HomeMy WebLinkAboutLog373
JEFFERSON COUNTY
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
621 Sheridan Street, Port Townsend, WA 98368
360-379-4450
www.co.jefferson.wa.us/commdevelopment/
RECOMMENDATION
TO THE
JEFFERSON COUNTY HEARING EXAMINER
PROPOSAL NAME
Port Ludlow Resort Plan: Major Revision Request
DESCRIPTION
Revise the Port Ludlow Resort Plan to change the focus of the
resort from a conference facility serving large groups to a
destination resort serving the traveling public. This change will
decrease the size of many resort facilities identified in the
approved 1999 Resort Plan, and will increase the number of
residential units. At build-out, the resort will include additional
residential units, a new waterfront commercial facility, a relocated
and smaller Harbor Master Restaurant, a new private recreational
facility, a new maintenance building, additional off-street parking,
a new central receiving dock, expanded trail system, a new
emergency he1ipad, expanded infrastructure improvements, and an
expanded marina. The project area includes the Plat of Ludlow
Bay Village and the area known as Admiralty III, all located in the
Resort Complex/Community Facilities (RC/CF) zone.
REQUESTED
APPROVALS
1. Major Revision to Port Ludlow Resort Plan
2. Boundary Line Adjustment
3. Shoreline Substantial Development Permit
4. Code Interpretation Regarding Over-Water Construction
PERMIT CASE #'s
MLA05-00407, ZON03-00044, SUB05-00030, SDP05-00019,
ZON05-00035
APPLICANT
Port Ludlow Associates, LLC
REPRESENTATIVE
Mark Dorsey, P.E., PLA Project Manager
HEARING DATE
January 17, 2006
SEPA
A project-level Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement
(SEIS) was prepared in 2002 for the expansion of the marina. An
additional project-level SEIS was prepared for the current
LOG ITEM
#373
Page l -Of:iD
Port Ludlow Resort Plan: Major Revision
File No. MLA05-00407
DCD Staff Report and Recommendation
application; the Draft SEIS was issued April 23, 2004, and the
Final SEIS (FSEIS) was issued May 18,2005. According to
Jefferson County Code Section 18.40.840(5), issues relating to
the adequacy of an EIS are not appealable during the County
review, hearing, or administrative appeal processes for the
requested approvals.
RECOMMENDATION
Approve the Master Plan Revision, Boundary Line Adjustment,
and Shoreline Substantial Development Permit, subject to
conditions. Interpret Section 5.160 of the SMMP, which
prohibits residential over-water construction, as applying to the
lagoon in Ludlow Bay Village.
PROPOSED FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
Part I - Procedural History and Background
Part II - Description of Proposal
Part III - Existing Conditions
Part IV - Major Revision to Resort Plan
Part V - Shoreline Substantial Development Permit
Part VI - Administrative (Code) Interpretation
Part VII - Boundary Line Adjustment
Part VIII - Agency and Public Comment
Part IX - SEP A
Part X - Recommendation
Part XI - Recommended Conditions
Paragraphs Page
1-12 2
13 - 18 4
19 - 24 6
25 - 36 8
37 - 56 16
57 - 88 47
89 - 95 53
96 - 98 55
99 - 100 62
101-104 63
105 - End 64
Contents
Part I - Procedural History and Background
1. Port Ludlow Associates (PLA) has applied for a Major Revision to the approved Master
Plan for the Port Ludlow Resort. PLA proposes to change the allowed buildout features
of the resort complex provided for in the controlling sections of the Jefferson County
Master Planned Resort (MPR) Code.
2. The MPR Code is codified at Title 17 of the Jefferson County Code (JCC), but for
purposes of this report, reference will be made to the ordinance version of the MPR Code
(Ordinance # 08-1004-99) which is the official document referenced in the Port Ludlow
Development Agreement.
" O. G n-EM
L .:'l I i_,.
#,~20_~_
Page_~_of,_W
2
Port Ludlow Resort Plan: Major Revision
File No. MLA05-00407
DCD Staff Report and Recommendation
3. The Port Ludlow Development Agreement establishes which codes and regulations apply
for the life of the Agreement to development proposals within the Port Ludlow Master
Planned Resort. Those regulations include but are not limited to:
a. The MPR Code Ordinance # 08-1004-99;
b. The Stormwater Management Ordinance #10-1104-96;
c. The Interim Critical Areas Ordinance #05-0509-94;
d. The Subdivision Ordinance #04-0526-92;
e. The Land Use Procedures Ordinance #04-0828-98; and
e. The Shoreline Master Program adopted March 7, 1989 as amended through
February 6, 1998.
4. The MPR Code describes a "Resort Plan" in Section 3.90 et seq. for facilities within the
Resort Complex/Community Facilities (RC/CF) zone. Section 3.901 provides a list of
allowable uses and places limitations on square footage, number of hotel rooms, new
marina slips, and restaurant seating. Sections 3.905 and 3.906 set forth regulations for
making a major revision to the Resort Plan.
5. A major revision to the Resort Plan requires a Type B decision by the Hearing Examiner
following a public hearing. Section 3.906(3) provides that the Hearing Examiner may
approve a major revision to the Resort Plan if certain criteria are met (see Part IV below).
6. The application by PLA for a major revision to the Resort Plan for the Port Ludlow MPR
was initially filed on June 25,2003. The application was revised on Apri129, 2004, and
again on June 23, 2005. The June 25, 2003 application, as amended, is the subject of the
current review. In addition to the Major Revision, the request includes applications for
Shoreline Substantial Development Permit, a formal administrative interpretation of the
applicability of a prohibition in the Shoreline Master Program regarding over-water
construction, and a Boundary Line Adjustment.
7. Section 7 of the Land Use Procedures Ordinance (Ordinance No. 04-0828-09) allows, at
the option of the applicant, the consolidation of two or more permit applications into a
single review process. The applicant has requested that the applications for Major Resort
Plan Revision, Shoreline Substantial Development Permit, Boundary Line Adjustment,
and Administrative Interpretation (residential over-water construction) be consolidated
into this Type B procedure. Therefore, all four applications are addressed in this report.
8. In 1993 the MPR was reviewed pursuant to the State Environmental Policy Act. A 1993
programmatic "EIS for the Port Ludlow Development Program" addressed the proposed
build-out of the residential and commercial components of the Port Ludlow Master Plan,
including the Resort. A 1993 project-level "EIS for the Inn at Port Ludlow" addressed
proposed development within the southern portion of the Resort: The Heron Beach Inn
(now Inn at Port Ludlow), 72 additional residential units, 2,500 s.f. of commercial space,
construction of a Town Hall, and various related site improvements. In 2002 a project-
level SEIS was prepared for a 100-slip expansion of the marina, focusing primarily on
issues associated with in-water construction. The Inn at Port Ludlow and some of the
3
Port Ludlow Resort Plan: Major Revision
File No. MLA05-00407
DCD Staff Report and Recommendation
residential units were subsequently constructed. The Town Hall and retail space has not
been built, and is not proposed in the current request. The marina expansion also has not
been constructed, but is still proposed.
9. The current application, initially filed on June 25, 2003, led to a Determination of
Significance and completion of the SEIS noted on page 1. This SEIS refers to the
proposal as "Alternative 1 - 2003 Applicant's Proposed Resort Plan". For the purposes
of this report, the proposal, as most recently modified on June 23, 2005, is referred to as
"the proposal" or the "2003 Resort Plan".
10. The proposal revisions made on June 23,2005 consist of the following:
a. Residential construction over the lagoon is no longer proposed (the buildings have
been shifted to avoid the over-water location); however the applicant has
requested a formal code interpretation regarding the applicability of the Jefferson
County Shoreline Master Program development regulation that prohibits over-
water residential construction;
b. A phasing plan was submitted, to ensure that residential development coincides
with development of amenities;
c. A boundary line adjustment was submitted, replacing the former plat alteration
application;
d. A new shoreline substantial development permit application was submitted; and
e. The design of the marina expansion was modified.
11. Following the June 23, 2005 revisions, the applicant notified the Department that two
additional revisions to the proposal were desired:
a. The proposed marina expansion was reduced from 100 net new slips to 60 net
new slips however, based upon response to comment letters from the Attorney for
PLA, the proponent reserves the right to expand the marina to 100 new net slips.
(see Log item 338 of file ZON03-0044).
b. It is no longer proposed that PLA will occupy the conference center in the
Admiralty area.
12. Notice ofthe application was published in the Port Townsend Leader, the County
newspaper of record, on October 5, 2005. A 30-day comment period was provided. A
summary of the issues raised by agencies and members of the public in the comment
letters is found in Part VIII.
Part II - Description of Proposal
13. The proposal is to build out the Resort Complex/Community Facilities zone with a
smaller resort than was anticipated when the MPR Code was initially adopted in 1999.
The focus of the resort would shift from large conferences and events to a more
individualized vacation resort serving the traveling public at large. The new proposal
would eliminate the large hotel and conference center and would eliminate, modify, or
replace other shared facilities, and would increase the residential component.
4
Port Ludlow Resort Plan: Major Revision
File No. MLA05-00407
DCD Staff Report and Recommendation
14. Resort build-out in the RC/CF zone would include the following changes or additions to
the improvements that currently exist on site:
a. 101 new residential units, including 39 units in the Admiralty III area and 62 units
within Ludlow Bay Village.
b. Demolition of the existing 120-seat Harbor Master Restaurant and lounge, and
construction of a 90-seat restaurant (inside seating for 60, outside seating for 30)
along the waterfront, with additional Yacht Club space and conference space.
c. A new 7,500 s.f., two-story, private recreation facility, including an indoor-
outdoor swimming pool, spa, and fitness center.
d. A new 2,600 s.f., one-story, waterfront commercial facility containing marina
offices, retail store, and maintenance area.
e. A new 2,900 s.f. maintenance building for the Inn and other resort operations.
f. A new 1,000 s.f. central receiving dock on the north side of Harbor Drive.
g. A new 20' by 20' paved helipad for emergency evacuations, located in the
Admiralty area north of Marina View Drive between Oak Bay Road and Olympic
Place.
h. A 100-s1ip expansion of the existing 280-slip marina.
1. Revised vehicular access and parking for the Inn at Port Ludlow, restricting
access to and from Heron Rd., and increasing the Inn parking from 36 stalls to 55
stalls.
J. Improved and expanded surface parking lots, to provide a total of 332 stalls (in
addition to the 55 parking stalls for the Inn, and in addition to private parking for
the residences). A new elevator will connect upper and lower parking areas.
k. New landscaping for the area surrounding the west and south sides of the artificial
lagoon.
1. Construction of a new 8' wide, approximately 800 foot long, lighted wooden
boardwalk along the waterfront (above OHW).
m. Improved pedestrian signage to connect the community parking lot to the artificial
lagoon, waterfront boardwalk, and beach trail.
n. Utility upgrades.
o. Installation of a new water quality vault at each of the two inlets to the artificial
lagoon.
15. Compared to the approved 1999 Resort Plan (which is not fully built-out), the 2003
Resort Plan reflects an increase in potential residential development and a decrease in
potential non-residential resort facilities. Primary differences include:
a. The current proposal allows 104 more total residential units than does the 1999
Plan (191 vs. 87 - Note: Although the 1999 Plan allows a maximum of 87
residential units, there are actually 90 constructed on site, plus an additional 32
platted lots. This discrepancy is due to the fact that portions of the resort were
developed under an earlier plan - the "1993 Resort Plan" - that allowed a total of
186 units).
b. The current proposal retains the existing 37 hotel rooms, but adds no new rooms.
The 1999 Plan allowed an additional 238 hotel rooms for a total of275.
5
Port Ludlow Resort Plan: Major Revision
File No. MLA05-00407
DCD Staff Report and Recommendation
c. The current proposal will allow 90 restaurant seats, vs. 450 seats allowed by the
1999 Plan.
d. The current proposal does not include the new 22,000 s.f. conference facility
allowed by the 1999 Plan.
e. The current proposal does not include the new 2,500 s.f. resort retail facility
allowed by the 1999 Plan.
f. The current proposal allows a 7,500 s.f. indoor recreation facility (Beach Club).
The 1999 Plan allowed 39,500 s.f. of indoor recreation space, including the Beach
Club, museum, and youth center.
g. The current proposal does not include the outdoor amphitheatre proposed in the
1999 Plan.
h. The current proposal does not include 119,000 s.f. of structured/underground
parking.
1. The current proposal would expand the marina by 100 slips; the 1999 Resort Plan
allowed a 100-slip expansion.
It is noted that under both the current proposal and the 1999 Resort Plan, the
improvements described in paragraphs 14 and 15 are maximums. Under the current
wording of Section 3.90 of the MPR Code, and the revised wording proposed by the
applicant, decreases in the sizes indicated are allowed.
16. The marina expansion would result in a net increase of 100 boat slips, ranging in length
from 36 to 60 feet. The proposed layout includes extension of the E lateral dock and a
new lateral F dock, and minor revisions to other docks. The existing A and new F docks
would serve as floating breakwaters for waves approaching from the south.
17. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers has issued a permit for a 100-slip marina expansion,
which includes concurrence by NOAA Fisheries and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Department, but a Hydraulic Project Approval Permit from the Washington State
Department of Fish and Wildlife has not yet been issued.
18. The applicant has submitted a phasing plan to ensure that construction ofthe proposed
commercial and recreational facilities under the new resort plan will coincide with
construction of the proposed new residential units. The new restaurant building,
recreation facility, waterfront commercial facility, upland central receiving dock,
circulation and surface parking improvements, boardwalk, pedestrian signage, and water
quality vaults are to be constructed in three phases tied to the residential construction.
Residential units in the second and third phases will not be permitted until the defined
amenities or improvements for the prior phase (as shown in the phasing plan) have been
completed. A fourth phase containing the Admiralty units will not receive final
occupancy permits until the proposed EMS helipad and new playground amenities are
constructed.
Part III - Existing Conditions
6
Port Ludlow Resort Plan: Major Revision
File No. MLA05-00407
DCD Staff Report and Recommendation
19. Development of the current Port Ludlow Resort Master Planned Resort started in the
1960s, replacing an older logging, shipbuilding, and sawmill town established in the mid-
1800s (the Port Ludlow community). The MPR encompasses 1800 acres surrounding the
inner portion of Port Ludlow Bay, and includes residential, commercial, and
recreational/resort development, as well as large tracts of permanent open space. The
original owner, Pope and Talbot, Inc., transferred ownership to Pope Resources in 1985,
who in turn sold the assets to Port Ludlow Associates, LLC, the current owner, in 2001.
20. The Resort portion ofthe MPR is located on the site ofthe original Port Ludlow
community, along the north side of Port Ludlow Bay between Oak Bay Road and Port
Ludlow Bay. For the purposes of discussion, the Resort contains three areas: The
"Admiralty" area in the north portion of the Resort, the "Ludlow Maintenance
Commission" ownership in the central portion, and "Ludlow Bay Village" in the southern
portion. The Admiralty and Ludlow Bay Village designations reflect the names ofthe
underlying subdivisions and condominium projects. The LMC ownership is a five-acre
area (approximate) administered and maintained by the LMC.
21. The Resort currently contains a mix of residential, commercial, retail, and recreational
uses constructed under a variety of regulations and plans. Development of the Resort
began in the 1960s with construction of the 280-slip marina and Harbormaster Restaurant
in Ludlow Bay Village, and the homeowners' Beach Club in the LMC area. The
Admiralty I and II areas were platted in 1968 and were developed with a conference
center and 64 residential condominium units. The Inn at Port Ludlow (formerly the
Heron Beach Inn) was built in 1994 in Ludlow Bay Village, and construction of the
adjacent townhomes began that same year. To date, 25 two- and three-story townhomes
and one single-family residence have been constructed in the plat of Ludlow Bay Village.
An artificial lagoon (or pond) that is believed to have first been created in the late 1800s
but went through subsequent modifications (see Part VI below), was expanded to its
present size of approximately 2.2 acres in 1994 in conjunction with construction of
surrounding improvements. The area proposed to be known as Admiralty III is a largely
undeveloped area of approximately 11 acres lying east of Oak Bay Road, north of Heron
Road.
22. The County approved a Resort Plan in 1993 (the "1993 Resort Plan"), and subsequent
development, primarily the Inn at Port Ludlow and the nearby townhomes and single-
family residence, proceeded according to that plan. The 1993 Resort Plan is similar to
the proposal now under review, except that it allowed slightly fewer residential units (186
vs. 191), a new 1,850 s.f. town hall, 2.500 s.f. of resort retail, but no new maintenance or
recreation facility.
23. In 1999, Jefferson County adopted the MPR Code. The Code established zoning districts
and regulations for development of the entire Port Ludlow Community, including the
Resort portion, and replaced the 1993 Resort Plan. Compared to the 1993 Resort Plan,
the build-out provisions of the 1999 Resort Plan allowed less residential construction (87
units vs. 186 units), but significantly more nomesidentia1 development (hotel: 275 vs. 37
7
Port Ludlow Resort Plan: Major Revision
File No. MLA05-00407
DCD Staff Report and Recommendation
rooms; restaurant: 450 seats vs. 120 seats; conference facility: new 22,000 s.f. facility
vs. new 1,850 s.f. town hall; new 39,500 s.f. of indoor recreational facilities (museum,
youth center, indoor tennis, indoor sports/pool); new outdoor amphitheatre; and filling of
roughly 2/3 ofthe lagoon to provide open space between the lagoon and amphitheatre).
Little, if any, new development allowed by the 1999 Resort Plan has taken place.
24. The 1999 MPR Code/Resort Plan is the current governing plan and set of regulations for
development of the MPR, to which the applicant seeks a major revision. The revision
would change the allowable uses in the Resort Complex/Community Facilities (RC/CF)
zone (the "Resort" portion ofthe MPR). The Admiralty, LMC, and Ludlow Bay Village
areas all lie within this zone. The primary differences between the 1999 Resort Plan and
the 2003 Resort Plan are summarized in Part II above.
