HomeMy WebLinkAboutLog129
e
e
MLA06-000221
Port Ludlow Associates/Trendwest
Notice of Application for Shoreline Substantial Development Permit
RESPONSE TO PUBLIC COMMENTS
Log Item #49. Email: Les Powers. June 24, 2006
Comment: Opposition-detailed
Response: The commentator expresses his opinion regarding the proper legal
procedure. The County and the applicants have elected to follow an alternative legal
procedure.
Log Item #50. Letter: Les Powers, individually and for Lewis Hale. June 24, 2006
Comment: Opposition-detailed
Response: Jefferson County has sufficient emergency services personnel and equipment
to address the needs of the Trendwest project.
The proposed amendment to the Port Ludlow Development Agreement is being processed
in accordance with laws applicable to development agreements. State law provides
specifically that development agreements may specify what uses are allowed on the
property.
The individual owners who have purchased property from P LA and its predecessors are
not parties to the Development Agreement and are not entitled to any vested rights except
with respect to the properties they purchased.
The property proposedfor development by Trendwest is not subject to any CC&R 'So
Therefore, the requirements contained in other CC&R 's that affect other properties in the
Port Ludlow MPR are not applicable to the Trendwest proposal.
Log Item #52. Email: Bill Cooke. July 11, 2006
Comment: There was a judgment from the courts that the Trend West venture was a
commercial product, so how can an amendment now supersede a court judgment? The
correct procedure would be for the PLA to apply for a re-zone to include commercial
property.
Response: The appellate hearing examiner decided the Trendwest project was not
multifamily residential under the 1995 zoning regulations, but there has been no court
decision. The Port Ludlow Development Agreement may be amended, with the approval
of the Board of County Commissioners, to allow timeshare uses on the Ludlow Cove II
property. Although a rezone procedure could have been used, the proposed amendment
to the development agreement is an alternative approach. LOG ITEM
{0045551JD~;2b
C:\Documents and Settings\barbaran\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\M K1PID'i'~FM~Q tn . 1
Comments (00455513-2).DOC Page,l of /('
- I -
e
e
Log Item #54. Email: H.H. Cloutier. July 15,2006
Comment: Opposition-detailed
Response: No response is required.
Log Item #55. Email: Terry and Turney Oswald. July 17,2006
Comment: Supportive of the project; the Trendwest development offers many positives
outcomes for the health and future development of Port Ludlow.
Response: No response is required.
Log Item #56. Letter: Alison Moss. July 14,2006
Comment: Opposition-detailed, supporting documents
Response: It is the understanding of the applicants that the Hearing Examiner will make
a recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners whether or not and under what
conditions to approve the application of the applicants for a shoreline substantial
development permit but will not make any recommendation or hear argument or take
testimony regarding the application for an amendment to the Port Ludlow Development
Agreement (because whether or not to approve the amendment is a legislative decision,
rather than a quasi-judicial decision). The comment does not address the shoreline
permit application, and it therefore is irrelevant to the proceedings before the Hearing
Examiner.
With respect to the substance of the comment, Washington cities and counties have
authority under RCW 36. 70B.170 to modify development standards in development
agreements, for the following four reasons:
First, the requirement under RCW 36. 70B.170(1) that a development agreement "shall
be consistent with the applicable development regulations adopted by a local government
planning under chapter 36. 70A.RCW" is satisfied in this case, because the applicable
development regulations, including UDC 18.40.860(5), expressly allow adopted
development standards to be modified in a development agreement relating to a master
planned resort so long as all project impacts have been adequately mitigated. (UDC
18.40.850 et seq. applies to this project because the Port Ludlow Development
Agreement does not establish standards or requirements regarding the adoption of
amendments to the development agreement, and under Section 3.13 of the development
agreement "the development approval sought shall vest to and be governed by the
County codes, regulations and standards in effect upon the date of the future
application. ")
Second, RCW 36. 70B.170 expressly requires that a development agreement set forth
development standards. If the legislature had intended that the development standards
be the currently applicable codified development standards, without exception or
modification, then it would be an unnecessary exercise to require that a development
{00455513,DOC;2}
C:\Documents and Settings\barbaran\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLK39\Response to
Comments (00455513-2).DOC
- 2 -
e
e
agreement set forth the development standards. The legislature must have intended that
cities and counties might vary development standards in their development agreements.
