HomeMy WebLinkAboutLog385
t ~ I"^
tfl33LJ
William G. & Katherine S. Funke
75 Scott Court
Port Ludlow, W A 98365
January 16, 2006
LOG ITEM
# 3&tQ
Page I
........
of_':y-
Jefferson County Hearing Examiner
Jefferson County
621 Sheridan Street
Port Townsend, W A 98365
Sir:
Re: Port Ludlow Resort Plan: Major Revision Request
This letter will supplement the record of my many communications and verbal comments to the
Jefferson County Department of Community Development (DCD) during the past nine years in
connection with the designation of Port Ludlow as a Master Planned Resort (MPR), the MPR
Zoning ordinances and Development Agreement and most recently in response to the Marina
Expansion Scoping and the information and findings as first assembled in the 2002 SEIS and
finalized in the May 18, 2005 FSEIS, copies attached for immediate reference.
Dating from the August 1998 action designating Port Ludlow a Master Planned Resort to its
current recommendations in the matter of the Major Revision Request, the DCD has failed to
comply with or made erroneous interpretations of several requirements and provisions that
permit establishing a MPR, as set forth in Master Planned Resort RCW 36.70A.360 &
RCW36.70A.362.
In the matter of the Marina Expansion SEIS and Marina Expansions proposal included in this
Major Revision Request, the Jefferson County MPR Code, Title 17, Ordinance # 08-1004-99,
Section 3.902, 1. stipulation that the SEIS "shall not be piecemeal or broken into small
segments" was ignored by the DCD. The DCD cited the State multiple agency approval
requirements for the Marina Expansion to justify excluding this ordinance protection, a decision
voiding the Ordinance purpose, i.e. that related and combined environmental impacts of the
separate development proposals be considered as a whole. It is noted the MPR Mediation Group
members and its legal consultant reviewed all applicable State requirements including the
multiple agency SEIS involvement before codifying the "no piecemeal" language.
Further, the DCD recommendation to expand the Marina westward along the shore past the Port
Ludlow Associates shore and uplands property and outside their current Ludlow Bay lease area
gave no consideration to the documented objections filed with the CDC by my Scott Court
neighbors, Messrs. Colby, Wier and Taylor-Smith and me, nor did the DCD consider the
Department of Fish and Wild Life findings and recommendations of 1) No expansion or 2)
Expansion water-ward, directly out from the Developer's marina front properties.
Finally, with respect to the 100 slip marina expansion included in the 1993 FEIS, an additional
alternate marina expansion plan identified as the 1993 expansion plan was included as part of
the 2005 FSEIS; although, this drawing was not included with the initial SEIS and SEIS draft.
That this plan was part of the 1993 marina expansion approval is questionable. The County had
no record of this plan, per Mr. Josh Peters, DCD prior to its inclusion in the 2005 study. If built,
this 1993 expansion proposal would over lap the existing Colby owned (Scott) docks so it is
Page 2...... continues
reasonable to assume it was not a matter of record or part of the 1993 marina expansion approval,
and should not support the current westward expansion alternative now recommended by the
DCD.
A general review of the MPR RCWs noted above illustrates there was no "Plan". nor "Plan
compliance with stated requirements" on the August 1998 date of MPR designation. MPR
Ordinances, #08-1004-99, documenting these requirements, including the "memorandum of
understanding" guaranteeing the RCW required sewer service, as an Ordinance recital were not
adopted by the County until October, 4, 1999. Although the MPR ordinance identifies the area
limitations of the various Resort facilities the Developer had committed in presentations to the
Port Ludlow community, this was not a Plan, nor were these facilities included in the first Resort
Plan submitted by Port Ludlow Associates in ~. (2 0 i";)}
The RCW requires a MPR must have "primary focus on destination resort facilities consisting
of ...et cetera.". CDe has created a previously non-RCW identified description for the MPR
focus, "a Conference Facility serving large groups" and now recommendation creating another
non-RCW described entity a "destination resort serving the traveling public".
The RCW also stipulates that "residential uses are in and support the on-site recreational nature
of the resort". This writer is at a loss to understands the rationale supporting the DCD
conclusions that the abandonment of all new and enlarged resort facilities identified in the MPR
Ordinances, the relocation and reduction in size of the existing restaurant, the maximum possible
build-out of privately-owned town houses and condominiums in the resort and Admiralty ill
areas in any way supplements or supports the on-site recreational nature of the resort.
In summary, my wife and I join Scott Court neighbors in petitioning the Hearing Officer to
reject the DCD expansion alternative recommendation. This recommendation will creates a
major adverse view, noise and financial impact of our property and constitutes an infringement
on our rights as property owners by the County and Port Ludlow Associates. We have no
objections to expanding the marina to the south, waterward from the existing marina, which
expansion would have minimal negative impact of any marina expansion consideration.
In our opinion the MPR Ordinance and the RCW MPR requirements cited herein have not been
met, anyone of which justifies rejections of the DeD recommendations for the Marina
Expansion and for yother of the Major Revision application proposals.
lcf?~ ~
Katherine S."""Funke
LOG ITEM
# '3B5 .
Page ~__9f or '4
Attachments: Copies of the Master Planned Resort RCW s
?"":x::" -=
~cw 36.70A.360: Master planned resorts.
