HomeMy WebLinkAboutLog195
e
e
Hearing Examiner: Stephen K. Causseaux, Jr.
Hearing Date: November 3, 2006
Hearing Time: 1:00 p.m.
BEFORE THE JEFFERSON COUNTY HEARING EXAMINER
In the matter of the applications of
)
)
)
)
)
)
for Jefferson County's approval of Amendment )
No.1 to the Port Ludlow Development )
Agreement and a Shoreline Substantial )
Development Permit for Trendwest's 120-unit )
Timeshare Project Within Tract E, Ludlow Cove,)
Port Ludlow, Jefferson County, Washington. )
PORT LUDLOW ASSOCIATES LLC and
TREND WEST RESORTS, INC.,
Applicants,
No. MLA06-00221, ZON06-00024,
and SDP06-00019
MEMORANDUM OF PORT
LUDLOW ASSOCIATES LLC IN
RESPONSE TO MOSS LETTER
REGARDING DEVELOPMENT
AGREEMENT AUTHORITY
AND SEP A COMPLIANCE
I. INTRODUCTION
This memorandum is submitted by Port Ludlow Associates LLC ("PLA") through
its legal counsel, Marco de Sa e Silva, Davis Wright Tremaine LLP, Seattle, Washington,
in response to the letter dated October 31, 2006 (the "Moss Letter"), from Alison Moss,
Dearborn & Moss P.L.L.c., Seattle, Washington, attorney for Port Ludlow property owner
Lewis Hale. The Moss Letter relates to the application of PLA for approval of
Amendment No.1 (File No. MLA06-00221) (the "Amendment") to the Port Ludlow
Development Agreement dated May 1, 2000 (the "Development Agreement"), and the
LOG ITErVi
It /qr
Davis 'rigRt Tr~rn');n'" I I P ~._"
l2anSFICE~ f L/1)
2600 C;;a~~::~~in;o~50~181U ~_~~,~veQl_fJ.L__.~
(206) 622-3150 . Fax: (206) 628-7699
MEMORANDUM OF PORT LUDLOW ASSOCIATES LLC IN
RESPONSE TO MOSS LETTER - 1
SEA 1902006v 1 65364-13
e
e
joint applications of PLA and Trendwest Resorts, Inc, ("Trendwest"), for approval of a
Shoreline Substantial Development Permit (File No. SDP06-00019) (the "Shoreline
Permit").
The applications for the Amendment and Shoreline Permit (collectively, the "2006
Applications"), would allow the development of a 120-unit Trendwest timeshare project
(the "Project") on a 14.66-acre parcel legally described as Tract E as depicted on the Plat
of Ludlow Cove Division No.1, Phase 1, recorded in Volume 8 of Plats, pages 1 through 6
inclusive, records of Jefferson County, Washington ("Tract E"). Tract E is currently
owned by PLA but is under contract of sale to Trendwest. Tract E is located in the Port
Ludlow Master Planned Resort (the "MPR"), in unincorporated Jefferson County,
Washington, The Amendment, if approved, will change the development standards
applicable to Tract E.
In her letter, Ms. Moss alleges that Jefferson County does not have legal authority
to modify development standards in a development agreement adopted under RCW
36. 70B.170 et seq, and that Jefferson County may not use the mitigated determination of
nonsignificance dated July 26, 2005 (the "MDNS"), under the State Environmental Policy
Act, RCW Chapter 43.21C ("SEPA"), in its review of the 2006 Applications.
Ms. Moss is incorrect. The County has the authority to modify development
standards in a development agreement, and the County not only has the option to use the
MDNS in its review of the 2006 Applications, it is expressly required to do so under
SEP A, without taking any further action such as adoption or incorporation by reference or
the preparation of an addendum or supplemental environmental impact statement.
MEMORANDUM OF PORT LUDLOW ASSOCIATES LLC IN
RESPONSE TO MOSS LETTER - 2
SEA 1902006vl 65364-13
LOG ITEM
#---l q~
Page r- ~'-or--
~-,""..-----
Davis Wright Tremai~e LLP--
LAW OFFICES
2600 Century Square' 1501 Fourth Avenue
Seattle, Washington 98101.1688
(206) 622-3150 . Fax (206) 628-7699
e
e
II.
BACKGROUND
A. Port Ludlow MPR Code and Development Agreement.
Jefferson County designated the Port Ludlow MPR in the comprehensive plan
adopted on August 28, 1999, after finding that the unincorporated area commonly known
as Port Ludlow satisfied the criteria established by the Washington Legislature in 1998,
now codified at RCW 36.70A.362, for the designation of existing master planned resorts.
An existing master planned resort is a resort in existence on July 1, 1990, developed as a
significantly self-contained and integrated development that includes short-term visitor
accommodations (e.g" Inn at Ludlow Bay, Harbor Master Restaurant) associated with a
range of indoor and outdoor recreational facilities (e.g., Bay Club, Beach Club, Port
Ludlow Golf Course, Port Ludlow Marina, pedestrian trail system) within the property
boundaries in a setting of significant natural amenities (e.g., Puget Sound, Olympic
Mountains).
On October 4, 1999, shortly after designating the Port Ludlow MPR, Jefferson
County adopted a zoning code for future development within the Port Ludlow MPR in the
form of the MPR Code, Ordinance 08-1004-99. The MPR Code is one of several
development standards applicable to the development of Tract E.
