 1,000 feet along the adjacent pond.
3. Public access provisions shall:
a. Be of a permanent nature and shall be dedicated or otherwise protected.
including recorded with the Jefferson County Auditor.
Public access will be established through an easement, covenants or similar
means, and recorded with the Jefferson County Auditor.
b. Consider. in design and availability. measures to protect private property from
trespass. vandalism. littering. and the like.
Private property will be prevented from intrusion by landscape architectural
features such as plantings and low picket fences.
c. Be suitably marked as to inform the public as to the extent. location. and
availability of the access. .
Small signs will clearly inform the public as to the limits of its accesS'.
d. Be completed and available for public use at the time of occupancy of the
development.
At the time the first buildings are available for occupancy, public access will
be established.
-3-
4. All development shall be set back at least fifteen (15) feet from the ordinary high
water mark except those portions of water-dependent uses which require water access
or a shoreline location. or as provided in Section 4.106(3).
All residential structures are set back at least 30 feet from the ordinary high water
mark. The Inn is set back 19 feet minimum from the ordinary high watermark. The
marina manager's building which requires a shoreline location adjoins the ordinary
high water mark adjacent to the marina.
5. Unique natural features in the urban shoreline area. such as bluffs. dunes. and
wetland areas. shall be preserved and protected.
SEE RESPONSE TO POLICY #6, PAGE 2, ABOVE.
6. Motor vehicle parking between a new structure and the water is prohibited. Parking
shall be located no closer than fifteen feet from the ordinaty high water mark or
unique natural areas such as bluffs. dunes. or wetland areas.
No parking areas are proposed between any new structure and the water. No
parking is proposed closer than 80 feet from the ordinary high water mark, or closer
than 15 feet from any unique natural feature.
7. All new or redeveloped parking areas shall provide landscaping. Landscaping shall
be provided between streets and the project site and between public access areas and
parking areas. except at exits or when a building does not set back from a street.
Landscaping is proposed between Oak Bay Road and the project site, and throughout
public access and parking areas.
8. 'No fence. wall. hedge. or barrier greater than forty-two inches in height shall be
placed or enlarged nearer to the water than the building setback line. No fence.
wall. or similar structure shall be placed waterward of the ordinary high water mark.
No fence, wall, hedge, or barrier is proposed within the building setback area.
9. No development shall be approved for any new or expanded building or structure of
more than thirty-five feet above average grade level that will obstruct the view of a
substantial number of residences adjoining the shoreline area.
Of twenty-five new structures planned for the site, none are proposed in excess of 35
feet in height except for the Inn which is designed at 52 feet above average grade.
However, there are no residences in the adjoining shoreline area. To the west is a
steep bluff destined as open space, and to the north are parking areas and a
homeowners association recreational facility (Ludlow Maintenance Commission
''Beach Club"). Views from homes across Port Ludlow Bay (approximately 3,000
feet) and those from the closest residences across Oak Bay Road (1,000 feet diStant
and 100 feet higher in elevation), will not be obstructed.
-4-
10. Runoff created by new impervious surfaces shall not increase the rate of flow or
decrease the quality of stormwater from pre-project conditions.
A permanent stormwater drainage system will be installed, the design and
construction of which will be to the satisfaction of the Jefferson County Department
of Public Works. System components will include grass-lined swales, oil/water
separators, and a detention pond to manage both water quantity and quality. Post-
development peak stormwater flows will not exceed pre-project conditions. Analysis
during preparation of the Environmental Impact Statement found that following
development, pollutant concentrations in stormwater runoff would generally remain
at current levels or improve as a result of the proposed treatment features in the
stormwater system. Solids, fecal coliform, lead, and copper would be lower than
existing levels; chromium and nutrient levels would remain the same; zinc
concentrations would increase by a factor of 2.5 (the increased zinc levels are due to
byproducts from increased traffic and galvanized construction materials). Annual
loading of pollutants into Port Ludlow Bay following development would be similar
or less than existing conditions for all constituents except zinc. Because of the
proposed water quality treatment features in the stormwater system, zinc
concentrations would remain well below the state chronic toxicity levels for existing
waters. Proposed alterations to the on-site pond are projected to improve water
quality conditions in the pond and result in water quality similar to the Bay primarily
because of improved aeration and circulation from the proposed pumps and
waterfall, deepening of the pond, and proposed plantings. In addition, emphasis on
the use of native landscape materials throughout the project should reduce the need
to apply fertilizers and herbicides.
11. : Urban development should provide for public views to the water. Wherever possible.
the waterside of shoreline buildings should include windows. doors. and public areas
that enhance enjoyment of the shoreline and present an interesting. attractive view
of the development from the water.
REFER TO POllCY #4, PAGE 2, ABOVE.
12. Developments shall be' designed so as not to block. adversely interfere with. or
reduce the public/s visual and physical access to the water and shorelines of the state.
The project site has been planned for development since 1967. The original Port
Ludlow Town Plan designated the site for commercial, multi-family housing, and
"temporary open space" uses. The Town Plan was clear that the spit would ultimately
be developed. Until now, however, except for the restaurant, marina support
facilities, and the previously approved 125-room hotel and conference center, the
project site has not been committed in its entirety to definitive uses. The public/s
visual and physical access to the water and shorelines of the state wilt now be
guaranteed as a result of this proposal.
-5-
SECTION 5
POLICIES AND PERFORMANCE STANDARDS
Section 5.50. Commercial Development - Policies
1. Priority should be given to those commercial developments that are particularly
dependent on shoreline locations or that provide a substantial number of people to
actively or passively enjoy the shoreline.
The commercial component of our proposed project is the 36-room 'lnn at Port
Ludlow." It, together with its adjoining open space on the spit, and one-half mile of
public access waterfront, will provide the opportunity for a substantial number of
people to enjoy the shoreline.
2. Commercial developments not requiring shoreline locations should be located inland.
Since the Inn does not absolutely require a shoreline location, it has been located
inland at the corner of the marina and on the pond rather than on the marine
shoreline of the spit, which will remain in open space.
3. An assessment should be made of the effect a commercial structure will have on a
scenic view significant to a given area or enjoyed by a significant number of people.
The Environmental Impact Statement prepared for this project included an aesthetic
analysis of the Inn from two viewpoints. First viewpoint is at the only location along
Oak Bay Road from which the Inn can be viewed by the traveling public. A
computer-generated drawing of the Inn was superimposed on a photograph of the
existing site. A second viewpoint was analyzed from the nearest private homes some
. 1,000 feet northwest and approximately 100 feet higher in elevation than the Inn.
The aesthetic analysis clearly shows that the Inn structure will not impair in any
noticeable way public or private views.
With respect to potential view impairment from homes located across Port Ludlow
Bay, the nearest residences are 3,000 feet distant. Several existing buildings on or
near the project site are higher and more prominent than the proposed Inn. Nearly
all views from the south shore of Port Ludlow Bay have the north shore hillside as
a backdrop behind any structures proposed for the project.
4. Parking facilities should be placed inland of the proposed use and away from the
immediate water's edge and recreational beaches.
Parking facilities for the Inn have been purposefully placed inland of the' structure
and away from the water's edge. The parking area will barely be visible by someone
walking along the shoreline perimeter or boating in nearby waters. -
5. Location of commercial activities should be consistent with local plans. codes. and / or
ordinances.
The location of this commercial structure is consistent with the Jefferson County
Comprehensive Plan and Interim Zoning Ordinance.
-6-
6. Adequate parking facilities should be designed commensurate with the level of the
commercial activity.
Parking is provided at a ratio of one space per room in the Inn. This parking
standard is consistent with that of technical guidelines under the County's Interim
Zoning Ordinance.
7. Water oriented commercial is preferable to non-water oriented commercial in the
shoreline area.
The proposed Inn is a "water-enjoyment" use which is defined in Jefferson County's
Master Program as a "water-oriented" use. The only other structure within the
proposal that could be construed as commercial is the new marina manager's office
which is also water-oriented.
Section 5.50. Commercial Development - Performance Standards
1. New commercial developments shall be located adjacent to existing or planned
commercial developments which are consistent with the provisions of this Master
Program. whenever practicable. Development shall be limited to those uses which
can be classified as a water-dependent. water-related. or water-enjoyment use. Non-
water-oriented development. while not preferred. may also be authorized as a
conditional use. Commercial development shall recognize the public access directive
of the Shoreline Management Act and make provisions for the public's continued
and enhanced enjoyment of the shoreline. Such provisions could be the preservation
of shoreline views. the establishment of a public access easement across and to the
shoreline enhancement of an adjacent street-end or park. or other consideration
. commensurate with the degree of impact caused by the development.
The proposed Inn is located adjacent to the existing commercial marina which is
consistent with the provisions of this Master Program. The Inn is a water-enjoyment
use. Over 2~600 feet (90%) of the perimeter shoreline of this proposed project will
be available for public use. The landward arrangement of buildings, and the low
intensity uses of the site~ will continue to preserve key shoreline views. A new
marina park, waterside trail system, and boat loading area will further enhance the
public's use and enjoyment of the shoreline and waters of the state.
2. Provisions to enhance the public's use and enjoyment of the shorelines and waters
of the state shall be included for water-enjoyment and non-water-oriented uses
involving new substantial developments or any change in principle property use to
a new conditional use occurring along the shoreline.
REFER TO PERFORMANCE STANDARD #1 ABOVE ON THIS PAGE.
-
3. Public access provisions shall:
a. Be of a permanent nature and shall be dedicated or otherwise protected.
including recording with the Jefferson County Auditor.
Q. Consider in design and availability measures to protect private property form
trespass. vandalism. littering. and the like.
-7-
~. Be suitably marked so as to inform the public as to the extent. location. and
availability of the access.
d. Be completed and available for public use at the time of occupancy of the
development.
REFER TO "URBAN-PERFORMANCE STANDARDS" #3, PAGE 3 ABOVE.
4. Commercial developments shall be located away from the immediate water's edge
(OHWM) a minimum of 15 feet except water-dependent uses and as provided for in
Section 4.106. Where feasible. parking and loading areas shall be located away from
the immediate water's edge.
The Inn is set back a minimum of 19 feet from the ordinary high water mark.
Except for the new marina boat-loading area, all parking and loading areas are
located as far landward as possible.
5. Design of parking and loading areas shall assure that surface runoff does not pollute
adjacent water or cause soil or beach erosion.
Stormwater runoff from all parking and loading areas will be routed through a
stormwater management system consisting of biofilters, oil/water separators, and the
detention pond.
6. Advertising and signs shall comply with applicable policies and performance
standards of this Master Program.
Signs associated with the Inn are directional only and will be kept to an absolute
minimum in size and number.
7. . Water supply and waste disposal facilities shall comply with established guidelines.
standards. and regulations.
The water supply system will be designed and installed in accordance with standards
of the Washington Department of Health. Domestic waste will be routed through
a sanitary sewer system consisting of a secondary treatment plant and deepwater
outfall all designed, constructed, and operated in accordance with regulations of the
Federal Clean Water Act administered by the Washington Department of Ecology.
