Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutLog142 JEFFERSON COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 621 Sheridan Street Port Townsend, WA 98368 AI Scalf, Director DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DIVISION STAFF REPORT TO JEFFERSON COUNTY HEARING EXAMINER Re: Proposed Consolidated Land Use ) Application (amended development ) agreement and shoreline permit) ) for a 120-Unit Trendwest Timeshare on Tract E in the Port Ludlow MPR PROPOSED FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDA TrONS File No.: Applicant: MLA06-00221/Z0N06-00024/SDP06-000 19 Trendwest Resorts Inc. Port Ludlow Associates LLC SUMMARY APPLICATION AND RECOMMENDATION Date of Application: Application was received on June 8, 2006 and found substantially complete on June 14, 2006. This application is vested under the ordinances in effect under the Port Ludlow Development Agreement. Open Record Hearing Date: The public hearing is scheduled for September 22, 2006 at 2:00 pm in the Auditorium ofthe Bay Club at 120 Spinnaker Lane, Port Ludlow, W A 98365. Amendment to Development Agreement and Shoreline Permit Proposal: The proposal would develop a l20-unit time-share residential project on 14.66 acres situation within the Port Ludlow Master Planned Resort area in Jefferson County. The proposed project would include six multifamily time-share residential buildings, one reception/recreation building, a private road system, and recreational amenities, such as private swimming pool, barbecues, spas, and public and private trails. Recommendation: Approval with conditions. report). (360) 379-4450 ascalf@co.iefferson.wa.us (Recommended Conditions attached to this LOG lTEM # tt..f~ Long fPaIEr~nni~ of I '{ FAX: (360) 379-4451 Building Permits/lnspections Development Review Division BACKGROUND INFORMATION Proponents: Trendwest Resorts Inc.! Port Ludlow Associates LLC Representative: Barbara Nightingale, Port Ludlow Lead Planner Legal Description: The location is proposed for Paradise Bay Parcel 968 800 102 in Section 17, Township 28, Range 01 East, WM, located on Paradise Bay Road at Breaker Lane, Port Ludlow, W A 98365. Project Proposal: The proposal would develop a 120-unit time-share residential project on 14.66 acres situation within the Port Ludlow Master Planned Resort area in Jefferson County. The proposed project would include six multifamily time-share residential buildings, one reception/recreation building, a private road system, recreational amenities such as private swimming pool, barbecues, spas, and public and private trails. The project will be served by a public water and sewer system, provided by Olympic Water and Sewer, Inc. A storm drainage system for water quality mitigation will be constructed. A single access road serves the site off of Paradise Bay Road across from Breaker Lane. Public access to the waterfront will be provided by a trail across the property form Paradise Bay Road to the Picnic Point area. The wetland and stream areas, along with their associated buffers, are located in a Native Growth Protection Easement. A Habitat Management Plan describes a Wetland Buffer Enhancement Plan to be completed as part of this proposal. Shoreline revegetation will also be done according to a Landscaping Plan (dated May 9,2003) (Exhibit 449 Sub95-00003 Ludlow Cove) and Habitat Management Plan (Exhibit 446 SUB95-00003). This consolidated application includes: 1) ZON06-00024, an amendment to the Port Ludlow Development Agreement defining and allowing timeshare in the Port Ludlow Master Planned Resort on this parcel; and 2) SDP06-00019 a Shoreline Substantial Development Permit, in compliance with the Jefferson County Shoreline Management Master Program. A new threshold determination is not required. A Mitigated Determination of Non-Significance (MDNS) was issued July 26, 2005 on the original proposal. This final determination was issued pursuant to WAC 197-11-350(3). The proposal has no additional significant adverse impacts. No appeal was received on the MDNS issued July 26, 2005. Prior Related Projects: This project is located within Ludlow Cove. The original Ludlow Cove project was submitted and substantially complete on January 19, 1995. That application was vested to the land use rules and development standards in effect on the date the application was submitted. Ludlow Cove includes a subdivision, 27.75 acres, for single-family residence and Tract E, 14.66 acres, with development proposed by this application. The entire Ludlow Cove project, Division 1 and Division 2 proposal, are projects anticipated as part ofthe Port Ludlow MPR build out. The Development Program was reviewed in a 1993 EIS that established many mitigation requirements for the entire buildout. Among those requirements were conservancy set- asides, water quality and groundwater resource monitoring, and shoreline public access points. Site improvements and infrastructure for Ludlow cove Division 1 are complete, including a partial trail and bridge for the required beachfront public access at Picnic Point. The 2002 Hearing Examiner Decision on Ludlow Cove (SUB95-0003/Z0N95-0001/SDP97- 0009) stands as the law of that case and bound all parties of that project. In 2005, PLA t:OOt~M an application for the 120 unit Trendwest Project. On December 2, 2005, Hearin~x~~i Irv Page ?