The Project is subject to the Development Agreement between Pope Resources and
its affiliates, the predecessors to PLA, I and Jefferson County, which was created under the
authority of RCW 36.708.170, et seq. The Development Agreement governs the
development of all land owned by PLA within the Port Ludlow MPR.2 The Development
IOn August 8, 2001, Pope Resources and its affiliates assigned to PLA, and PLA ~~~qTfrv1
from them, all of their obligations and rights under the Development Agreemept'Jqr -
2 Except projects vested under prior codes, such as the Trendwest Project. p:"!:.... ...._.__~_____._
'-'cV"Q "3 .to'
MEMORANDUM OF PORT LUDLOW ASSOCIATES LLC IN -"~Y",...._~_.__,__O!
RESPONSE TO MOSS LETTER _ 3 Davis W:~~hb~~~I~aine LLP
2600 Century Square. 1501 Fourth Avenue
Seattle. Washington 98101.1688
(206) 622-J 150 ' Fax (206) 628.7699
SEA 1902006vl 65364-13
e
e
Agreement establishes the development standards, flexibility objectives, land use
procedures, vested rights, and other matters affecting PLA's development of its property
within the Port Ludlow MPR. The Project generally is not subject to Jefferson County's
Uniform Development Code.3
On August 8, 2001, Pope Resources and its affiliates sold to PLA virtually all of
their real property within the Port Ludlow MPR, including Tract E. Pope Resources also
sold to PLA all of the stock of Olympic Water and Sewer, Inc., the provider of sewer and
water utility services within the Port Ludlow MPR, and all of the Pope entities assigned to
PLA their obligations and rights under the Development Agreement.
B. Trendwest Project Applications.
On January 19, 1995, Pope Resources filed applications for County approval of a
Preliminary Plat, Conditional Use Permit (to allow multi-family residential development),
and Shoreline Substantial Development Permit (the" 1995 Applications"). The 1995
Applications were revised on multiple occasions between January 1995 and November
2001, but the County determined that its review of the 1995 Applications was vested under
the regulations in effect in January 1995, On August 2,2002, the Hearing Examiner
approved the 1995 Applications. His decision was not appealed.
In 2004, PLA and Trendwest entered into a real estate purchase and sale agreement
relating to Tract E,4 Because the 1995 Applications did not contemplate the Trendwest
Project in any detail, on January 18, 2005, PLA and Trendwest filed applications for
County approval of the Project on Tract E in the form of a Binding Site Plan Approval and
3 !he Development Agreement does allow for some exceptions to this general rule, rueOG ITe
discussed below, 1{ 1_1\;1
4 That agreement will not be closed until after the County approves the 2006 A1f.B~~'__<-_:_~",_
di:::J >;;:" II ,~, ;"
'---'-'~'~A_~ \..-1' 1 _,.,..~_,~
MEMORANDUM OF PORT LUDLOW ASSOCIATES LLC IN
RESPONSE TO MOSS LETTER - 4
Davis Wright Tremaine LLP
LAW OFFICES
2600 Century Square. 1501 Fourth Avenue
Seattle, WashinglOn 98101-1688
(206) 622-3150 . Fax: (206) 628-7699
SEA 1902006vl 65364-13
e
e
a Shoreline Substantial Development Permit (the "2005 Applications"), relating to Tract E
and adjoining lands. The County's Responsible Official completed environmental review
of the Project as required by SEPA on July 27, 2005, The MDNS was issued on July 27,
2005, in the form of a "Recommendation to Jefferson County Hearing Examiner and
Mitigated Determination of Non significance," a copy of which is attached hereto as
Exhibit A. 5
On September 2,2005, the County's Hearing Examiner approved the 2005
Applications. His decision was appealed by Les Powers, Rick Rozzell, and Lewis Hale, to
the Jefferson County Appellate Hearing Examiner. On October 14, 2005, the Appellate
Hearing Examiner ruled that he lacked jurisdiction to hear the appeal of the Hearing
Examiner's shoreline decision, and so he dismissed that portion of the appeal. The
appellants subsequently appealed that decision to the Shorelines Hearings Board,
On December 7, 2005, the Appellate Hearing Examiner reversed the Hearing
Examiner's decision on the binding site plan decision and remanded the case for further
proceedings. On December 27,2005, PLA and Trendwest appealed that decision to
Jefferson County Superior Court under LUP A -- that appeal is not yet resolved.6
In the appeal to the Shorelines Hearings Board, the Board held on May 17, 2006,
that the Appellate Hearing Examiner had followed an improper procedure by not hearing
the shoreline appeal. The Shoreline Hearings Board remanded the case back to the County
for further proceedings. Those proceedings are on hold, pending the outcome of these
proceedings before the Hearing Examiner.
5 The MDNS noted a "SEP A .APPEAL DEADLINE" of August 9,2005. No one ,filddQG ITErv1
appeal of the MDNS on or pnor to August 9,2005. #' 10<
6 Trendwest no longer seeks a binding site plan approval. Pa~--
MEMORANDUM OF PORT LUDLOW ASSOCIATES LLC IN ~~_".I'l_
RESPONSE TO MOSS LETTER _ 5 Davis W:~~h~;~~~saine LLP --....
26(JO Century Square. 1501 Fourth Avenue
Seattle, Washington 9&10).1688
(206) 622-3150 . Fax: (206) 628-7699
SEA 1902006vl 65364-13
e
e
On June 8, 2006, PLA and Trendwest filed the 2006 Applications. PLA and
Trendwest asked that the two applications be consolidated in a single proceeding before
the Board of County Commissioners, who then referred the applications to the Hearing
Examiner to conduct a hearing and make a recommendation to the Commissioners.
The Project described in the pending Shoreline Permit application is identical in
every respect to the project described in the 2005 Applications, for which the County
completed environmental review in the MONS. There has been no "substantial change" to
the proposal, nor any "[n]ew information indicating a proposal's probable significant
adverse environmental impacts."