Part IV - Major Revision to Resort Plan (ZON03-00044)
25. The legislative basis for authorizing a "master planned resort" is found in RCW
36.70A.360 ("Master planned resorts") and .362 ("Master planned resorts - Existing
resort may be included"). RCW 36.70A.360 (1) defines such a resort as "a self-contained
and fully integrated planned unit development, in a setting of significant natural
amenities, with primary focus on destination resort facilities consisting of short-term
visitor accommodations associated with a range of developed on-site indoor or outdoor
recreational facilities." Subsection (3) states that "A master planned resort may include
other residential uses within its boundaries, but only if the residential uses are integrated
into and support the on-site recreational nature of the resort." Subsection (4) sets forth
the conditions under which a county may authorize a master planned resort.
26. Jefferson County Ordinance No. 08-1004-99 adopted the Port Ludlow Master Planned
Resort Code (MPR Code) in accordance with RCW 36.70A.360 and .362. The MPR
Code sets forth the development regulations for the Port Ludlow Master Planned Resort.
The MPR Code establishes general provisions applicable to the entire Port Ludlow
Master Planned Resort, and creates distinct zoning districts for different geographic areas
of Port Ludlow. Section 3.90 ("Resort Development") describes the "Resort Plan" for
facilities to be located in the RC/CF zone, sets out a required environmental review
process for any future resort development, and provides processes for reviewing major or
minor revisions to the Resort Plan.
27. Section 3.901 ofthe MPR Code provides a list of the permitted uses in the RC-CF zone,
and establishes the limits beyond which those uses are not permitted without a major
revision being first approved. Changes to the Resort Plan that decrease the sizes noted
below are allowed:
1. Gross square feet of resort development: 498,300
2. Hotel Guest Rooms: 275
3. Restaurants - total square feet: 59,000
One 200 seat year round restaurant
One 125 seat seasonal restaurant (near marina)
8
Port Ludlow Resort Plan: Major Revision
File No. MLA05-00407
DCD Staff Report and Recommendation
Also includes hotel lobby and registration area,
Spa area, kitchens, offices and storage rooms.
4. Lounge, one year round, 125 seats, square feet: 5,000
5. Resort retail square feet: 2,500
Plus associated storage square feet: 1,400
6. Conference Center, associated with and physically
part of Hotel buildings, square feet: 22,000
Plus support areas and storage square feet: 8,000
7. Indoor tennis courts, square feet: 26,000
8. Indoor sports and pool complex, square feet: 13,500
9. Structured, underground parking, square feet: 119,000
10. Museum or Interpretive Center, square feet: 7,500
11. Support Buildings, square feet: 12,000
(Maintenance, Warehousing, Housekeeping)
12. Youth Center, square feet: 4,000
13. Marina expansion, slips: 100 slips
14. Amphitheater
15. Yacht Club
16. Four detached single family residences and one five-unit townhome structure,
provided that these structures are not included in or limited by the gross square
feet of development for the Resort Plan noted in 3.901 (1) above.
17. All existing townhomes, provided that these structures are not included in or
limited by the gross square feet of development for the Resort Plan noted in
3.90(1).
28. The applicant's proposed major revision would change the list of permitted uses
identified in Section 3.901 to the following:
1. Gross interior square feet of new structures
(except emergency helipad, parking areas, marina vessel
moorage, outdoor amenities, and other exterior areas) 300,000 SF maximum
2. Restaurant and lounge (after relocation) 8,000 SF
3. Private recreational facility 7,500 SF
4. Central receiving dock 1,000 SF
5. Emergency helipad 600 SF
6. Maintenance building 2,900 SF
7. Surface parking areas 387 stalls
8. Marina vessel moorage expansion 100 additional slips
9. Marina offices, retail store, maintenance area 2,600 SF
10. Lagoon, shoreline, open space, trail improvements Not limited
11. Additional attached or detached single family or 101 units
Multi-family residential dwelling units
12. Accessory uses to principal uses described above Not limited
13. Roadways and utility infrastructure Not limited
14. All existing structures and uses within the MPR-RC-CF zone as ofthe date of
County approval of this Resort Plan revision.
9
Port Ludlow Resort Plan: Major Revision
File No. MLA05-00407
DCD Staff Report and Recommendation
In addition, references in Section 3.901 to "structured or underground parking" would be
removed, since no such parking is envisioned by the proposal.
29. The applicant has submitted a description of the primary elements that are envisioned
under build-out of the 2003 Resort Plan. These elements include:
a. Residential Units 001 new. 90 existing): This would include 64 existing
condominium units in Admiralty I and II, 25 existing townhomes and 1 single-
family home in Ludlow Bay Village, 39 new residential townhomes in Admiralty
III, and 62 new attached residential units in Ludlow Bay Village. Vehicular
access to existing townhomes in Ludlow Bay Village will be via Heron Road,
separated from access to the Inn at Port Ludlow. New residential structures in
Ludlow Bay Village will be architecturally similar to the existing, and will range
in size from 1,200-1,500 s.f.
b. Inn at Port Ludlow (existing): Vehicular circulation around the Inn will be
modified so that access is restricted to Gull Drive, separated from access to the
nearby townhomes. The Inn parking lot will have driveways that connect to
Heron Road, but those driveways will serve as emergency access lanes and will
be equipped with bollards to keep general traffic from entering the residential
area. The 36-stall parking lot will be increased to 55 spaces. The internal formal
restaurant will be reduced to double the size of the internal Fireside Lounge.
c. Waterfront Commercial Facilitv (new): This will be located on the shoreline near
the west end of the marina and will contain the Dock Master's office, marina
maintenance area, and a retail store for marina tenants and guests.
d. Harbor Master Restaurant (120 seats existing; 90 seats after relocation): Existing
building will be demolished, and a new building will be constructed near the
marina. Seating capacity will be reduced from 120 to 90 (60 inside, 30 outside).
The building will include space for Yacht Club and other meetings.
e. Private Recreational Facility (new): 7,500 s.f. indoor facility to be located
adjacent to the waterfront commercial facility. This will include an indoor-
outdoor swimming pool, spa, and fitness center, available only to residential
property owners with Ludlow Bay Village and their guests, guests of the Inn, and
guests of the marina.
f. LMC Beach Club Recreational Faci1itv and Bridge Deck (existing): No change
proposed.
g. Maintenance Building (new): A 2,900 s.f. building would be constructed in the
north portion of the RC/CF zone, to be used as a maintenance facility for the Inn
and other Resort operations.
10
Port Ludlow Resort Plan: Major Revision
File No. MLA05-00407
DCD Staff Report and Recommendation
h. Off-Street Parking (existing and new): All new residential units will include off-
street parking for two cars. A total of 332 paved surface stalls will be provided
for the marina, commercial, and recreational uses in Ludlow Bay Village.
Parking for the Inn will be expanded from 36 stalls to 55 stalls.
1. Central Receiving Dock (new): A central receiving facility of approximately
1,000 s.f. will be located on the north side of Harbor Drive.
J. Lagoon. Open Space. Shoreline. and Trail Improvements (existing and new): A
signed trail system will be developed within the Resort to facilitate circulation and
access to public portions of the shoreline. This will include an 8-foot wide
wooden boardwalk along the shoreline that will extend from the new recreation
facility east to the Inn. Existing open space along the south side of the lagoon
will be re-Iandscaped. The southern portion of Admiralty III will remain
undisturbed initially, but may ultimately be used for additional parking.
k. Helipad for Emergency Evacuations (new): A 20' by 20' paved helipad and
accessory areas, located north of Marina View Drive and Oak Bay Road and
Olympic Place, will be used by Fire District #3 and possibly other emergency
service providers. A Conditional Use Permit is required for the helipad.
1. Utility Infrastructure Improvements (existing and new): Various storm drainage,
water quality, sanitary sewer, drinking water, electric, telephone, and other utility
service improvements will be provided to serve new development.
m. Marina (280 existing slips. 100 new): 100 new slips, up to 60 feet in length, will
be provided by extensions to the "E- Dock" and construction of a new "F -Dock",
plus minor revisions to other existing docks. The existing 1 ,600 s.f. timber kayak
float will be replaced in the same location with a 2,850 s.f. float with light
transmission capabilities. The existing 680 s.f. dinghy float on C-Dock will be
replaced with three new floats totaling 960 s.f.
Although not mentioned in the applicant's Detailed Project Description, the applicant's
proposed Phasing Plan indicates that a new playground would be provided as part of
Phase 4 development (see below).
30. As required by the MPR Code, the applicant submitted a phasing plan to show how
development of the proposal would occur. The phasing plan submitted by the applicant
is intended to show how construction of the residential units would coincide with non-
residential development. The proposal includes the following:
a. Phase 1: 22 residential units (e.g., Buildings R-3, R-7, R-8, R-9); Inn parking lot
and fire lane improvements; Gull Drive reconstruction (expand to two lanes);
11
Port Ludlow Resort Plan: Major Revision
File No. MLA05-00407
DCD Staff Report and Recommendation
Boardwalk (the portion landward of OHW); lagoon landscaping and restoration,
south and west sides).
b. Phase 2: 18 residential units (e.g., Buildings R-1, R-2, R-4); new marina
retail/office building; recreation center, Harbor Master restaurant; parking for
marina and restaurant.
c. Phase 3: 22 residential units (e.g., Buildings R-5, R-6); Signs for community
parking lot, trail, educational; parking lot elevator.
d. Phase 4: 39 residential units (e.g., Buildings R-10, R-11, R-12); EMS helipad;
playground.
31. Section 3.40 of the MPR Code establishes the development regulations for the RC/CF
zone. Section 3.402 identifies the Permitted and Conditional Uses in the RC/CF zone.
All ofthe uses proposed by the applicant are shown as Permitted Uses, except the
Helipad, which is a Conditional Use. Before the helipad could be constructed approval of
a Conditional Use Permit would be required.
32. Section 3.402 limits residential density to 10 dwelling units per acre. Under the proposal,
a total of 191 residential units would ultimately be constructed (90 existing, 101 new).
The RC/CF zone contains 50 acres. The proposed residential development, therefore,
reflects a density of3.82 units per acre, which complies with the limit of 10 units per
acre.
33. Section 3.404 establishes a maximum height limit of 35 feet, excluding roof projections,
except that Hotels and associated Conference Center facilities are allowed a height of 50
feet in certain circumstances. The FSEIS prepared for the proposal states that no new
buildings will exceed a height of 35 feet, as required by the MPR Code. Detailed
building height measurements will be required as part of any building permit application
to ensure compliance with Section 3.404.
34. Section 3.405 further states that multi-family uses in the RC/CF zone are subject to the
requirements of Section 3.30 Section 3.305 establishes no minimum lot area or minimum
lot width for multi-family structures. Front yard, side yard, and rear yard setbacks are to
be determined by the County Building Code. Maximum impervious coverage is limited
to 55%. As part of a building permit application for the multi-family structures the
applicant will be required to demonstrate compliance with these regulations. Sufficient
detail is not available at the Master Plan level to calculate proposed lot coverage.
Conformance with building code requirements is appropriately determined at the time of
building permit review.
35. Section 3.405 establishes no minimum lot area or minimum lot width for non-residential
uses. Front, side, and rear yard setbacks are to be determined by the County Building
Code. A maximum impervious coverage of 50% is allowed for non-residential uses. The
12
Port Ludlow Resort Plan: Major Revision
File No. MLA05-00407
DCD Staff Report and Recommendation
applicant will be required to demonstrate compliance with this limitation as part of
building permit applications.
36. Section 3.906 ofthe MPR Code states that the Hearing Examiner may approve a major
revision to the Resort Plan only if all of the following criteria area met:
a. The proposed revision would further the goals and policies set forth in the
Comprehensive Plan.
The Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan addresses Master Planned Resorts in
Chaper 3 - "Land Use and Rural Element". The Land Use Designations Map
contained in the Comprehensive Plan identifies the boundaries of the Port Ludlow
MPR, as well as the land use designations within the MPR boundaries. The
Resort portion ofthe MPR is designated "Resort Complex Community Facilities
(MPR-RC/CF 10:1)". The Comprehensive Plan establishes one goal and several
policies specific to the Port Ludlow MPR.
Goal LNG 25.0: Maintain the viability of Port Ludlow as Jefferson County's only
existing Master Planned Resort (MPR) authorized under RCW36. 70A.362.
The applicant has stated that the purpose ofthe proposed Major Revision is to
maintain the viability of the resort function by responding to changed market
conditions. The applicant cites changed market conditions since the 1999 Resort
Plan was approved, and believes that inadequate demand exists for the facilities
envisioned by that Plan. To respond to the changed economic climate, the
proposal would reduce reliance on large conference facilities and services, and
would shift the focus of the Resort to a destination resort for the traveling public.
This shift in focus would be reflected in the size and range of non-residential
facilities provided in the MPR. The 1999 Resort Plan allows up to 498,000 s.f. of
non-residential development. This would be reduced considerably under the
proposal, and residential development in the Resort area would be increased. The
non-residential facilities envisioned by the proposal for the Resort include a new
waterfront restaurant (relocated/reduced Harbor Master Restaurant), additional
indoor recreation facilities, and expanded marina, and various new support
facilities (marina office/retail, receiving dock, maintenance building), as well as
existing facilities, such as the Inn and Beach Club. In addition, an existing 27-
hole golf course, not located in the Resort area, serves the entire MPR including
the Resort.
The mix of uses envisioned by the proposal is intended to allow completion of
development of the Resort in a manner that is economically viable over the long-
term while preserving the resort function.
13
Port Ludlow Resort Plan: Major Revision
File No. MLA05-00407
DCD Staff Report and Recommendation
Policy LNP 25.1: Ensure that development in Port Ludlow complies with County
development regulations established for critical areas and that on-site and off-site
infrastructure impacts are fully considered and mitigated.
The applicant will be required to demonstrate compliance with the County's
critical area regulations adopted under Ordinance No. 05-0509-94 (amended by
Ordinance No. 14-0626-95) at the time of construction permit review. On-site
and off-site impacts have been reviewed by the 2005 FSEIS for the Port Ludlow
Resort Plan Revision, and appropriate mitigating measures were identified as part
of that review.
Policy LNP 25.2: The provision of urban-style services to support the anticipated
growth and development at Port Ludlow shall occur only within the designated
MPR boundary.
All new development and services will occur inside the MPR boundary.
Policy LNP 25.3: No new urban or suburban land uses will be established in the
vicinity of the Port Ludlow Master Planned Resort.
The proposal will not result in the establishment of new urban or suburban land
uses in the vicinity of the MPR. Over the long-term, it will be the responsibility
of Jefferson County, through its Comprehensive Planning process, to direct and
control urban and suburban land uses outside the MPR boundaries.
Policy LNP 25.4: The total number of residen tial lots allowable within the MPR
boundary shall not exceed the 1993 Port Ludlow FEIS total of 2,250 residential
dwelling units.
The proposal will not result in this limit being exceeded.
Policy LNP 25.5: Port Ludlow shall accommodate a variety of housing types,
including affordable housing, single-family, and multi-family housing, and
assisted living care facilities.
Port Ludlow has provided a range of housing types throughout the MPR. The
proposed new units in the Resort area will be smaller than the existing townhomes
in Ludlow Bay Village, ranging from roughly 1,200 to 1,500 s.f. Although the
new units will continue the existing architectural theme, the smaller size will
provide more variation in housing type and price range.
Policy LNP 25.6: Support efforts to preserve and protect Port Ludlow's
greenbelts, open spaces, and wildlife corridors.
14
Port Ludlow Resort Plan: Major Revision
File No. MLA05-00407
DCD Staff Report and Recommendation
Policy LNP 25.6.1: Support the establishment of a Ludlow Creek Nature
Preserve.
The existing slopes along Oak Bay Road, and the existing open space on the south
side of the lagoon and on Burner Point will be preserved. The proposal will not
affect the establishment of a Ludlow Creek Nature Preserve.
Po1icv LNP 25.7: No preliminary plats will be processed by Jefferson County for
the 200-acre area south of the Port Ludlow Golf Course within the MPR
boundary (as depicted on the official Jefferson County Land Use Map) until such
time as a conceptual site plan has been approved by the County.
Not applicable to this proposal. The area discussed in this policy is not located in
the Resort area.
Policy LNP 25.8: The Port Ludlow Master Planned Resort commercial area
shall be designated as the Port Ludlow Village Commercial Center.
Not applicable to this proposal. The designation ofthe commercial area is not
affected by the proposal.
b. No unmitigated significant adverse environmental impacts would be created by
the proposed revision.
The proposal has been reviewed under the 2005 FSEIS for the Port Ludlow
Resort Plan Revision. Measures to mitigate environmental impacts were
identified as part of that review, and have been or will be incorporated into the
proposal. No unmitigated significant adverse environmental impacts were
identified by the FSEIS.
c. The revision is consistent with all applicable development regulations, including
those established for critical areas.
The proposal is consistent with the applicable development regulations, including
those established for critical areas. Several aspects of the proposal and their
compliance with applicable regulations are discussed in detail in this report.
Construction details will be reviewed as part of construction permit review to
ensure full compliance with construction codes.
d. On-site and off-site infrastructure (including but not limited to water, sewer,
storm water and transportation facilities) impacts have been fully considered and
mitigated.
The 2005 FSEIS for the Port Ludlow Resort Plan Revision evaluated on-site and
off-site impacts of the proposal, and identified mitigating measures where
15
Port Ludlow Resort Plan: Major Revision
File No. MLA05-00407
DCD Staff Report and Recommendation
necessary. Those mitigating measures have been or will be incorporated into the
proposal. No unmitigated significant adverse environmental impacts were
identified by the FSEIS.
e. The proposed revision complements the existing resort facilities. meets the needs
of residents and patrons. and provides for unified development. integrated site
design. and protection of natural amenities.
The proposal complements the existing resort facilities. The proposal considers
the RC/CF zone in its entirety in determining appropriate facilities, siting of uses,
architectural styling, infrastructure needs, and pedestrian and vehicular
circulation, and addresses full build-out of the Resort. The proposal will provide
new or enhanced amenities to serve Resort residents and guests. The applicant,
PLA, will be responsible for all development pursuant to the revised Resort Plan.