8. New or expanded structures shall not extend more than thirty-five feet in height
above average grade level except as provided for in Section 4.106 when such
development will obstruct the view of a substantial number of adjacent residences or
properties. "
SEE ''URBAN-PERFORMANCE STANDARDS" #9, PAGE 4 ABOVE.
9. Parking facilities shall be designed to accommodate the level of the anticiPated
commercial activity.
SEE COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT POllCY #6, PAGE 7 ABOVE.
-8-
Section 5.70. Dredging - Policies
1. Dredging should be controlled so as to minimize damage to existing (.<,:ological valr~G:k
and natural resources of both the area to be dredged and the area for dep.9.slLllf
dredged materials.
Any material dredged from the bottom of the existing pond will be used to create a
more natural condition on the adjoining spit using irregular mounds of sand and soil,
landscaped with beach grasses, to create an environment typical of a Puget Sound
accretion spit. An erosion and sedimentation control plan will be prepared (qJd
approved by the Jefferson County Department of Public Works. Erosion control will
include check dams, swales, grave filter berms, silt fences, hydro seeding, and planting
of landscape materials as necessary.
Section 5.70. Dredging - Performance Standards
1. Dredging shall cause no more than minimal damage to water quality. fish. shcllfjsh,
essential marine biological elements. and other natural resources.
This project proposes no dredging in the marine waters of Port Ludlow Bay.
Dredging is only proposed in the existing pond to reconfigure its bathymetry> l.<;crve
as a sedimentation basin during construction, and a permanent stormwater detention
facility for water quality and water quantity control once the project is complete.
4. Dredging shall not cause unnecessary interference with navigation or unnecessary
infringement upon adjacent shoreline uses. properties. or values.
REFER TO PERFORMANCE STANDARD #1 ABOVE.
5. Dredged material shall be deposited on upland sites whenever possible andj)llly on
those sites authorized by the shoreline substantial development permit. 6. 12r~dge
materials deposited on upland sites shall constitute landfill and when d~'p()sited
within the geographical jurisdiction of this Master Program shall comply with the
applicable performance standards.
All dredged material will be deposited above the line of ordinary high watel hJld will
comply with 'landfill" requirements of this Master Program.
Section 5.100. Landfills - Policies
1. Landfills should not be permitted on marshes. bogs. swamps. or other ecologically
sensitive areas. except as provided for in this Master Program.
All landfill will be above the ordinary high water mark.
3. Landfills should not significantly create a hazard to adjacent life or properties. nor
damage natural resources (including water surface reduction. navigation. flow. current
and circulation impediments. recreation. ecological values. and habitat impacts).
REFER TO DREDGING POllCY #1 AND PERFORMANCE STANDARD #1
ABOVE, PAGE 9.
-9-
4. Fill materials should be of such quality that water quality problems do not occur
from the placement of fill. Shoreline areas should not be considered for sanitarY
landfills or the disposal of solid waste.
Fill material originating on the project site is described in detail in "Appendix G -
Environmental Site Assessment, Landau & Associates, Inc., April 19, 1991" contained
in Appendices to Draft Environmental Impact Statement: Port Ludlow Development
Program and Inn at Port Ludlow Project published October 19, 1992. The excavated
material will consist of mixed soils and debris from the former mill site and from
previously imported fill material that occurred over the life of the sawmill. Material
that is deemed unsuitable for landscaping purposes will be removed from the inland
site. Some fill material may be imported from off-site quarries or gravel pits.
5. The perimeter of landfills should be protected from erosion.
A detailed erosion and sedimentation control plan will be prepared and approved by
the Jefferson County Department of Public Works. Erosion control will consist of
check dams, swales, gravel filter berms, silt fences, hydroseeding, and planting of
landscape materials as necessary and appropriate.
6. Present and future uses of a site should be considered when evaluating a proposed
landfill.
Two areas on the site will receive landfill. One is the open space area on the spit,
and the other is a small area in the southwestern corner of the existing marina
parking lot where landfill will be placed over the existing boat launch to site a single-
family dwelling unit.
Section 5.100. Landfills - Performance Standards - General
1. The following information shall be submitted by the applicant for landfill projects:
a. Proposed use of the landfill area.
b. Physical. chemical. and biological characteristics of the fill material.
c. Source of the landfill material.
d. Method of placement and compaction.
e. Location of the landfill relating to natural or existing drainage patterns.
f. Location of the perimeter of the landfill relating to the ordinary high water
mark. or any marsh. bog. or swamp.
g. Perimeter erosion control or stabilization means. and schedule for
implementation.
h. Type of surfacing and runoff control and treatment devices.
ALL REQUIRED INFORMATION HAS BEEN SUBMITTED FORMALLY TO
JEFFERSON COUNTY. -
2. Landfills shall be permitted only where it is demonstrated they will not result in the
following:
a. Significant damage to water quality. fish. shellfish. and/or wildlife habitats.
b. Adverse alteration to natural drainage and circulation patterns. currents.
rivers. and tidal flows. or significant reduction of flood water capacities.
c. Adverse alteration of geological processes along the shoreline.
-10-
The creation of dunes by landfill on the spit will remove lawn areas used by
waterfowl as described in the Environmental Impact Statement. Any potential
damage to water quality, fish, and shellfish will be minimized by erosion and
stormwater management measures and facilities. No drainage courses or flood water
capacities will be reduced by the proposed landfill, nor will any geohydraulic
processes along the shoreline be altered.
3. The fill shall be the minimum necessary to accomplish the proposed use.
No more fill will be applied to the site than the minimum amount necessary to create
a natural dune area on the spit, grade level areas for foundations, and cover the
existing boat launch area, and install underground utilities.
5. Fill material shall be of a quality and so placed and contained that it does not cause
water quality degradation. Junk. garbage. contaminated soil. and other potentially
hazardous sewage and rubbish is not permitted to be used as fill material. Fill
material shall be restricted to soil. sand. rock. or gravel.
SEE POLICY #4, PAGE 10 ABOVE. <
Section 5.100. Landfills - Performance Standards - Non-Aquatic and Non-Wetland Areas
11. Landfills are not permitted in 100-year flood plains unless it can clearly be
demonstrated by the applicant and certified by a qualified professional engineer that
the hydraulics and flood plain storage capacity will not be altered to increase flood
hazard and that the project will meet the criteria of the Jefferson County ordinance
on the national flood insurance programs.
. A "Flood Plain Certification" application has been submitted to Jefferson County to
place fill on portions of the spit in compliance with the Jefferson County Floodplain
Management Ordinance.
:{
12. Landfills shall be designed. constructed. and maintained to prevent. minimize. and
control material movement. erosion. and sedimentation from affected area.
REFER TO POllCY #5, PAGE 10 ABOVE.
13. Landfills shall not be created that interfere with the normal recharge of groundwater
supplies or that degrade the quality of groundwater.
During preparation of the ''Programmatic'' Environmental Impact Statement for the
next ten years of development at Port Ludlow, a professional geohydrologist analyzed
groundwater resources. No aquifers or aquifer recharge areas were delineated where
landfill will be placed on the spit.
14. Landfills shall not adversely affect normal surface water drainage between adjacent
properties.
There are no defined drainage courses in the proposed landfill areas, nor any
adjacent properties in the vicinity of the landfill areas.
-11-
Section 5.140. Parking Facilities - Policies
1. Parking facilities should be designed and placed as far as practicable away from the
water's edge.
All parking facilities have been placed as far inland as possible within the project
site.
2. Parking facilities should make provisions for pollution abatement and the control of
stormwater runoff.
All parking areas and other impervious surfaces will have runoff directed to biofilter
swales, oil/water separators, and through the detention pond.
3. Parking facilities should be adequate to serve the level of demand anticipated by the
associated use.
A total of at ieast 350 parking spaces have been provided for the Inn, residentiM
units, existing restaurant, and marina. In all cases, parking proposed for this project
meets or exceeds common standards. In addition, 58 garages are provided for the
residential units.
4. Parking facilities should not interfere with the use and enjoyment of adjacent
properties.
All parking facilities will be buffered with landscaping. To minimize impact on the
LMC homeowner association ''Beach Club" parking to the north, cross-over parking
opportunities and automobile travel will be prevented by earthen berms and
landscape barriers.
Section 5.140. Parking Facilities -Performance Standards
1. Parking facilities shall not be located over the water or adjacent to the immediate
water's edge if practical alternative upland locations exist.
REFER TO POllCY #1, PAGE 12 ABOVE.
3. The design and construction of parking facilities shall assure that surface water runoff
will not pollute adjacent waters or cause soil or beach erosion. Oil separators and
retention ponds are considered positive measures towards compliance with this
standards.
REFER TO POllCY #2, PAGE 12 ABOVE.
4. Security lighting associated with parking facilities shall be beamed. hooded. or
directed so as to not cause glare on adjacent properties or waterbodies. -
Lights in the parking areas will be hooded and mounted no higher than 10 feet.
Section 5.150. Recreational Facilities - Policies
4. Public access to public shorelines and surface waters should be encouraged.
This project proposes public access to over 2,600 feet of marine shoreline, 1,000 feet
along the edge of the pond, and a pedestrian causeway across the pond.
-12-
Section 5.150. Recreational Facilities - Performance Standards
1. Recreational facilities shall make adequate provisions for water supply. sewage
disposal. and garbage collection.
This project proposes to remodel the existing marina support facilities including
restrooms, showers, laundry, and garbage collection station. Marina support facilities
are served by a community water supply and sanitary sewer system.
5. Recreational facilities shall establish and enforce regulations that prohibit tree
cutting and limit the taking of marine life. driftwood. and the like.
Regulations will prohibit the taking of marine life, driftwood, etc., from the open
space area on the spit and marine shoreline.
6. Signs associated with recreational facilities shall be kept to a minimum in number
and size and shall be erected as information or directional aids only.
Signs along trails and pathways will be kept to a minimum and number in size.
Section 5.160. Residential Development - Policies
1. Residential development should be designed at a level of density of site coverage and
occupancy compatible with the physical capabilities of the shoreline area. and
consistent with the density provisions of local plans. codes. and/or ordinances.
The Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan allows a residential density on the project
site of five (5) dwelling units per acre or more. The residential density-proposed is
3.25 dwelling units per gross acre.
2. Residential development should be designed to adequately protect the water and
shoreline aesthetic characteristics.
All residential units have been kept small in scale, set back from the shoreline edge,
and buffered with generous landscaping.
3. Residential development should be encouraged to provide pedestrian access to public
shorelines abutting the development.
SEE PREVIOUS COMMENTS ON PUBLIC ACCESS AND TRAILS.
5. Residential developers and individual builders should be required to indicate how
they plan to preserve shore vegetation and control erosion during construction.
SEE PREVIOUS COMMENTS ON EROSION CONTROL MEASURES.