What has changed - what PLA is asking the County to change - are the
development standards applicable to Tract E. The Amendment resolves the issues
identified by the Appellate Hearing Examiner in his December 7, 2005, decision, and may
make moot both the pending LUP A appeal of the Appellate Hearing Examiner's decision
regarding the binding site plan approval and the Shorelines Hearings Board's remand of
the shoreline permit appeal. The Amendment resolves these issues as follows:
. It subjects Tract E to the Development Agreement (rather than to the
regulations in effect in January 19,1995, prior to the making of the Development
Agreement).
. It subjects Tract E to the conditions of approval and other development
standards set forth in the shoreline substantial development permit decision of the Jefferson
County Hearing Examiner dated September 2,2005, In Re Application by Port Ludlow
Associates, County File No. SUB05-00004/S0P05-00002.
LC)G ITErJ/
,.#~--_L q )___
f..J~~c;c., T ;:t~' -".,--
;-"," ~ '."':...."'~.,......"._,-,-_.---'~.....~';
--"'~----,-~-,.,''"
MEMORANDUM OF PORT LUDLOW ASSOCIATES LLC IN
RESPONSE TO MOSS LETTER - 6
SEA 1902006vl 65364-13
Davis Wright Tremaine LLP
LAW OFFICES
2600 Century Square. 1501 Fourth Avenue
Seatlle, Washington 98101-1688
(206) 622-3150 . Fax: (206) 628-1699
e
e
. It permits timeshare uses, multi-family residential uses, and single-family
residential uses, in addition to other uses permitted under the other development standards
applicable to Tract E.
. It allows a maximum permitted density of timeshare uses, multi-family
residential uses, and single-family residential uses of sixteen (16) units per gross acre ofland,
but PLA would agree in the Amendment to limit the maximum density to nine (9) units per
gross acre of land.
. It makes each timeshare unit in Tract E count as one (1) residential unit for
purposes of calculating MERU's within the Port Ludlow MPR.7
After the 2006 Applications were filed, the County decided to use the 2005 MDNS
in its review of the environmental impacts of the applications. The County announced its
intent to use the MDNS on multiple occasions beginning in June 2006, including the "Staff
Report to Jefferson County Hearing Examiner" issued on September 13,2006. The
County has not issued or made any adoption, incorporation by reference, addendum, or
other new SEP A decision in connection with the 2006 Applications.
III. DISCUSSION
A. Jefferson County Has Authority to Change Development Standards in
a Development Agreement.
In her letter, Ms. Moss contends that the County lacks authority to modify
development standards in a development agreement. No Washington court in a reported
decision has agreed with Ms. Moss, and the applicable codes do not support her claim.
Ms. Moss cites as her authority RCW 36. 70B.170, which provides in part as
7 Measurement Equivalent Residential Units within the Port Ludlow MPR 'If Ii'u,?t.si' tJl~~
2,575 MERU's total, with a residential unit maximum of 2,250 MERU's.. Dey€IQ];~;:lent I J
Agreement 91.3.12. Page.-2___ct~~~.
MEMORANDUM OF PORT LUDLOW ASSOCIATES LLC IN
RESPONSE TO MOSS LETTER - 7
SEA 1902006vl 65364-13
Davis Wright Tremaine LLP
LA W OFFICES
2600 Century Square' 1501 Fourth Avenue
Seattle, Washington 98101-1688
(206) 622-3 150 . Fax (206) 628-7699
e
e
. follows: "A development agreement shall be consistent with the applicable development
regulations adopted by a local government planning under chapter 36.70A RCW." This
requirement is satisfied in this case. The proposed Amendment is consistent with the
applicable development regulations of Jefferson County, because those regulations provide
in part as follows:
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 be modified by the
development standards contained in the agreement, so long as all project
impacts have been adequately mitigated. However, the minimum
requirements related to the protection of environmentally sensitive areas in
Article VI-D of Chapter 18.15 JCC may not be varied by adoption of any
development agreement.
JCC 18.40.830(5) (emphasis supplied). There is no conflict between the proposed
Amendment and the "applicable development regulations" when the applicable
development regulations expressly authorize the modification of development standards in
a development agreement.
Ms. Moss would like the County to interpret the phrase "applicable development
regulations" to exclude JCC 18.40.830(5), but there is no rational basis on which to do so.
RCW 36,70B.170(3) expressly defines a similar term, "development standards," to include
"any other appropriate development requirement or procedure."
At the time the Development Agreement was made, Jefferson County had no
ordinances governing procedures for the adoption of development agreements and
amendments to development agreements, and so the Development Agreement did not
incorporate any such ordinance. Ms, Moss points to the County's Land Use Applications
LO.. ".....' 'l~r-M
1"';:1 I C.
Procedures Ordinance (Ordinance No. 04-0828-98), which is incorporated wit~:....~~ f q >:__
MEMORANDUM OF PORT LUDLOW ASSOCIATES LLC IN Page _~"___ of~_
RESPONSE TO MOSS LETTER _ 8 Davis v.z~~h~;:I~~saine LLP
2GOll Century Square. 1501 Fourth Avenue
Seattle, WashjnglOn 9&101.1688
(206) 622-3 150 . Fax (206) 628.7699
SEA 1902006v I 65364-13
e
e
Development Agreement. However, this ordinance does not describe any procedures for
the adoption or amendment of development agreements.
The Development Agreement expressly provides as follows:
To the extent this Agreement does not establish standards or requirements
covering a subject, element or condition, then 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.