Site amenities, both natural and man-made, will be protected and/or enhanced.
Part V - Shoreline Substantial Development Permit (SDP05-00019)
37. The proposal includes an application for a Shoreline Substantial Development Permit
because the property involved is located along a shoreline regulated by the State
Shoreline Management Act and the Jefferson County Shoreline Management Master
Program (SMMP). The Resort complex is located within two Shoreline Environments:
Urban (the south shoreline, west of and including Burner Point); and Suburban (the east
shoreline). Definitions and broad policies related to the Urban and Suburban shoreline
environments are found in Sections 4.104 and 4.105 of the SMMP. More specific
policies and performance standards apply to certain development activities along the
shorelines, as discussed below.
38. Section 4.104 of the SMMP states that the policy of the Suburban shoreline environment
is to provide permanent residential and recreational areas outside of urban areas, so long
as development of these areas provides adequate facilities for sewage disposal, water
supply, open space, and the like without severe degradation to the lifestyle that was
sought initially.
Of the various new or modified facilities and improvements proposed, the only ones that
would be located in the Suburban environment are residential, parking, and related
utilities. Appropriate utilities and open space will be required and provided. Severe
degradation of lifestyle is not expected to result from the proposal.
39. Section 4.105 of the SMMP contains several policies for development in the Urban
shoreline environment. These policies, and the relationship of the proposal to them, are
as follows:
a. 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
16
Port Ludlow Resort Plan: Major Revision
File No. MLA05-00407
DCD Staff Report and Recommendation
and water related uses. Water-enjoyment uses that provide access to and enhance
enjovrnent of the shoreline for a substantial number of persons should also be
given priority in urban areas.
The proposal will provide for a variety of urban uses, including marina
(expanded), restaurant (relocated), recreation center, residential units, and open
space. These uses, as well as a shoreline boardwalk, will provide access to and
enhance the enjoyment of the shoreline by users and residents of the resort.
b. Efficient utilization of existing urban areas in a manner consistent with this
program is encouraged before further expansion into non-urban areas occurs.
Most of the new development proposed will occur in the Urban shoreline
environment, or outside of shoreline areas. The marina retail and office,
recreation center, and restaurant buildings will be efficiently clustered together
along the shoreline, in proximity to the marina. Proposed development in the
non-urban (i.e., Suburban environment) includes residential, which is identified as
a Primary use in the Suburban environment, reconfiguration of existing parking
areas, and minor extension or reconfiguration of utilities and other infrastructure
to serve the new development.
c. 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 proposal will retain and provide visual access to and along the waterfront. A
designated and signed trail system is proposed, connecting the community
parking lot on the north side of Heron Road with the public portions ofthe
shoreline. A new 8- foot wide wooden boardwalk will be provided along the
shoreline on the south side of Gull Drive, extending from the commercial services
to the Inn, where it will connect to the beach trail.
d. 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 ofthe shoreline and present an interesting,
attractive view of the development from the water.
The proposed uses along the waterfront will be located, designed, and oriented to
take advantage of water views.
e. Development in urban areas should preserve and enhance significant architecture
and historic buildings.
17
Port Ludlow Resort Plan: Major Revision
File No. MLA05-00407
DCD Staff Report and Recommendation
The proposal will not affect any significant architecture or historic buildings. The
new construction is planned to be of a similar scale and architectural character
that is consistent with the existing development in the resort.
f. Unique natural features of the urban shoreline. such as bluffs. dunes. and wet land
areas. should be preserved and protected.
The proposal will not affect unique natural features of the shoreline. The
pedestrian trail system will be enhanced, facilitating access to Burner Point and to
the beach trail, but no development in those areas is proposed.
g. Parking facilities should be located on the upland side of buildings away from the
shoreline.
Parking will be located upland of the shoreline uses they serve.
h. Internal and perimeter landscaping should be incorporated and maintained to
screen parking facilities from the shoreline and adiacent properties.
Landscape planters have been designed into and around the parking areas. A
detailed landscape plan will be required as part of the construction permit
application so that the effectiveness of screening can be reviewed.
1. Development within the shoreline urban area should be consistent with other
adopted plans. programs. or policies.
Development of the proposal will be consistent with other adopted plans,
programs, and policies. In order for the proposed development to occur, revision
to the Resort Plan is necessary and is part of this application. See Part IV of this
report.
40. Section 4.105 of the SMMP contains performance standards that apply to development in
the Urban shoreline environment. These standards, and the relationship of the proposal
to them, are as follows:
a. Development shall be limited to those uses which can be classified as a water-
dependent. water-related or water-enioyment use. Non-water-oriented
development. while not preferred. may also be authorized as a conditional use.. ..
The proposed development is consistent with this policy. Proposed uses are
water-dependent, water-related, or water-enjoyment uses, and/or are identified in
the SMMP as Primary uses in the Urban environment (or Secondary, in the case
of parking facilities).
18
Port Ludlow Resort Plan: Major Revision
File No. MLA05-00407
DCD Staff Report and Recommendation
b. Provisions to enhance the public's use and enioyment of the shorelines and waters
of the state shall be included with new substantial developments or any change in
principal property use to a new conditional use occurring along the shoreline.
The proposal includes indoor and outdoor facilities along the shoreline for the use
of resort guests and residents, including the restaurant, recreation center, and
marina facilities. In addition, a new boardwalk will be constructed along the
shoreline on the south side of Gull Drive, connecting to the beach trail at the Inn.
c. Public access provisions shall:
1. Be of a permanent nature and shall be dedicated or otherwise protected,
including recorded with the Jefferson County Auditor.
Upon completion of the boardwalk, the entire trail system shall be
dedicated, placed in a public easement, or protected through some other
legal means that is recorded with the Jefferson County Auditor. Trail
system improvements shall be reviewed by the Port Ludlow Trail
Committee and reviewed and approved by Jefferson County prior to their
construction.
11. Consider, in design and availability, measures to lJrotect private property
from trespass, vandalism, littering, and the like.
The trail will be designated and signed, to help contain trail users within
its boundaries. Most of the new portions of the trail, including the
boardwalk, will be located away from private residences. The exception
will be the portion of the trail that connects the community parking lot
north of Heron Road to the existing pedestrian bridge crossing the lagoon.
111. Be suitably marked to as to inform the public as to the extent, location,
and availability of the access.
The trail system will be signed. A detailed signage plan will be required
for County review prior to its construction.
IV. Be completed and available for public use at the time of occupancy of the
development.
The proposed phasing plan indicates that the shoreline boardwalk would
be constructed as part of Phase I, which would require that it be completed
prior to issuance of building permits for Phase II. Signage for the trail
system is proposed as part of Phase III. Construction of the trail system
link from the community parking lot to the pedestrian bridge crossing the
lagoon is not addressed by the phasing plan. To make the trail system as
19
Port Ludlow Resort Plan: Major Revision
File No. MLA05-00407
DCD Staff Report and Recommendation
functional as possible as early as possible, the Department believes that
construction of the bridge/parking lot link, or at least a temporary version
of it, is necessary as part of Phase I and appropriate signage is required at
that time.
d. All development shall be setback 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 proposed development appears to meet or exceed this requirement. Specific
setback dimensions shall be provided as part of construction permit applications.
e. Unique natural features in the urban shoreline area. such as bluffs. dunes. and wet
land areas. shall be preserved and protected.
The proposal will not affect unique natural features of the site.
f. Motor vehicle parking between a new structure and the water is prohibited.
Parking shall be located no closer than fifteen (15) feet from the ordinary high
water mark or unique natural areas such as bluffs. dunes. or wet land areas.
The proposed parking areas comply with this standard.
g. All new or redeveloped parking areas shall provide landscaping. Landscaping
shall be provided between streets and the proiect site and between public access
areas and parking areas. exce?t at exits or when a building does not set back from
a street.
Landscaping will be provided in appropriate locations in all parking areas. A
detailed landscape plan will be required for County review as part of applications
for construction permits.
h. 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 such features are indicated on the proposed revised Resort Plan.
Demonstration of compliance with this standard will be required again as part of
the construction permit application review, when additional project details are
provided.
1. 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 adioining the shoreline area.
20
Port Ludlow Resort Plan: Major Revision
File No. MLA05-00407
DCD Staff Report and Recommendation
Conceptual building elevations submitted as part of the proposal do not include
height measurements. However, all buildings are from one to three stories in
height, which typically can be fit within a thirty-five foot height limit. Specific
building height information will be required as part of applications for
construction permits and reviewed by the County at that time to ensure
compliance with height restrictions.
J. Run-off created by new impervious surfaces shall not increase the rate of flow or
decrease the quality of storm water from pre-proiect conditions.
New storm drainage facilities will need to be provided for the Admiralty III area,
as that area is currently not served by a storm drainage system. This may include
upgrades to downstream facilities as well. A detailed system design will be
required to be submitted and approved prior to issuance of construction permits in
that area.
In Ludlow Bay Village, the existing storm system consists of pipes from
catchments to oil/water separators, which drain to the lagoon and ultimately to
Port Ludlow Bay. Drainage from new impervious surfaces in this drainage basin
will be routed to this system. Because of the proximity of the lagoon to the bay,
no detention of run-off is required.
The Port Ludlow Drainage District shall be provided with the opportunity to
review and comment on storm drainage facility improvements prior to approval
by Jefferson County.
k. 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 enioyment of the shoreline and present an interesting.
attractive view of the development from the water.
The proposed uses along the waterfront will be located, designed, and oriented to
take advantage of water views, and to provide an attractive view ofthe
development from the water.
1. 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 proposed buildings along the shoreline that have the most potential to block
or interfere with views are the marina retail/office, recreation center, and
restaurant buildings, as well as the adjacent new residential units. However,
because these buildings will be clustered in the southwest portion of the resort,
they will preserve significant view opportunities across the lagoon to the water
21
Port Ludlow Resort Plan: Major Revision
File No. MLA05-00407
DCD Staff Report and Recommendation
and the marina. The pedestrian trail system and boardwalk will enhance physical
access to the shoreline.
41. Sections 4.20 and 4.40 of the SMMP categorize development proposals within each
shoreline designation as primary, secondary, conditional, or prohibited uses. Primary
uses are presumed to be generally consistent with the policies and definition of the
shoreline designation where it is located. Secondary uses must demonstrate that:
a. The proposal will not be contrary to the general intent of the Shoreline
Management Act. nor shall it be contrary to the goals. policies. and performance
standards of this Master Program.
b. The proposed project will not materially interfere with the public use of public
lands and waters or the private use of adjacent private lands.
c. The proposed project will not cause unnecessary adverse effects on the
environment or other properties and will be compatible with other permitted uses
in the area.
Nearly all of the uses envisioned by the proposal are categorized as primary uses in the
shoreline environment in which they will be located. The remainder are Secondary uses,
and include: Non-vista parking facilities (in both the Urban and Suburban
environments); Transportation Facilities (in the Suburban environment); and Utilities (in
the Suburban environment).
The proposed secondary uses are consistent with Sections 4.20 and 4.40. None ofthe
uses are contrary to the general intent of the Act or the Master Program. They will not
interfere with public or private use of lands. These secondary uses are incidental to,
supportive of, and necessary for the primary uses being proposed. Parking will be
provided to serve the new facilities and residential units. Internal roads will be improved,
realigned, and extended as necessary to serve the Resort at build-out and provide
desirable circulation. The uses will require utilities in order to function properly and
control environmental impacts. No unnecessary adverse effects have been identified as a
result of the proposed parking, transportation, or utility improvements.
42. Section 5.50 ofthe SMMP contains policies for commercial development, including:
a. 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.
Apart from the marina, the commercial uses along the shoreline are not "water-
dependent", but are "water enjoyment" or "water-oriented" uses as defined by the
SMMP. These uses include the marina office/retail, recreation center, and
22
Port Ludlow Resort Plan: Major Revision
File No. MLA05-00407
DCD Staff Report and Recommendation
restaurant buildings, and will allow a substantial number of people to actively and
passively enjoy the shoreline.
b. Commercial developments not requiring shoreline locations should be located
inland.
Because of their shoreline orientation, it is appropriate to locate the proposed
commercial uses along the shoreline.
c. 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 new buildings and expanded marina will be visible from within the Resort,
travelers on Oak Bay Road, and homes along Gamble Lane (above the Resort).
The increased building intensity will also be visible from across the bay, but these
views will be distant. Because surrounding properties sit higher than the location
of the proposed commercial structures, the structures are not expected to affect
significant views or a view enjoyed by a significant number of people. The
proposed uses will encourage people to visit the shoreline and enjoy the view of
the bay and the marina.
d. Parking facilities should be placed inland of the proposed use and away from the
immediate water's edge and recreational beaches.
Proposed parking facilities comply with this policy.
e. Location of commercial activities should be consistent with local plans, codes,
and ordinances.
The proposed location of the commercial activities is consistent with the SMMP
and the MPR Code. As part of construction permit review, structures will be
reviewed in more detail to ensure compliance with setbacks, bulk regulations, and
construction code requirements.
f. Adequate parking facilities should be designed commensurate with the level of
the commercial activity.
A combination of existing and new parking will be provided to serve the Resort.
In addition to parking provided for the residential units, a total of 387 stalls will
be provided in surface parking lots. This includes 55 stalls at the Inn, expanded
from its present size of36 stalls. An analysis of project against Jefferson County
parking standards shows that 320 total parking stalls are required for the proposal.
The number of stalls proposed exceeds the number required by approximately 20
percent.
23
Port Ludlow Resort Plan: Major Revision
File No. MLA05-00407
DCD Staff Report and Recommendation
g. Water oriented commercial is preferable to non-water oriented commercial in the
shoreline area.
The proposal complies with this policy.
h. Commercial developments that are not water dependent or water-related and
portions of water-dependent or water-related developments which do not require
water access or a shoreline location should not locate or be constructed over the
water except as provided in Section 4.106. unless said use or activity is clearly
accessory to a water dependent or water related development and no upland or
structural alternative is feasible.
The only proposed over-water construction is the marina expansion, which is a
water dependent use.
43. Section 5.50 ofthe SMMP contains performance standards for commercial development,
including:
a. New commercial developments shall be located adiacent 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-enioyment
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 enioyment 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 adiacent street-end or
park. or other consideration commensurate with the degree of impact caused by
the development.
The commercial uses are proposed to be clustered together, west of the lagoon.
This is the only area large enough to support these combined uses. The uses
comply with the requirement to be water-dependent, water-related, or water-
enjoyment in nature. Public access and view retention is being provided by the
nature of the commercial uses proposed, the provision of the shoreline boardwalk,
and siting of the buildings.
b. Provisions to enhance the public's use and eniovment of the shorelines and waters
of the state shall be included for water-enioyment 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.
24
Port Ludlow Resort Plan: Major Revision
File No. MLA05-00407
DCD Staff Report and Recommendation
The public's use and enjoyment ofthe shorelines and waters of the state will be
provided by the nature of the commercial uses proposed, the provision of the
shoreline boardwalk, and siting of the buildings.
c. Public access provisions shall:
1. Be of a permanent nature and shall be dedicated or otherwise protected,
including recording with the Jefferson County Auditor.
Upon completion of the boardwalk, the entire trail system shall be
dedicated, placed in a public easement, or protected through some other
legal means that is recorded with the Jefferson County Auditor.
11. Consider in design and availability measures to protect private property
from trespass, vandalism, littering, and the like.
The trail will be designated and signed, to help contain trail users within
its boundaries. Most of the new portions of the trail, including the
boardwalk, will be located away from private residences. The exception
will be the portion of the trail that connects the community parking lot
north of Heron Road to the existing pedestrian bridge crossing the lagoon.
111. Be suitably marked to as to inform the public as to the extent, location,
and availability of the access.
The trail system will be signed. A detailed signage plan will be required
to be submitted for County review and approval prior to its construction.
IV. Be completed and available for public use at the time of occupancy of the
development.
The proposed phasing plan indicates that the shoreline boardwalk would
be constructed as part of Phase I, which would require that it be completed
prior to issuance of building permits for Phase II. Signage for the trail
system is proposed as part of Phase III. Construction of the trail system
link from the community parking lot to the pedestrian bridge crossing the
lagoon is not addressed by the phasing plan. To make the trail system as
functional as possible as early as possible, the Department believes that
construction of the bridge/parking lot link, or at least a temporary version
of it, is necessary as part of Phase I with appropriate signage installed at
that time.
d. Commercial developments shall be located away from the immediate water's
edge (OHWM) a minimum of fifteen (15) feet except water-dependent uses and
25
Port Ludlow Resort Plan: Major Revision
File No. MLA05-00407
DCD Staff Report and Recommendation
as provided for in Section 4.106. Where feasible. parking and loading areas shall
be located away from the immediate water's edge.
All proposed development appears to meet or exceed this requirement. Specific
setback dimensions will be required as part of construction permit applications.
Parking will be located back from the immediate water's edge.
e. Design of parking and loading areas shall assure that surface runoff does not
pollute adiacent water or cause soil or beach erosion.
Runoffwill be collected and routed to water quality vaults in the storm system
inlets to the lagoon.
f. Advertising and signs shall comply with applicable policies and performance
standards of this Master Program.
Any signage or advertising will be required to comply with the Master Program.
Signage details have yet been provided, but will be required prior to their
installation.
g. Water supply and waste disposal facilities shall comply with established
guidelines. standards. and regulations.
Water supply and waste disposal facilities will be provided. Detailed review of
construction plans will occur at the time of construction permit application to
ensure compliance with all applicable guidelines, standards, and regulations.
h. 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 adiacent residences
or properties.
While specific building elevation dimensions have not been submitted, the FSEIS
for the proposal states that no buildings will exceed 35 feet in height. Compliance
with height requirements will be verified as the time of construction permit
reVIew.
1. Parking facilities shall be designed to accommodate the level of the anticipated
commercial activity.
The proposal will provide 387 parking stalls for the non-residential components
of the Resort, which is 20 percent greater than required by County code.