Page 1 of 1
RCW 36.70A.360
Master planned resorts.
(1) Counties that are required or choose to plan under RCW 36.70A 040 may permit master planned resorts which may com
growth outside of urban growth areas as limited by this section. A master planned resort means a self-contained and fully int
unit development, in a setting of significant natural amenities, with primary focus on destination resort facilities consisting of l
accommodations associated with a range of developed on-site indoor or outdoor recreational facilities.
(2) Capital facilities, utilities, and services, including those related to sewer, water, storm water, security, fire suppression,
medical, provided on-site shall be limited to meeting the needs of the master planned resort. Such facilities, utilities, and sen
provided to a master planned resort by outside service providers, induding municipalities and special purpose districts, provi
costs associated with service extensions and capacity increases directly attributable to the master planned resort are fully be:
resort A master planned resort and service providers may enter into agreements for shared capital facilities and utilities, pro
facilities and utilities serve only the master planned resort or urban growth areas.
Nothing in this subsection may be construed as: Establishing an order of priority for processing applications for water rig~
granting such permits, or for issuing certificates of water right; altering or authorizing in any manner the alteration of the p1ac
water right; or affecting or impairing in any manner whatsoever an existing water right.
All waters or the use of waters shall be regulated and controlled as provided in chap~rs 90.03 and 90.44 RCW and not O'
(3) A master planned resort may include other residential uses within its boundaries, but only if the residential uses are in
and support the on-site recreational nature of the resort.
(4) A master planned resort may be authorized by a county only if:
(a) The comprehensive plan specifically identifies policies to gUide the development of master planned resorts;
(b) The comprehensive plan and development regulations include restrictions that preclude new urban or suburban land I
vicinity of the master planned resort, except in areas otherwise designated for urban growth under RCW 36. 70A.11 0;
(c) The county includes a finding as a part of the approval process that the land is better suited, and has more long-term i
the master planned resort than for the commercial harvesting of timber or agricultural production, if located on land that othe
designated as forest land or agricultural land under RCW 36.70A 170;
(d) The county ensures that the resort plan is consistent with the development regulations established for critical areas; a
(e) On-site and off-site infrastructure and service impacts are fully considered and mitigated.
[1998 c 112 ~ 2; 1991 sp.S. c 32 ~ 17.]
Notes:
Intent - 1998 c 112: "The primary intent of this act is to give effect to recommendations by the 1994 department of co
and economic developmenfs master planned resort task force by clarifying that master planned resorts may make use of
utilities, and services provided by outside service providers, and may enter into agreements for shared facilities with such
all costs directly attributable to the resort, including capacity increases, are fully borne by the resort." [1998 c 112 ~ 1.]
LOG ITEM
# 3SS-
Page._..2-_ of~
~
f\18';:-
Da\@' -
http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=36. 70A.360
1/16/2006
RCW 36.70A.362: Master planned resorts - Existing resort may be included.
.
Page 1 of 1
s > Title 36 > Chapter 36.70A > Section 36.70A362
36.70A360 << 36.70A362>> 36.70A365
RCW 36.70A.362
Master planned resorts - Existing resort may be included.
Counties that are required or choose to plan under RCW 36. 70A 040 may include existing resorts as master planned resorts
constitute urban growth outside of urban growth areas as limited by this section. An existing resort means a resort in existen
1990, and developed, in whole or in part, as a significantly self-contained and integrated development that includes short-ter
accommodations associated INith a range of indoor and outdoor recreational facilities INithin the property boundaries in a set
significant natural amenities. An existing resort may include other permanent residential uses, conference facilities, and com
activities supporting the resort, but only ifthese other uses are integrated into and consistent INith the on-site recreational na
resort.
An existing resort may be authorized by a county only if:
(1) The comprehensive plan specifically identifies policies to guide the development of the existing resort;
(2) The comprehensive plan and development regulations include restrictions that preclude new urban or suburban land (
vicinity of the existing resort, except in areas otherwise designated for urban growth under RCW 36.70A 110 and "36.70A3E
(3) The county includes a finding as a part of the approval process that the land is better suited, and has more long-term
the existing resort than for the commercial harvesting of timber or agricultural production, if located on land that otherwise WI
designated as forest land or agricultural land under RCW 36. 70A 170;
(4) The county finds that the resort plan is consistent with the development regulations established for critical areas; and
(5) On-site and off-site infrastructure impacts are fully considered and mitigated.
A county may allocate a portion of its twenty-year population projection, prepared by the office of financial management, 1
planned resort corresponding to the projected number of permanent residents within the master planned resort.
[1997 C 382 ~ 1.]
Notes:
"Reviser's note: RCW36.70A360 was amended by 1998 c 112 ~ 2, changing subsection (1) to subsection (4)(a).
LOG ITEM
#_ '3S5
Pa.ge~of ^1
http://apps.leg. wa.gov/RCW /default.aspx?cite=36. 70A.362
1/16/2006