Development Agreement 9 3.13. The Development Agreement and the ordinances
incorporated within the Development Agreement do not establish development standards
or requirements governing either the adoption of development agreements or the
modification of development standards in development agreements. These standards
therefore are governed by the applicable provisions of the County's Uniform Development
Code, JCC 18.40.820 et seq.
A development agreement adopted under RCW 36.708.170 et seq, may modify
otherwise applicable development standards if the local implementing ordinance authorizes
the modification of those standards. In this case, the local implementing ordinance
authorizes the modification of development standards (except the minimum requirements
relating to the protection of sensitive areas) in the case of a master planned resort as long
as all project impacts have been adequately mitigated.
Jefferson County clearly has authority under RCW 36.70B.170 to modify
development standards in the Development Agreement. 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
MEMORANDUM OF PORT LUDLOW ASSOCIATES LLC IN
RESPONSE TO MOSS LETTER - 9
36.70A.RCW" is satisfied when, as in this case, the applicable development regulations
L()G ITENI
+f. ~
'lY ~
P'" --,", ---
':::'1(",":,;; ",t:
; , ~..,,~ t,.C,_ ~.,J '" ~_~
Davis wrig~ Tre~~~ LP -" '-'--'--
LA W OFFICES
2600 Century Square. 1501 Fourth Avenue
Seattle, Washington 9810].1688
(206) 622.) 150 ' Fa" (206) 628-7699
expressly allow adopted development standards to be modified,
SEA 1902006vl 65364.13
e
e
In addition, 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
agreement set forth the development standards. Why would the legislature require that a
development agreement describe "permitted uses, residential densities" and "[ d]esign
standards such as maximum heights, setbacks, drainage and water quality requirements,
landscaping, and other development features," as it did under RCW 36. 70B.170(3), if all of
those descriptions had to match exactly the development standards in the current zoning
codes? The legislature must have intended that cities and counties might vary
development standards in their development agreements.
Jefferson County is not the only Washington jurisdiction to interpret RCW
36. 70B.170 to authorize the modification of development standards in development
agreements. Several other cities and counties expressly allow such modification, and not
one of those development agreements has been held to be invalid in a reported decision by
a Washington appellate court, Here are examples of their code provisions:
MUNICIP ALITY CODE APPLICABLE LANGUAGE IN ORDINANCE
SECTION
City of Issaquah 18.07.420(C)(3) "A Development Agreement may deviate from the
underlying district standards identified in the Land Use
Code in order to achieve the components listed above."
City of Mercer 19.11.01 O(C)( 4) "An applicant may request modifications to any design
Island and development standards. .. by requesting a
development agreement. . . "
City of Puyallup 1.15,030 "[A] development agreement may allow development
standards d(fferent from those otherwise imposed
under the Puyallup Municipal Code..."
City of Sea- Tac 15.22,055(C)(11) "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 toil0\"
MEMORANDUM OF PORT LUDLOW ASSOCIATES LLC IN
RESPONSE TO MOSS LETTER - 10
SEA 1902006vI65364-13
, /,-,-;
~ I i:::\\I1
#:-L~____
Davis WIighJ?rCiK~LP /0 f',f -
LAWOFF1CEP '~_~_.,._'i
2600 Century Square. ISO( Fourth Avenue -'-----.
Seattle, Washington 98101-1688
(206) 622.) 150 . Fax (206) 628-7699
-
e
standards of the Code, requested by the applicant, are
in the judgment of the City,.."
City of Yakima 15,10.020 "A particular [development] standard may be reduced
or modified. . , "
King County 21 A.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 30,75.130 "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 County 17.14.030 "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 allY conflicting or different
standards or requirements elsewhere in the Walla
Walla County Code."
(Emphasis supplied.) Ms. Moss claims that "4 of the 6 other jurisdictions referenced do
not allow a development agreement to do what the applicant here seeks - to authorize more
intense uses or densities." But Ms. Moss misses the point - the point is that several
Washington jurisdictions in addition to Jefferson County have authorized the modification
of development standards through development agreements. And her examples prove the
rule - the fact that the City of Issaquah allows the modification of development standards
except density and permitted uses in a development agreement means that, if the exception
were not made, density and permitted uses could be modified in Issaquah, also. In
Jefferson County, the applicable ordinance does not forbid the modification of density and
permitted uses. See JCC 18.40,030(5),
For decades now, Washington cities and counties routinely have modified
development standards other than by the amendment of their comprehensive plans and
zoning ordinances. For example, cities and counties approve planned unit developments
~' ",""'\ f........?, ll-'-' ~-'" iri rjO
L\ ;1" I 1""1\;',
'...... .........,~ ~ 'lJ J
(PUD's) in which the codified height, bulk, scale, lot area, and density standard:,~~ (q~~~____._
MEMORANDUM OF PORT LUDLOW ASSOCIATES LLC IN f:;Bc'~~,/
RESPONSE TO MOSS LETTER _ 11 Davis W:~~fi~;:,~~Ih~-LJ__ .---_..
1600 Century Square. )501 Fourth Avenue
Seattl~, Washington 98101-1688
(206) 622.) 150 - Fax: (206) 628.7699
SEA 1902006vl 65364.13
e
e
significantly modified. They also may grant special exceptions or variances. A
development agreement is not the first or only means by which a development standard
may be modified without amending development regulations.
Ms. Moss also contends in her letter that PLA "contends that you have no authority
to review the amendment to the Port Ludlow Development Agreement," citing Log Item
129, page 2, in support, This is what PLA said in Log Item 129, page 2, about the Hearing
Examiner's authority:
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.