J. Commercial developments that are not water dependent or water-related and
portions of water-dependent or water-related developments which do not require
26
Port Ludlow Resort Plan: Major Revision
File No. MLA05-00407
DCD Staff Report and Recommendation
water access or a shoreline location shall not locate or be constructed over the
water except as provided in Section 4.106 unless said use or activity is clearly
accessory to a water dependent or water-related development and no upland or
structural alternative is feasible.
The only over-water construction proposed is the marina expansion.
k. Not applicable to the proposal.
44. Section 5.110 of the SMMP contains the following policies for marinas:
a. In locating marinas. special plans should be made to protect the fish and shellfish
resources that may be harmed by construction and operation of the facility.
The proposed marina expansion was analyzed in the project-level Port Ludlow
Marina Expansion EIS issued in 2002. The SEIS focused primarily on in-water
construction impacts, and determined that the marina expansion would have no
effect on shellfish populations in Port Ludlow Bay. Other construction-related
impacts identified in the 2002 SEIS are included in the 2005 Port Ludlow Resort
Plan Revision FSEIS to identify cumulative impacts. Measures have been
identified to mitigate impacts to resources that might be harmed by facility
construction and operation. These measures are recommended conditions of
project approval.
b. Marinas should be designed in a manner that will reduce damage to fish and
shellfish resources and be aesthetically compatible with adiacent areas.
The marina will be a physical expansion of an existing marina, and will continue
the design of the existing marina to make it aesthetically compatible. It will also
be compatible with the other water related uses along the shoreline. See
preceding paragraph regarding damage to resources.
c. Marinas should be located at or near high use or potentially high use areas. Local
as well as regional need data should be considered as input in location selection.
The marina is part of the Port Ludlow Master Planned Resort. The existing 280-
slip marina has experienced sufficient use and demand that further expansion is
warranted.
d. Special attention should be given to the design and development of operational
procedures for fuel handling and storage in order to minimize accidental spillage
and provide satisfactory means for handling those spills that do occur.
A fuel float exists (and will remain) near the shoreline at the east end of the
marina. A hazardous material spill clean-up kit will be available on the fuel float
27
Port Ludlow Resort Plan: Major Revision
File No. MLA05-00407
DCD Staff Report and Recommendation
and on one of the expanded docks. Marina crews will be trained in the use of this
kit. The Marina will provide boater education regarding potential impacts of
discharged or spilled wastes and/or hazardous materials. A "no black water
discharge" rule will be enforced.
e. Shallow water embayments with poor flushing action should not be considered
for overnight and long term moorage facilities.
The location, geometry, and orientation of Port Ludlow Bay is such that the
offshore ebb-and-flood tidal currents in Admiralty Inlet create a large eddy in the
outer portion of Port Ludlow Bay that appears to reverse direction with each tidal
stage. The outer bay eddy is accompanied by a complex pattern of currents that
exert influence into the central portion of the Bay. Significantly more water is
circulated into and out of the Bay due to eddies and currents than would be the
case if only a simple ebb-and- flood pattern existed. Mixing is further enhanced
by vertical currents and upwelling at the entrance and head of Port Ludlow Bay.
The volume of water exchanged daily between Port Ludlow and Admiralty Inlet
averages 39 percent per day, varying from 20 to 50 percent depending on the time
of year and prevailing tidal range. The time to exchange the water volume of the
Bay, including the innermost reaches, is estimated to be between 2 and 5 days.
The flushing time for the out bay is estimated to be 9 hours on average. The
FSEIS has concluded that the Bay may be better mixed and better flushed than
many bays within Puget Sound.
f. The Washington State Department of fisheries' guidelines should be consulted in
planning for marinas.
The marina expansion will require a Hydraulic Project Approval (HP A) permit
from the Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife, who will review the
proposed expansion for compliance with their applicable regulations.
g. State and local health agencies have standards and guidelines for the development
of marinas that should be consulted.
This information is noted. The discharge of "black water" is illegal and will be
prohibited at the Marina. The discharge of bilge water is also prohibited by the
Marina. The discharge of "gray water" will be allowed under specific conditions,
consistent with State requirements. With respect to the discharge of sewage, the
Marina currently requires that all live-aboard tenant vessels be equipped with a
Coast Guard-approved holding tank and that live-aboard tenants submit to
inspection of the vessels plumbing and mechanical systems to verify compliance
with state and local public health and safety laws. The Marina currently provides
one sewage pump-out station at the fuel dock and will soon be adding a portable
pump-out facility. Shoreside restroom facilities are also available for Marina
28
Port Ludlow Resort Plan: Major Revision
File No. MLA05-00407
DCD Staff Report and Recommendation
patrons. Water quality monitoring stations are used to track trends in
concentrations of fecal coliform bacteria.
h. Floating breakwaters should receive valid considerations as an alternative to
conventional breakwaters.
The existing A Dock and new F Dock will serve as floating breakwaters for
waves approaching from the south.
45. Section 5.110 contains the following performance standards for marinas:
a. Marinas shall be located with regard to favorable conditions related to wind,
current, and bathvrnetrics.
The location of the marina expansion has been determined to be suitable with
respect to these factors. The location of the Bay helps protect it from winds, the
currents help flush the bay, and the water depth is supportive of the marina
without dredging or filling.
b. Marinas that provide overnight or long-term moorage facilities shall not be
located in areas with poor flushing action.
See response in paragraph 44.e above.
c. Marinas shall be compatible with the general aesthetic quality of the shoreline
area where they are located.
See response in paragraph 44.b above.
d. Marinas and ancillary facilities shall be located, designed, constructed, and
operated to minimize adverse effects on fish, shellfish, wildlife, water quality, and
existing geohydrau1ic shoreline processes.
Impacts resulting from the marina location, design, construction, and operation
were determined by the 2002 FSEIS to be minor or temporary in nature. The
Department recommends that mitigating measures identified in that FSEIS be
imposed as conditions ofproject approval to ensure that impacts are avoided or
reduced to an appropriate level.
e. Marinas shall be located, designed, constructed, and operated so as to not
unnecessarily interfere with the rights of adiacent property owners, nor interfere
with adiacent water uses.
The marina expansion has been designed to address the rights of adjacent property
owners and not interfere with adjacent water uses. When first designed, the
29
Port Ludlow Resort Plan: Major Revision
File No. MLA05-00407
DCD Staff Report and Recommendation
westward marina expansion raised concerns regarding conflicts with a nearby
dock to the west (the "Scott dock"). In response to comments received on the
proposal during the public review of the Draft SEIS for the Port Ludlow Marina
Expansion, the proposal was redesigned to remove the conflict, as reflected in the
2002 Final SEIS. As redesigned for the 2002 FSEIS, the marina expansion could
have 100 additional slips.
f. Parking and loading areas shall be located well away from the immediate water's
edge and beaches.
Parking and loading areas will be located away from the water's edge and
beaches. A small (9-stall) parking area will come within 40 feet of the high water
line at its closest point. The main parking areas will be located north (upland) of
the commercial waterfront facilities, separated from the water's edge by those
facilities.
g. Design of parking and loading areas shall assure that surface runoff does not
pollute adiacent waters or cause soil or beach erosion.
Surface runoff from existing and new impervious surfaces will be collected in an
on-site conveyance system and discharged through water quality vaults into the
lagoon. A program to monitor non-point sources of pollutants to Port Ludlow
Bay was initiated in 1989 to comply with conditions from Jefferson County, and
annual monitoring reports have been prepared since 1990. No long-term upward
or downward trends in pollutant concentrations are evident for any of the
monitoring stations.
h. Provisions shall be made to facilitate orderly launching, retrieval, and storage of
boats.
A boat launch is not proposed as a component of the marina. Boats will be stored
in their slips.
1. Provisions shall be made to facilitate the orderly circulation of vehicles and
pedestrians in the vicinity ofthe marina.
Parking will be provided in the vicinity of the marina, including a 9-stalllot on
the east side of the marina office, a 92-stalllot north of the marina office and
other commercial buildings, and a 50-stall lot north of the 92-stall10t. Parking for
another 155 stalls will be provided in three lots on the north side of Heron Road.
The 92-stalllot located north of the commercial buildings will be located lower
than the 50 stall lot, separated by an 18-foot (approximate) retaining wall. An
elevator is proposed between the two lots to facilitate pedestrian access to the
marina and commercial buildings. During peak season Resort employees will be
30
Port Ludlow Resort Plan: Major Revision
File No. MLA05-00407
DCD Staff Report and Recommendation
required to use the upper lots. The parking supply is proposed to be monitored
during the peak season and valet service will be provided by the restaurant if
needed. Golf carts may also be available for marina users to shuttle supplies and
equipment between the parking lots and the marina. The shoreline boardwalk and
the internal trail system connecting the boardwalk to the community parking lots
north of Heron Road will help pedestrian circulation.
J. Marinas shall make adequate provisions to minimize the probability of fuel spills
during handling or storage. Provisions shall be made to handle accidental spills
that do occur.
See response in paragraph 44.d above.
k. Marinas shall be equipped with vessel pump-out and on-shore sewage and waste
disposal facilities. Pump-out facilities shall be available at no direct charge to the
user.
The Marina currently provides one sewage pump-out station at the fuel dock and
will soon be adding a portable pump-out facility. Shoreside restroom facilities are
also available for Marina patrons. Marina dumpsters will be provided on the
north side of Gull Drive. The 2002 Marina Expansion SEIS determined that two
portable pump-out facilities would be needed, and a condition ofproject approval
is included in Part XI of this report to that effect.
1. No more than fifteen (15) percent of the wet slips within a marina shall be
covered.
None ofthe existing or new slips will be covered.
46. Section 5.140 of the SMMP contains the following policies for parking facilities:
a. Parking facilities should be designed and placed as far as practicable away from
the water's edge.
Parking facilities will be placed as far away from the water's edge as practicable,
while still being in reasonable proximity to the uses they serve.
b. Parking facilities should make provisions for pollution abatement and the control
of storm water runoff.
Surface water runoff from parking facilities will be captured in on-site
conveyance systems and routed through the water quality vaults in the lagoon. A
program to monitor non-point sources of pollutants to Port Ludlow Bay was
initiated in 1989 to comply with conditions from Jefferson County, and annual
monitoring reports have been prepared since 1990 and will continue.
31
Port Ludlow Resort Plan: Major Revision
File No. MLA05-00407
DCD Staff Report and Recommendation
c. Parking facilities should be adequate to serve the level of demand anticipated by
the associated use.
Proposed parking quantities exceed the amount required by Jefferson County's
standards by 20 percent. In the past, parking problems have resulted from large-
scale events. The proposed elimination of these events, and the provision of
additional parking, will relieve these issues. It is expected that the upper parking
lots will receive little use during off-peak periods.
d. Parking facilities should not interfere with the use and eniovrnent of adiacent
properties.
No conflicts have been identified resulting from the proposed location of parking
facilities and the use and enjoyment of adjacent properties.
47. Section 5.140 ofthe SMMP contains the following performance standards for parking
facilities:
a. Parking facilities shall not be located over the water or adiacent to the immediate
water's edge if practical alternative upland locations exist.
No parking will be located over the water. The closest that any parking will come
to the water's edge is approximately 40 feet, near the marina (east of the marina
office). Other parking areas will be shielded from the water's edge by existing or
proposed buildings.
b. Not applicable to the proposal.
c. The design and construction of parking facilities shall assure that surface water
runoffwill not pollute adiacent waters or cause soil or beach erosion. Oil
separators and retention ponds are considered positive measures towards
compliance with this standard.
Surface water runoff from parking facilities will be collected in on-site
conveyance systems and routed through water quality vaults into the lagoon, prior
to discharge into Port Ludlow Bay.
d. Security lighting associated with parking facilities shall be beamed, hooded, or
directed so as to not cause glare on adiacent properties or water bodies.
Lighting details will be required to be submitted for review and approval as part
of a construction permit application.
48. Section 5.150 of the SMMP contains the following policies for recreational facilities:
32
Port Ludlow Resort Plan: Major Revision
File No. MLA05-00407
DCD Staff Report and Recommendation
a-b. Not applicable to the proposal.
c. Recreational facilities should make adequate provisions for:
1. Traffic, both inside and outside the facility.
Provisions have been made for pedestrian and vehicular traffic, to
facilitate movement to and from the facilities.
11. Proper water and sewage disposal methods.
All necessary facilities for water, sewage, and other services will be
provided to the recreational facilities.
111. Security and fire protection.
Security has not been identified as a concern with respect to either the
existing or the proposed facilities. This is possibly due to the fact that the
facilities are typically staffed, which reduces the need for extra security
measures.
The Resort is served by the Jefferson County Fire Protection District No.
3, which provides emergency fire, hazardous materials, and medical
services from four fire stations: Port Ludlow, Paradise Bay, South Point
Road, and Chimacum. The Port Ludlow Station No. 31 was completed in
May 2002 and is located at 7650 Oak Bay Road. This station is manned
24 hours per day, 365 days per year. The staff is augmented by five
volunteers from the Port Ludlow MPR. Typical current response time
from Station 31 to the MPR is 2 to 3 minutes from the time of alarm.
New structures will be required to comply with applicable fire codes
adopted by the County. Fire flows conducted in 2000 and 2003 indicate
that adequate fire flows are available to the Resort for fire suppression
purposes. The existing fire protection system at the Marina consists of
three individual portable saltwater pump units located in small shed
storage areas dispersed throughout the float system. The Operations
Manual for the Marina outlines procedures for responding to emergencies,
and Marina staff is trained to respond to emergencies as set forth in the
manual.
Currently, mid-size emergency medical air transport helicopters can land
in open areas within the Resort. The proposal includes a formally-
designated helipad in the south end of the Admiralty III area.
33
Port Ludlow Resort Plan: Major Revision
File No. MLA05-00407
DCD Staff Report and Recommendation
IV. The prevention of overflow and trespass onto adiacent properties.
It is not expected that the proposed facilities would create trespass and
overflow onto properties that are adjacent to the Resort boundaries.
However, trespass or overflow could occur on privately-owned properties
within the Resort itself. The Resort currently uses signage throughout the
site to direct drivers and pedestrians to appropriate destinations and
publicly-oriented facilities. The signage program shall continue, and shall
be reviewed as part of construction permit application review. The
signage program shall include discreet, low-level, signage along
pedestrian trail edges where appropriate to make patrons aware of private
property boundaries.
d. Public access to public shorelines and surface waters should be encouraged.
Public access will be encouraged and facilitated by the types of uses proposed
along the shoreline, and the pedestrian trail/shoreline boardwalk system.
e. Offshore recreational devices should not interfere with navigation of waterways.
No interference with navigation of waterways by proposed facilities has been
identified.
f - i. Not applicable to the proposal.
49. Section 5.150 contains the following performance standards for recreational facilities:
a. Recreational facilities shall make adequate provisions for water supply. sewage
disposal. and garbage collection.
These services are currently provided, and will continue to be provided.
b. Recreational facilities shall make adequate provisions for vehicular parking.
Adequate parking will be provided, as discussed in paragraphs 45.i and 46.c
above.
c. Recreational facilities shall make adequate provisions for enforcement of laws
and regulations associated with use of the facilities being proposed.
The proposed recreation facilities will be privately-operated and staffed. It will
be incumbent on Resort management to make sure applicable laws and
regulations are followed. There is no indication that this has been a problem in
the Resort's history.
34
Port Ludlow Resort Plan: Major Revision
File No. MLA05-00407
DCD Staff Report and Recommendation
d. Recreational facilities shall make adequate provisions such as screening. buffer
strips. fences. and signs to prevent park overflow and to protect the value and
enjoyment of adjacent or nearby private or public properties.
For the most part, the location ofthe proposed recreation facilities will serve to
protect the enjoyment of adjacent or nearby properties. Signage shall be provided
along the section of the public trail that extends between residential buildings R-6
and R - 7, and! or residential buildings shall be shifted to provide greater space
between them and more privacy from the trail section.
e. Recreational facilities shall establish and enforce regulations that prohibit tree
cutting and limit the taking of marine life. driftwood and the like.
This has not been identified as an issue with either the existing or proposed Resort
development. Any such activity shall be consistent with local and state codes and
regulations.
f. Signs associated with recreational facilities shall be kept to a minimum in number
and size and shall be erected as informational or directional aids only.
Signage plans associated with any construction permit application shall
demonstrate compliance with this standard.
g. Adequate provisions shall be made for the control of fires both within recreational
facilities and between recreational facilities and adjacent private or public lands.
Facilities will be constructed in compliance with applicable fire codes. Fire
protection and suppression services will be provided by Jefferson County Fire
Protection District No.3.
h. Unless specifically designed for that purpose, park and recreational facilities shall
prohibit the off-road use of all terrain vehicles in order to protect natural features
as well as the enjoyment and value of adjacent private and public properties.
Use by all terrain vehicles is not proposed.
1. Applicants for substantial development permits for recreational facilities may be
required to provide adequate information to demonstrate the safety of proposed
equipment and facilities.
If the need for additional information becomes apparent, the applicant shall be
required to provide it at the appropriate time, and shall demonstrate compliance
with all applicable federal, state, and local regulations.
J. Not applicable to the proposal.
35
Port Ludlow Resort Plan: Major Revision
File No. MLA05-00407
DCD Staff Report and Recommendation
50. Section 5.160 of the SMMP contains the following policies for residential development:
a. 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 ordinances.
Allowable development density in the MPR is governed by the MPR Code and
the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan. Total residential dwelling units are
not to exceed 2,250. To implement and monitor this cap while providing for
flexibility regarding future land uses, a measurement and transfer system was
developed. This system is based on the actual number of residential lots,
residential units, and "equivalent residential units" (ERU) for commercial
development. These units are measurable and transferable between residential
and commercial uses, as long as the cap of 2,250 residential units is not exceeded.