- of Berteig, approved the Shoreline Substantial Development Permit and the Binding Site Plan/Condominium Subdivision proposal. A dispute arose as to the nature of the use of the site. That is whether the PLNTrendwest proposal is a multi-family residential or another type of use. The Hearing Examiner decision was appealed to the Appellate Hearing Examiner John Galt, who described the basic dispute to be whether Trendwest's proposal is more like an apartment than a hotel/motel". The Appellate Hearing Examiner found the Trendwest proposal to be transient accommodations not allowed under either the vested 1995 G-l multi-family zoning nor under the current single family residential zoning. This decision has been appealed to Superior Court and remains there. To resolve this issue, the applicant has chosen to define "timeshare" through an amendment to the Port Ludlow Development Agreement. Although the Appellate Hearing Examiner stated that transient accommodations are not allowed in single family residential zones, under the current MPR Code, they are not prohibited in areas zoned for single family residences. Location and Site Description: The subject parcel is recorded as Tract E of Ludlow Cove Division 1, Phase 1. It is located between Paradise Bay Road and Port Ludlow Bay, approximately 1000 feet south of the intersection of Paradise Bay Road and Oak Bay Road. Access to the site is across Paradise Road from Breaker Lane, which provides access to the Village Commercial Center. Tract E comprises the parcels formerly shown as Tracts A and B in the approved preliminary plat of Ludlow Cove. The property encompasses 14.66 acres, or approximately 638,590 square feet. The site is located on the north shore of Ludlow Cove at the west end of Port Ludlow Bay. This area of Ludlow Cove has commonly been called the "log dump" by Port Ludlow residents. The site is currently zoned for single family residential development according to the MPR Code, Ordinance #08-1004-99. Wetland and Stream A class II wetland of just over one acre is located on the north part of the site (Wetland I). A small stream runs partially in a drainage ditch from west to east along the edge of Wetland I and discharges into Ludlow Cove. This stream was reported as a Type 3 stream classifying the stream when Ludlow Cove was originally reviewed even though the proponent submitted studies classifying the stream as a Type 5 stream. To resolve the conflict between Type 3 and Type 5 buffers, a system of buffer averaging was approved by the County in consultation with the Washington State Department ofFish and Wildlife that met the requirements for a Type 3 stream. The wetland, stream, and buffer areas for the project were established as part of the original Ludlow Cove approval and were recorded with the final plat of Ludlow Cove Division 1. On the current plans the stream is shown as a Type 5 stream, but is subject to the recorded buffer requirement. The upland areas of the site slope from north to south toward the shoreline. The area of the site proposed for development, the central and south portions, slope gently (2% to 7% slopes). The area of Wetland I and the Type 3 stream slope more steeply (about a 16% slope). Along the water's edge, the property drops steeply, with a vertical relief ranging form three to twenty feet. The developable area of the site excludes Wetland 1, the stream and the associate buffers, which are preserved in a Native Growth Protection Easement. Total developable area measured form the line of ordinary high water to the NGPE or Paradise Bay Road is approximately 554, 385 square feet. NOTICES AND COMMENTS LOG ITEM # /'1';- . Page 3 of Procedural Inforll1ation: Notice of Application: June 19,2006 (Exhibit 39) · Mailed to Adjacent Property Owners & Interested Parties: June 21,2006 (Exhibit 44) · Publication of Legal Notices: June 19,2006 (Port Townsend-Jefferson County Leader) (Exhibit 39) · Mailed to Agency Reviews with Mitigated Determination of Non significance (MDNS) June 23,2006 (Exhibit 48). Notice of Public Hearing Mailed to adjacent property owners, agencies, interested parties, applicant, newspapers, website and official posting places (September 5,2006 (Exhibit 128) · Publication of Legal Notices: August 2,2006 (Exhibit 111) and August 23, 2006 (Exhibit 118) in the Port Townsend-Jefferson County Leader Site Visit: Jefferson County Development Review staff conducted site visits on numerous occasions since receipt of the application. Comments Received from Interested Parties of Record: Les Powers Exhibits 49/50/98/99/101/130 Bill Cooke Exhibit 52 H.H. Cloutier Exhibit 54 Alison Moss representing Lewis Hall Exhibits 56/1 02 Joe Kelly Exhibit 57 Port Ludlow Village Council Elizabeth Zonneveld Exhibit 60 Richard and Deborah Bozanich Exhibit 62 Bob Asbell Exhibit 63 Rick Rozzell Exhibits 64/98 Allen and Delee Panasuk Exhibit 65 Judith McCay Exhibit 66 Greg Hupp Exhibit 67 Bruce Schmitz Exhibit 68170 Walter and Joan Kohn Exhibit 71 Walt and Maria Exhibit 72 Robert and Nancy Reasoner Exhibit 73 Jim and Ellen Larimer Exhibit 74 Thomas Stone Exhibit 75 Edward Hughes Exhibit 76 Chuck and Gale Byington Exhibit 77 Jim Boyer Exhibit 78 George and Caroline Exhibit 79 Gerry Abbott Exhibit 80 William e. and Phyllis L. Hansen Exhibit 81 Bud and Lennetta Johnson Exhibit 82 Tom and Mary Ann Callahan Exhibit 83 Adele Govert and Dean Morgan Exhibit 84 Jan Givens Exhibit 85 Bernie and Bev Kestler Exhibit 86 Bill and Beverly Browne Exhibit 87 Maria Biondi Exhibit 88 Douglas and Joy Herring Exhibit 89/90 Washington State Dept. of Ecology, Debi Nelson 91 Herman and Carolyn Voss Exhibit 92 Matt and Inette Wallace Exhibit 93 Bill and Barbara Schaefer Exhibit 95 Charles E. Main Exhibits 