That was PLA's understanding of the scope of the public hearing as of August 28, 2006.
PLA expressed its understanding that the Hearing Examiner would not hear argument or
take testimony regarding the application for the Amendment but did not claim that the
Hearing Examiner lacked authority to do so. Ms. Moss has mischaracterized PLA's
statement.
Ms. Moss refers extensively to provisions in the Development Agreement that
establish applicable development standards within the MPR, none of which currently allow
timeshare or multi-family residential uses or densities of 9 or 16 dwelling units per gross
acre. Ms. Moss forgets that these provisions all are subject to amendment. If the
Amendment is approved, contrary provisions in the Development Agreement wil! 3~~e -r, "
LC '! '''; ill"" !\!" 'I
.,) '-'; .... Ii
been amended. tr.._~_____,,~_
O-,'l>r;"';i>J )--
~ 't....~\,.-,:\;;.';
v ~---"'"--~ --..-..-----..-
MEMORANDUM OF PORT LUDLOW ASSOCIATES LLC IN
RESPONSE TO MOSS LETTER - 12
Davis Wright Tremaine LLP
LAW OFFICES
2600 Century Square. 1501 Fourth Avenue
Seattle, Washington 98101.1688
(206) 622-3150 . Fax (206) 628-7699
SEA] 902006v I 65364-13
e
e
Ms. Moss notes that the Development Agreement provides at Section 1.3.58 that
transient units, resort units, and commercial properties are not counted against the MERU
limit in the MPR, and that because the proposed Amendment would count the Project's
120 units against PLA's MERU limit in the MPR, Section 1.3.5 must be amended. As the
Hearing Examiner knows, an amendment to an agreement may take many forms. As long
as the terms of the amendment are clear, it is effective, The terms of the proposed
Amendment are very clear - at Section 3, it counts the Project's 120 units against PLA's
MERU limit in the MPR, which provides a benefit to the community and limits PLA's
economic opportunities in the MPR. That would be sufficient to amend Section 1.3.5, if
that section were a binding term of the Development Agreement.
Ms. Moss in her letter also asserts that the proposed Amendment is inconsistent
with the Flexibility Objectives described in Section 3.11 of the Development Agreement.
There is no conflict between the two, partly because Section 3.11 describes modifications
to the proposed development, not modifications to the Development Agreement itself, but
also because the Trendwest Project is a response to changing community and market
needs. Even if there were a conflict, the parties to an agreement have the right to amend it
in their discretion. If the County approves the proposed Amendment, it will modify the
Development Agreement, and the Flexibility Objectives will neither mandate nor prevent
that amendment.
Ms, Moss has provided no basis on which the County should question its claimed
authority under lCC 18.40.830(5) to modify development standards through a
development agreement. The Hearing Examiner should dismiss her claims to the,contrary.
L(JOJTE!\ )1
t;:' Las lid
p ... --- .'LJ----
8 Section 1.3,5 is a recital, not a binding term of the Development Agreement~lGT1.J~,,__{jt~~--
--.
MEMORANDUM OF PORT LUDLOW ASSOCIATES LLC IN
RESPONSE TO MOSS LETTER - 13
SEA 1902006vl 65364-13
Davis Wright Tremaine LLP
LAW OFFICES
2600 Century Square' 1501 Fourth Avenue
Seattle, Washington 98101-1688
(206) 622-3 150 . Fax: (206) 628-7699
e
e
B. Jefferson County Has Authority to Use the 2005 MDNS Without
Adoption, Incorporation by Reference, Addendum, or Other Action.
The County's decision to use the 2005 MDNS was correct -- no adoption,
incorporation by reference, addendum, or other new SEP A decision is required under
WAC 197-11-600(3) and 197-11-600(4). WAC 197-11-600(3) expressly requires the
County to use the 2005 MDNS unchanged because the County is acting on the same
proposal that it evaluated in 2005.
PLA acknowledges that the state SEP A Rules apply. But in her letter, Ms. Moss
neglects to cite the most relevant of these rules -- WAC 197-11-600(3) -- perhaps because
it completely resolves the issue. This subsection provides as follows:
(3) Any agency acting on the same proposal shall use an environmental
document unchanged, except in the following cases:
(a) For DNSs, an agency with jurisdiction is dissatisfied with the
DNS, in which case it may assume lead agency status (WAC 197-11-340
(2)(e) and 197-11-948).
(b) For DNSs and EISs, preparation of a new threshold
determination or supplemental EIS is required if there are:
(i) Substantial changes to a proposal so that the proposal
is likely to have significant adverse environmental impacts (or lack of
significant adverse impacts, if a DS is being withdrawn); or
(ii) New information indicating a proposal's probable
significant adverse environmental impacts. (This includes discovery of
misrepresentation or lack of material disclosure,) A new threshold
determination or SEIS is not required if probable significant adverse
environmental impacts are covered by the range of alternatives and
impacts analyzed in the existing environmental documents.
(c) For EISs, the agency concludes that its written comments on
the DEIS warrant additional discussion for purposes of its action than thatC" ',f"" ,,,-,-.,,,
L .1"1 I C'VI
found in the lead age.ncy's FEIS (in which case the agency may pre~~e a I 0 ~ ' .1.
supplemental EIS at Its own expense). "_~=
MEMORANDUM OF PORT LUDLOW ASSOCIATES LLC IN
RESPONSE TO MOSS LETTER - 14
SEA 1902006vl 65364-13
Davis Wright Tremaine LLP
LAW OFFICES
2600 Century Square. 1;01 Fourth Avenue
Seattle, Washington 98101.1688
(206) 622-3150 ' Fa< (206) 628-7699
e
e
(Emphasis supplied.) None of the exceptions applies in this case. There has been no
change to the Trendwest proposal - substantial or otherwise - since the MDNS was issued.