The MPR uses the term "MERU" (Measurement ERU) to measure and count
units of future development. The MPR Code requires the County to maintain a
count of MER Us and residential dwelling units. Total MERUs (residential plus
commercial units) cannot exceed 2,575, and residential MERUs cannot exceed
2,250. As of December 2004, there were 1246 built, 622 platted undeveloped,
and 111 preliminarily-approved lots, for a total of 1979 residential MERU,
leaving 271 residential MERU unallocated (2,250-1979). 320.4 MERUs had been
allocated to commercial use, leaving a total of275.6 total unallocated MERU
(2,575-1979-320.4). The proposal would add 69 residential MERU to the Resort,
and subtract 2.5 commercial MERU due largely to the reduced size of the Harbor
Master Restaurant but also partly due to a previous miscalculation on the Inn.
The proposed residential density is allowed by the Jefferson County
Comprehensive Plan and the MPR Code. The site plan shows that there is
sufficient area to accommodate the proposed residential development within the
physical capabilities of the shoreline area. It is noted that most of the new
residential units will be located outside of the jurisdiction of the Shoreline
Management Master Program.
b. Residential development should be designed to adequately protect the water and
shoreline aesthetic characteristics.
Most of the new residential development will be set back from the shoreline,
clustered around the lagoon or located in the Admiralty III area. The exceptions
will be two four-unit structures immediately west of the relocated restaurant.
Those structures will be setback from the high water line by approximately 30
feet, in line with the setbacks of the adjacent commercial buildings. The
residential structures will continue the architectural theme established in Ludlow
Bay Village (New England/Colonial).
36
Port Ludlow Resort Plan: Major Revision
File No. MLA05-00407
DCD Staff Report and Recommendation
c. Residential developments should be encouraged to provide pedestrian access to
public shorelines abutting the development
Public pedestrian access to the shoreline will be provided by a beach trail and
shoreline boardwalk.
d. Over-water residential development, including floating home, should not be
permitted.
An earlier version of the proposal indicated that some residential development
would extend over the lagoon. The proposal has since been revised so that no
such over-water development is proposed. However, the applicant has requested
a formal interpretation of the SMMP provision that prohibits over-water
residential development. See Part VI below.
e. Residential developers and individual builders should be required to indicate how
they plan to preserve shore vegetation and control erosion during construction.
Silt fences will be used during construction to identify clearing limits and prevent
vegetation removal and construction runoff from exceeding prescribed limits.
Mulching and hydro seeding will be placed on disturbed areas, and plastic
coverings will be used to cover stockpiles of soil. Plastic will also be used if
needed to cover slopes to prevent erosion before the establishment of hydro seed
or mulch. Additional erosion control measures are proposed, including
interceptor ditches with check dams, dust control measures, and sediment control
facilities.
f. 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.
Appropriate sewage disposal and water supply facilities will be provided. Storm
drainage facilities will also be provided, and will be separate from sewage
disposal systems.
g. Adequate water supplies should be available so the ground water quantity and
Quality will not be endangered by over-pumping.
Water service to Port Ludlow is provided by Olympic Water and Sewer, Inc. An
8-inch water main runs through Admiralty I and II and loops around Ludlow Bay
Village. Port Ludlow has water rights equal to 186 million gallons per year.
Storage totaling 895,000 gallons is provided in four reservoirs. For the year 2002,
98.4 million gallons of water was used by Port Ludlow. Annual water use is
expected to stay well below the 186 million gallons of annual water rights.
37
Port Ludlow Resort Plan: Major Revision
File No. MLA05-00407
DCD Staff Report and Recommendation
h. Residential development in geologically hazardous areas or in areas subiect to
flooding should be discouraged.
Some of the Resort area along the shoreline adj acent to the Marina is mapped by
Jefferson County as a "Landslide Hazard-Low Risk" area. The flat, lowland area
above the Marina (which contains fill material from the original lumber
operation) is shown as an area of potential seismic hazard. One isolated pocket of
soil to the north of the lagoon was found several years ago to contain trace levels
of semi-volatile organic compounds. This soil was removed when the lagoon was
expanded in 1994.
The FSEIS for the proposal concluded that the site soils are suitable for the
proposed construction. Development within the Ludlow Bay Village area will
require ground improvement techniques to limit foundation settlement. Some of
the townhomes built to date have been constructed on piling, with each building
site evaluated by a geotechnical engineer to determine the requirements for
foundation stability. Similar or alternative measures will likely be necessary for
the new residential buildings, and shall be evaluated on a site-specific basis as
part of construction permit application review.
1. Residential development in shoreline areas should be designed to preserve natural
drainage courses, aquifer recharge areas, and similar ecologically sensitive areas.
Aquifer recharge areas, drainage courses, and similar sensitive areas will not be
affected by the proposal.
J. Subdivisions should maintain usable waterfront areas for the common use of all
property owners within the development.
The waterfront areas will be maintained for common use.
k. Residential structures should be designed and located to not significantly block
the views of adiacent residences or properties.
Although the new residential structures in Ludlow Bay Village will be visible
from existing residences, they will not block or obstruct predominant views from
those residences. The existing townhomes between Heron Road and the water are
view-oriented to the east or south. All new residential construction will occur to
the west of the existing townhomes.
Similarly, in Admiralty III the new residential units will be "inland" from the
existing condominiums, and therefore will not be located in the main view
window of those units.
38
Port Ludlow Resort Plan: Major Revision
File No. MLA05-00407
DCD Staff Report and Recommendation
1. Sewage disposal drain fields should not be located where subiect to flooding.
No sewage disposal drain fields are proposed.
51. Section 5.160 of the SMMP contains the following performance standards for residential
development:
a. Subdivisions of land shall comply with local plans. codes. and 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 subiect
site.
The plat of Ludlow Bay Village was previously reviewed, approved, and
recorded, consistent with all applicable plans, codes, and ordinances. The current
proposal includes a Boundary Line Adjustment to rearrange and remove some of
the internal lot lines of the plat, and is reviewed in Part VII below. The existing
plat and proposed BLA will allow development ofthe Resort to occur in a manner
consistent with the applicable shoreline designations and the capabilities of the
property.
b. 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 appurtenant structures will be required to meet applicable setbacks. The
proposal is not of sufficient detail to determine compliance with setback
requirements. This will be reviewed as part of the construction permit application
reVIew.
c. Public access to publicly owned shorelines shall be maintained.
Public access to the shoreline will be maintained by virtue of the large open space
between the marina office and the Inn, and the shoreline boardwalk along Gull
Drive.
d. Development shall assure that surface water runoff does not pollute adiacent
waters or cause soil or beach erosion. either during or after the construction phase.
Storm water runoff from roadways serving the residential development will be
collected in on-site conveyance systems and routed through water quality vaults
into the lagoon, prior to discharge into Port Ludlow Bay. Rooftop drainage will
be collected in downspouts and routed to the storm drainage system.
39
Port Ludlow Resort Plan: Major Revision
File No. MLA05-00407
DCD Staff Report and Recommendation
e. Developments containing marshes, swamps, lagoons. portions of a flood plain. or
similar wetlands shall use those areas only for the purpose of parks. open space,
or recreational facilities.
The lagoon will be preserved as an open space and enhanced with landscaping.
f. Developments shall be designed to include measures to prevent overflow usage of
common areas upon adiacent privately owned shore lands and uplands.
See response in paragraphs 48.c.iv and 49.d above.
g. Amenities provided by development shall not be detrimental to the geohydraulic
processes occurring within the shoreline corridor.
No such impacts are expected, and no such impacts were identified by the FSEIS
for the proposal.
h. Roads. utilities. and other improvements shall comply with the applicable policies
and performance standards of this Master Program.
The various features are reviewed in this Staff Report against the pertinent
provisions of the Master Program, to ensure compliance with its policies and
performance standards.
1. Residential structures shall not be located in areas subiect 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.
Residential structures are not proposed in areas subject to flooding or tidal
inundation.
J. The standards setback for residential structures. including common appurtenant
structures such as garages and workshops. shall be thirty (30) feet or one (1) foot
for each foot of bank height. whichever is greater.. ..When the bank's height is
less than 10 feet. the setback shall be measured from the ordinary high water
mark....
The setback of the residential structures along the shoreline is 30 feet.
Compliance with the setback requirement shall be verified at the time of building
permit application review and verified in the field at time of building inspection.
k. Alteration oftopography for building sites. access roads. and utilities shall be
conducted in compliance with the applicable policies and performance standards
of this Master Program.
40
Port Ludlow Resort Plan: Major Revision
File No. MLA05-00407
DCD Staff Report and Recommendation
Only minor alteration of topography for the residential development is proposed.
1. Sewage disposal systems shall not be located within the flood plain of marine and
fresh water bodies ....
No sewage disposal systems will be located within any flood plain.
m. Residential structures shall not exceed thirty-five feet in height.
The conceptual drawings appear to comply with this requirement. The FSEIS
states that no buildings will exceed 35 feet in height. Compliance shall be
verified at the time of building permit application review.
52. Section 5.190 of the SMMP contains the following policies for transportation facilities.
a-b. Not applicable to the proposal.
c. 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.
Erosion control measures are proposed during construction to minimize potential
entry of debris and similar materials into any water body. Construction activity
will be spread out in various "pockets" throughout the Resort, reducing the
potential for large amounts of erosion. Many of the areas proposed for
construction have already been cleared of their vegetation through previous
development activities.
d. Road locations should be planned to fit the topography so alterations of natural
conditions will be minimized.
Minor extensions of existing road systems are proposed, and will be designed to
respect the natural topography.
e - f. Not applicable to the proposal.
g. Since land use and transportation facilities are so highly interrelated. the plans for
each should be coordinated.
The proposal includes an efficient road system (mostly existing), appropriate to
the development it will serve. The applicant shall submit transportation facility
improvement plans for review and approval by the Public Works Department,
who shall review those plans for consistency with federal and state regulations.
41
Port Ludlow Resort Plan: Major Revision
File No. MLA05-00407
DCD Staff Report and Recommendation
h. Not applicable to the proposal.
1. Transportation facilities should assure the continued and unobstructed movement
of sediments.
The proposed road revisions and extension will not obstruct movement of
sediments.
J. Not applicable to the proposal.
53. Section 5.190 ofthe SMMP contains the following performance standards for
transportation facilities:
a. Not applicable to the proposal.
b. Whenever possible. roads shall be located on natural benches. ridge tops. or other
areas where alteration of natural features such as soils will be minimal.
The minor road revisions and extensions will conform to the natural topography.
Alteration of natural features will be minimal.
c. Roads and railroads shall be located to provide buffer areas along streams and
other shorelines.
The site contains no streams. No railroads are proposed. The proposed road
extensions will provide sufficient distance from shorelines to protect those
shorelines from undesirable impacts.
d. 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".
Proposed roadwork will not occur in any of these areas.
e. Unnecessary duplication of roads shall be avoided by making use of existing
roads where practicable.
Existing roads will be used to the maximum extent feasible. Only minor revisions
to and extensions of the existing roadway system are proposed. Very little
duplication will occur.
f. 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.
42
Port Ludlow Resort Plan: Major Revision
File No. MLA05-00407
DCD Staff Report and Recommendation
Surface water runoff from roads will be collected in on-site conveyance systems,
which will control the dispersal of runoff and minimize turbidity.
g. Earthworks shall be designed to provide waste and borrow areas that will produce
a minimum of erosion, water turbidity, and aesthetic damage.
Measures will be implemented during construction to control erosion and
minimize turbidity. Most of the new construction will follow the existing
topography, minimizing the need for and extent of waste and borrow areas. Areas
disturbed during construction will either be replaced with new improvements or
revegetated after construction.
h. Cut and fill slopes shall be designed at the normal angle of repose or less.
Very little cut and fill is expected. The exception will be between the 92-stall
parking lot located immediately north ofthe shoreline businesses and the 50-stall
lot located north of the 92-stalllot. An 18 foot retaining wall (approximate) is
proposed between these two lots, along with an elevator, to respond to the
topographic change that occurs in this location. Cut and fill will occur in this
area.
1. Cut and fill slopes shall be protected from erosion by mulching, seeding, use of
headwalls, or other suitable means.
Proposed grading will be relatively minor, except between the two parking lots
located north of the waterfront commercial buildings. An 18- foot tall
( approximate) retaining wall will separate those two parking lots to respond to
steeper topography in this area. In all areas of exposed slopes, erosion control
measures will be employed, including hydroseeding, mulching, and plastic tarps.
J. Roads and waterway crossings shall not be wider than to accommodate the
anticipated use.
Roads will be kept to a width of22-24 feet throughout the project. This is
adequate to allow safe and efficient movement of vehicles without introducing
large quantities of impervious surface. No waterway crossings are proposed.
k - n. Not applicable to the proposal.
o. Roads, bridges, culverts, and similar devices shall afford maximum protection for
fisheries resources.
No bridges or culverts are proposed. Roadway construction will occur in limited
areas, and will protect fisheries resources by employing appropriate runoff and
erosion control measures.
43
Port Ludlow Resort Plan: Major Revision
File No. MLA05-00407
DCD Staff Report and Recommendation
p. 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.
Adequate stable locations exist on site for the temporary storage of deposited
materials. No materials will be deposited into stream corridors.
q. Not applicable to the proposal.
r. All material associated with road construction that is potentially unstable or
erodible shall be stabilized by compacting, seeding, mulching, or other suitable
means.
Proper erosion control and stabilization measures will be employed during
construction and on disrupted soils. Disturbed areas will be revegetated.
s. All roads and drainage systems shall be maintained to prevent erosion and/or
water quality degradation.
On-going maintenance of Resort infrastructure will be undertaken by the Resort
management. A new 2,900 s.f. maintenance building is proposed, to be located in
the Admiralty III area. This maintenance building will serve the Inn and other
Resort operations.
t. Mechanical apparatus, rather than chemicals, shall be used for brush clearing
maintenance wherever practicable.
This requirement is noted, and is recommended as a condition ofproject approval.
u. Herbicides used for maintenance along roads and drainage systems shall follow
the performance standard outlined under "Chemical Application" ofthe "Forest
Management" subsection.
This requirement is noted, and is recommended as a condition ofproject approval.
v. Road routes shall make provisions for pedestrian, equestrian, bicycle, and other
modes of travel whenever feasible.
The internal road system is mostly in place. Only minor revisions to or
extensions of the road system are proposed. A pedestrian trail system and
shoreline boardwalk are incorporated into the circulation system.
w - x. Not applicable to the proposal.
44
Port Ludlow Resort Plan: Major Revision
File No. MLA05-00407
DCD Staff Report and Recommendation
54. Section 5.200 ofthe SMMP contains the following policies for utilities:
a. 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
qualities of the shoreline area.
Utilities serving the Resort are already in place, but will be extended to serve new
buildings. Those utilities will be located underground.
b. Not applicable to the proposal.
c. Utilities should be located to meet the needs of future populations in areas
planned to accommodate this growth.
The basic utility system is in place and is capable of meeting the needs of the
future population ofthe Resort. Utilities will need to be extended to specific
building sites to serve new construction.
d. 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.
Disturbed areas are proposed to be revegetated with native materials following
construction. Shoreline and bank configurations will not be altered.
55. Section 5.200 ofthe SMMP contains the following performance standards for utilities:
a. Utilities shall be installed adjacent to or within existing utility or circulation
easements or rights-of-way whenever feasible.
The existing utility systems are in place. Most of the utilities follow road
corridors. Only minor extensions of the utilities are proposed, in order to provide
service to new buildings.
b. Utilities shall be installed underground whenever feasible.
New utility extensions will be installed underground.
c. Utilities shall be designed and installed to meet future needs when possible.
The existing utility system is adequate to meet the needs of Resort build-out.
Minor extensions will occur to provide service to new buildings.
45
Port Ludlow Resort Plan: Major Revision
File No. MLA05-00407
DCD Staff Report arid Recommendation
d. When feasible. utility corridors shall serve multiple uses such as shoreline access
or recreational trails or pathways.
The utilities in the shoreline area are already established, and follow road
corridors.
e. Not applicable to the proposal.
f. Installation of utilities shall assure the prevention of siltation or beach erosion.
Erosion control measures will be used where appropriate to control erosion.
g. Upon completion of installation or maintenance proiects. banks shall be restored
to a suitable configuration and stability. replanted with native species. and
provided with maintenance care until the newly planted vegetation is established.
Disturbed areas will be stabilized and revegetated with native species.
h. Utility discharges and outfalls shall be located. designed. constructed. and
operated so degradation to water quality. marine life and general shoreline
ecosystems is kept to an absolute minimum.
Storm drainage systems will be collected and conveyed in on-site systems, and
routed to the lagoon. Water quality has been monitored since 1989, and will
continue. Water quality vaults will be added to the inlets at the lagoon. Measures
to mitigate impacts to water quality and marine life were identified in the FSEIS
for the proposal, and are recommended as conditions ofproject approval.
1. Both during and after installation. utilities shall assure that geohydrau1ic shore
processes and marine life are basically maintained in their natural condition.
The extension of the existing utility system to the new buildings will not affect
geohydrau1ic shore processes. Disruption of land cover due to construction of
utilities and other Resort features could increase the potential for erosion and
offsite transport of sediments. These impacts will largely be controlled through
implementation of best management practices tailored to site-specific conditions
and the season of construction. Site topography is such that any turbid water
escaping from a construction site will be intercepted and prevented from reaching
marine waters by expanses of lawn or other vegetated land in the north portion,
and by the lagoon in much of the southern portion. Water quality vaults are
proposed at the lagoon inlets, and the lagoon itself will provide opportunity for
settling of sediments before the water is released to Port Ludlow Bay.
j - k. Not applicable to the proposal.
46
Port Ludlow Resort Plan: Major Revision
File No. MLA05-00407
DCD Staff Report and Recommendation
1. Utilities shall not be installed in areas subiect to geological hazards, unless it can
clearly be demonstrated that such hazards can be overcome.
The proposed limited extension of utilities to serve new structures is not expected
to pose any geologic risk.