96/1 03 LOG ITEM # Ilf'J- Page 0/' of Cynthia and Tony Durham Exhibit 97 Jerry Conover Exhibit 104 Russ and Judy Michel Exhibit 118 Terry and Tumey Oswald Exhibit 55 Comments from the Interested Parties of Record included comments in favor of the proposed project and comments opposing the project. Comments supportive of the project were received from twenty seven parties (Exhibits 55, 57, 62, 63, 65, 66, 71, 72, 73, 74, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 83, 84, 85, 87, 88, 89/90, 92, 96, 97, 104, and 118). In general their reasons were the economic, service, and recreational benefits, to the larger MPR community that they believed the project could provide. These comments reflected a general agreement that this proposed project is consistent with MPR objectives and land-uses. Twelve parties opposed the project (Exhibits 50/98/99/101, 52, 54, 56, 60, 64/98, 67, 68/70, 82, 86,95, and 118). These parties expressed concern with the legality of changing the development standards for an area presently zoned under the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan for a density of 4 dwellings per acre or 58 dwellings to a density of 120 dwellings for the same area. These parties also expressed concern with the lack of Covenants Conditions & Restrictions (CC&Rs) attached to the land and object to the earlier subdivision and boundary line adjustment that was approved by the County. Some of these parties hold the belief that pursuant to the Master CC&Rs identified in the Development Agreement, the Port Ludlow Village Council should have been a recognized authority in approving the agreement or any changes to the cited parcels. One of the parcels in the list to which CC&Rs apply, was part of Ludlow Cove 1. The parcel in question (821171011) has since then been retired, due to subdivision activity. As Jefferson County is unable to enforce CC&Rs, staff considers this matter to be a civil matter that the interested parties may take up with PLA. It does not however, effect the decisions or authority of Jefferson County in its issuance of a building permit or approval for this project. On the subject of the legality of changing the development standards for Tract E, County staff recognizes that the applicant has this path available pursuant to the PLDA Section 3. Concerns include the adequacy of police and fire protection. Staff requested review and comments on the proposal from the following agencies: · Washington State Department of Ecology: Written comment is hereby incorporated by reference (Exhibit #91). · Washington State Department ofFish & Wildlife: No comment submitted · Jefferson County Department of Public Works: No comment submitted · Jefferson County Health Department: No comment submitted. · Washington State Department of Health: No comment submitted. · Port Townsend School District #49: No comment submitted · East Jefferson County Fire Protection District: No comment submitted. · City of Port Townsend: No comment submitted · Jefferson County PUD #1: No comment submitted. · Jefferson Transit: No comment submitted. · Port of Port Townsend: No comment submitted · Washington State Department of Transportation: No comment submitted. · Jamestown S'Klallam Tribe: No comment submitted · Port Gamble S , Klallam Tribe: No comment submitted LOG ITEM · Peninsula Daily News and Port Townsend Leader: No comment sub:Slitted / '1;1. · Port Townsend Leader. No comment submitted. Page 5- of STAFF FINDINGS REVIEW CRITERIA - AMENDMENT TO PORT LUDLOW DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT Consistency Review: Project review requires that all code standards be met or that a project be modified or conditioned to meet applicable standards before permits can be approved and issued. State law provides that a project vests to the land use controls that are in effect at the date of a building permit application. As this is a new application, without vesting rights in a previous application, only the ordinances vested in the PLDA apply. These are: MPR Code Ordinance # 08- 1004-99, Stormwater Management Ordinance #10-104-96, Critical Areas Ordinance #14-0626-95, Land Use Procedures Ordinance #04-0828-98, Jefferson County Subdivision Ordinance #04-0526- 92, and the Jefferson County Management Master Program adopted March 7, 1989. As timeshare ownership is not currently defined in Jefferson County Code, the proposed amendment to the PLDA defines the term timeshare. Jefferson County Code 18.10.200 defines "transient residence or transient ADU as a single-family residential unit or ADU used for short- term transient occupancy (for periods less than 30 days)". As a commercial use involving the rental of any structure or portion thereof for the purpose of providing lodging for periods less than 30 days. Similarly, JCC defines "commercial use" as a business use or activity at a scale greater than a home business or cottage industry involving retail or wholesale marketing of goods and services. Examples of commercial uses include offices and retail shops. As the development proposes to operate through ownership interest, rather than directly outlay of money for each stay, and the membership interest is in a personal property interest through ownership in an association holding fee ownership interest, the resulting property interest is different from the contractual interest one acquires when renting a room for a night in a hotel. Applicable Ordinances and Plans: · Growth Management Act RCW36.70A.362 · Growth Management Act RCW36.70B. Development