And there is no new information indicating the proposal's probable significant adverse
impacts. Therefore, not only is no new environmental decision is required, but the County
must use the 2005 MDNS unchanged.
In addition, the SEP A Rules do not require either the adoption or incorporation by
reference of the MDNS, or the making of an addendum. As for adoption, the rules
provide, "Agencies acting on the same proposal for which an environmental document
was prepared are not required to adopt the document." WAC 197-11-600(4)(a)
(emphasis supplied). The Project is the same proposal for which the MDNS was prepared.
The County therefore is not required to adopt the MDNS.
As for incorporation by reference, this option applies only when an agency "is
preparing an environmental document" - in this case, Jefferson County is not preparing an
environmental document. See WAC 197 -11-600(4 )(b), And an addendum "adds analyses
or information about a proposal" -- but there is no analysis or information the County has
added or intends to add about the environmental impacts of the proposal. See WAC 197-
11-600(4)(c).
Ms. Moss complains about Recital J of the proposed Amendment, which provides
as follows:
The environmental review of timeshare structures and uses within Tract E
under the State Environmental Policy Act, RCW Chapter 43.21C, was
completed in connection with the environmental review of the impacts of
the timeshare proposal In Re Application by Port Ludlow Associates,
County File No. SUB05-00004/SDP05-00002, which environmental
review is hereby adopted and incorporated herein by this reference as
authorized under RCW 43.21C.034.
Lr, #' 11"'-" .
_....Jqt t:MI
p""r.,,~ l' <: ~._--~._-,
t~~ ~;' ~:~~_. L____~__
MEMORANDUM OF PORT LUDLOW ASSOCIATES LLC IN
RESPONSE TO MOSS LETTER - 15
SEA 1902006v I 65364- \3
Davis Wright Tremaine LLP
LAW OFFICES
UiOO Century Square. 1501 Fourth Avenue
Seattle, Washington 98101-1688
(206) 622-31 SO . Fax: (206) 628-7699
e
e
The proposed Amendment was drafted prior to June 2006, when the course of SEP A
environmental review for the Project had not yet been determined. PLA respectfully
requests that the Hearing Examiner recommend that the following phrase be stricken from
Recital J: "which environmental reviewis hereby adopted and incorporated herein by this
reference as authorized under RCW 43.21C.034." The phrase no longer is accurate.
IV. CONCLUSION
For the reasons given above, the County has authority (A) to change development
standards by adopting the Amendment to the Development Agreement, and (B) to use the
MDNS without adoption, incorporation by reference, addendum, or other formal action.
The Hearing Examiner should recommend the approval of the 2006 Applications,
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED this 3rd day of November, 2006.
DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE LLP
Attorneys for PORT LUDLOW
::SO;;;;L~ ~ ~ ~
Marco de Sa e Silva
WSBA No. 18875
EXHIBITS:
A
Recommendation to Jefferson County Hearing Examiner and Mitigated
Determination of Nonsignificance dated July 27, 2005
LO"-" ''''Y'"r""m '"
'i '! ! ! I'" ,\ !i
........... ~ ,- ."......\ V ~
.-..--1c:i2
___I.~___~---~'-
(,... "---~--....--
MEMORANDUM OF PORT LUDLOW ASSOCIATES LLC IN
RESPONSE TO MOSS LETTER - 16
SEA 1902006vl 65364-13
Davis Wright Tremaine LLP
LAW OFFICES
2(,00 Century Square. Jj()j Fourth Avenue
Seattle, Washington 98101.l688
(206) 622-3 I SO . Fax (206) 628-7699
e
\?Q\4...~
..JEFFERSON COUNTY (" ~~ ,
E!EPARTMI;:~T 9F COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT ~\
621 Sheridan Street, Port Townsend, WA 98368
360-379-4450 www.co.iefferson.wa.us/commdevelopmentl
e
PROPOSAL NAME:
Ludlow Cove Division 2
PROPOSAL DESCRIPTION:
A 120-unit time-share multi-family residential
development situated on 14.66 acres within the Port
Ludlow MPR.
REQUIRED APPROVALS:
Binding Site PlaniCondominium .Subd}.vision
Shoreline' Substantial Development Permit
SEP A Threshold Determination
MLA. #:
SUB95-OO003 (original subdivision case)
ZON95-00001 (original Conditional Use zoning case)
SUB05-00004
SDP05-00002
MLA05-00029
PERMIT CASE #'s:
APPLICANT:
Port Ludlow Associates
REPRESENTATNE:
Mark Dorsey, Project Manager
SEPA DECISION:
Mitigated Detennination of Non-Significance
RECOMMENDATION
TO HE1UUNG EXAMINER:
Approve with Conditions
SEPA MDNS Notice Date:
January 18, 2005; Revised May 9, 2005
February 2, 2005. Revised May Il, 2005 and June I,
2005
July 27,2005
Application Date~
Notice or Application Date:
SEPAAPPEAL DEADLINE:
August 9, 2005
L' (~t-., IT~< ,
L i.~ .J\?...:'!, ."" :,\ /1
~.... '-.'\r
F';' ,~. . ~----
";',; "";' t 2 ,..:,---
'__-i';," ~ '" ',' f- __ _ ,:', ,;,.>:'
Exhibit -1\- - -.---'.'------,
e
e
Jefferson County Department of Community Development
Ludlow Cove Division 2
July 26,2005
Public Hearing Date:
August 16, 2005 at 1:30pm in Jefferson County
Superior Courtroom, Jefferson County Courthouse
If a SEP A appeal is filed, the appeal hearing will be consolidated with the Public Hearing scheduled on the
date noted above.