56. RCW 90.58.143 states that authorization to conduct construction activities shall terminate
five years after the effective date of a substantial development permit. Upon a finding of
good cause, based on the requirements and circumstances of the project, local
government may adopt different time limits as part of the action on a substantial
development permit. By letter of June 23, 2005, the applicant has requested that the term
of the permit be extended to ten (10) years. The applicant notes that the phasing plan will
delay project completion, since each phase must be completed before the next phase can
begin. Further, the applicant is concerned about the time it will take the residential real
estate market to absorb and 101 new residential units. In addition, the other land use
approvals sought for the proposal either do not expire (the Resort Plan revisions and
boundary line adjustment) or expire on terms that reasonably permit the completion of
development within 10 years. Given the magnitude of the proposal and the uncertainties
inherent in the real estate market, the extension of time to 10 years is considered
reasonable by the Department.
Part VI - Administrative (Code) Interpretation (ZON05-00035)
57. As provided for in Section 7 of the Land Use Procedures Ordinance (No. 04-0828-09),
and as stated in Part I of this report, the applicant has requested that the applications for
Major Resort Plan Revision, Shoreline Substantial Development Permit, Boundary Line
Adjustment, and Administrative Interpretation be consolidated into this Type B
procedure. Without consolidation of the applications, the Administrative Interpretation
would be made by the Director. However, since consolidation has been requested the
Interpretation will be made by the Hearing Examiner as part of this Type B procedure.
58. The Ludlow Bay Village portion of the resort contains a lagoon which appears to be man-
made and which has been used and altered in various ways for various purposes over the
past several decades. The lagoon currently has a surface area of approximately 2.2 acres.
59. Early in the review of the proposed resort plan revision, a question arose whether
townhomes could be constructed partly over the lagoon waters, or whether such
construction is prohibited by the Jefferson County Shoreline Master Program (SMP).
The initial version ofthe proposed master plan revision showed townhomes extending
over the lagoon, but the proposal was later amended to remove the over-water
construction. However, the applicant has requested a formal interpretation of the
applicability of Section 5.160 of the SMP to the Port Ludlow lagoon.
60. JCC 2.92 defines Shorelands or shoreland areas as: "Those lands extending landward for
two hundred feet in all directions as measured on a horizontal plane from the ordinary
47
Port Ludlow Resort Plan: Major Revision
File No. MLA05-00407
DCD Staff Report and Recommendation
high water mark, floodways and contiguous floodplain areas landward two hundred feet
from such floodways, and all wetlands and river deltas associated with the streams, lakes,
and tidal waters which are subject to the provisions of this chapter; the same to be
designated as to location by the Department of Ecology. Shorelands are distinguished
from shorelines in that shorelines extend waterward from the ordinary high water mark
for 200 feet."
61. JCC 2.95 defines Shorelines as: "All the water area of Jefferson County, including
reservoirs and their associated shorelands, together with lands underlying them, except:
a. Shorelines of state-wide significance.
b. Shorelines or segments of streams upstream of a point where the mean annual
flow is twenty cubic feet per second or less and the shorelands associated with
such upstream segments.
c. Shorelines on lakes less than twenty acres in size and shorelands associated with
such small lakes."
62. JCC 2.96 defines Shorelines of State-wide Significance as: "A shoreline of the state with
respect to Jefferson County and City of Port Townsend as identified as follows:
a. Those lakes, whether natural, artificial, or a combination thereof, with a surface
acreage of one thousand acres or more measured at the ordinary high water mark,
including associated wetlands.
b. Those areas ofPuget Sound and adjacent salt waters and the Strait of Juan de
Fuca between the ordinary high watermark and the line of extreme low tide,
which are Hood Canal from Tala Point to Fou1weather Bluff, south to the Mason-
Jefferson County line, including associated wetlands.
c. Those areas ofPuget Sound and the Strait of Juan de Fuca and adjacent salt
waters north to the Canadian line and lying seaward from the line of extreme low
tide.
d. Those natural rivers or segments thereof downstream from a point where the
mean annual flow is measured at one thousand cubic feet per second or more. In
Jefferson County these rivers are the Clearwater River, Hoh River, and Quinault
River.
e. Those shorelands associated with a, b, and d of this definition."
63. JCC 2.97 defines Shorelines of the State as: "The total of all shorelines and shorelines of
statewide significance."
64. JCC 2.121 defines Wetland as: "Areas that are inundated or saturated by surface water or
ground water at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and that under normal
circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in
saturated conditions. Wetlands do not include those artificial wetlands intentionally
created from nonwetland sites, including, but not limited to, irrigation and drainage
ditches, grass lined swales, canals, detention facilities, wastewater treatment facilities,
farm ponds, and landscape amenities, or those wetlands created after July 1, 1990 that
were unintentionally created as a result of the construction of a road, street, or highway.
48
Port Ludlow Resort Plan: Major Revision
File No. MLA05-00407
DCD Staff Report and Recommendation
"Wetlands may include those artificial wetlands intentionally created from
nonwetland areas to mitigate the conversion of wetlands. Identification of wetlands and
delineation of their boundaries under the Master Program shall be performed in
accordance with the criteria and indicators listed in WAC 173-22-080. These criteria and
indicators along with recommended methods and additional background information can
be found in the Washington State Wetland Identification and Delineation Manual,
Ecology Publication #96-94."
65. JCC 3.10 - Geographical Jurisdiction - states in part: "This Master Program shall apply
to all the lands and waters in Jefferson County and the City of Port Townsend that are
under the jurisdiction of the Shoreline Management Act."
66. JCC 3.20 - Liberal Construction - states: "As provided under RCW 90.58.900, the
Shoreline Management act is exempted from the rule of strict construction; the act and
this Master Program shall, therefore, be liberally construed to give full effect to the
purposes, goals, policies, and standards for which the act and this Master Program were
enacted. On the other hand, exemptions from the act or Master Program are to be
narrowly construed."
67. JCC 5.160 - Residential Development - includes the following in its list of Prohibited
Uses and Activities:
"1. Residential structures located on or over marshes, bogs, swamps, lagoons,
tidelands, ecologically sensitive areas or water areas subject to this Master
Program."
68. In the June 23,2005 letter, the applicant presents historical information about the
lagoon's creation and subsequent use for "log storage, log washing, log handling, storm
water detention, effluent discharge, swimming, and as a landscape feature." The letter
further states that the lagoon has been "diked, covered entirely by buildings, rail lines,
wharfing, and piers, filled with hundreds of piles and other materials, dredged, reduced in
area, expanded in area, and relocated. Electric pumps have been used continuously since
1967 to maintain the water level, water temperature, and water quality of the pond. The
pond does not provide habitat for wildlife or plants of any significance."
69. The applicant asserts that the lagoon was artificially created and is artificially maintained,
and its natural characteristics have been altered, thereby removing it from shoreline
jurisdiction as a body of water. Due to its support through the constant operation of
electric pumps, it is a body of water that the Shoreline Management Act (SMA) was not
intended to protect. The applicant argues that the SMA protects natural shorelines, not
artificial bodies of water.
70. The applicant asserts that the lagoon does not meet the definition of a shoreline, shoreline
of statewide significance, or wetland, is not a tideland or ecologically sensitive area, and
therefore is not a "marsh, bog, swamp, lagoon, tidelands, ecologically sensitive area, or
49
Port Ludlow Resort Plan: Major Revision
File No. MLA05-00407
DCD Staff Report and Recommendation
water area subject to the Master Program". The applicant acknowledges that the lagoon
lies within 200 feet of the ordinary high water mark ofPuget Sound, and therefore is
within the "shorelands".
71. The applicant asserts that the lagoon is not subject to the jurisdiction of the SMA as a
"body of water", and argues that the only logical standard for determining when a body
of water should be protected is whether the water body is regulated by the SMA as a
shoreline, shoreline of statewide significance, or wetland, and that the SMA was intended
only to protect natural bodies of water.
72. The applicant asserts that the protection of the lagoon is inconsistent with past decisions
of the County and DOE. The applicant points out that both the County and DOE
approved residential construction over the lagoon. In 1993 the County approved
shoreline permit SDP91-017 for the construction of improvements in Ludlow Bay
Village (the area encompassing the lagoon). DOE affirmed the permit by letter of June
14, 1993. Subsequent to and consistent with that approval, the developer installed pilings
for the Inn, plus pilings and bulkheads in the lagoon in anticipation of future over-water
construction.
73. The applicant asserts that the lagoon does not have valuable biological features, and that
to apply the overwater prohibition to the Port Ludlow lagoon would be inconsistent with
the stated purposes of the SMA and past decisions of the County, would significantly
damage PLA, and would serve no environmental protection purpose.
74. In the fall of2004, the Department met with the State Department of Ecology to discuss
Section 5.160 ofthe SMP and it applicability to the Port Ludlow lagoon. In followup to
that meeting, on October 25,2004, DOE sent a letter to the Department expressing the
opinion of DOE that the lagoon is covered by the provisions ofthe SMA and SMP since
it lies within 200 feet of the ordinary high water mark of Ludlow Bay, i.e., within the
shorelands, and therefore the prohibition of over-water residential construction applies.
75. The DOE letter points out that "RCW 90.58.900 states: 'This chapter is exempted from
the rule of strict construction, and it shall be liberally construed to give full effect to the
objectives and purposes for which it was enacted.' In simple terms this means that in
areas of uncertainty we must give deference to the protection of the resource."
76. The DOE letter states: "There is no distinction in the SMA for excluding artificial water
bodies from Shoreline jurisdiction. The definition of 'shorelines' specifically includes
reservoirs, clearing indicating that artificially constructed bodies of water are covered
under the SMA."
77. The DOE letter further states: "We recognize the fact that the lagoon and the natural
condition that originally linked the lagoon area with Port Ludlow Bay have been
repeatedly altered over time. However, this alteration does not eliminate the site from
Shoreline jurisdiction."
50
Port Ludlow Resort Plan: Major Revision
File No. MLA05-00407
DCD Staff Report and Recommendation
78. In addition, the DOE letter states: "It is our opinion that the Port Ludlow Lagoon falls
within the scope of the prohibition in the Jefferson County SMMP for over-water
residential construction (5.160). Specifically, 'Residential Structures located on or over
marshes, bogs, swamps, lagoons, tidelands, ecologically sensitive areas or water areas
subject to this Master Program.' While this body of water may not be a marsh, bog, or
swamp (i.e., a wetland), it is certainly a lagoon..."
79. The DOE concludes that the "Port Ludlow Lagoon is a water of the state, and it is in
SMA jurisdiction. (DOE) does not believe that over-water, residential construction is an
allowed use under the Jefferson County SMMP."
80. The Department does not take issue with certain ofthe applicant's claims. Specifically, it
acknowledges that the Port Ludlow lagoon is "artificial" in the sense that the present
lagoon configuration, or even the presence of the lagoon itself, did not occur naturally.
Although it is unclear whether the lagoon was initially excavated from upland area or was
created in whole or in part from once-submerged lands, it is clear that it has been altered
through various means for various purposes many times since its creation. Its continued
viability or functioning is helped, at least in part, through the use of electric pumps.
81. Further, the Department does not argue that the lagoon does not meet the definition of
"shoreline", "shoreline of statewide significance", or "wetland". Therefore, it is not
regulated as such.
82. The Department disagrees with the applicant's assertion that, since the lagoon is
"artificial", it is categorically excluded from regulation under the SMA or SMP. The
Department agrees with DOE that neither the SMA nor the SMP provides a distinction
which broadly excludes artificial water bodies from jurisdiction.
83. Although the applicant argues that the only logical standard for determining when a
"body of water" should be protected is whether the water body is regulated by the SMA
as a shoreline, shoreline of statewide significance, or wetland, it is clear from a reading of
both the SMA and SMP that both sets of regulations apply not only to shorelines,
shorelines of statewide significance, and wetlands, but to shore1ands as well. The
Department finds nothing in either the SMA or SMP that would support exclusion of
bodies of water, artificial or natural, from "shoreland" regulation. As acknowledged by
the applicant, the Port Ludlow lagoon lies with the shore land along Port Ludlow Bay.
84. The applicant correctly asserts that construction extending over the lagoon was approved
by both the County and DOE in 1993. The decision on File No. SDP91-017 concluded
that the application satisfied the provisions of the SMMP, including Section 5.160. The
approval ofSDP91-017 has expired, and with it any development rights vested
thereunder. Any new permit application must be reviewed anew against all applicable
regulations, and must comply with same.
51
Port Ludlow Resort Plan: Major Revision
File No. MLA05-00407
DCD Staff Report and Recommendation
85. Although the applicant asserts that the over-water prohibition would significantly damage
PLA, the Department points out that PLA has produced a development scheme that
accommodates the additional desired residential units in a configuration that does not
require over-water construction.
86. The Department understands the applicant's desire to maximize development flexibility
and profit, but such interest does not drive the County's interpretation of applicable
codes. The SMA and SMP are to be interpreted broadly to further the public interest.
87. After reviewing the matter with the Washington State Department of Ecology, the
Department concludes that Section 5.160 applies to the Port Ludlow lagoon. The fact
that the lagoon is to some extent artificial and is supported by electric pumps, has
undergone many alterations and changes of use in the past, is not defined as a
"shoreline", "shoreline of statewide significance", or "wetland", does not exclude it from
that regulation under the SMP. The lagoon clearly lies within the "shore land" of Port
Ludlow Bay and is therefore subject to SMP regulation. Section 5.160 of the SMP,
which applies to shorelands as well as shorelines, clearly prohibits residential over-water
construction.
88. Ordinance No. 05-0828-98, Section 7, requires that the following be considered when
acting upon a request for code interpretation:
a. The applicable provisions ofthe subiect land use regu1ations(s) including their
purpose and context:
The applicable land use regulations, their purpose and context, as well as the
applicant's arguments pertaining to each have been considered. After considering
these provisions, individually and as a whole, the Director has concluded that the
prohibition of over-water residential construction contained in Section 5.160 of
the Shoreline Master Program applies to the Port Ludlow lagoon.
b. The applicable provisions of the Comprehensive Plan:
While the Comprehensive Plan contains several goals and policies that apply to
residential use, development along shorelines, overall development of the Port
Ludlow Master Planned Resort, and other aspects of land use and development,
none were persuasive in reaching any determination on the question of whether
residential structures can be placed over the Port Ludlow lagoon.
c. The consistency of the interpretation with other local. state. and federal land use
regulations. if any: and
The Director's conclusion is consistent with the position of the Department of
Ecology with respect to the applicability of the Shoreline Master Program to the
Port Ludlow lagoon, and is consistent with the State Shoreline Management Act.
52
Port Ludlow Resort Plan: Major Revision
File No. MLA05-00407
DCD Staff Report and Recommendation
d. The implications ofthe interpretation for land development within the County.
It is not known how many, if any, other similar situations exist in Jefferson
County. However, to the extent they do exist, they will be subject to the same
restrictions as the lagoon at Port Ludlow Village, i.e., residential structures will
not be permitted over waters that are subject to the Shoreline Master Program. In
the case of Port Ludlow Village, the implications are mitigated by the fact that
PLA has been able to develop an alternative development scheme that does not
require over-water construction.
Part VII - Boundary Line Adjustment (SUB05-00030)
89. The proposal includes an application for Boundary Line Adjustment, which is a land
division action that is exempt from Chapter 58.17 ("Plats-Subdivisions-Dedications")
pursuant to RCW 58.17.040(6) and RCW 58.17.215. The purpose of the proposed BLA
is to adjust boundary lines between existing platted lots to make those lots consistent with
the revised Resort Plan. The BLA would result in the removal of some internal property
lines to allow the aggregation of smaller lots into larger lots, thereby reducing the overall
number of lots in the plat.
90. There has been some question concerning the correct procedure for the proposed plat
revision. Section 3.903 of the MPR Code ("Requirement to vacate or withdraw existing
or vested residential development rights") states:
Concurrent with issuance of any permit for new resort development, any existing,
pending, or vested development rights for projects or parts or phases ofprojects
that:
1) have not been developed, and
2) are located in the RC/CF zone, and
3) are not included in the described Resort Plan
shall be withdrawn, vacated or otherwise permanently released. For any
subdivision that has been approved and recorded, but only partially developed, a
plat alteration shall be applied for and processed as set forth in state law and in
applicable county ordinances. Nothing in this ordinance is intended to affect the
process or the specific outcome of any application for such a plat alteration.
91. The use of the term "plat alteration" in the preceding paragraph might be interpreted to
mean that the proposed plat revision must be processed in accordance with RCW
58.17.215 ("Alteration of subdivision - Procedure") which, except as provided in RCW
58.17.040(6) (emphasis added), requires the submittal of an application to request the
alteration to the legislative body of the county. RCW 58.17.215 further provides that
non-excepted plat alterations shall comply with the following:
53
Port Ludlow Resort Plan: Major Revision
File No. MLA05-00407
DCD Staff Report and Recommendation
The application shall contain the signatures ofthe majority ofthose persons
having an ownership interest of lots, tracts, parcels, sites, or divisions in the
subject subdivision or portion to be altered. If the subdivision is subject to
restrictive covenants which were filed at the time of the approval of the
subdivision, and the application for alteration would result in the violation of a
covenant, the application shall contain an agreement signed by all parties subject
to the covenants providing that the parties agree to terminate or alter the relevant
covenants to accomplish the purpose of the alteration of the subdivision or portion
thereof.
In a letter dated January 21,2004 from Al Scalfto Jeff Taraday, the county stated that
it could not conclude that any restrictive covenants have been violated, therefore,
PLA does not need the signatures of all parties subject to the covenant. (See log item
72 of file ZON03-0044).
92. RCW 58.17.040 ("Chapter inapplicable, when") states that the provisions of Chapter
58.17 shall not apply to:
(6) A division made for the purpose of alteration by adjusting boundary lines,
between platted or unplatted lots or both, which does not create any additional lot,
tract, parcel, site, or division nor create any lot, tract, parcel, site, or division
which contains insufficient area and dimension to meet minimum requirements
for width and area for a building site;
The general exemption ofBLAs from the provisions of Chapter 58.17, and their
specific exemption from RCW 58.17.215, leads to the conclusion that the proposed
plat revision is not required to be processed according to the full procedures set forth
in RCW 58.17.215, and may instead be processed and approved as a Boundary Line
Adjustment as long as it satisfies the criteria ofRCW 58.17.040(6).