Agreements .170, .180, .190, and .200. · Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan, adopted August 28, 1998, as amended: Chapter 3, Land Use and Rural Element o Land Use Map, p 3-45 · Port Ludlow Development Agreement. Jefferson County Resolution No. 42-00 (effective 5/8/00). o Exhibit A Parties, Planning Concept and Recitals (pages 7-27) o Exhibit 2 Map of Properties Owned by Pope Resources and Subsidiaries (page 68) o Exhibit 3 (page 69) Land Use Map Land Use designations taken from Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan dated August 28,1998 (page 69) o Appendix A Port Ludlow Master Planned Resort Code (MPR Code) (pages 70-98) o Appendix B Resolution No. 72-98 (pages 99-125) o Appendix C Stormwater Management Ordinance #10-1104-96 (pages 126-135) o Appendix D Critical Areas Ordinance #05-0509-94 (pages 136-248) o Appendix E Land Use Procedures Ordinance #04-0828-98 (pages 249-310) LOG ITEM · Chapter 197-11 WAC, State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) Rul~ /y?- Page G of REVIEW CRITERIA - SHORELINE SUBSTANTIAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT . Jefferson County Shoreline Management Master Program 1989. JCCC 18.25. (Appendix F of Port Ludlow Development Agreement (pages 420-541) Section Four. Shoreline Designations and Project Classifications: The shoreline for this project is designated as Urban. Residential use is a primary use for this shoreline. Residential development and recreational facilities, overnight or day use, are primary uses along such shorelines. The policies and performance standards of Sections 4.108 Urban Shoreline Designation, 5.160 Residential, 5.190 Transportation, and 5.20 Utilities, apply to the proposal. These sections were also applied to the original shoreline permit for Ludlow Cove and resulted in a set of conditions applied to the project. Those conditions relate primarily to public access, stormwater management, and compliance with the required development standards under the Jefferson County Shoreline Management Master Program (SMMP). The SMMP sets out a set of development standards that the project must comply with. These standards include but are not limited to requirements for parking, landscaping, setbacks, height, preservation of natural features, locations and limitation son fences and accessory structures. The proposal as submitted meets these standards and they will not be repeated as conditions of this approval. Similarly, standards related to general erosion control and storm water management will not be repeated. Instead, a condition will be recommended that requires any change in the approved plans to be submitted to the Department for review to insure continuing compliance with applicable Shoreline and zoning code standards. The Washington DOE Letter: The Department received a letter form the Washington Department of Ecology dated July 21,2006 (Exhibit 91) that raised a number of issues that must also be addressed. The first issue relates to the question of residential use and timeshare ownership. That issue is presented in Land Use Consistency section of this report (page--). It may be noted here that the Department Ecology has no jurisdiction over local code interpretation and that the DOE letter simply states that if the use were to be considered commercial use, a different permit process would apply. The second DOE issue concerns public access to the waterfomt. The prior approval for the original Ludlow Cove project considered the entire site, including the current development parcel. Public access to Picnic Point was required based on Shoreline Master Program and SEP A authority. Those conditions have been partially fulfilled to date as part of the Division 1 project. The conditions are reiterated in this project which will fulfill the public access requirements imposed on the Ludlow Cove project. The Department also notes that certain major components of the public access plan for the entire MPR community were established in the 1993 EIS for the Port Ludlow Development Program. Those components included public access at the Marina and Burner Point, signage and maintenance agreements. The WDOE letter also stated that the proposal site was located on a shoreline of statewide significance. All areas of Puget Sound lying seaward form the line of extreme low tide are considered shorelines of statewide significance. No part of this project, however will occur waterward of the line of extreme low tide, below the ordinary high watermark, or even within. the sh~reline setback, expect the shoreline revegetation required t~fE~ shorelIne permIt. # I If "- Page 7 -of STAFF ANALYSIS & CONCLUSIONS 1. Growth Management Act RCW 36.70A.362 Master Planned Resort-Existing resort may be included. An MPR means 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. 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. Staff concludes that a residential time-share multi-family project is consistent with the nature of the MPR as a destination resort and complies with the Growth Management Act (GMA). This particular project is also adjacent to the MPR commercial village which can provide visitor accommodations, such as groceries, toiletries, gas station, and restaurant opportunities. 2. Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan-Land Use and Rural Element-Master Planned Resort Master Planned Resort-Goal LNG 23.0 states: Maintain the viability of Port Ludlow as Jefferson County's only existing Master Planned Resort (MPR) authorized under RcW 36.70A.362. The policies to achieve this goal include LNP 23.1 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. LNP 23.2 The provision of urban-style services to support the anticipated growth and development of Port Ludlow shall occur only within the designated MPR boundary. LNP23.3. No new urban or suburban land uses will be established in the vicinity of the Port Ludlow Master Planned Resort. LNP 23.4 The total number of residential lots allowable within the MPR boundary shall not exceed the 1993 Port Ludlow FEIS total of 2,250 residential dwelling units. LNP23.5. Port Ludlow shall accommodate a variety of housing types, including affordable housing, single family and multi-family housing and assisted living care facilities. LNP 23.6 Support efforts to preserve and protect Port Ludlow's greenbelts, open spaces and wildlife corridors. LNP 25.6.1. Support the establishment of a Ludlow Creek Nature Preserve. LNP 23.7 No preliminary plants will be processed by Jefferson County for the 200-acre south of the Port Ludlow Golf Course within the MPR boundary 9as depicted on the official Jefferson Land Use Map) until such time as a conceptual site plan has been approved by the County. LNP23.8 The Port Ludlow Master Planned Resort commercial area shall be designed as the Port Ludlow Village Commercial Center. Staff finds that this proposal would meet the goals and policies of the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan. This project has submitted an approved stormwater plan, a habitat management plan, a landscaping plan, an archeological and culturally sensitive areas assessment, a traffic impacts analysis, and a site plan under the previous application SUB05-0004. These documents identify environmentally and culturally sensitive areas, buffers, precautionary measures, and post construction restoration plantings. In consideration of these assessments, precautions, and restoration planning, Staff recognizes this project to be environmentally sensitive with landscape and habitat management actions being taken that can restore and enhance the natural environment of the area. 3. Port Ludlow Development Agreement. Jefferson County Resolution No. 42-00 (effective 5/8/00) Auditors File Number 435974 is an agreement between only Port Ludlow Associates LLC and Jefferson County. Major elements of the development agreement are Planning Concept and Value, Property Elements, Development Standards, Flexibility and Modification of Property Development elements and county Review Procedures and Standards. LOG ITEM #Ilf').. Page <i of o PLANNING CONCEPT AND VALUE: A plan for future buildout within the MPR that promotes growth management and planning objectives of the County, including reasonable priced housing; innovative and sensitive land development with clustering and critical area tracts; environmental protection; creative mix of resort, commercial and residential uses; and sustainable economic vitality. o PROPERTY ELEMENTS: (Section 2.3 pages 9-10 and Map ofMPR and Permitted Uses, Exhibit 3 page 69). The parcel proposed for development is designated for single family residence at a density of 4 dwellings per acre o DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS: the agreement establishes permitted land uses, density standards within the MPR (Appendix A), planning goals (Appendix B), surface water standards (Appendix C), Critical Area Standards (Appendix D), Shoreline Master Program (Appendix F), Water, sewer, police and fire. o FLEXIBILITY and MODIFICATION OF POPE (PLA) PROPERTY DEVELOPMENT ELEMENTS, STANDARDS FOR DEVELOPMENT AND OTHER MITIGATIONS BY COUNTY:. This section of the agreement provides for flexibility to the initial development standards during property buildout in response to new information, changing community and market needs, encouraging reasonably priced housing; and encouraging modifications that provide comparable benefit or functional equivalent with no significant reduction of public benefits or increased cost to the development. o COUNTY REVIEW PROCEDURES AND STANDARDS: are set by the Land Use Procedures Ordinance #04-0828-98 (Appendix E) and SEP A. The agreement is vesting in the standards found in Appendices A-F. GENERAL PROVISIONS allows amendment by only the Parties of the Development Agreement (PLA and the county). The Board of County Commissioners must approve all amendments to this Agreement by ordinance or resolution and only after notice to the public and a public hearing. The Development Agreement does allow the flexibility to change development standards for a specific site, if it is approved by both the County Board of Commissioners and PLA. 4. Exhibit A Port Ludlow Development Agreement sets a residential unit maximum of 2,250 single family units in the MPR boundaries. Presently approximately 200 additional residential units can be added to the MPR. As a residential project with 120 units, the cap of 2,250 allows for 120 with approximately 80 residential units remaining for development. Therefore, this project does not exceed the residential development cap for the MPR. 5. Exhibit C. Jefferson County Stormwater Management Ordinance #10-1104-96. This ordinance adopts a stormwater management manual, thresholds for determining development requirements; and provide a means of regulating land disturbing activities on private and public land and subsequent stromwater runoff. The provisions of this ordinance are to guide and advise all who conduct new development or redevelopment. The provisions of this ordinance establish