PROPOSED FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
PART I BACKGROUND INFORMATION
1. Legal Description. Parcel Nwnber 968 BOO l02 Ludlow Cove Division I. Phase
I. Tract E in Section 17. Township 28, Range 01 East. WM: Located on Paradise Bay Road,
Port Ludlow. WA 98365.
2. Prior Related Project. The current project, Ludlow Cove Division 2. is the
second phase of the Ludlow Cove project approved August 2.2002. The original Ludlow
Cove project included subdivision approval to create 24 single family lots, variance
approvals to re9.uce the widths of the private access road easements, and a conditional
use approval for future multifamily development on parcels then designated as "Tracts A
andB." .
3. . The conditional use approval for Ludlow Cove noted that the future multifamily
project phase would require separate SEPA review (phased review). In addition. the
conditional use approval called out the specific site development standards to be used in
review of the site plan and building permits for the future multifamily project. A three
year time limitation for submittal of a SEPA application was established, with an
additional year granted for submittal of complete building pennit applications. (See
condition number 65 in the Hearing Examiner decision for Ludlow Cove, File no. SUB95-
0003, dated August 2, 2002).
4. The site development standards established in the prior approval can be fonnd in
Section 7 of the applicable Zoning Code, ordinance 09-0801-94, at section 7.40. 1. a, b, c.
d. ande.
-- - - - .0 - 00 0 - - - - o. - - -- - The original ~uar6w-Cove profect was- sUbmIttecr and sUbstantialii comI;iete -on - - -- 0
January 19, 1995. The project vested to the land use rules and development standards in
effect on the date the application was submitted. The multifamily component of Ludlow
Cove, i.e., this project - Ludlow Cove Division 2, was conditionally approved, subject to
future SEP A review. Certain SEP A and Shoreline permit conditions related to the
original Ludlow Cove approval also apply to Ludlow Cove Division 2.
6. 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 Division I project has been revised to include only seventeen homes. Seven
homes in the first phase of Division 1 are currently nnder construction.
Staff report and recommendation/MONS
Ludlow Cove Division 2
SUB05-QOOO4, SDP05-oo002
Page 2 of 24
L. 0 .,r~.o ,...--'_.....'. f
JL; ! ! t:.:Jvl
...~,-l,~tt
:~" Ii -'--------.--..--
l-- ~"~--------
e
e
Jefferson County Department of Community Development
Ludlow Cove Division 2
.July 26. 2005 "
7. The entire Ludlow Cove project, Division 1 and this Division 2 proposal, are
. projects anticipated as part of the build out of the Port Ludlow Master Planned Resort
community. The Development Prog,ram was reviewed in a 1993 Enviromnental Impact
Statement 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. Even though the Port Ludlow
Marina was established as the primary public access point for the MFR, the Ludlow Cove
project was also ;required to provide public access to the Picnic Point beachfront. The
Division 1 buildout has partially completed this public access, as noted above.
8. Other Required Pennits and Approvals. In addition to the Binding Site.
Plan/Condominiwn Subdivision approval and Shoreline Substantial Development perinit
that constitute the cunent application, the project will require Building Pennits and a
Construction Approval Plan approved by the County Public W orlcs department.
Hydraulic Project Approval (HPA pennit) is required for discharge of stormwater from
the drainage and water quality treatment system. The existing NPDES permit (National
'Pollutant Discharge .Ellinination System) from the State Department of Ecology for
Ludlow Cove covers all of Ludlow Cove, Division 1 and Division 2.
9. Applicable Codes. The following Jefferson County codes and regulations apply:
a. Jefferson County Subdivision Ordinance #04-0526-92
b. Port Ludlow Interim Urban Growth Areas Ordinance #01-0117-95
c. Jefferson County Hearing Examiner ordinance # 1-0318-91
d. Shoreline Management Master Program adopted March 7, 1989
e. State Enviromnental Policy Act Implementing Ordinance
f. Jefferson County Critical Areas ordinance #05-0509-94
g. Jefferson County Zoning Code #09-0801-94
PART n LOCATION AND SITE DESCRIPTION
10. Ludlow Cove Division 2 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 directly across Paradise Bay Road from Breaker Lane, which
provides access to the Village Commercial Center. The site is recorded as Future
- -- - - ---DevelopmentTractE Of1heplaIofLud1owCove-I5IViSionT~PhaseI:-TracfEcompriSes- - --"" . - -.
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.
11. The site is cunently zoned for single family residential development according to
the MPR Code, ordinance #08-1004-99, but was zoned G-l for General Use when the
original Ludlow Cove proposal was submitted. Multifamily development required
Conditional Use approval under G-I zoning. (See above for description of prior related
project and the Conditional Use approval granted as part of the original Ludlow Cove
decision). At the time of project vesting, the site was located within the Port Ludlow
staff report and recommendation/MONS
Ludlow Cove Division 2
SUB05~OOO4,SDP05~2
Page 3 of 24
f f-"'-"t''''':, '~l-""'P""";t': .,.,
L \..);~( I ; I::' fvl
-,_._J!J~C_~_
.-..-1_
......~- ----...
e
e
Jefferson County Department of Community Development
Ludlow Cove Division 2
July 26. 2005
Interim UGA and designated in the Comprehensive Plan for multifamily development
with a maximwn density of 16 dwelling units per acre. The site is designated Urban
under the Jefferson County Shoreline Master Program.