6. Sewage disposal facilities. as well as water supply facilities. should be prOvided in
accordance with appropriate state and local health regulations. Storm drainage
facilities should be separate. not combined with sewage disposal systems.
SEE PREVIOUS COMMENTS ON SEWAGE DISPOSAL, WATER SUPPLY,
AND STORMWATER MANAGEMENT FACILITIES.
-13-
7. Adequate water supplies should be available so the groundwater quantity and quality
will not be endangered by over-pumping.
A groundwater monitoring program will be conducted for aquifers that supply this
project.
8. Residential development in geologically hazardous areas or in areas subject to
flooding should be discouraged.
No residential development is proposed in geologically hazardous areas.
9. Residential development in shoreline areas should be designed to preserve natural
drainage courses. aquifer recharge areas. and similar ecologically sensitive areas.
No defined drainage courses or aquifer recharge areas exist on this site.
Environmentally sensitive areas such as steep slopes and marine shorelines are
proposed to be left in open space.
10. Subdivisions should maintain usable waterfront areas for the common use of all
property owners within the development.
Approximately 90% of the marine shoreline in the entire project will be made
available to property owners within the development as well as the general public.
11. Residential structures should be designed and located to not significantly block the
views of adjacent residences or properties.
The nearest adjacent residences are several hundred feet distant and up to 100 feet
higher in elevation than any residential units proposed in this project.
Section 5.160. Residential Development - Performance Standards
1. Subdivisions of land shall comply with local plans. codes. and / or ordinances and be
designed to exemplify the definition and policy of the applicable shoreline
designation as well as the environmental and physical capabilities of the subject site.
Land subdivision/segregation of this project will comply with the Jefferson County
Comprehensive Plan, the Jefferson County Subdivision Ordinance, and will further
the objectives of the Shoreline Management Master Program while respecting the
natural characteristics of the site.
2. Appurtenant structures such as decks. sheds. and stairways shall be located behind
the ordinary high water mark as far as practical and shall meet applicable setbacks.
All residential structures and appurtenances are at least 30 feet landward of the
ordinary high water mark.
4. Development shall assure that surface water runoff does not pollute adjacent waters
or cause soil or beach erosion. either durini or after the construction phase.
REFER TO EARLIER COMMENTS.
-14-
6. Developments shall be designed to include measures to prevent overflow usage of
common areas upon adjacent privately owned shorelands and uplands.
Signage and landscaping areas will deter users of this project from intruding on
adjacent private property and tidelands to the north.
8. Roads. utilities. and other improvements shall comply with the applicable policies
and performance standards of this Master Program.
Infrastructure serving this proposed project does comply with applicable policies and
performance standards of the County's Shoreline Management Master Program.
9. Residential structures shall not be located in areas subject to flooding or tidal
inundation unless complete flood proofing measures have been provided. and then
only when the location of such structures will not aggravate flooding possibilities of
nearby properties.
Those portions of residential structures subject to tidal inundation will be approved
under the Jefferson County, Flood Plain Management Ordinance.
10.
\1
.
y
.5.
The standard setback for residential structures. including common appurtenant
structures such as garages and workshops. shall be 30 feet or 1 foot for each foot of
bank height. whichever is greater. This setback shall be measured from the bank's
edge when the bank's height exceed 10 feet. When the bank's height is less than 10
feet. the setback shall be measured from the ordinary high water mark. The setback
shall not exceed 100 feet. Exceptions from this standard include the following:
.a.. Where there are existing dwellings within 300 feet on either side of the
proposed building site. the setback shall be the average setback of those
dwellings or as prescribed above. which is less. In those instances where a
single dwelling unit is within 300 feet of 1 side of the proposed building site.
the setback shall be the difference (average) between the required setback
and that of the existing structure. In both cases. the existing dwellings are
construed to be those that are currently occupied. The mere presence of
shacks. sheds. or dilapidated buildings does not constitute the existence of a
dwelling unit.
b. Where a residential setback was established as part of the approval of a
residential subdivision. the established subdivision setback shall take
precedence.
All setbacks shall be measured from the waterward-most edge of the structure.
excluding decks. eaves. etcetera. Deviations from this standard shall be reviewed on
an individual basis. A request for a deviation shall be considered an administrative
variance following the procedures established under Subsection 7.20 and will be
subject to the variance review criteria established under Subsection 7.103 of this
Master Program. Unless appealed. a setback deviation rendered by the County shall
be considered final.
No residential structures are closer than 30 feet from the ordinary high water mark.
-15-
11. Alteration of topography for building sites. access roads. and utilities shall be
conducted in compliance with the applicable policies and performance standards of
this Master Program.
Grading and the installation of infrastructure will be conducted in full compliance
with the Master Program.
13. Residential structures shall not exceed thirty-five feet in height.
No residential structures exceed 35 feet in height above average grade.
Section 5.180. Shore Defense Works - Policies
1. Bulkheads and seawalls should be located and constructed in such a manner that will
not result in adverse effects on nearby beaches and will minimize alterations of the
natural shoreline.
The only proposed shore defense work on the entire project is at the southwestern
comer of the existing marina parking lot where approximately 500 cubic yards of rip-
rap will extend that which now exists.
2. Shore defense works should be constructed in such a way that would minimize
damage to fish and shellfish habitats. Open poling construction is preferable in lieu
of the solid type.
Rip-rap mentioned in #1 above will be placed in full compliance with a Hydraulic
Project Approval (HP A) issued by the Washington Department of Fisheries.
Section 5.180. Shore Defense Works - Performance Standards
1. Shore defense works shall be designed and constructed in a manner that causes an
absolute minimum of interruption to naturally occurring shoreline processes.
SEE PREVIOUS COMMENTS.
2. Shore defense works shall be designed and constructed to minimize interruption of
fish movements as well as marine and wildlife habitats.
SEE PREVIOUS COMMENTS.
3. Shore defense works shall not be used for the indirect' purpose of creating landfills.
unless such landfill is specifically permitted in compliance with landfill performance
standards of this Master Program.
Landfill proposed behind the rock rip-rap at the southwest comer of the existing
marina parking lot will be placed in compliance with landfill performance standards
of this Master Program. -
4. Shore defense works shall be designed and constructed to harmonize insofar as
practicable with the aesthetic characteristics of the area where they are located.
The same rip-rap material will be used as that which exists at the edge of the marina.
-16-
Section 5.190. Transportation Facilities - Policies
3. ' All debris. overburden. and other waste materials from construction should be
disposed in such a way, to prevent their entry by erosion from drainage. high water.
or other means into any water body.
All such material will be disposed of at an upland site well away from the shoreline
area.
4. Road locations should be planned to fit the topography so alterations of natural
conditions will be minimized.
Nearly all roads within the proposed project are located where roads now exist.
7. Since land use and transportation facilities are so highly interrelated. the plans for
each should be coordinated.
The small-scale, private road system within this project has been purposefully
designed to enhance the low-density residential character of the project.
Section 5.190. Transportation Facilities - Performance Standards
2/4/5 Whenever possible. roads will be located on natural benches. ridge tops. or other
areas where alteration of natural features such as soils will be minimal. Roads shall
be located to avoid steep. narrow canyons. slide areas. slumps. swamps. marshes. wet
meadows. and the like and shall meet the provisions of Section 5.100. ''Landfills.''
Unnecessary duplication of roads shall be avoided by making use of existing roads
where practicable.
. SEE POLICY #4, PAGE 16, ABOVE.
6. Road drainage shall be designed to control the dispersal of surface runoff from roads
and exposed soils in order to minimize turbid water from draining into waterways.
All drainage from roads and parking areas will be directed through a stormwater
management system that utilizes grass-lined swales, oil/water separators, and a
detention pond prior to draining into Port Ludlow Bay.
8. Cut and fill slopes shall be designed at the normal angle of repose or less. 9. Cut
and fill slopes shall be protected from erosion by mulching. seeding. use of headwalls.
or other suitable means.
Slopes will be designed per adopted Jefferson County standards and protected from
erosion by mulching, hydroseeding, or landscape plantings.
16. Excess material shall be deposited in stable locations and not into stream corridors
where such materials degrade water quality. impede flood waters. or alter naturally
occurring geohydraulic processes.
REFER TO POllCY #3, PAGE 16 ABOVE.
-17-
18. All material associated with road construction that is potentially unstable or erodible
shall be stabilized by compacting. seeding. mulching. or other suitable means.
All road construction will proceed in compliance with adopted standards of the
Jefferson County Department of Public Works.
19. All roads and drainage systems shall be maintained to prevent erosion and/or water
quality degradation.
A master homeowners association will be established to maintain the on-site private
roads and stormwater management system.
21. Herbicides used for maintenance along roads and drainage systems shall follow the
performance standard outlined under "Chemical Application" of the ''Forest
Management" subsection.
Use of herbicides throughout the project site will be minimized by landscaping which
emphasizes native, low-maintenance species. Herbicide application will be restricted
by covenant to those people properly licensed by the Washington Department of
Agriculture.
22. Road routes shall make provisions for pedestrian. equestrian. bicycle. and other
modes of travel whenever feasible.
Some 3,800 lineal feet of trails and pedestrian ways are proposed for the project.
Roadways will be designed to be "pedestrian friendly."
Section 5.200. Utilities - Policies
1. Whenever utilities must be placed in a shoreline area. the location should be chosen
to not obstruct or destroy scenic views. Wherever feasible. these facilities should be
placed underground or designed to do minimal damage to the aesthetic qualifies of
the shoreline area.
All utilities will be placed underground.
3. Utilities should be located to meet the needs of future populations in areas planned
to accommodate this growth.
Utilities will be sized to meet the full build-out needs of the project. In addition, a
sewage lift station, integral to the entire Port Ludlow wastewater system, will be
relocated from its current position east of the restaurant to the western edge of the .
marina parking lot.
4. Upon completion of installation and maintenance projects of shorelines. banks should
be restored to preproject configuration. replanted with native species. and be
provided with maintenance care until the newly planted vegetation is established.
Utilities not installed under paved areas will be landscaped upon completion.
-18-
Section 5.200. Utilities - Performance Standards
L Utilities shall be installed adjacent to or within existing utilif;y or circulation
easements or rights-of-way whenever feasible.
To the extent possible, utilities will be installed in conjunction with roadways.
2. Utilities shall be installed underground whenever feasible.
SEE POllCY #1 ABOVE.
3. Utilities shall be desi~ed and installed to meet future needs when possible.
SEE POllCY #3 ABOVE.
6. Installation of utilities shall assure the prevention of siltation or beach erosion.
An erosion and sedimentation control plan will be approved by the Jefferson County
Department of Public Works prior to the initiation of any construction on the site.
7. Upon completion of installation or maintenance projects. banks shall be restored to
a suitable configuration and stabilif;y. replanted with native species. and provided with
maintenance care until the newly planted vegetation is established.
SEE POllCY #4, PAGE 18 ABOVE.