93. The proposed BLA involves a total of 40 existing platted lots in Ludlow Bay Village,
and would make the following changes to them:
a. Lots SF2, SF3, and SF4 will be combined into Parcell, containing 14,657 s.f.
b. The boundary between Lots SF1 and Parcel M1 will be shifted eastward. Lot
SF1 will be renamed Parcel 2 and will contain 24,189 s.f. Parcel M1 will be
renamed Parcel 3 and will contain 8,716 s.f.
c. Lots TH46- TH53, inclusive, and Lot TH52A will be combined into Parcel 4,
containing 23,930 s.f.
d. Lots TH43- TH45A, inclusive, will be combined into Parcel 5, containing
7,355 s.f.
e. Parcel R1 and Lots TH39- TH42, inclusive, will be combined into Parcel 6,
containing 30,021 s.f.
f. Lots TH35-TH38, inclusive, will be combined into Parcel 7, containing
12,449 s.f.
g. Lots TH33 and TH34 will be combined into Parcel 8, containing 7,778 s.f.
54
Port Ludlow Resort Plan: Major Revision
File No. MLA05-00407
DCD Staff Report and Recommendation
h. Lots TH22- TH25, inclusive, will be combined into Parcel 9, containing
11,583 s.f.
1. Lots TH16A and Lots TH19-TH21, inclusive, will be combined into Parcel
10, containing 8,391 s.f.
J. Parcels M3 and R3 will be combined into Parcel 11, containing 46,589 s.f.
94. The parcels resulting from the BLA would be located as follows:
a. Parcell - Along the shoreline, east of the restaurant, where the proposed
Master Plan shows residential building R -1.
b. Parcel 2 - Along the shoreline, where the proposed Master Plan shows the
restaurant, recreation center, and marina office/retail.
c. Parcel 3 - Along the shoreline, where the proposed Master Plan shows the
shoreline boardwalk.
d. Parcels 4-7 and 9-10 - North of the lagoon, south of Heron Road, where the
proposed Master Plan shows residential buildings R-2 - R-8.
e. Parce18 - North of Heron Road, where the proposed Master Plan shows
residential building R -9.
f. Parcel 11 - Northwest quadrant of Heron Road and Harbor Drive, where the
proposed Master Plan show a 56-stall parking lot.
95. The proposed BLA will adjust boundary lines between platted lots. It will not create
any additional lot, tract, parcel, site, or division. It will not create any lot, tract,
parcel, site, or division that contains insufficient area and dimension to meet
minimum requirements for width and area for a building site. It will aggregate forty
existing platted lots into eleven larger parcels to accommodate construction of the
revised Master Plan. The BLA satisfies the criteria ofRCW 58.17.040(6).
Part VIII - Agency and Public Comment
96. Numerous comments have been received on the proposal from public agencies and
members of the general public. There were two primary opportunities for comment:
Following circulation of the Draft SEIS for the Port Ludlow Resort Plan Revision, and
following the Notice of Application that was posted October 5, 2005. The Final SEIS
contains all comments received after circulation of the Draft SEIS, and responds to those
comments.
The paragraphs that follow summarize comments received after the Notice of Application
was published. The applicant has also provided responses to these comments, which can
be found in the official file (see Log item 338 of file ZON03-0044). Additional public
comment will be taken at the public hearing on the proposal.
97. Public agency comments include the following:
a. Jefferson Countv Department of Public Works has expressed concern about
possible pollution caused by vessels moored at the marina. The Department
55
Port Ludlow Resort Plan: Major Revision
File No. MLA05-00407
DCD Staff Report and Recommendation
recommends that the applicant work with Washington State University's
Cooperative Extension's Water Quality Education Program on the development
of the proposed boater education program.
The Department's recommendation is included in Part XI - Recommended
Conditions, below.
b. The Port Ludlow Drainage District notes the following:
i. The currently adopted (2001 DOE Manual) should be usedfor stormwater
management. The PLDD will not accept any responsibility for facilities
not in strict compliance with this manual.
ll. Low-impact development methods should be incorporated into the
development plans. Areas such as occasional or overflow parking should
have specially designed pervious surfaces to allow for direct infiltration of
storm water. Separation of directly connected impervious areas, and bio-
retention should be utilized to the maximum extent practical.
iii. The P LDD strongly discourages the use of mechanical systems for any
stormwater management systems. The PLDD will not accept
responsibility for operation and maintenance of the lagoon due to the
mechanical systems involved, or for any new storm water facilities
requiring mechanical systems or for new facilities not in strict compliance
with the 2001 DOE Manual.
iv. The ongoing operation and maintenance of all installed drainage facilities
must be clearly stated.
v. Groundwater in the Admiralty III area is very near the surface. The
PLDD recommends that a geotechnical engineer or hydrogeologist be
used to design the stormwater and groundwater system in compliance with
the 2001 DOE manual.
vi. Water quality treatment will be required for the proposed development, in
compliance with Minimum Requirement #5 of the 2001 DOE Manual,
whether detention or direct discharge is used.
vii. Due to the location of the Admiralty III complex to marine waters,
stormwater should not be detained but be discharged directly to the
marine waters of Port Ludlow Bay.
The above comments are noted. However, the Port Ludlow Development
Agreement vests the project under Ordinance #10-1104-96 "Stormwater
Management Ordinance." The applicant will need to work with appropriate
agencies during the detailed design of stormwater and groundwater management
systems to ensure compliance with governing regulations and standards. This is
most appropriately addressed as part of the construction permit application
process. PLDD shall be given the opportunity to review and comment on the
design of such systems prior to approval by Jefferson County.
56
Port Ludlow Resort Plan: Major Revision
File No. MLA05-00407
DCD Staff Report and Recommendation
98. The following is a summary of the primary concerns raised by members of the public.
Because many of the concerns were raised by multiple parties, the comments are being
summarized by topic rather than by individual letter. Due to the volume of comments
received, the following is intended to be a summary only, and focuses primarily on the
most significant issues raised. It does not address all comments received. Complete
copies of comments received can be viewed in the official project files.
a. Past construction under expired 1993 shoreline permit. In 2002 and 2003,
residential construction in the Plat of Ludlow Bay Village continued after the
1993 shoreline permit expired in 1998.
This comment is accurate. Construction authorized by the 1993 permit continued
until 2004, when the expired status was discovered. The County determined
requiring a new shoreline permit for the structures that had been completed since
1998 would serve no lawful purpose. A new shoreline permit has now been
applied for to cover build-out of the Resort.
b. Vested rif!hts under expired shoreline permit. PLA has no vested rights under the
expired shoreline permit.
The current application does not claim any vested rights under the expired permit.
A new shoreline permit has been applied for. If approved, it will govern
development from this point forward.
c. Conditions of 1993 shoreline permit not satisfied. At least 10 of the 51 conditions
of approval for the 1993 shoreline permit were not satisfied.
The Department is not aware that any of the 51 conditions were not fulfilled. The
conditions were imposed on the preliminary plat of Ludlow Bay Village, and
were required to be fulfilled in order for Final Plat approval to be granted. Final
Plat approval was granted by Jefferson County in 1994, upon finding that all
conditions of preliminary plat approval had been satisfied. Final Plat approval
was not challenged by any party.
d. The proposal violates the Jefferson Countv Unified Development Code Section
7.2.
The Development Agreement and MPR Code governing the Port Ludlow Master
Planned Resort identify the codes and regulations that govern MPR development.
Only select provisions of the UDC apply to the MPR - Section 8 (Permit
Application & Review Procedures/SEP A Implementation, Section 9 -
Comprehensive Plan and GMA Implementing Regulations Amendment Process,
and Section 10 - Enforcement. Section 7 is not among those listed.
57
Port Ludlow Resort Plan: Major Revision
File No. MLA05-00407
DCD Staff Report and Recommendation
In addition, Section 7.2 ofthe UDC (now ICC 18.35.060 - .080), even ifit were to
apply to the proposal, imposes decision criteria on boundary line adjustments that
go beyond the criteria established under RCW 58.17.040(6). The Washington
State Supreme Court has found that such additional criteria are unauthorized (City
of Seattle v. Crispin, 149 Wn.2d 896, 71 P.3d 208 (2003)).
e. Revisions to the Plat of Ludlow Bav Village requires a Plat Alteration. not a
Boundarv Line Adiustment. Section 3.903 of the MPR Code states that a plat
alteration is required for the proposed revisions.
A careful examination of Section 3.903 ofthe MPR Code, RCW 58.17.040(6),
and RCW 58.17.215, clarifies that the proper process for the proposed revisions to
the plat is through a Boundary Line Adjustment. This issue is discussed further in
Part VII of this report.
f The proposal violates existinJ! restrictive covenants. The proposal increases the
number of dwelling units with the Plat of Ludlow Bay Village, creates some
dwelling units that are stacked flats rather than townhomes or detached single-
family, and increases the membership in the two owner associations within the
Plat, all without the approval of the existing townhome owners.
The Department is aware of no Plat covenants that prevent a change to the
number or configuration of residential units, or require specific lots within the
Plat to be used in certain ways, or prevent increasing the membership of an
existing home owners' association or establishing an additional association.
The MPR Code Table RC/CF specifies a maximum density of 10 du/ac for
multifamily and single family residential structures.
g. The TJroTJosal violates the DeveloTJment AJ!reement and MPR Code.
The Development Agreement establishes certain parameters for development of
the MPR, and provides flexibility within those parameters. The MPR Code
specifically provides a process and criteria for revisions to the approved Resort
Plan. The proposed major revision has been submitted and is being processed in
accordance with the Agreement and the MPR Code. Ifthe applicant can
demonstrate that the proposal satisfies the criteria of Section 3.906.3, it may be
approved by the Hearing Examiner.
h. PLA is obliJ!ated to construction the resort amenities identified in the MPR Code.
The MPR Code does not require PLA to construct specific improvements.
Rather, Section 3.402 provides a list of uses that are permitted (emphasis added)
within the RC/CF zone. It is noted that two of the listed uses, Seaplane Dock and
Helipad for Medical Emergencies Only, require a Conditional Use Permit. Since
58
Port Ludlow Resort Plan: Major Revision
File No. MLA05-00407
DCD Staff Report and Recommendation
a CUP requires discretionary approval, it would be a contradiction to require the
construction of any feature requiring a CUP.
In addition, Section 3.90 of the MPR Code describes the "Resort Plan". Section
3.9011ists the allowed uses, and specifically states that development in the RC/CF
zone shall not exceed (emphasis added) the scope of development set forth therein
(unless a major revision is approved), and that "Changes to this Resort Plan that
decrease the sizes noted below are allowed".
l. The oroposal violates the MPR statute. This proposal violates RCW 36. 70A.362.
The Department has not identified any areas where the proposal will violate the
MPR statute or any other state law. The MPR Code lawfully established in 1999
and the Port Ludlow was designated as an MPR in accordance with the MPR
Code, as provided for in RCW 36.70A.362. In order to be approved, the proposed
major revision to the Resort Plan must satisfy the criteria contained in Section
3.906.3 of the MPR Code.
j. PLA is not the successor Declarant under the Master Declaration. PLA is not the
successor declarant to the original declarant, Pope Resources.
Section 2.1 of the Master Declaration states, in part: "This Master Declaration, as
hereafter may be modified or amended, shall run with all property within Ludlow
Bay Village and shall be binding upon and inure to the benefit of Declarant, the
Associations, all Owners, Residents and Occupants, and their successors and
assigns" (emphasis added).
The original owner, Pope and Talbot, Inc., transferred ownership to Pope
Resources in 1985, who in turn sold the assets to Port Ludlow Associates, LLC,
the current owner, in 2001. Pope Resources was the original Declarant to the
Master Declaration. Although the definition of "Declarant" in Section 1.11 of the
Master Declaration does not refer to the "successors and assigns" of Pope
Resources, it is clear that Section 2.1 anticipated a future change of ownership
and specifically states that the Declaration "shall be binding upon and inure to the
benefit of' such successors and assigns.
k. Heron Road is unsafe. Heron Road is dangerous and has design defects.
The design of Heron Road was approved by the County in 1993 and constructed
shortly thereafter.
The proposal includes eliminating the existing access from Heron Road to the Inn
parking lot, although emergency vehicle access will be retained. This will result
in a hammerhead turnaround at the south end of Heron Road. Moving the Harbor
Master Restaurant to the west portion of the shoreline, and accessing the Inn only
59
Port Ludlow Resort Plan: Major Revision
File No. MLA05-00407
DCD Staff Report and Recommendation
from Gull Drive, will remove vehicular traffic from Heron Road and will separate
Inn traffic from residential traffic.
The 2005 FSEIS identified signage (i.e., directional signage, signs limiting speed
to 15 mph, and signs identifying Heron Road for local/resident access only) as
appropriate means to control traffic impacts on Heron Road. Those measures are
recommended as conditions of project approval in Part XI ofthis report.
I. Existinf! setbacks from Heron Road are inadequate. Section 3.105 of the MPR
Code requires a 20-foot setbackfrom Heron Road.
Multi-family development setbacks are determined by the Uniform Building
Code.
m. Artificialvond/lagoon. Residential construction is prohibited over the lagoon;
the State of Washington or the U. S. Government may own part of the lagoon.
As part of this application, the applicant has requested a formal interpretation of
Section 5.160 of the SMMP as it applies to the proposal. Section 5.160 identifies
prohibited uses and activities, including: "Residential structures located on or
over marshes, bogs, swamps, lagoons, tidelands, ecologically sensitive areas or
water areas subj ect to this Master Pro gram."
The proposal, as portrayed in the application originally submitted in 2003,
showed residential construction extending over the water of the lagoon. The
proposal was subsequently revised in 2005 to eliminate over-water construction.
Ifit is determined that the prohibition established by Section 5.160 of the SMMP
does not apply to the lagoon, the applicant could return at a later date with a
request for a Resort Plan revision to allow over-water residential construction.
The requested code interpretation is discussed in Part VI of this report.
No information has been submitted that would indicate ownership of a portion of
the lagoon by either the State of Washington or the U.S. Government, and no
claim of ownership by either government has been presented to the County.
n. Environmental review/impacts. Environmental review of the proposal has been
improperly piecemealed; Admiralty III will have adverse density, traffic, and
storm water runoff impacts; the proposal will have parking, traffic, and density
impacts; the proposal will disrupt the habitat of wildlife and may affect
endangered species.
Environmental review of the proposal has occurred in a manner consistent with
the State Environmental Policy Act. SEP A allows "phased" review, but prohibits
the piecemea1ing of a proposal in order to avoid environmental review by
60
Port Ludlow Resort Plan: Major Revision
File No. MLA05-00407
DCD Staff Report and Recommendation
qualifying individual segments of a proposal for categorical exemptions or
determinations of non significance when the project as a whole would be
nonexempt from review or might require an EIS.
Part IX of this report describes the various environmental review processes the
Port Ludlow MPR has undergone, including the most recent SEIS process. The
2005 FSEIS for the Port Ludlow Resort Plan Revision incorporated information
from the 2002 FSEIS for the Port Ludlow Marina expansion. Both EISs are
project-level EISs that followed the 1993 programmatic EIS for the Port Ludlow
Development Program. The analysis of the 2002 Marina expansion EIS was
incorporated into the 2005 Port Ludlow Resort Plan Revision EIS so that
cumulative impacts could be evaluated, as required by SEP A.
The potential adverse environmental impacts of the proposal were evaluated in
the 2005 FSEIS. Measures were identified to mitigate those impacts, and are
recommended in Part XI ofthis report as conditions ofproject approval.
o. Cloud on title. Lack of compliance with respect to past permits resulted in a
"c/oud" on homeowners' titles.
The Department is not aware of any legal cloud on homeowners' titles that would
affect the processing ofthe current application.
p. Marina expansion. Westward expansion of the marina is opposed by homeowners
and the Department of Fish and Wildlife; proposed expansion ignores WDFW
recommendations and mitigation requirements; expansion has not been approved
by the US. Army Corp of Engineers.
The proposed marina expansion design was modified following receipt of public
comments on the 2002 DSEIS for the proposed marina expansion. In addition,
following issuance of the 2005 FSEIS for the Port Ludlow Resort Plan Revision,
the applicant revised the proposal to scale back the marina expansion from a net
increase of 100 slips to a net increase of 60 slips. This revision will reduce the
amount of westward expansion of the marina, and will ensure non-interference
with use of and plans for adjacent moorage.
The applicant has been coordinating with WDWF on the design ofthe marina
expansion. No permit has been issued by WDFW at this time.
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers approved the earlier (and still effective)
application for a 100-slip expansion of the marina.
q. Marina fire danf!er. The proposed marina expansion creates a risk of fire
danger.
61
Port Ludlow Resort Plan: Major Revision
File No. MLA05-00407
DCD Staff Report and Recommendation
Impacts of the proposal on public services, including fire services, were reviewed
in the 2005 SEIS. In response to circulation ofthe DSEIS, the Fire Chief for Fire
Protection District #3 sent a letter dated May 4, 2004 in which he listed mitigation
measures for both the marina expansion and the Resort development as a whole.
Several measures were identified through the EIS process to mitigate potential
impacts related to fire danger, and those measures are included as recommended
conditions ofproject approval in Section XI of this report.
r. Bonding. PLA should be required to post bonds to ensure future performance.
The applicant has provided a phased development and amenity program identified
in the 2005 FSEIS.
s. Helipad location. The helipad should not be constructed in the location
proposed.
The helipad is proposed to be located in the Admiralty III area, south of the new
townhomes and northwest of the Beach Club. The landing pad itself will be fairly
small (20 ft X 20 ft, roughly the length of a parking stall in each direction). It will
be centrally located (as measured north-south) in the Resort area, making it
accessible to and from all areas of the Resort.
The helipad cannot be constructed without first receiving a Conditional Use
Permit. The CUP process requires the satisfaction of prescribed criteria, and
provides an additional opportunity for public input.
t. Elevator maintenance. It is unclear who will maintain the new elevator that
connects the two parking lots located north of the marina/recreation/restaurant
buildings.