Third, other jurisdictions interpret RCW 36. 70B.170 to authorize the modification of
development standards in development agreements and have approved development
agreements that have modified development standards, and not one of those development
agreements has been held to be invalid in a reported decision by a Washington appellate
court. For example, at least nine cities and counties other than Jefferson County
expressly allow such modification. Here are examples of their code provisions:
MUNICIPALITY CODE SECTION
City of Issaquah 18.07.420(C)(3)
City of Mercer 19.11.01 O(C) (4)
Island
City ofPuyallup 1.15.030
City ofSea-Tac 15.22.055(C)(11)
City ofWoodinville 21.38.020(4)
City of Yakima 15.10.020
APPLICABLE LANGUAGE IN
ORDINANCE
"A Development Agreement may deviate from the
underlying district standards identified in the Land
Use Code in order to achieve the components listed
above. "
"An applicant may request modifications to any
design and development standards ... by
requesting a development agreement... "
"[A) development agreement may allow
development standards different from those
otherwise imposed under the Puyallup Municipal
Code... "
"In the case of a development agreement where the
proposed use would be the final use of the
property, it shall be clearly documented that any
departures to the standards of the Code, requested
by the applicant, are in the judgment of the City... "
"Property-specific development standards may be
applied to a specific property or properties
through a development agreement approved by the
City Council and consistent with Chapter 36. 70B
RCW... "
"A particular [development) standard may be
reduced or modified... "
"The development standards and conditions set
forth in a development agreement shall be
consistent with the applicable development
regulations set forth in the Unified Development
Code, except in the case of a master planned resort
(which requires a site-specific Comprehensive
Plan amendment), where adopted standards may
{00455513,DOC;2}
C:\Documents and Settings\barbaran\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLK39\Response to
Comments (00455513-2).DOC
Jefferson County 18.40.860(5)
- 3 -
e
e
be modified by the development standards
contained in the agreement, so long as all project
impacts have been adequately mitigated. "
King County 21A.39.030(B)
"A UPD [Urban Planned Development} permit
and development agreement may allow
development standards different from those
otherwise imposed under the King County
Code... "
Snohomish County 3 O. 75.130
"The county council may approve a development
agreement that creates exemptions or
modifications to the requirements of Title 30 SCC
in order to allow for the siting, development, or
expansion of an essential public facility. "
Walla Walla 17.14.030
County
"The development standards as approved in the
development agreement shall apply to and govern
the development and implementation of each area
within the site in lieu of any conflicting or different
standards or requirements elsewhere in the Walla
Walla County Code. "
Andfourth, Washington cities and counties routinely modify development standards other
than by the amendment of their ordinances. For example, they may approve planned unit
developments (PUD's) in which the codified height, bulk, scale, lot area, and density
standards are significantly modified. They also may grant special exceptions or
variances.
Log Item #57. Email: Joe Kelly. July 17,2006
Comment: Supportive of the project; others should have the opporturJity to at least
vacation here if they can't live here.
Response: No response is required.
Log Item #59. Email: Irv Berteig. July 17,2006 (Jefferson County Hearing
Examiner)
Comment: The BOCC adoption ofOrd 08-0710-06 and the Maranatha Mining case
make it clear that the Hearing Examiner has original jurisdiction and any appellate body
is strictly limited to a "closed record (administrative) appeal."
Response: No response is required.
{00455513.DOC;2}
C:\Documents and Settings\barbaran\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLK39\Response to
Comments (00455513-2).DOC
- 4 -
e
e
Log Item #60. Letter: Elizabeth Van Zonneveld. July 14,2006
Comment: Questions the use of an amendment to the Development Agreement to allow
timeshare uses.
Response: See response to Log Item #56.
Log Item #61. Email: Irv Berteig. July 18,2006 (Jefferson County Hearing
Examiner)
Comment:
Response: No response is required.