Although the foregoing analysis is somewhat exhaustive, we believe it undeniably
demonstrates that our proposed project is consistent with the Jefferson County Shoreline
Management Master Program.
>
:t
f
Re~;~
David Cunningham
Vice President, Land Use
DC:ph
-19-
....
:I:
l'I\ ~
=
~ :I:
l'I\ tr1
:0 '"
~ ~
Z '(:r~?\; ..'
Z(Il
l'I\ ~:tIij,
. ,I.
e: ~~ ,.,"'.' ' .
:I: t.~
:;
. '"tl~
-$- ~ 0'" .......
~;j Q)= ><
_ CD
C Cl CDZ
~ ~t" :::J::
Cl ~ 0
:~ 5 E~ -
. ~
~ ~ ~
~l' -
:I: ~~ :::--\J --t
~ :j ,
~ ~~ ~ J
....... () z:
-a N c::>
UJ I
.l) .
.....
\)l
RESOLUTION
To the Honorable Jefferson County Board of Commissioners:
We, the undersigned residents, property owners, and taxpayers of Port Ludlow, have
resolved to actively participate in the public decision-making processes that will affect the future of
our community. We respectively request, therefore, that tbe Commissioners recognize and
consider our views with respect to tbe environmental review of development in Port Ludlow.
Tbese views are as follows:
· The petition requesting an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) submitted last year by
the Greater Port Ludlow Community Council (GPLCC) was directed at tbe Port
Ludlow Inn Project. This EIS was then expanded to include the entirety of all of the
Port Ludlow development. We do not take issue with the EIS process per se. We
would, however, deplore the use of the EIS by tbe GPLCC or otbers to stop future
development of Port Ludlow either directly or indirectly.
The GPLCC does not represent us. Rather, we support the concept of a
democratically elected/appointed group to represent the interests of all citizens of
Port Ludlow.
· We support the continued development of Port Ludlow within the guidelines of a
reasonable EIS and controlled by an orderly and expeditious County environmental
review and pennit process that includes consultation and advice from a democratically
elected/appointed group that represents the interests of all citizens of Port Ludlow.
Printed Name and Address
7->, L.
~. S. ignat. ure and. Date
....-~~
1trf~
.
I ~:~ f~~/2 ~~ ~~
.!l
Q/1hK
~
f'/irt: I
..
Printed Name and Address
I~ .It!iJJ(:.{1,~; L.~;OJ: ~
1~6'~~4.f-bel
.
i~~ ~~':A ~~~~e.,-,--
I ~~~~a~~~~t~~)~~SO
I ::"'~~~,~~~'<~~:-" ;-
I NAamddresse ,]-~" S S ',; 12. R E Is.s
I l.:71 ~/O,J/eE.R .PR.
I ~:~ t3.J.LL /(~ /55
n {~C I i'ii/VEcl2- PilL
IName f~~~q~
Address 5" ~.L. ~ ..L€-
Signature and Date
~4I /"'-<'~-?J
l/.Z...-.> ~ --<"V /o/il I
I ~"--~ l/n/:l11
14t~ ~ 'h~(131
k)f)~~)?&>~______ 111~((j-i
-J~~ ~ .~-' I/ZT/f~
1../ f ' I
I ,i~~d/ ,)(~ lk~/d
" I
I ~~(1b'1
~"'\hla. .~. o{\)s\e.\.\€ ,/Zb\q
I~ RI%f'j~~Lf~~ I T&foJrd! {jfi;.\)l~ 171J
I::",~~~c~~t(f'ff:~ I ';t~~.~.d-~ JN~
~ ~ ~ ~
I~U?t};~~~I'L I ~vUtAvO-/h- J(~1
F /J t;:6 2-
RESOLUTION
To the Honorable Jefferson County Board of Commissioners:
We, the undersigned residents, property owners, and taxpayers of Port Ludlow, have
resolved to actively participate in the public decision-making processes that will affect the future of
our community. We respectively request, therefore, that the Commissioners recognize and
consider our views with respect to the environmental review of development in Port Ludlow.
These views are as follows:
· The petition requesting an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) submitted last year by
the Greater Port Ludlow Community Council (GPLCC) was directed at the Port
Ludlow Inn Project. This EIS was then expanded to include the entirety of all of the
Port Ludlow development. We do not take issue with the EISprocess per se. We
would, however, deplore the use of the EISby the GPLCC or others to stop future
development of Port Ludlow either directly or indirectly.
· The GPLCC does not represent us. Rather, we support the concept of a
democratically elected/appointed group to represent the interests of all citizens of
Port Ludlow.
· We support the continued development of Port Ludlow within the guidelines ofa
reasonable EIS and controlled by an orderly and expeditious County environmental
review and permit process that includes consultation and advice from a democratically
elected/appointed group that represents the interests of all citizens of Port Ludlow.
Printed Name and Address
Signature and Date
I :':'v~~J.1,f1
I Name fJ;:;~ AI ~r~,~I'./
Address ~ /,~,.-r. A ' CC
I ~ 'Q lk~ 1/>-<<;113
I ~._- ,fiS'/<?31
I ,.
J.
;'
"0
0viJI
.
I
jJ 11 (;,/3
3
Printed Name and Address
Signature and Date
Address 0lt!J
Name
Address
I~~ I I
I~~ I I
I~~ I I
I~:~ I ,
I~ I I
I~:~ I I
I~~ I I
I~:~ I I
I~:~ I ,
I Name I ,
Address
I~~ I I
I~~ I I
I~:~ I I
P ltC-I!. f
RESOLUTION
To the Honorable Jefferson County Board of Commissioners:
We, the undersigned residents, property owners, and taxpayers of Port Ludlow, have
resolved to actively participate in the public decision-making processes that will affect the future of
our community. We respectively request, therefore, that the Commissioners recognize and
consider our views with respect to the environmental review of development in Port Ludlow.
These views are as follows:
· The petition requesting an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) submitted last year by
the Greater Port Ludlow Community Couneil (GPLCC) was directed at the Port
Ludlow Inn Project. This EIS was then expanded to include the entirety of all of the
Port Ludlow development. We do not take issue with the EIS process per se. We
would, however, deplore the use of the EIS by the GPLCC or others to stop future
development of Port Ludlow either directly or indirectly.
The GPLCC does not represent us. Rather, we support the concept of a
democratically eJected/appointed group to represent the interests of all citizens of
Port Ludlow.
· We support the continued development of Port Ludlow within the guidelines ofa
reasonable EIS and controlted by an orderly and expeditious County environmental
review and pennit process that includes consultation and advice from a democratically
elected/appointed group that represents the interests of all citizens of Port Ludlow.
Printed Name and Address
Signature and Date
IName ~~~R" ~ FORcE" I nMb
Address tJ <! ~1laA Cr, Pr*l4DLDW '1.
I
I
~ UM.{k.d~ ~ It/ tit -3 -\
I~ fd#:-'?%G~4J
I ~~ :6sj.3 I
t!~df3
;pA.~
/~ot3
to It.() /ly Y
~ 0 - e ,v,
/'9-- rL
Jh,. S.M-'~ 0f1/fJ
P /}6-E 3-
Printed Name and Address
Signature and Date
I r:::::.!bJ!,4~::~ ..v 1~~~~~fJJV31
I ':::.,.f\b;-;-};I4!;'~~{~J~~ I (~ \7, ~..QD t'i8~3 I
IName '~ h ".k.:afq
Address ~."'~ &.X\ I~i" I ~ f ~jh J.UW
I':::.,. ft1-~d: (~~
I Name Ped' '" I C. 1 c.. 8 e f-'Cf
Address 9/ w" e Yl (' +. - Pi"Jl.tdJIaHJ
l~::ss Yh~ ~. <1/
I AN::ss (Cr e 0 r fi,/ ~ (? 0 U 111 -e ~
, .:3 0 ~ A I Y W I ~ cJ C. -t'
I::.. ::Vl:t;~;.tt~r
,. .
Name
Address
I~~
I ~::ss
I Ih.a.-L1 1--'. (&~e
I
I ;dJ~ .fl~
}
. ~.
'/~~ / "-3
I
J- d2'-93 I
I 'f!i )011-1>11 { ~~ I-:)J'~
-;t'
I I' ("~ Vf~3
A~ ;:;:~. V/'1
=C;~-< m ~ :r IJfJJ
RESOLUTION
To the Honorable Jefferson County Board of Commissioners:
We, the undersigned residents, property owners, and taxpayers of Port Ludlow, have
resolved to actively participate in the public decision-making processes that will affect the future of
~~r ~~~~~nity. We respe,=!h1~!}' r~quest, therefore, that the Commissioners recognize and
consider our views with respect to the environmental review of development in Port Ludlow.
These views are as follows:
.
The petition requesting an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) submitted last year by
the Greater Port Ludlow Community Council (GPLCC) was directed at the Port
Ludlow Inn Project. This EIS was then expanded to include the enti rety of aU of the
Port Ludlow development. We do not take issue with the EIS process per se. We
would, however, deplore the use of the EIS by the GPLCC or others to stop future
development of Port Ludlow either directly or indirectly.
The GPLCC does not represent us. Rather, we support the concept of a
democratically elected/appointed group to represent the interests of all citizens of
Port Ludlow.
,\
i,
I
.
We support the continued development of Port Ludlow within the guidelines of a
reasonable EIS and controlled by an orderly and expeditious County environmental
review and pennit process that includes consultation and advice from a democratically
elected/appointed group that represents the interests of all citizens of Port Ludlow.
I't-
i;
Printed Name and Address Signature and Date
1::"1r%~I~ ti~ ~/~ I aVt~a.L ~1~Y)f
1::"~M~J:t'~-t:p~~1 a, &vv-r'kk~ It&r113
I::.. R~ \ ~~~r.,;-~ ~~ I R~~j g,~~ NZ8\'1s
tj~sjf]
l/yg/13
JjJf)1J
,/;&J93
?1l6? 7
Printed Name and Address
Signature and Date
r /
\ II ~)... '?j' ((~
CY,C<"IL ' ,< 7LloJ t\~ 2~ lI.J- -'
IName r ~ iI "" ,.,.u ;J r;,.... /"7 so xJll/!,.~,2 a ;;2';
Address /0 ..l3 S Q c:), ~~-/ ~ JIll ~7 .L..--'
~,ff19J
I /.2.~9 3-
I=:. ~~ oJ ).= II!;;;:~
I Name tf A-RIU/ ,d 1~//t}6-
Address 1.~ &5-50 La l.."C. LA-lJE
!~;;1;/(~:;;; ~~_ r
I ~~ ~g-W;p~(!L)~A/
"~"-..~....,,.....~--
I~__~~~, I~e
I ~~~/ ;;~'" 1/(2-&'/1::'
I ~L:"'- ~ *ftr I /-::7Y- 13.
I J/&UtGY'0Lu;pV I /-.zr~
". ~ ~ --;:l " _
.........--.J. ____...:1..