the level of compliances that must be met to permit a property from which stormwater flows into or potentially flows into the Puget Sound Basin to be developed within Jefferson County. The application includes an extensive stormwater drainage plan (dated and a geotechnical engineering subsurface investigation by Geoengineers (dated 3/22/1995) (Exhibit 98 SUB95- 0003 and Supplemental Geotechnical Engineering Services (dated June 27,2005) (Exhibit 216 SUB05-0004 Ludlow Cove 2). A stormwater Management Facility Maintenance Agreement has been entered into by Port Ludlow Associates and Jefferson County Public Works for the Ludlow Cove. LOG ITEM # /If d- Page r of 6. Exhibit D. Jefferson County Interim Critical Areas Ordinance # 05-0509-94. These regulations allow for development to proceed in a manner consistent with the rights of individuals to peacefully use and enjoy their property, while simultaneously regulating and mitigating development that will have adverse impacts on property and the environment, thereby benefitting all the residents of the County. These regulations offer protection of critical environmental features without diminishing the potential for sustained economic development in Jefferson County. This proposal is accompanied by a Habitat Management Plan (May 6, 1995), Wetland Assessment (June 23, 1995) (Exhibit 99 SUB95-0003 Ludlow Cove), and Landscaping Plan (July 24, 2003) delineating wetland buffers, buffer enhancement and restoration plans. 7. Appendix E. Land Use Procedures Ordinance #04-0828-98. Section 7. Processing Consolidated Applications. This ordinance states that a land use application that involves two or more permits, may, at the option of the Applicant, be consolidated into a single process using the highest procedure required for any permit included in the application. For example, no application involving Type A, B and C permits shall be process under Type C procedure. Section 16. Board of County Commissioners Decision (Type C) Procedures. As a Type C Application, a Board of County Commissions Hearing is required for a decision. The Board of County Commissioners may refer such an application to the Hearing Examiner for an open record hearing. The Hearing Examiner will transmit a written recommendation from the open record hearing to the Board of Commissioners. Appeal of the BoCC decision is only to Superior Court. 8. Archaeological and historical site protection. An archeological and culturally sensitive area assessment has been conducted for this site (Exhibit 97 SUB95-00003 Ludlow Cove). The following shall be stated as a condition of approval on all development permits issued by the county: If during excavation or development of the site an area of potential archaeological significance is uncovered, all activity in the immediate area shall be halted, and the Administrator shall be notified at once. This proposal will comply with this requirement as a condition of approval. No earth disturbing activity shall be allowed in sensitive areas unless witnessed by Larson Anthropological/ Archeaological Services (LAAS). Approved Construction Drawings designate this area as a Sensitive Area rather than "Shell Midden" in compliance with State Law (See Special Note #1 on Sheet 5 of the Approved Construction Drawings). No earth disturbing activity is allowed within the sensitive area unless witnessed by Larson Anthropological! Archeological Services (LAAS). In the event Archeological items are discovered during construction, builders and lot owners shall observe the following protocol: Stop Work. Do not further disturb the area or remove any materials there from. Notify immediately the Jefferson County Director of Community Development 360-379-4450. The Director of Community Development will immediately notify the Washington State Office of Archeology and Historic Preservation (OAHP)(306-407-0752). Protect the area from vandals and collectors. Obtain services of a qualified archeologist to evaluate the site and make recommendations for further work in the area. If further excavation or disturbance of the site is necessary, obtain the appropriate permit from the OAHP. Proceed only in compliance with the terms and conditions of said permit. 9. SEPA The SEP A Responsible Official issued a Final Threshold Determination (MDNS) on July 26, 2005 per WAC 197-11-340, 197-11-350 and 197-11-510. No appeal was filed on the final threshold. 36 Recommended Conditions were required prior to permit issuance or any clearing or site disturbance. These are found in the original SEP A document (Exhibit Item 114 SUB05-0004 Ludlow Cove 2). LOG ITEM # /1{)... Page If} of 10. Roads This proposal will abide by the previous approval from Jefferson County Public Works. The proposal is also accompanied by a Traffic impact Analysis (May 1996) (Exhibit 96 SUB95- 00003 Ludlow Cove). RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS Prior to Permit Issuance or Any Clearing or Site Disturbance 1. Proposed roadways, access drives, parking areas, and trails shall be designed to the standards of the Jefferson County Public Works Department and the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO). All necessary plans and specifications shall be submitted to the Public Works Department for review and approval. 2. The plans shall include an 8 feet wide pedestrian walkway along the southerly side of the access road to the buildings. The walkway shall be surfaced with all-weather materials. Plans shall be submitted to the Public Works Department for review and approval. 