Log Item #62. Email: Richard and Deborah Bozanich. July 18, 2006
Comment: Supportive of the project; the Trendwest project should be approved. This is
the type of good clean business that will have a positive impact on the viability of Port
Ludlow and Jefferson County.
Response: No response is required.
Log Item #63. Email: Bob Asbell. July 18, 2006
Comment: Supportive of the project; encourage vote for it.
Response: No response is required.
Log Item #64. Email: Rick Rozzell. July 19, 2006
Comment: Use of the Development Agreement to re-zone the Ludlow Cove II plat to
accommodate Trendwest is totally improper and possibly illegal.
Response: The proposed amendment to the Port Ludlow Development Agreement is
consistent with local and state law. See response to Log Item #56.
Log Item #65. Email: Allen and Delee Panasuk. July 19,2006
Comment: Supportive of the project; have no problem with PLA selling their land to
Trendwest for that development; however, follow the proper legal process path in getting
this done.
Response: No response is required.
{004555J3.DOC;2}
C:\Documents and Settings\barbaran\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLK39\Response to
Comments (00455513-2).DOC
- 5 -
e
e
Log Item #66. Email: Judith McCay. July 19,2006
Comment: Supportive of the Trendwest development; an asset to Port Ludlow and
Jefferson County. The county is very dependent upon tourism for much of its inc()me.
Was impressed by the facility and overall program at another Trendwest resort. '
Response: No response is required.
Log Item #67. Email: Greg Hupp. July 19,2006
Comment: A timeshare of this type caters to transient residents; there is already a hotel
and condominium development run much like a hotel. The Trendwest plan will be
adjacent to residential villages and will clearly detract from the peacefulness now
enjoyed.
Response: The proposed facility is part of a master planned resort. There is no limit on
the number of hotels or timeshare facilities that may occur in such a development. The
Trendwest project is not adjacent to any residential villages and is bufferedfrom the
adjacent commercial development.
Log Item #68. Letter: Bruce Schmitz. July 17,2006
Comment: Opposition-detailed
Response: State law specifically permits development agreements to establish what uses
may occur on the property.
The appellate hearing examiner decision is not applicable to the issue of whether the
Port Ludlow Development Agreement may be amended to allow timeshare uses on the
Ludlow Cove II property.
Any future amendments to the Port Ludlow Development Agreement must be reviewed
and approved by the Jefferson County Commissioners after opportunity for public
comment.
Trendwest has standing, as the contract purchaser of the land, to comment on decisions
that will affect the use of the property.
Log Item #70. Letter: Bruce Schmitz. July 17, 2006
Comment: same as #68
Response: Same as response to #68.
{004555 13. DOC;2 }
C:\Documents and Settings\barbaran\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLK39\Response to
Comments (00455513-2).DOC
- 6 -
e
e
Log Item #71. Email: Walter and Joan Kohn. July 19,2006
Comment: Very supportive of the project and the efforts of Trendwest and Port Ludlow
Associates.
Response: No response is required.
Log Item #72. Email: Walt and Maria. July 20, 2006
Comment: 100% supportive of this project; positive benefits to the community and
Jefferson County.
Response: No response is required.
Log Item #73. Email: Robert and Nancy Reasoner. July 20, 2006
Comment: Supportive of the proposed plan, view it as "win-win" by providing
additional revenue to the County, additional services to Port Ludlow residents, and a
reduction in the number of condos originally planned.
Response: No response is required.
Log Item #74. Letter: Jim and Ellen Larimer
Comment: Supportive of the TrendwestlWorldMark timeshare project; the project will
benefit the entire eastern Jefferson County with the increased tourism.
Response: No response is required.
Log Item #75. Email: Thomas Stone. July 20, 2006
Comment: The letter from Elizabeth Van Zonneveld does not represent the majority of
the Port Ludlow Village Council. The Council had voted on formally communicating
that it questioned the use of a contractual document, such as, the Development
Agreement, as a means to change zoning designations.
Response: No response is required.