..."'-;... ~~-
Name ./-eJ~'~.E S ti'*'?,\'zl-t..-
Address 2. 7-1 S u. J( t: ~ ( tv tt
_L :;, I
L ~. '77~~----
.1-' 7-.~ 'r J'
II 'j/ 8/ f-'3
I / J.- ~ ) q _ ~;
/1 ;2~-11:-
117-- f/f3
- ~f:-V
/)'1--1#
.~':fJ frlt/~~
I / ...?-;i" ~ f~
p /} e-e a>
RESOLUTION
To the Honorable Jefferson County Board of Commissioners:
We, the undersigned residents, property owners, and taxpayers of Port Ludlow, have
resolved to actively participate in the public decision-making processes that will affect the future of
our community. We respectively request, therefore, that the Commissioners recognize and
consider our views with respect to the environmental review of development in Port Ludlow.
These views are as follows:
· The petition requesting an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) submitted last year by
the Greater Port Ludlow Community Council (GPLCC) was directed at the Port
Ludlow Inn Project. This EIS was then expanded to include the entirety of all of the
Port Ludlow development. We do not take issue with the EIS process per se. We
would, however, deplore the use of the EIS by the GPLCC or others to stop future
development of Port Ludlow either directly or indirectly.
The GPLCC does not represent us. Rather, we support the concept of a
democratically elected/appointed group to represent the interests of all citizens of
Port Ludlow.
We support the continued development of Port Ludlow within the guidelines of a
reasonable EIS and controlled by an orderly and expeditious County environmental
review and pennit process that includes consultation and advice from a democratically
elected/appointed group that represents the interests of all citizens of Port Ludlow.
Printed Name and Address
Signature and Date
fSjr.3
Q(_J
IU., f). tv -
Iv
I~~~ POML
I Name '-1111) R. Ie f- f? 1'i }/ fJ ~ L L
Address ~!1. !:!... ^ ~ 'to L w A 'I
I
? /JC,c
Printed Name and Address
Signature and Date
if J/r:J
I::'~~~~(~~~
Ih
~.... ":
-;
-\}
..
t
o
~
177. ~\G'~l.- rScr~~
l::~
,,:f,JeLNl- ..
I
I
I
(i'l (!J-Zc._~.A I
I~~
I~~
?/lC-C /0
RESOLUTION
To the Honorable Jefferson County Board of Commissioners:
We, the undersigned residents, property owners, and taxpayers of Port Ludlow, have
resolved to actively participate in the public decision-making processes that will affect the future of
our community. We respectively request, therefore, that the Commissioners recognize and
("on~Mp.r nnr views with respect to the environmental review of development in Port Ludlow.
These views are as follows:
· The petition requesting an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) submitted last year by
the Greater Port Ludlow Community Council (GPLCC) was directed at the Port
Ludlow Inn Project. This EIS was then expanded to include the entirety of all of the
Port Ludlow development. We do not take issue with the EIS process per se. We
would, however, deplore the use of the EIS by the GPLCC or others to stop future
development of Port Ludlow either directly or indirectly.
· The GPLCC does not represent us. Rather, we support the concept ofa
democratically elected/appointed group to represent the interests of all citizens of
Port Ludlow.
-t
We support the continued development of Port Ludlow within the guidelines of a
reasonable EIS and controlled by an orderly and expeditious County environmental
review and permit process that includes consultation and advice from a democratically
elected/appointed group that represents the interests of all citizens of Port Ludlow.
,
'f,
Printed Name and Address
Signature and Date
/-/1 i '/ 0'- ..
/.' .' / - ,/ ' ... i -r ' . ,
/~rf-Ct<c. (,,',\"':'1. r / <)'u,'
'~')~ -,
.........'l. I....
1:z..~4~#~~~~
PIJG/3.- /1
Printed Name and Address
Signature and Date
I~::,
I~
I~~
I~::,
I~::,
,~~
I~~
I Nmne
Address
,~~
I~::,
I~::s
?~62t3 I:L,
RESOLUTION
To the Honorable Jefferson County Board of Commissioners:
We, the undersigned residents, property owners, and taxpayers of Port Ludlow, have
resolved to actively participate in the public decision-making processes that will affect the future of
our community. We respectively request, therefore, that the Commissioners recognize and
consider our views with respect to the environmental review of development in Port Ludlow.
These views are as follows:
The petition requesting an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) submitted last year by
the Greater Port Ludlow Community Council (GPLCC) was directed at tbe Port
Ludlow Inn Project. This EIS was then expanded to include the entirety of all of the
Port Ludlow developmenl \Ve do not take issue with the EIS process per se. We
would, however, deplore the use of the EIS by the GPLCC or others to stop future
development of Port Ludlow either directly or indirectly.
The GPLCC does not represent us. Rather, we support the concept of a
democratically elected/appointed group to represent the interests of all citizens of
Port Ludlow.
\Ve support the continued development of Port Ludlow within the guidelines of a
reasonable EIS and controlled by an orderly and expeditious County environmental
review and permit process that includes consultation and advice from a democratically
eJected/appointed group that represents the interests of all citizens of Port Ludlow.
~;:intcd Name ~~~ -^-~d!ess
Signature and Date
I::"~)f';,~~~
1~~~./;~7~{~,8, I'~ -.P' Jr4h~ i/ll~
j/
\'J ,,"'-, j ~-:- I" l
I'ame ~>-1/1./ -.,. ,e,F vV -, _
. Add=s J (J Cy: ~"'L"" "DJ ~'~~o.e c~ ~""-q~,vV tl3t/f.
, ~ 'J:
I ~r;;~~....~~ I ;/ak~ ;j. d~ ~/~IIJ
1~~JjJ ~~~~CHz5,'--'-- ~()~Juf'~ 1;r/7'~
I~ tJ/;J\ff;:::Jr~~. L.J7aA'a/ ~ ~ 0~;3
f/}c:~ /3
Printed Name and Address
Signature and Date
,t--1.d-r;)c '---l
1~'~:r-~'~;,~/.2 I~~ r1; S7~4!JN3
- ~ );L'
iN........ ~/.> .'~ ~ l{/, ~, ,,--. I / /1 / \ I
Addre,s- ?;-:;':'M'~ ~:,dAf:~ ,J11'1g /. ?1/. \ '. _, 'MJ
I Name ~v";')G"~ h/~/S/ I () , J r /J .. J L'
Add.= . 7/ ~~$ ~ l...I--~lJ./ -nt. ~1' d<.J<-.~ Wp~
Name (.1. 'f/.</- ';:; 1,1 -. /.' -:-< (....1. .I
N,.V ...r_ .. -'-"'. '.....
Address$g. )r;/I~. 'h~...t;:. /. ,'/1'/'...
,
r ~ .... ~. .... ~~ ~.'''' ,
2".....::t..\,-~" ".. ''C'' ..:...,.... .......... ~.(
i
/
( ,-i 1'1' ;~?' /,,-{ , ,r. . ~ ,.f ...-,.-<f-.;/' ( //3( :3
~
Name
Address
I~~ I I
I~ I I
I~ I I
I~ I I
I~ I I
I~ I I
))/Jc:E Ij-
RESOLUTION
To the Honorable Jefferson County Board of Commissioners:
We, the undersigned residents, property owners, and taxpayers of Port Ludlow, have
resolved to actively participate in the public decision-making processes that will affect the future of
our community. We respectively request, therefore, that the Commissioners recognize and
consider our views with respect to the environmental review of development in Port Ludlow.
These views are as follows:
· The petition requesting an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) submitted last year by
the Greater Port Ludlow Community Council (GPLCC) was directed at the Port
Ludlow Inn Project. This EIS was then expanded to include the entirety of all of the
Port Ludlow development. We do not take issue with the EIS process per se. We
would, however, deplore the use of the EIS by the GPLCC or others to stop future
development of Port Ludlow either directly or indirectly.
The GPLCC does not represent us. Rather, we support the concept of a
democratically elected/appointed group to represent the interests of all citizens of
Port Ludlow.
t
· We support the continued development of Port Ludlow within the guidelines of a
reasonable EIS and controlled by an orderly and expeditious County environmental
review and permit process that includes consultation and advice from a democratically
elected/appointed group that represents the interests of all citizens of Port Ludlow.
J!.
Printed Name and Address
Signature and Date
I~, ~~~ 1/.7O}<73 I
I~~~ l/3o/q~
I Name PE lEI<... Kl/zA ;!."Ft::"
AMnss 3' $eAF/7REI!. MAlE
IName Irene, J:~za--k~
AMnss :3 J ...s:".e.A.: t IF L
} ~
" J -#--
I ::'s:1~fG-r4~;~~YJf fit=:: (.~ '7lF+1o 1-I.l:Lt~-U~ j,'/t<
I ~vl0~ tf/~~I '/JO/r-~ I
I ~~J 1/3"/,5:3\
I Name c=./t1Jt'l~:C S;;~ ,uv/9/t 0
Address 3 c) ;< t;-. U I{
I Name 11111/l. (~/;J _ (AI fllZ J)
Address J u 1\ fl E t) (j ffl N
?/J6-C /S
Printed Name and Address
Signature and Date
I Name 1?/1l..fJr:. L. l1tf1fLIA!
Address J -r 0 'lnJ]}()A} J..I1 E
I fri~{ ~:Jl1L4lit/~
'~id-g ~
1/ 3J /r~
.
I~~
l=:s
I,' / j'(1 '
~ \. ~ .,
, (---! ./' 4 ' ',.
il'--.<-'- - 1... ~ ~t. ~ _
1/
1=:S
I~~
l=:s
I~=~
I~:~
I~=~
l=:s
I~~
I~::~
1=:S
l=:s
f/}G-E. / t
RESOLUTION
To the Honorable Jefferson County Board of Commissioners:
We, the undersigned residents, property owners, and taxpayers of Port Ludlow, have
resolved to actively participate in the public decision-making processes that will affect the future of
our community. We respectively request, therefore, that the Commissioners recognize and
consider our views with respect to the environmental review of development in Port Ludlow.
These views are as follows:
· The petition requesting an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) submitted last year by
the Greater Port Ludlow Community Council (GPLCC) was directed at the Port
Ludlow Inn Project. This EIS was then expanded to include the entirety of all of the
Port Ludlow development. We do not take issue with the EIS process per se. We
would, however, deplore the use of the EIS by the GPLCC or others to stop future
development of Port Ludlow either directly or indirectly.
The GPLCC does not represent us. Rather, we support the concept of a
democratically elected/appointed group to represent the interests of all citizens of
Port Ludlow.
We support the continued development of Port Ludlow within the guidelines ofa
reasonable EIS and controlled by an orderly and expeditious County environmental
review and permit process that includes consultation and advice from a democratically
elected/appointed group that represents the interests of all citizens of Port Ludlow.