PLA has stated that they, or their successors and assigns, will maintain the
elevator.
Part IX - SEP A
99. Review pursuant to the State Environmental Policy Act (SEP A) is required for this
project pursuant to WAC 197-11, SEPA Rules and Section 3.90 of the MPR Code.
Jefferson County is using phased review, as authorized by SEPA (WAC 197-11-
060(5)(b)) and Section 3.902.1 of the MPR Code in its review of development within
Port Ludlow. Previous SEP A documents have been prepared for development in the
MPR, including:
a. In 1993 a programmatic document titled EIS for the Port Ludlow Development
Program. This EIS addressed the proposed build-out of the residential and
commercial components of a Port Ludlow Master Plan, including build-out of the
Resort.
62
Port Ludlow Resort Plan: Major Revision
File No. MLA05-00407
DCD Staff Report and Recommendation
b. Also in 1993, a project-level EIS for the Inn at Port Ludlow, which address
proposed development within the southern portion of the Resort, specifically:
Construction of the Inn at Port Ludlow, the addition of72 residential units, and
2,500 square feet of commercial space, construction of a Town Hall, landscaping,
parking for 400 vehicles, placement of riprap along the marina parking lot,
replacement of underground fuel tanks with partially aboveground tanks,
expansion of the artificial lagoon, and expansion for the marina and upland
marina facilities (office etc).
c. In 2002 a project-level Supplemental EIS (SEIS) was prepared for a 100-slip
expansion of the Port Ludlow Marina. This SEIS focused primarily on issues
associated with in-water construction in Port Ludlow Bay.
d. In 2005 a FSEIS was prepared for the current proposal, and addresses impacts to
earth, water, plants and animals, land and shoreline use (including relationship to
plans and policies), transportation, and public service and utilities. This compared
five different alternatives, including Alternative 1 (the current proposal),
Alternative 2 (the 1993 Resort Plan), Alternative 3 (the 1999 Resort Plan),
Alternative 4 (Response to (DSEIS) Comments), and Alternative 5 (No Action).
This FSEIS included the impacts identified in the 2002 Port Ludlow Marina
Expansion SEIS to include cumulative impacts as required by Section 3.902 and
3.904 ofthe MPR Code.
100. The 2005 FSEIS for the Port Ludlow Resort Plan Revision (the proposal) identifies
several potential and actual environmental impacts resulting from the proposal, and
identifies mitigating measures to avoid or reduce those impacts to an acceptable level.
Those mitigating measures are reflected in Part XI - Recommended Conditions, below.
Part X - Recommendation
101. Approve the Major Revision to the Port Ludlow Resort Master Plan, File No. ZON03-
00044, the Boundary Line Adjustment, File No. SUB05-00030, and the Shoreline
Substantial Development Permit, File No. SDP05-00019, subject to the conditions in Part
XI.
102. Approve the requested extension of time for the Substantial Development Permit, File
No. SDP05-00019; authorization to conduct construction activities approved under this
Permit shall expire ten (10) years after the effective date of the Permit.
103. Interpret Section 5.160 of the Jefferson County Shoreline Management Master Program
to mean that the lagoon in Ludlow Bay Village is subject to the provisions of the
Shoreline Management Master Program, and residential development is prohibited over
the lagoon (File No. ZON05-00035).
104. Recommend that County Code Reviser highlight Section 3.901 of the MPR Code to
inform readers that a major revision has been approved and provide an appropriate
reference to the new Resort Plan.
63
Port Ludlow Resort Plan: Major Revision
File No. MLA05-00407
DCD Staff Report and Recommendation
Part XI - Recommended Conditions
105. The applicant's proposed phasing plan shall be incorporated into or appended to the MPR
Code or Development Agreement, with the following revisions:
a. The portion of the public trail that links the lagoon bridge with the parking lot
north of Heron Road shall be constructed as part of Phase I, with appropriate
signage provided at that time. This portion of the trail may be initially
constructed in a temporary manner, but shall be completed in its finished form
upon completion of the adjacent residential buildings.
b. As part of Phase IV development, the applicant shall construct a playground in the
Admiralty III area. Plans for the playground shall be submitted to Jefferson
County for review and approval prior to its construction.
106. Prior to any demolition or construction related to the marina expansion, the applicant
shall obtain a Hydraulic Project Approval from the Washington State Department ofFish
and Wildlife.
107. Prior to construction of the helipad, the applicant shall apply for and receive approval of a
Conditional Use Permit.
108. Prior to construction of any additional residential units in the Admiralty III area, the
applicant shall:
a. Submit plans for the new playground, for review and approval by Jefferson
County.
b. Submit detailed plans for new storm drainage facilities to handle storm water
runoff generated by the additional impervious area, for review and approval by
Jefferson County.
109. As part of any building permit application for any new building, the applicant shall
provide measurements and other appropriate information in sufficient detail that
demonstrates:
a. Compliance with applicable building height limits ofthe MPR Code.
b. Compliance with applicable maximum impervious coverage limits of the MPR
Code.
c. Compliance with applicable minimum front, side, and rear yard setbacks of the
MPR Code.
d. That all development along the shoreline, except water-dependent uses requiring
water access or a shoreline location, provides a minimum fifteen (15) foot setback
from the ordinary high water mark as required by Section 4.105 of the SMMP.
e. Compliance with the Building Code and other applicable construction codes
adopted by Jefferson County.
f. That no fence, wall, hedge, or barrier greater than forty-two (42) inches will be
placed or enlarged nearer to the water than the building setback line, and that no
64
Port Ludlow Resort Plan: Major Revision
File No. MLA05-00407
DCD Staff Report and Recommendation
fence, wall, or similar structure will be placed waterward of the ordinary high
water mark.
110. As part of any building permit application for any new building, the applicant shall
provide site-specific evaluation by an engineer to determine requirements for foundation
stability.
111. As part of any building permit application for any new residential building that is subject
to the Shoreline Management Master Program, the applicant shall submit for review and
approval by Jefferson County detailed plans that demonstrate that:
a. Residential structures along the shoreline are setback in compliance with Section
5.160 ofthe SMMP.
b. All appurtenant structures such as decks, sheds, and stairways will be located
behind the ordinary high water mark as far as practical and will meet applicable
setbacks, as required by Section 5.160 of the SMMP.
c. Building heights will not exceed thirty-five (35) feet.
112. Plans for any new or revised transportation facilities shall be submitted to the Jefferson
County Department of Public Works for review and approval prior to their construction,
to ensure compliance with applicable federal and state regulations.
113. As part of any construction permit application for new or modified parking areas, the
applicant shall submit detailed landscape and lighting plans for review and approval by
Jefferson County. For parking areas in locations subject to the Shoreline Management
Master Program:
a. The landscape plan shall demonstrate that the parking areas will be screened from
the shoreline and adjacent properties, as required by Section 4.105 ofthe SMMP.
b. The lighting plan shall demonstrate that security lighting will be beamed, hooded,
or directed so as to not cause glare on adjacent properties or water bodies, as
required by Section 5.140 of the SMMP.
114. As part of any construction permit application for any facility requiring water supply and
waste disposal facilities, the applicant shall submit to Jefferson County and Olympic
Water and Sewer, Inc. for review and approval detailed construction plans for those
facilities, demonstrating compliance with all applicable County-adopted guidelines,
standards, and regulations.
115. As part of any construction permit application for any facility subj ect to the County's
critical area regulations (Ordinance No. 05-0509-94) the applicant shall demonstrate
compliance with the applicable portions of those regulations.
116. Prior to construction of trail system improvements, those improvements shall be reviewed
by the Port Ludlow Trail Committee and reviewed and approved by Jefferson County.
Trail system signage shall include discreet, low-level, signage where appropriate to make
patrons aware of abutting private property boundaries.
65
Port Ludlow Resort Plan: Major Revision
File No. MLA05-00407
DCD Staff Report and Recommendation
117. Upon completion of the public trail and shoreline boardwalk system, the applicant shall
dedicate, place in a public easement, or provide other legal permanent protection of that
system, to be recorded with the Jefferson County Auditor.
118. Proposed signage improvements shall be submitted to Jefferson County for review and
approval prior to its installation. This includes general directional signage throughout the
Resort in addition to trail signage.
119. All on-site signage or advertising shall comply with the applicable policies and
performance standards of the Jefferson County Shoreline Management Master Program.
Signs associated with recreational facilities shall be kept to a minimum in number and
size and shall be erected as informational or directional aids only.
120. As part of any construction permit application for any recreational facility, the applicant
shall submit the following to Jefferson County for review and approval:
a. Proposed regulations, and the means for enforcing and posting or distributing said
regulations, that prohibit tree cutting and limit the taking of marine life,
driftwood, and similar items.
b. A plan for any proposed signage for the facility, which shall demonstrate that
signs are minimum in number and size and will be erected as informational or
directional aids only.
121. Mechanical apparatus, rather than chemicals, shall be used for brush clearing
maintenance wherever practicable. Where herbicides are used for maintenance along
roads and drainage systems, they shall follow the "Chemical Application" performance
standards contained in Section 5.80 (Forest Practices) ofthe SMMP, as required by
Section 5.190 of the SMMP.
122. The following measures shall be implemented by the applicant to mitigate earth-related
impacts (note: some of these measures will help mitigate surface water and groundwater
impacts as well):
a. Silt fences shall be placed around graded areas where vegetation has not yet been
established to prevent construction runoff from spreading sediment to adjacent
properties or Ludlow Bay.
b. Mulch and/or hydroseed shall be placed on areas that have been disturbed by
grading and construction activity and allowed to get established.
c. Plastic covering shall be used to cover stockpiles of soil on site, and shall be
placed temporarily where appropriate to cover slopes to prevent erosion before
the mulch or hydro seed is established.
d. Interceptor ditches with check dams shall be used to direct stormwater in the
construction areas to temporary sediment traps and/or ponds, and to prevent
stormwater from areas not under construction from entering the construction area
where appropriate.
66
Port Ludlow Resort Plan: Major Revision
File No. MLA05-00407
DCD Staff Report and Recommendation
e. Dust control management techniques shall be used, including providing water
trucks on site to spray exposed areas during periods of dry weather, and using
gravel construction entrances and mulch to help prevent excessive dust.
f. Sediment ponds and sediment traps shall be used to collect, treat, and discharge
stormwater runoff during construction.
g. Best Management Practices shall be employed during construction, including silt
fences, spill control measures, floating booms, and other measures as appropriate.
h. Work in steep slopes shall be minimized to the extent possible.
1. New development shall be designed to follow the existing topography to the
extent possible.
J. Site-specific geotechnical explorations shall be undertaken for each building pad
to determine construction recommendations.
123. The following measures shall be implemented by the applicant to mitigate surface water
and groundwater-related impacts:
a. The existing storm drainage conveyance system shall be evaluated to determine if
sufficient capacity exists to accommodate post-development runoff from Drainage
Basins A and B (the Admiralty III area).
b. New water quality vaults shall be installed at the east and west ends of the lagoon.
c. The Non-Point water Quality Monitoring Program shall be continued.
d. At the marina, a hazardous material spill clean-up kit shall be available on the fuel
float and on one of the expanded docks, and crews shall be trained in the use of
these kits.
e. The Port Ludlow Marina shall continue to educate users of the marina regarding
Best Management Practices.
f. Port Ludlow Associates shall educate marina users regarding the effects of
discharging gray water and will strongly discourage such discharge.
g. Port Ludlow Associates shall ensure the ongoing enforcement of Best
Management Practices at the marina; the BMPS shall be enforced via revocation
of marina use.
h. Two portable boat sewage pump-outs shall be installed at the marina.
1. Best Management Practices shall be employed during construction, including silt
fences, spill control measures, floating booms, and other measures as appropriate.
J. Port Ludlow Associates shall coordinate with appropriate agencies on the design
and review of all stormwater and groundwater management systems during the
construction permit application process to ensure compliance with all applicable
regulations and standards related thereto.
k. Detailed plans for storm drainage facility improvements shall be submitted to
Jefferson County for review and approval prior to their construction, and the Port
Ludlow Drainage District shall be provided with the opportunity to review and
comment on those plans prior to Jefferson County approval.
124. The following measures shall be implemented by the applicant to mitigate impacts to
plants and animals:
67
Port Ludlow Resort Plan: Major Revision
File No. MLA05-00407
DCD Staff Report and Recommendation
a. A revegetation and landscaping plan shall be developed for the control or erosion
and runoff during construction and to offset the permanent loss of plant cover.
Disturbed areas shall be restored as soon as construction has ceased using species
that mimic the vegetation located within the existing area. Disturbed areas shall
be vegetated with native species that are perennials, have good soil-binding
qualities, grow relatively quickly, and provide habitat cover. Vegetative species
selection shall be based on the hydrologic requirements of the plants and their
attributes, such as being able to support wildlife, to improve water quality, and to
foster aesthetic appeal.
b. Native plants shall be established along the south and west sides of the lagoon,
dominated by low growing grasses and shrubs with special emphasis on species
that provide food and cover for wildlife. Logs, rocks and other natural features
shall be included in the landscape plan. Tree selection shall consider impacts on
views, but shall not compromise wildlife habitat.
c. The kayak float will be relocated to deeper water and designed to include light-
penetrating panels.
d. Boater education regarding potential impacts of discharged or spilled wastes or
hazardous materials shall be increased, and a "no black water discharge" rule
shall be enforced.
e. The proponent shall implement a boater education program for employees and
customers that is equivalent to the National Clean Boating Campaign. In order to
ensure that the boater education program is effective, the proposed program shall
be reviewed by the Jefferson County/WSU Cooperative Extension's Water
Quality Education Program staff or another qualified agency acceptable to
Jefferson County. The review including comments and proposed program
revisions shall be provided to Jefferson County. Jefferson County shall approve
the boater education program prior to authorizing occupancy of the additional
moorage slips. The proponent shall also present an annual report regarding its
boater education program to Jefferson County and WSU Extension for review. If
deficiencies in the program are identified, the proponent shall confer with
Jefferson County and WSU Extension to develop appropriate revisions. The
proponent shall compensate WSU Extension for the reasonable costs of this
reVIew.
f. The applicant shall coordinate with the Washington State Department of Fish and
Wildlife on removal of old unused wood pilings from the head of Port Ludlow
Bay.
g. All in-water work shall be conducted during approved work windows when
salmon are not likely to be present.
h. In-water construction activities will be limited to the period between July 16 and
February 16 to minimize potential impacts to juvenile Puget Sound Chinook
salmon, Hood Canal summer-run chum salmon, and bull trout.
125. The following measures shall be implemented by the applicant to mitigate impacts to
land and shoreline use:
68
Port Ludlow Resort Plan: Major Revision
File No. MLA05-00407
DCD Staff Report and Recommendation
a. Hours of construction shall be limited to 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. Monday through
Saturdays.
b. Stationary construction equipment shall be positioned as far as possible from
residential properties.
c. The construction contract shall require that all mufflers are maintained in good
working order.
d. Any dust shall be suppressed by utilizing wetting techniques.
e. Energy-efficient equipment will be used to control emissions.
f. New buildings shall be architecturally compatible with existing buildings.
g. New street and parking lot lighting will be designed to shield and focus lights.
126. The following measures shall be implemented by the applicant to mitigate transportation
impacts:
a. Directional signage to the existing and proposed on-site destinations shall be
installed and/or enhanced along the internal roadways.
b. On-site speed limit signs shall be installed, limiting speeds to 15 m.p.h.
c. Heron Drive shall be signed for local access/resident use only.
127. The following measures shall be implemented by the applicant to mitigate impacts to
public services and utilities:
a. For each new residential unit, the developer shall pay Fire District No.3 $193.00
in mitigation/impact fees.
b. All propane storage areas shall comply with applicable code requirements.
c. For the marina expansion, the applicant shall:
i. Install a new dry-line fire suppression system into any permanent over-
water feature (dock, slip, tie-up, float, breakwater) where vessels, boats, or
ships of any type are temporarily or permanently moored, and down the
central walkway, so that each area is no more than 75 feet from a
firefighting apparatus.
11. Install a connection between B-Dock and C-Dock to increase access to the
floats to and from land.
111. Locate fire hydrants no more than 100 feet from dry-line fire suppression
fire department connection, and provide sufficient access to docks for
emergency responses.
IV. Install fire call boxes on any permanent over the water feature (dock, slip,
tie-up, float, breakwater) and central walkway. Link these alarms and the
main marina alarm to a monitoring service or other entity to assure
automatic alert of appropriate authorities.
v. Provide the fire district with access to key codes that are simple and quick
to use on access gates.
VI. Submit plans for the fire suppression system, scope, and design to the Fire
Chief for review and approval.
V11. Coordinate with the fire district on the testing and maintenance of fire
pumps.
69
Port Ludlow Resort Plan: Major Revision
File No. MLA05-00407
DCD Staff Report and Recommendation
Vlll. Provide at least two fire hydrants and adequate emergency access in the
area of proposed marina expansion.
IX. Provide training to all marina personnel and liveaboard residents in
emergency firefighting procedures.
x. Provide two portable pump-out carts for use in addition to the existing
fixed pump-out facility.
d. Assure adequate access, meeting the approval of the Fire Chief, to all residential
units.
e. All residential units shall have an approved fire sprinkler system or approved
alternative by the Jefferson County Department of Community Development.
f. Fire hydrants shall be located no more than 300 feet from any new structure with
a maximum of 600 feet between fire hydrants. The hydrants shall include a 4-
inch sexless adapter installed on large steamer ports as specified by the Fire
District.
g. Access roads shall be designated as permanent fire lanes and no curbside parking
shall be allowed at any time. The curbs shall be painted and stenciled "fire lane"
using high visibility permanent paint along with signage.
h. Retail, restaurant, and recreation building shall have an approved fire sprinkler
system.
128. The applicant shall establish and enforce on an on-going basis regulations that prohibit
tree cutting and limit the taking of marine life, driftwood, and similar items. Any similar
activities that are allowed shall be consistent with local and state codes and regulations.
70