3. The plans shall include two four foot wide bicycle lanes, which may constitute paved and demarcated shoulders, along the main entry drive, except at the boulevard entrance. At the boulevard entrance, two 13 foot asphalt driving lanes will be supplemented with seven feet wide shoulders of grass-pave or similar material to achieve a 20 foot section sufficient for fire and emergency vehicle access. Lane width along the balance of the entry drive may be reduced to 10 feet in each direction, exclusive of the bicycle lanes. Plans shall be submitted to the Public Works Department for review and approval. 4. The building permit plans shall include lighting specifications and details to confirm that lighting fixtures are designed and hooded to prevent the light source from being directly visible form outside the boundaries of the property. The intensity or brightness of all security lighting shall not adversely affect the use of surrounding properties or adjacent rights-of-way. 5. The applicant shall obtain a Road Approach Permit form the Public Works Department for access onto Paradise Bay Road. 6. Plans and construction activities shall conform to the recommendations in the geotechnical report prepared by GeoEngineers dated March 22, 1995, provided that a revised geotechnical report conforming to the requirements of the ICAO (Ord. # 05-0509-94) may be submitted in support of a request for revisions to the recommendations. The Community Development Department may approve a revision when equal or better protection of critical areas will be obtained. 7. Clearing limits for roads, water, sewer, and storm water utilities, erosion control facilities and all site construction shall be marked in the field and approved by the County. Critical area buffers shall be marked with signs at intervals of one every 100 feet. The signs shall contain the following language: "Critical area buffer. Do not remove or alter existing native vegetation." 8. A Stormwater site Plan that includes a Large Parcel Erosion and Sediment control Plan and a Permanent Stormwater Quality Control Plan and that conforms to the requirements of the Stormwater Management Manual for the Puget Sound Basin and Public Works Department standards shall be submitted and approved. Minimum Requires #1-11 from the Sto~~TEM Management Manual shall apply. # / V ~ Page If of 9. A fire district Impact Fee shall be payable at a rate of$193.00 per unit for each building permit at the time of issuance. 10. All fees for permits to be issued and other work performed associated with t he permits shall be paid. During Construction 11. As described in the Habitat Management Plan developed for the Ludlow cove project and to limit ongoing site disturbance with the potential for erosion and water quality impacts, all site work involving the use of heavy equipment for infrastructure installation, logging, clearing, grubbing and grading shall be completed in one phase. Following this phase, restoration and stabilization shall be conducted, including the application of mulch, hydro seed, stabilization of cut and fill areas, construction of bios wales, and the planting of re-vegetated areas. 12. A set of approved plans shall be on site at all items during construction. 13. Temporary erosion control Best Management Practices shall be implemented continuously in conformance with the approved plans. 14. Seasonal construction limitation: Construction activity between November 1 and April 1 shall require approval of a Temporary Erosion and Sedimentation Control (TESC) Plan including Best Management Practices and meeting the requirements of Jefferson County and the 1994 Stormwater Management Manual for the Puget Sound Basin. 15. The proponent shall arrange for all required inspections from the applicable County department or other agency such as Olympic Water and Sewer, inc., the Fire District or fire Department, or the Health District. 16. Construction hours of operation shall be limited to form 7:00 AM to 6:00 PM Monday through Friday and 8:00 AM to 5:00 PM on Saturdays. 17. To ensure archaeological resources are protected, a professional archaeologist shall monitor any ground disturbing activities within the buffer area for Site 45JE208, as staked and described in the Archaeological Resource Assessment prepared for the project. If archaeological resources are encountered during land development activities, the following procedure shall apply. a. STOP WORK. Avoid further disturbance to the area or removal of any materials. b. Notify the Jefferson County Director Community Development at 360-379-4480. The county will immediately notify the State Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation (OAHP) at 206-783-5010. c. Protect the area form vandals and collectors. d. Have a qualified archaeologist evaluate the site and make recommendations for managing any further work in the area. e. Obtain a permit from OAHP if further excavation or disturbance of the site is necessary. Prior to Occupancy Of Any Building 18. The project engineer shall certify to Jefferson County that construction and all related land disturbing activities have occurred in conformance with the recommendations of the ~~ ITEM # IV 1J.- Page I t')-- of 1995 geotechnical report or an updated report approved by the Jefferson County Department of Community Development. 