Printed Name and Address
Signature and Date
~~ ~:;: ,~'::';t,~;lv4.tE , eL-Wl~J~ i
Vfj,~:!:t~~t~t-d TtJ(C f+. L I
I~:~
s:h~1~dtl~.~~
./ / -,),1- f3
) ..,- J ::'.-l Co- 1'''' l
- . .
) '.', - )
./ '....
\.. "/_"""-c.c.i
~--'
"/..{.
, l /..
~~~ r o/a,~",~. :v!lrJ
- % ~
".'-' {./. ~
~A_c:.- .:x', ~.~...-<A?
vu:..
8~ NIVY R pt.J~t.l}f Jjt!f~
P~C-c. /7
RESOLUTION
To the Honorable Jefferson County Board of Commissioners:
We, the undersigned residents, property owners, and taxpayers of Port Ludlow, have
resolved to actively participate in the public decision-making processes that will affect the future of
our community. We respectively request, therefore, that the Commissioners recognize and
consider our views with respect to tbe environmental review of development in Port Ludlow.
These views are as follows:
· The petition requesting an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) submitted last year by
the Greater Port Ludlow Community Council (GPLCC) was directed at the Port
Ludlow Inn Project. This EIS was then expanded to include the entirety of all of the
Port Ludlow development. We do not take issue with the EIS process per se. We
would, however, deplore the use of the EIS by the GPLCC or others to stop future
development of Port Ludlow either directly or indirectly.
The GPLCC does not represent us. Rather, we support the concept of a
democratically electe<Vappointed group to represent the interests of all citizens of
Port Ludlow.
We support the continued development of Port Ludlow within the guidelines of a
reasonable EIS and controlled by an orderly and expeditious County environmental
review and permit process that includes consultation and advice from a democratically
electe<Vappointed group that represents the interests of all citizens of Port Ludlow.
Printed Name and Address
Signature and Date
I Name 1 ~ ii' L ,,' if 1:ftj R --&4 . .j,. I
.Add= ~O bUR IloUaula tuPLD<V PL;~ A' /%.fA.....4,I{
I -1ls f ,p
I J
I :: ~~";-':':::-""~;;;!;"~~1-. 1....-.> I
I!
I'
-
I ~::s Geof, (' V( ~c.onl-q
n 7tJ rldYf-;1,.f" PI.!
I I
~ Nom. /.." N n "- V"" ~.,.,.f ~
Address ., CJ IVl ~,' I II P .- :p
I::.:. fr::-i-~?~~O~~
'Ii41o ,3-6~ ftk. ~
S~>C- W"", t:fK/oS-
,I
P/Jc-e
j<J>
Printed Name and Address
Signature and Date
Name
Address
I~:: I I
I~:: I I
I~:: I I
I Name I I
Address
I~:: I ~ I
I~~ I I
'---
1~::_ I I
I Name I I
Address
I Name I I
Address
I=~ I I
I Name I I
Address
I~:: I I
I~:: I I
I~~e I I
I A.ooress
l7/1 G- f /;
?j;J/f}J
RESOLUTION
To the Honorable Jefferson County Board of Commissioners:
We, the undersigned residents, property owners, and taxpayers of Port Ludlow, have
resolved to actively participate in the public decision-making processes that will affect the future of
our community. \Ve respectively request, therefore, that the Commissioners recognize and
consider our views with respect to the environmental review of development in Port Ludlow.
These views are as follows:
The petition requesting an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) submitted last year by
the Greater Port Ludlow Community Council (GPLCC) was directed at the Port
Ludlow Inn Project. This EIS was then expanded to include the entirety of all of the
Port Ludlow development. We do not take issue with the EIS process per se. We
would, however, deplore the use of the EIS by the GPLCC or others to stop rutu rc
development of Port Ludlow either directly or indirectly.
The GPLCC does not represent us. Rather, we support the concept ofa
democratically electecVappointed group to represent the interests of all citizens of
Port Ludlow.
\Ve support the continued development of Port Ludlow within the guidelines ofa
reasonable EIS and controlled by an orderly and expeditious County environmental
review and permit process that includes consultation and advice from a democratically
electecVappointed group that represents the interests of all citizens of Port Ludlow.
Printed Name and Address
Sl~ure aud Date
~ l"-- ~-{q-9.:s1
I Name (..,/cl<A1J) 4. LARkD ~
. Address {i[ao~JIJcH J-.N-IE. ~,\ J't.lJ1<<Jh
c,
,.
';j,/ ,~, t..uY'\./'
I Name .,:tce 4;~/e;.u
Address 3D G"'Lj)E:;;~~ LA If L UJ)L~.i/
I ~ c?~. .~.---!~;J3
/'
1::SJtt"f:4chnpi -4(.I,0~ /k2/ ~~>\ tf~J
I~ I - I
I I
I t
I~
I~
f;/ri-c 2 0
RESOLUTION
To the Honorable Jefferson County Board of Commissioners:
We, the undersigned residents, property owners, and taxpayers orport Ludlow, have
resolved to actively participate in the public decision-making processes that will affect the future of
our community. We respectively request, therefore, that the Commissioners recognize and
consider our views with respect to the environmental review of development in Port Ludlow.
These views are as follows:
· The petition requesting an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) submitted last year by
the Greater Port Ludlow Community Council (GPLCC) was directed at the Port
Ludlow Inn Project. This EIS was then expanded to include the entirety of all of the
Port Ludlow development. We do not take issue with the EIS process per se. We
would, however, deplore the use of the EIS by the GPLCC or others to stop future
development of Port Ludlow either directly or indirectly.
The GPLCC does not represent us. Rather, we support the concept of a
democratically eIectecVappointed group to represent the interests of all citizens of
Port Ludlow.
1
· \Ve support the continued development of Port Ludlow within the guidelines ofa
reasonable EIS _and controlled by an orderly and expeditious County environmental
review and permit process that includes consultation and advice from a democratically
elected/appointed group that represents the interests of all citizens of Port Ludlow.
Printed Name and Address
Signature and Date
I
.':-''' I
'J
0<
,/
I~
I~
I
I
I
I
I
I-
I
I
,
,
I~::s
I~::s
I~
If} C-t= :2- I
RESOLUTION
To the Honorable Jefferson County Board of Commissioners:
We, the undersigned residents, property owners, and taxpayers of Port Ludlow, have
resolved to actively participate in the public decision-making processes that wi1l affect the future of
our community. We respectively request, therefore, that the Commissioners recognize and
consider our views with respect to the environmental review of development in Port Ludlow.
These views are as follows:
· The petition requesting an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) submitted last year by
the Greater Port Ludlow Community Council (GPLCC) was directed at the Port
Ludlow Inn Project. This EIS was then expanded to include the entirety of all of the
Port Ludlow development. We do not take issue with the EIS process per se. We
would, however, deplore the use of the EIS by the GPLCC or others to stop future
development of Port Ludlow either directly or indirectly.
The GPLCC does not represent us. Rather, we support the concept of a
democratically elected/appointed group to represent the interests of all citizens of
Port Ludlow.
We support the continued development of Port Ludlow within the guidelines of a
reasonable EIS and controlled by an orderly and expeditious County environmental
review and permit process that includes consultation and advice from a democratically
elected/appointed group that represents the interests of all citizens of Port Ludlow.
Printed Name and Address
Signature and Date
! ~~ ~~w ~::~'::; reL
P I 1\ iL
.. _. UI "
I ~~t7-~o p{,/~I
()OJJ-ttJu- 2 hG h
C~-y--~ 10 .Jt eeL.1- :2 /Hi
G/~J3E,e,
, ~ C:)dI'~
er
1~~~;fj~~~~(L--
,~:~
P IJ {;- C- .2-1-
RESOLUTION
To the Honorable Jefferson County Board of Commissioners:
We, the undersigned residents, property owners, and taxpayers of Port Ludlow, have
resolved '0 actively particip<\te in the public decision-making processes that will affect the future of
our community. \Ve respectively request, therefore, that the Commissioners recognize and
consider our views with respect to the environmental review or development in Port Ludlow.
These views are as follows:
TIle petition requesting an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) submitted last year by
the Greater Port Ludlow Conununity Council (GPLCC) was directed at the Port
Ludlow Inn Project. This EIS was then expanded to include the entirety of all of the
Port Ludlow development \Ve do not take issue with the EIS process per see We
would, however, deplore the use of the EIS by the GPLCC or others to stop future
development of Port Ludlow either directly or indirectly.
The GPLCC does not represent us. Rather, we support the concept of a
democratically c1ecte<Vappointed group to represent the interests of all citizens of
Port Ludlow.
\Ve support the continued tkvelopment of Port Ludlow within the guidelines ofa
reasonable EIS and controlled by an orderly and expeditious County environmental
review and permit process that includes consultation and advice from a democratk..ally
electe<Vappointed group that represents the interests of all citizens orPort Ludlow.
Printed Name and Address Signature and Date
~ ~7
r Name ~1 17 ~ /rIJJ)f .~;';f/0.I.~7/'/ .~-a.r: ;?::!Y>7
(Address /J6-A }-.4/PiU/l~ L~ _/6"p'T I~
Nnme .J (/ b ..s m I I II
Address /.2 tJ - 19
f-/Mc.
f}~-L-U ;J - ,2 'I -'13
I=:s ~]J~~~
hJ~~~ ;/1--'f/rb
c::t::b:~~'V/7 &1)
I ,I
I~~
I~~
I
\
I
J
,
,
\ Name
Address
f' I} G~ l 2.-:1
RESOLUTION
To the Honorable Jefferson County Board of Commissioners:
I
.
i
i
.
~
We, the undersigned residents, property owners, and taxpayers of Port Ludlow, have
resolved to actively par1icipate in the public decision-making processes that will affect the future of
our community. \Ve respectively request, therefore, that the Commissioners recognize and
consider our views with respect to the environmental review or development in Port Ludlow.
These views are as follows:
The petition requesting an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) submitted last year by
the Greater Port Ludlow Community Council (GPLCC) was directed at the Port
Ludlow Inn Project. This EIS was then expanded to include the entirety of all of the
Port Ludlow development. We do not take issue with the EIS process per se. We
would, however, deplore the use of the EIS by the GPLCC or others to stop future
development of Port Ludlow either directly or indirectly.
The GPLCC does not represent us. Rather, we support the concept ora
democratical1y e1ecte<Vappointed group to represent the interests ofal1 citizens of
Port Ludlow.
\Ve support the continued development of Port Ludlow within the guidelines ofa
reasonable EIS and controlled by an orderly and expeditious County environmental
review and permit process that includes consultation and advice from a democratic-..a11y
e!ectecVappointed group that represents the interests of all citizens of Port Ludlow.