Log Item #76. Email: Edward Hughes. July 20, 2006
Comment: Supportive of the Trendwest project; need the revenue that it would bring.
Response: No response is required.
{00455513,DOC;2}
C:\Documents and Settings\barbaran\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLK39\Response to
Comments (00455513-2).DOC
- 7 -
e
e
Log Item #77. Email: Chuck and Gale Byington. July 19,2006
Comment: Supportive of the project; recognize need to increase the volume of "outside"
visitors and the revenues they contribute.
Response: No response is required.
Log Item #78. Email (and letter): Jim Boyer. July 19,2006
Comment: Supportive of the project; cites numerous benefits.
Response: No response is required.
Log Item #79. Email: George and Caroline. July 19,2006
Comment: Supportive of the project; a positive addition to the Port Ludlow community.
Response: No response is required.
Log Item #80. Email: Gerry Abbott. July 19,2006
Comment: Supportive ofthe project; the development should help spur needed services.
Response: No response is required.
Log Item #81. Email: William E. and Phyllis L. Hansen. July 19,2006
Comment: Supportive of the Trendwest project; it will reduce the building of homes and
add tourist/visitor enticement to our area.
Response: No response is required.
Log Item #82. Email: Bud and Lennetta Johnson. July 20, 2006
Comment: Opposition
Response: No response is required.
Log Item #83. Email: Tom and Mary Ann Callahan. July 20, 2006
Comment: Supportive of the project; currently are Trendwest owners. Trendwest is a
well capitalized and managed company. This project would allow a new club house for
existing Port Ludlow Golf Course.
Response: No response is required.
{00455513.DOC;2 }
C:\Documents and Settings\barbaran\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLK39\Response to
Comments (00455513-2).DOC
- 8 -
e
e
Log Item #84. Email: Adele Govert and Dean Morgan. July 20, 2006
Comment: Supportive of the project; give it careful consideration.
Response: No response is required.
Log Item #85. Email: Jan Givens. July 19,2006
Comment: Supportive of the project; it would increase tax revenues and tourism dollars,
provide jobs and give economic incentives for new businesses to come to the area.
Response: No response is required.
Log Item #86. Email: Bernie and Bev Kestler. July 20, 2006
Comment: Why is Trendwest or PLA reluctant to provide CC&R's for this project?
Our entire area is covered by CC&R's that are in place to maintain the integrity of the
community. What is allowable to happen to the project should Trendwest not be
successful?
Response: CC&R's are not necessary for the Trendwest site as the project has been
designed already and will be built all at once. The project will be subject to the terms
and conditions of the Port Ludlow Development Agreement and any conditions imposed
on the project by Jefferson County.
Log Item #87. Letter: Bill and Beverly Browne. July 20, 2006
Comment: Supportive of the project; the Trendwest addition would provide economic
justification for expanding retail and professional options that would serve us locally and
provide a larger base for community amenities.
Response: No response is required.
Log Item #88. Email: Maria Biondi. July 20, 2006
Comment: Supportive of the project; it would provide positive benefits to the Port
Ludlow Community and Jefferson County.
Response: No response is required.
Log Item #89. Email: Douglas and Joy Herring. July 21, 2006
Comment: Supportive of the project; it will add much needed economic support for the
golf course, Port Ludlow Community and Jefferson County.
Response: No response is required.
{00455513,DOC;2}
C:\Documents and Settings\barbaran\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLK39\Response to
Comments (00455513-2).DOC
-9-
e
e
Log Item #90. Email: Joy Herring. July 21, 2006
Comment: Supportive of the project; it will be beneficial economically for the
community of Port Ludlow, Jefferson county, and the golf course.
Response: No response is required.
Log Item #91. Email: Debi Nelson (with attached letter). July 21, 2006
Comment: Washington Department of Ecology reiterated its comments concerning
Toxic Cleanup as stated in its letter of March 2, 2005 regarding this project.
Response: Department of Ecology 's requests regarding Toxic Cleanup will be followed.
Log Item #92. Email: Herman and Carolyn Voss. July 21, 2006
Comment: Supportive of the project; currently are Trendwest owners. The addition will
increase outside (visitor) play at the golf course and possibly eliminate any additional
increases in member dues.