19. The proponent shall, after consultation with the Public Works Department, trim the shrubs and brush along Paradise Bay Road the property's frontage, as needed to improve sight distance and visibility from the access drive. Any trimming of shrubs and brush within the Native Growth Protection Easement shall be accomplished in a manner compliant with the condition no. 28 below to minimize impact on the NGPE. 20. The provisions of the Habitat Management Plan and Landscape Plan required by and developed in accordance with the original Ludlow Cove approval shall be completed. a. A permanent physical separation between wetland and stream buffers (or the Native Growth Protection Area) and the developed portion of the site shall be installed. b. A notice to the title disclosing the presence of the wetland and stream buffers and the Native Growth Protection Area shall be recorded with the Auditor in a form approved by the Prosecuting Attorney. Prior to Final Approval 21. The proponent shall comply with all processing timelines and final biding site plan/final plat requirements as established by the Public Works Department. 22. All fees for work performed prior to final approval shall be paid. 23. All easements of record shall be graphically portrayed on the final plat and shall include the Auditor's File Number (AFN). Utility easements shall be made by a separate recorded easement, or declaration or dedication of easement, and by graphic portrayal on the final plat. 24. The pedestrian trail along the edge of the Native Growth Protection Easement and accessing the waterfront at Picnic Point as shown on the approved plans shall include an easement ten feet wide for public use. The final plat shall include the following language: "Trail to be part of the Port Ludlow Trail System. The Port Ludlow Community shall have the right to use the trail for pedestrian purposes. The Port Ludlow Trails Committee, under the direction of the Port Ludlow Village Council shall be responsible for maintenance of the Trail". 25. Infrastructure systems including the water and sewer system, power and communication system, access drives, parking, and pedestrian trails and bicycle improvements shall be installed in accordance with the approved plans, and inspected and approved by Olympic Water and Sewer, Inc., Jefferson County, Fire District #3, the County Fire Marshal, or other applicable agency, as required: PROVIDED that the applicant may enter into a surety agreement with the Department of Public Works as an alternative to complete installation of required road or driveway improvements prior to final plat approval. The surety may not exceed one year and must be in a form acceptable to the County Prosecutor. All such sureties must include an estimate ofthe acceptable to the County Prosecutor. All such sureties must include an estimate of the cost of all improvements and the estimate must be approved by the Department of Public Works prior to acceptance ofthe surety. No overhead utilities shall be installed. 26. The project engineer shall certify to Jefferson County that construction and all land disturbing activities have occurred in conformance with the recommendations of the March 22, 1995 LOG ITEM # Ii'" Page I J of geotechnical report or an updated report if approved by the Community Development Departments. 27. The proponent shall enter into a Stormwater Management Facility Maintenance Agreement with the County. The agreement shall be signed and filed with the Jefferson County Auditor prior to final plat approval. 28. The applicant shall enter into an agreement with Jefferson County to areimburse the County for the full cost of designing and constructing a crosswalk across Paradise Bay Road in the vicinity of the site access drive. 29. The proponent shall pay a School district Impact fee in the amount of$1748.40 ($437.10 per lot to the Chimacum School District. 30. The entry drive for the site shall be named and the name shall be shown on the final plat. The proponent shall select the rod name in consultation with the Department of Public Works to avoid duplication of existing road names. For the Life of the Project 31. The trees shall not be removed from the Native Growth Protection Easement area unless a professional arborist determines a potential safety hazard exists. In the event a tree within the NGPE needs to be removed for safety purposes, the tree shall be cut no closer than 3-feet offthe ground so as to keep the root system intact in order to ensure stability of the slope, native vegetation (shrubs or tress) appropriate for slope stability purposes should be planted to replace the tree that was removed. 32. Native vegetation in critical areas, buffers, throughout the Native Growth Protection Are and along the shoreline shall be maintained in compliance with the approved Habitat Management Plan and Landscape Plan. a. Trees shall not be removed unless it is determined by a professional arborist that a potential safety hazard exists. In such a case, the tree shall be cut no closer than three feet to the ground and the root system shall be kept intact. b. Maintenance work shall be done by hand or with minimal mechanical apparatus. 33. Landscaping on the developed portion of the site shall be maintained in compliance with the approved Landscape Plan. 34. Roads, utilities, structures, and other improvements shall comply with the applicable policies and performance standards of the Jefferson County Shoreline Management Master Program. 35. The project shall be built and maintained in compliance with the approved plans. 36. The recreation building, Building 7, shall be operated as an accessory use to the residential complex. LOG ITEM # / 'f~ Page IY of If'