Printed Name and Address
Signature and Date
I Name c.,^cu' \L-?:U M'tc?~~ t.. If ~ 7/ j.~A' / ~ _ /~
. Address 17 J M n of"...o;t:- ~/. .=J ~ ~
I Name }t~;Gt-.f' K;-th?'Mey"'\
Address 1()~S\ C ('0\.3;,1-
It*~
I &-'~?t.~
I -j?aT~ (J. ~'-'
I
1
I
I Name (I? ~/e~ff~ IJ L&fJJ IS
Address I 10 '.S I c. COU ftf
I ::. ~<)n~<;f~t 't::;~~r
Y'-Fi G.--E:.. ""'Z-'{
\
RESOLUTION
To the Honorable Jefferson County Board of Commissioners:
We, the undersigned residents, property owners, and taxpayers of Port Ludlow, have
resolved '0 actively participate in the public decision-making processes that will affect the future of
our community. We respectively request, therefore, that the Commissioners recognize and
consider our views with respect to the environmental review or development in Port Ludlow.
These views are as follows:
The p;tition requesting an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) submitted last year by
the G'1bter Port Ludlow Community Council (GPLCC) was directed at the Port
Ludlow Inn Project. This EIS was then expanded to include the entirety of all of the
Port Ludlow development. We do not take issue with the EIS process per se. We
would, however, deplore the use of the EIS by the GPLCC or others to stop future
development of Port Ludlow either directly or indirectly.
The GPLCC Ju<:;,3 not represeut us. Rather, we support the concept of a
democratically electeeVappointed group to represent the interests of all citizens of
Port Ludlow.
i
\Ve support the continued development of Port Ludlow within the guidelines of a
reasonable EIS and controlled by an orderly and expeditious County environmental
review and permit process that includes consultation and advice from a democratically
clecteeVappointed group that represents the interests ofatI citizens of Port Ludlow.
Printed Name and Address
Signature and Date
I::"~~~~~~~~ ~~ I
1~~f~~~;.0;r4h3;~1
!::'~~~~~~~-r I~~~
I::. ~~~d~;R,~:~~~ 1'1, . I r/J~ Ct_ 6q~ I
I~~ I I
I~~ I I
I~~ I I
\:I~G-~
-1-5
Brown & Beaufait
atlomevs aT law
722 - 58th Street
Port Townsend, W A 98368
(206) 385-2516
Pt1IlI Rkhard Bra"'"
UOTI< ~phm &oMfoiI
February 51 1992
Jefferson county Commissioners
Jefferson County Planning & Building Department
P.O. Box 1220
Port Townsend, WA 98368
Re: Inn & Townsite at port Ludlow
Pope Resources 10 Year Plan
Gentlemen:
On behalf of the Port Ludlow community council ("PLCC"), we
submit the following additional comments on the scope and
alternatives for the Environmental Impact statement ("EIS") to be
prepared covering ~he Inn & Townsite at the Port Ludlow spit, and
the Pope Resources 10 year plan. PLCC specifically requests that
review of the listed alternatives be incorporated in the EIS for
this project and plan.
While PLCC is not opposed to a balanced development at the
port Ludlow spit, it is important to note that pope Resource's
current plan cannot be approved by Jefferson County as submitted.
Applicable County regulations, as summarized in the enclosed
list, require modification of pope Resources' plans. The
following alternatives are proposed to permit the consideration
of allowable plans in the EIS. The proposed alternatives are
outlined in more detail in PLce's other submittals.
REOUESTED ALTERNATIVES
site Specific Alternatives:
1. single Family Residential Only Alternative. No Inn or
commercial Area. Inn, Multi-family, and commerci~l area
relocated to Port Ludlow Commercial Center pursuant to the
Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan. Residential Density to
correct for significant use of project site by existing
restaurant facility, and marina, reducing residential area
by space dedicated to these uses.
2. Downsized Inn, No commercial Area, Lower Density
Residential Are~. Reduce Inn height to 35 feet, relocate
commercial development to port Ludlow commercial Center,
EXHIBIT NO. 'I
File No.
Date
LP-OZ.-ql
t{./(9!Q3
Jefferson County Commissioners
.February 5, 1992
page - 2
relocate multi-family to employment center, residential
density to correct for other on site uses.
Proaram Alternatives:
1. Concentration of all proposed housing units on one-half
of program area. Preserve sizeable open space, water
recharge, wildlife, and recreational areas.
2. Downsized residential area; review proposed program with
two-thirds of proposed number of additional units. Review
to assess proper provision of services and avoidance of
unreasonable cumulative impacts of program as compared to
proponentls preferred alternative.
3. Dedication of sufficient area at the designated Port
Ludlow Commercial Center at the intersection of Oak Bay and
Paradise Roads for a full commercial center and townsite for
the Town of Port Ludlow.
DISCUSSION
Commercial Center Relocation: RCW 43.21C.110(1)(d) requires
the analysis of "reasonable alternatives." The proposed
relocations are based upon the Jefferson County Comprehensive
Plan and Zoning Ordinance and cannot be considered unreasonable.
The proposed relocations are not "off-site" given Pope Resources'
property ownership I and the programmatic nature of the proposed
ElS.
Pope Resources should not be allowed to unreasonably limit
the statutorily required consideration of reasonable alternatives
by proposing site definitions and objectives tailored point by
point to its preferred alternative. Please note that Pope
Resources' proposed alternative excludes commercial activities
other than the inn from the spit area.
Review of the relocation alternatives is not precluded by
the Washington Administrative Code, and is in fact required by
SEPA. Quoting Professor Richard Settle, The Washinaton State
Environmental Policy Act, page 182-3:
"The Green Book's exemption of off-site alternatives
from mandatory ElS coverage for most privately'
initiated proposals [WAC 197-11-440(5)(d)], must be
faithful to the statutory reasonable alternative
requirement, and,.on ,this basis, seems legally
vulnerable in the right case. ... An agency which, in
~
Jefferson County Commissioners
February 5, 1992
page - 3
response to the Green Book's invitation, fails to
consider, clearly feasiblel more environmentally-benign
sites for say', an airportl shopping center, or major
industrial installation just because the proposed site
is suitably zoned will have a difficult time convincing
a court that the omitted alternatives were not
reasonable."
This is especially apt here, where the site is not zoned for
the proposed commercial and multi-family uses, making WAC 197-11-
440(5)(d) inapplicable (these are conditional and possibly
excluded uses from this sitel see enclosure), and where the
subject area of the EIS, here the Port LUdlow area owned by Pope,
would be the relocation area for the proposed uses.
The EIS for the Inn & Townsite at the Port Ludlow spit will
be fatally flawed if the site alternatives listed above are not
considered by the County. This is not the "right case" for the
County to improperly rely upon WAC 197-11-440(5)(d).
Open Space Alternative: The County should require
consideration of a more concentrated development plan for the
Port Ludlow Area. The Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan
policies and goals support such an alternative, preserving
drainage basins, wildlife areas, open space, and the like.
A review of alternative site locations for the proposed Pope
Development Areas is necessary now, because this issue will not
be reviewed when a particular development quadrant is presented
for site specific review. Note that Pope Resources plan covers
all of the area of its program.
Reduced Residential unit Proaram: At this point, the
cumulative impacts of the proposed Pope Resources 10 Year Plan
are unknownl but are believed to be significant in the areas
outlined in the County's Determination of Signiricance. Review
of a downsized alternative will permit comparison of cumulative
impacts from traffic, to drainage, to fire, protection. Here
again, reasonable alternatives must be analyzed by the County.
Townsite at Port Ludlow Commercial Center: The Port Ludlow
Townsite should be located at the intersection of Oak Bay and
Paradise Road. provision should be made for adequate space for a
true town center, commercial area, and multi-family development.
Port Ludlow may well become a new city, in which case an
alternative making provision for this should be considered.
Applicability of Zonina Code: Pope Resources has conceded
that this project and its program are subject to the Jefferson
7-
-'
Jefferson County Commissioners
February 5, 1992
page - 4
County Interim Zoning Code. The timing of Pope Resources'
amended proposal is consistent with this admission.
Selection of Consultant: PLCC specifically requests that
the County retain the consultant preparing the EIS. This is in
Pope Resources' interest as well as that of the area residents.
This selection is fundamental to the future use of this EIS by
the County.
CONCLUSION
The Port Ludlow Community council appreciates your
consideration of the items listed. Incorporating the listed
alternatives and retaining an independent consultant will go far
towards creating an EIS which the County can rely upon as the
various components of this project and program come up for
permitting and review.
very truly yours,
~ ~. ~~:d
encl: list of applicable regulations
cc: Port Ludlow Community council
Mark Ruth, Esq.
~b.1tr
4.
-...1
Applicable Substantive Regulations
INN & TOWNSITE AT PORT LUDLOW
-POPE RESOURCES 10 YEAR PLAN
The following is a preliminary list of m3:ior substantive land use regulations applicable
to the commercial, multi-family and residential development contemplated by Pope Resources
at The Spit at Port Ludlow, and applicable to the Pope Resources proposed 10 Year
Development plan:
1. ZONING ORDINANCE/COMPREHENSIVE PLAN:
a. Optimum Development Map, Chapter 10, Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan
("Comprehensive Plan"): Spit Area designated "Suburban Area;" defmed as "medium
intensity development" "up to five dwelling units per gross acre." "Projects in excess
of five units per acre must be related to employment centers, transportation systems,
and public facilities... "
b. Comprehensive Plan, "Optimum Land Use Map;" "Commercial Center" located at
intersection of Oak Bay Road and Paradise Road, not at Port Ludlow Spit.
c. Jefferson County Interim Zoning Ordinance ("Zoning Ordinance") Section 5, Part
1; "transient accommodations" and "retail selling" are "general commercial activities"
for the purposes of the zoning ordinance.
d. Zoning Ordinance, Section 8, Part 1; All areas not designated commercial or light
industrial/commercial by zoning map are within the "general use zone." The Spit area
at Port Ludlow is within the general use zone.
e. Zoning Ordinance, Section 8, Part 3; General commercial activities are prohibited
in the general use zone at the Port Ludlow spit unless approved as conditional use or
rezone.
f. Zoning Ordinance, Section 8, Part 4(a); Multi-family residential development is a
conditional use in the general use zone at Port Ludlow Spit.
g. Zoning Ordinance, Section 9, Part 2; Review Criteria for conditional uses:
Proposal must not "generate unacceptable impacts beyond the property boundaries;"
must not "substantially impact enjoyment of surrounding properties;" must be
.consistent with the overall goals and objectives of the comprehensive plan;"
and the "cumulative effect" of approving similar proposals will not cause and
"erosion" of the comprehensive plan.