Response: No response is required.
Log Item #93. Email: Matt and Inette Wallace. July 21, 2006
Comment: Vigorously oppose the plan to sell to Trendwest for a time share facility; the
Trendwest time share at Discovery Bay is underutilized and in need of maintenance. The
addition of time share is outside the scope of the Port Ludlow Resort Master Plan.
Although PLA previously attempted to circumvent the plan by reinventing the concept of
time share and identifying the facility use as "multi-family", it does not change the
impact on our community.
Response: Timeshare uses will be permitted within the Port Ludlow Master Planned
Resort if the amendment to the Port Ludlow Development Agreement is approved. The
Trendwest project will be conditioned by Jefferson County to avoid adverse impacts to
the community.
Log Item #95. Email: Bill and Barbara Schaefer. July 21, 2006
Comment: Opposition to the project.
Response: No response is required.
{004555J3,DOC;2}
C:\Documents and Settings\barbaran\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLK39\Response to
Comments (00455513-2).DOC
- 10 -
e
e
Log Item #96. Letter: Charles E. Main. July 21, 2006
Comment: Supportive of the project; PLA has created a resort community without equal
in Washington. The economic benefits of additional jobs are obvious, with opportunities
for young people; the project will provide much needed tax revenues.
Response: No response is required.
Log Item #97. Email: Cynthia and Tony Durham. July 22, 2006
Comment: Supportive of the project; it will bring numerous benefits to Jefferson
County and Port Ludlow.
Response: No response is required.
Log Item #98. Letter: Leslie Powers individually and for Rick Rozzell. July 21, 2006
Comment: Opposition-detailed. Included summary of appeal filed by Leslie Powers
and Rick Rozzell against Jefferson County, Trendwest Resorts, Inc., and Port Ludlow
Associates, LLC.
Response: The proposed amendment to the Port Ludlow Development Agreement is not
illegal. See response to Log Item #56.
The Ludlow Cove II property on which the Trendwest project is proposed is not subject to
any CC&R's so the provisions of any existing CC&R 's within the Port Ludlow MPR are
not applicable to this property.
The number of public recreational amenities that are available to users of the Trendwest
project is not relevant. Nor is it relevant that the recreational amenities provided at the
Trendwest facility will not be open to the general public.
The appellate hearing examiner's determination regarding P LA's previous application is
not applicable because it was issued on the basis of 1995 zoning regulations. Those
regulations are not applicable to the current proposal.
The proposed amendment to the Port Ludlow Development Agreement does not conflict
with the vested rights doctrine. The individuals who purchased property from Olympic
Resources or P LA may have obtained vested rights with respect to their individual
properties, but they did not obtain any vested rights with respect to the property of
others. To the extent that there are CC&R's that affect certain properties within the Port
Ludlow MPR, those CC&R's affect only the property that has been subjected to the
CC&R's. The Ludlow Cove II on which the Trendwest project is proposed is not subject
to any CC&R 's, and the provisions of other CC&R's are not relevant to the review and
approval of applications for development on the Ludlow Cove II property.
{00455$13.DOC;2}
C:\Documents and Settings\barbaran\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLK39\Response tQ
Comments (00455513-2).DOC
- 11 -
e
e
RCW 36. 70B.170-210, which are the State statutes providingfor the adoption of
development agreements, contains no reference to consistency with comprehensive plans.
There is a requirement in RCW 36. 70B.170(J) for development agreements to be
consistent with applicable development regulations, but there is no requirement for
consistency with the comprehensive plan. As discussed in the response to Log Item #56,
the proposed amendment to the Development Agreement is consistent with applicable
development regulations. Although the amendment to the Development Agreement
modifies certain development regulations, the Jefferson County legislation that
implements the development agreement statutes specifically allows development
regulations to be modified in the Port Ludlow MP R pursuant to a development
agreement.
The Development Agreement specifically provides that the only parties that must approve
an amendment are PLA and Jefferson County. Parties who have purchased property
from P LA do not have any right to approve or consent to an amendment to the
Development Agreement.