5
Applicable Substantive Re~ulations
February 5, 1992
'page - 2
h. Zoning Ordinance, Section 9, Part 3(a); Multi-family residential developments are
prohibited unless related to an "employment center." Note Multi-family setbacks and
provision for additional setbacks near water areas.
i. Zoning Ordinance, Section 9, Part 3(b); "all general commercial development
occurring within a .. general use zone" must locate within a six hundred and
sixty (660') radius of the intersection of two (2) or more arterial roads." The
Spit at Port Ludlow is not within 660' feet of an arterial intersection.
j. Zoning Ordinance, Section 9, Part 3(b); General commercial activities are
conditional uses in the general use zone "as prescribed in Section 5- General
Commercial Zone," which at Section 5, Part 5(c) prescribes a maximum height of 35
feet.
k. Comprehensive Plan, Open Space, Goal 1: "To retain open space in Jefferson
County for recreational enhancement, to assist in timber and agricultural production,
for fish, shellfish and wildlife habitats, for relief and buffering between more intensely
developed areas, and for the maintenance of an aesthetically pleasing landscape. " '
1. Comprehensive Plan, Residential Development, Policy 3; "Concentration of
residential development should be related to employment centers, transportation
systems, and public facilities such as waters supplies and sewage disposal. The
provision and close proximity of roads, utilities, drainage, emergency services,
garbage disposal, schools, and other community services is deemed necessary to
sound residential development. "
2. SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE:
a. Jefferson County Subdivision Ordinance ("Subdivision Ordinance"): Section 6.201;
"Residential Densities shall conform with the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan."
b. Subdivision Ordinance, Section 6.204; Ten percent of total gross area shall be
designated for parks and open space, of which at least one half must be suitaQ.le for
active recreational pursuits.
c. Subdivision Ordinance, Section 1.20, Purposes 4 & 6: To assure that necessary
facilities will be provided in new subdivisions, and to insure that the taxpayers are not
in the future required to incur development costs which were the responsibility of the
developer .
)
(
. .
Applicable Substantive Regulations
February 5, 1992
page - 3
3. SHORELINE MANAGEMENT MASTER PROGRAM:
a. Jefferson County Shoreline Management Master Program ("Shoreline Program"):
Section 5.50, Policy 3; "An assessment should be made of the etlect a commercial
structure will have on a scenic view significant to a given area. "
b. Shoreline Program, Section 5.50, Performance Std. 1; "New Commercial
developments shall be located adjacent to existing or planned commercial
developments whenever practicable. "
c. Shoreline Program, Section 5.50, Performance Std. 8; Height is limited to 35 feet
when development will obstruct the view of a substantial number of adjacent
properties.
d. Shoreline Program, Section 5~ 160, Policy 2; "Residential Development should be
designed to adequately protect the water and shoreline aesthetic characteristics."
e. Shoreline Program, Section 5.160, Policy 11; "Residential structures should be
designed and located to not significantly block the views of adjacent residences or
properties. "
t
f. Shoreline Program, Section 5.160, Performance Std. 13; "Residential structures
shall not exceed thirty-five feet in height."
"--
""
I
.
~ec\'on
~..o
e
.~
4:
..~
1~a
~.~
~~
DI8t".
1~1
~
+.p
Jefferson County
101 South Point Road, Port ludlow, WA 98365
District Office: 437-2899 TraininglSafety: 437-2236
April 19, 1993
Jefferson County
Planning and Building Department
P. O. Box 1220
Port Townsend, Washington 98368
re: Inn at Port Ludlow; Long Plat application and subdivision standards variance
Dear Planning Department:
This letter is in reference to the above application to build the Inn at Port
Ludlow and the other mixed-use development at the same site, which is within
Jefferson County Fire District No. 3 jurisdiction. Please also refer to our letter of
March 24, 1993 concerning development within our district. We feel that continued
development should require mitigation of the associated impacts. The following
comments are based on the site plan dealing with this specific project and the associated
issues of street widths, built-in fire protection, construction standards, etc., and not on
the overall need to mitigate development impact.
We have had numerous discussions with representatives of Pope Resources
concerning this project, most specifically with Mr. Tony Puma. As a result of these
discussions, we have developed a list of items that, if made a part of an acceptance of
the proposed site plan, should allay our concerns on site access and fuel handling.
During this process I have experienced what I believe is a genuine desire to promote
safety through design and to meet the needs of this fire district. The list of desired
items to be required follows:
EXHIBIT NO. '2-
File No. LP-o'Z -Cfl
Date tf/ICJ/q3
Page 2: JCFPD3: The Inn at Port Ludlow, Subdivision Standards
Construction and fire-safety:
1. Provide life safety residential sprinkler systems for all multi-family residences.
(i. e.: more than single family, although it is recommended that the five single
family residences also have these systems.)
2. Provide non-wood roofs for the entire development and one-hour construction
separation between dwelling units, including attic spaces.
3. Provide a fire detection alarm system for all multi-family residential buildings
which also monitors the residential sprinkler system. This system would be
monitored off-site by an approved alarm company and would include a strobe
indicating device, on each multi-family building, visible from the main access
road. .
4. Ensure adequate clearance for fire department vehicle access through the Inn's
drive through.
5. Provide approximately 18" of earth cover over the relocated fuel storage tanks to
effectively class as underground for fire purposes.
6. Provide ~areed ten fire hydrants, location to be mutually agreeable. Location
should be coincided with proposed commercial sprinkler connections for the Inn.
Currently proposed locations are generally suitable, hov.ever, some movement
might be mutually beneficial.
Roads and Accesses:
1. Move the fuel unloading space to the West of the proposed site for the fuel storage
tanks. This VKJuld be immediately next to the traBic circle which would allow the
mel truck to back in from the circle and to depart via the tWrJ-lmY road rather than
across the one-lmY road under the Inn.
2. Provide signs that restricts the one-way road, from this circle to the Inn, to Inn
traffic and official vehicles only. One-Jv.lY should be from PleSt to east.
3. Provide fire vehicle access south from the west side of the one-way road at the Inn
to at least the middle of the south portion of the building. This need not be pa red
but should be of suBicient design to accept the weight of a laden fire truck
4. Provide a designed turn radius for all access roads that meets the needs of 55 foot
city buses. This should provide suBicient vehicle access for fire depart:ment
vehicles, subject to field acceptance.
5. Provide adequate control and signs for no parking areas and one-way streets.
Page 3: JCFPD3: The Inn at Port Ludlow, Subdivision Standards
6. Provide a vehicle exit link between the access to the single-family residences and
the parking lot to the immediate north. This will help to eliminate the problerm
associlited with long, narrow dead-end spaces.
7. Provide temporary "unloading area only" parking space in the circular turn-around
near the dock access. This will help to eliminate illegal parking on the road itself.
Miscellaneous:
1. Work towards providing adequate space and access to a helicopter landing zone for'
medical emergencies. This is not intended to promote a heliport, which is similar
to an airport but ror helicopters. The addition of a heliport would create
additional impacts on this department.
Thank you for your consideration of our concerns. Sincerely,
~ttq~D
>,
:!
~
,. ,s { 1 P . a 1
. .. .." JI ..
. . ..4 ....:. ,f'. ~:J?.p .
~ -:: -. . ".' .. ..' \\\ ~)~~_:'X. ~ .
.- _... - - ---. _. . .... '".- . . . ~ . .. . ~ ?" . - .
-- -- .. ~H~~~~~ _~!?,I!9.0L DI~~~.CT .#~~.' :':: ~". .~::::'~'.~ ~..i_:'S0?:1.7~jjvV
1".0. BCJA t.ll:S CHIMAtllM WA 98325 . zr
M.!:......i~ R, !!;~:::=; ~t;r-c,iittCahl4r;tJi' -"a5"3~2
TO:
Jr:rr~p'c:!~t~~u.,!: ~1_!O":ol.I' _AA..to_........ ~ Ao-;:Uf~:n('ll.f.~~ .f.Jfi'1^~T..u:ilt.I:r.:._. _. . _ .....\. . __ _ .
0;;;: '....Vi't"V\,,)vn.1 'I I J;J'[~'4!'!!1~_ _. -~-- ::~ ->>= .~. ..-a;.:;.... r I
C~UMACUM-SGHOOL.DlS:rA:G:r - .. .__J .
A?Rii:'i 9; -H,92 -'': . I
INN AT PORT lUDlQ',V ..
REQUEST FOR SITE VARIANCe
FROM:._
~.
!'
DAT"E-;
RE:
The request for variance flied on April 2. 1993 asks the County to waive the standard
for public roads and the 100 foot turnlno rM!t.~-foJ!- a.u~-do-~ea-. Ap-(;r~.-of-tht3"" I'
variance would prevent.. -tho 'schecl-<Retlict'from--proviGtr.w.:r~,nea-.t-o:t-h6"$ltid-eflt5- r ,
livrng withil'f t~l~ '~ioo.. 1M at ~ho--~.QrinQ. .:r-~-do30M btls"~or~jw .t\.Vbi'fdbfw '1IJU:J'(lk:l'w'-offooi- _.__ _ _ __
Oak Bay Road. which would necessit~~: !O.tunQi)iS: w~9.iking. on- the- na(-('.ower- f-(;;a'dway.. i:,
within tho developmont, waitinV \lfl{;t)P:Irh~~nfH'l:ar.tr~~.;"'HOaa-'l~-s-er1l'lC6;.t..___.._ uu _. .__
With wldor ro(\dwQy~ o.nd turnarounds ado-1w';'tv :u. Q ~'am.iaru "ijl:;;;;-VCfl,;n;,j-- DU:;J 'fii' --a -I '
roadway layout which would allow a bus to make a loop within the development. .
students would not need to' be GXposed to tiitsJtnose hazards. . I
Tho ChJmaoum- &..-troo-t. .n;-,~ ~~1>t~eNJ v. .tf~'f;H&.ur..lO...~.t -s&';&~-eerlG6fl'la~ai'i~' 00, . . _. ....._
tho inabllrty to use the proposed roadway~' 1"" -~dii..xj't'bU'S9-S.-'i1'JM~~lTl{.."rf ~~r. r--.:
roadway and cuI de sac variances be den!~d;..... I '.
. .
'. .
...
f!
...
~.
{
.4AAJI~ 7"It"~'1 '-I '::>1 ?,3. J......'~t....c .../0 ".~.:--'~~
PaM"t'" brand f'ilJdransmltt:1l.rnnmr. ~ ! "'ftf~!!-,~,,' I '~i SC
.... ,.,-..h.J R --r1l=-o':'" IF~-... r-~',{t.cu_ .._ i"~,,,
~v U LJ'E:.. !-G V' v _,. ~ ...,,..,.. r r~.( R.. __
Co. Co. /" y '. i~.
.. , ~. '/4q . . I s:-
op. f'ttona~-1~qO --.J!j:
Il"':...~y t>2Z';; ~;C3G.. - '1"''''''~-7dG7 - . ii:~
_. .:...-= _ __ . ._.. ~_ -.:..-... ,..G11Y~.: ""t
~
;..
l'
t
;.
86,.,,; uf Dir~i6i'f"'" . --..
Janie Amdal. David Rr:mn: 011..~t!n Go;:.~,.;~h. ! _"..r~' t....;~......-!..;.:_;:.,..:R.~..:...!1"l~.
i .
r .
~.
i.. ;
EXHIBIT NO. \ ~
File No. LP-02-CJ/
Date ~119/q3