The Shoreline Substantial Development Permit Application was reviewed by Department
of Ecology. Department of Ecology made only one comment on the applications, and
that was a reiteration of their concern regarding Toxic Cleanup as expressed in their
letter of 2005. Department of Ecology did not raise the concerns expressed by Mr.
Stewart in 2005 in regard to the current application. Moreover, the Department of
Ecology did not appeal the Shoreline Substantial Development Permit that was issued in
2005, so the Department's concerns as expressed by Mr. Stewart were not of such a level
that Department of Ecology felt an appeal was necessary.
Authorization to conduct grading pursuant to the general NPDES that has been issued by
the Department of Ecology will be obtained. This authorization is a standard
requirement for any grading that exceeds one acre, and such authorization is typically
obtained when the building permit is issued.
Jefferson County has determined that it has adequate personnel to handle emergency
services within the Port Ludlow MPR, including the proposed development by Trendwest.
Similarly, there are adequate water and sewer services to service the proposed
development.
Log Item #99. Letter: Leslie Powers. July 24, 2006
Comment: Opposition-detailed
Response: No response is required.
{004555 13. DOC;2 }
C:\Documents and Settings\barbaran\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLK39\Response to
Comments (00455513-2).DOC
- 12 -
--
e
Log Item #101. Letter: Leslie Powers. July 21, 2006
Comment: Opposition-detailed
Response: Log Item #101 contains two letters, one dated July 21, 2006 to the Board of
County Commissioners and one dated July 24, 2006 to Al Scalf and Barbara Nightingale.
Letter of July 21, 2006:
The Trendwest project was not rejected by the Department of Ecology. One employee of
the Department of Ecology, Jeffery Stewart, questioned the proposed use, but Department
of Ecology did not challenge Jefferson County's decision to approve the Shorelin~
Substantial Development Permit for the project.
In 2005, the Jefferson County Sheriff questioned whether there were adequate police
resources to handle the demand of the Trendwest project, and Jefferson County
determined that there were adequate resources and adequate public services and
facilities for the project.
Letter of July 24, 2006:
The Trendwest proposal is a timeshare facility. It is regulated and governed by
timeshare laws. As noted previously, whether the Trendwest amenities are available to
the general public or whether certain resort amenities are available to the users of the
Trendwest facility is irrelevant for the purpose of evaluating the applications currently
before the Board of County Commissioners.
The Mitigated Determination of Non-Significance was not based on conclusions that
were rejected by Mr. Galt. The impacts of the proposed development were evaluated and
whether the use is classified as multifamily or commercial is not determinative. What is
determinative is the amount of traffic the project will generate and the other
environmental impacts of the project. Those impacts are the same whether the project is
deemed to be multifamily or commercial.
Mr. Galt's decision on the applications filed in 2005 is not relevant to the current
applications.
The Department of Ecology reviewed the current applications and did not express any
concern about the type of use. Department of Ecology's only comment on the current
applications was a reiteration of its concerns regarding Toxic Cleanup, which were
raised in 2005.
The current applications do not contain a binding site plan. Trendwest has determined
that it is not necessary to have a binding site plan in order to construct their proposed
project.
{00455513.DOC;2}
C:\Documents and Settings\barbaran\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLK39\Response to
Comments (00455513-2).DOC
- 13 -
e
e
Log Item #102. Letter: Alison Moss. July 24, 2006
Comment: Same as Log Item #56.
Response: See response to Log Item #56.
Log Item #103. Letter: Charles R. Main. July 21, 2006
Comment: Same as Log item #96
Response: No response is required.
Log Item #104. Email: Jerry Conover. July 24, 2006
Comment: Supportive of the project; perhaps more medical services would be
established because currently only have the Fire Department.
Response: No response is required.
Log Item #104. Email: Captain Jerry Conover, July 26, 2006
Comment:
Response: No response is required.
{00455513.DOC;2}
C:\Documents and Settings\barbaran\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLK39\Response to
Comments (00455513-2).DOC
- 14 -