12. A Class II wetland of just over one acre is located on the north part of the site
(Wetland 1). A small steam runs partially in a drainage ditch from west to east along the
edge of Wetland 1 and discharges into Ludlow Cove. This stream was reported as a
Type 3 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 Department ofFish and Wildlife that met the
requirements for aType 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 requirements.
13. The upland areas ofths 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 1 and the Type 5 stream slope more steeply
(about a: 16% slope). Along the water's edge, the property drops steeply, with vertical
relief ranging from three to twenty feet. The developable area of the site excludes
Wetland 1, the stream and the associated buffers, which are preserved in a Native
Growth Protection Easement. Total developable area measured from the line of ordinary
high water to the NGPE or Paradise Bay Road is approximately 554, 385 square feet.
PART m THE PROPOSAL
14. The Ludlow Cove Division 2 proposal would develop a 120-unit time-share
multifamily residential project on 14.66 acres situated within the Port Ludlow Master
Planned Resort urban growth 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 a private swimming pool,
barbeques, spas, and public and private trails. The project will be served by public
water and sewer systems provided by Olympic Water and Sewer, Inc. A storm drain~~~ _ u_ _ _
-- - --- ---- -- - --sySfem forwaferquiillfy-riiifigafiOiiwUrfie conitlUCteC[-1\singIeaccess 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 from Paradise Bay Road to the Picnic Point
area, as required in the prior approval. The wetland and stream areas. along with their
associated buffers, are located in a Native Growth Protection Easement. The Habitat
Management Plan developed as part of the original approval describes a Wetland Buffer
Enhancement Plan that will be completed as part of Division 2. Shoreline revegetation
will also be done according to a Landscape Plan required as part of the original
approval. No work is proposed below the ordinary high water mark of Port Ludlow Bay.
15. Revisions to Project. The project as originally applied for would have created
seven separate parcels. In addition, a variance proposal to reduce the width of the
private access road wasinc1uded. Following review of the initial application, the Public
staff report and recommendation/MDNS
Ludlow Cove Division 2
SUB05-00004.SDPOS-00002
Page 4 of 24
L 0 L2il--$E IVI
--".<__--.1 q
.._--~ _._-~
-~"""--...
e
e
Jefferson County Department of Community Development
Ludlow Cove Division 2
July 26, 2005
Works department concluded that the variance for road width was not necessary. On
May 9. 2005. the applicant revised the application to eliminate the request for variance
and to reduce the number of proposed lots from seven to four. The revised site plan also
deleted a proposed trail along the waterfront because the location was found to be
infeaSible due to the steep bank and muddy shoreline.
16. The four lot proposal reflects a phasing plan for construction of the seven
buildings. The first phase will contain only the recreation building (building 7)and four
parking spaces. Phase 2 includes buildings 1 and 2 and the associated parking. Phase 3
contains buildings 3 and 4 and associated parking, and phase 4 contains the last two
buildings (5 and 6) -and their parking.
PART IV NOTICE AND COMMENT
17. Notice. Notice of the proposal was published on February 2, 2005. Notice of the
revised project was originally published on May II, 2005. A second revised notice to
correct errors in ihe May 11 publication and to clarify what changes had been made to
the application was published on June I, 2005.
18. Public Comment. Public comment was received under the February, May, and
June 2005 comment periods. The following issues and concerns were presented:
a. Brown e.1 " Bill and Beverly: supporting the_ proposal and noting positive impacts
on tax base and community businesses and amenities..
b. Cloutier, Harry: opposing project and expressing concern over impact on
character of the community, traffic, parking, sewer and water capacity, fire
and emergency services, and demand for recreational and commercial
amenities.
c. Cooke, Bill and Luanna: concern over transient nature of Trendwest residents;
increased traffic; water and sewer capacity; potential changes to character of
the community; adequacy of environmental review.
d. Hale, Lewis: asserting use is commercial not residential; asserting MPR code
controls and a major revision to resort plan is required..
e. Hayden, Michael and Nancy: site should be left in natural state to protect the
Bay; money will not remain in community because there is a lack of services
and retaifin conuiiuniti.-- --------------- ----- - - - - - - - -
f. Herring, Doug: Noting economic benefits of the proposal.
g. Hupp, Gregory: preferring standard condominium use and stating that
timeshare use is like a commercial hotel.
h. Jester, Mal and Fran: concern over water and sewer capacity; financial issues
related to time-share developments; parking, traffic, demand for amenities;
multifamily use in area currently zoned for single family development.
i. Kaysinger, Gary and Susan: opposing project and challenging compliance
with MPR regulations, zoning ordinance; supporting issues raised by Mr.
Powers including lack of benefits to community, lack of amenities; expressing
general concern about County permit processes.
j. Lawson, Lany: regarding SEPA processes; public process.
staff report and recommendation/MONS
Ludlow Cove Division 2
SUB05-oooo4, SDP05-OO002
Page 5 of 24
~ -'1 "-, t:'~ h /)
"__.1 \I !
"."._J_~
1- ,~-----~-"-
~'------"'->'--~..~~~ ','>
e
e
Jefferson County Department of Community Development
Ludlow Cove Division 2
, July 26.-200S
k. Loomis, Bert: raising question of commercial nature of project, vesting, traffic
impacts, compliance with MPR Code.
1. Oemichen, Brett: questioning commercial nature of use, noise, design
compatibility.
m. Pabst, Mary-lee W.: supporting the proposal based on benefits to the
community and overall tax base.
n. Powers, Les: seeking amenities associated with Resort Complex
development; questioning whether elder care housing might be required;
asserting that Trendwest use is a commercial use, not a residential use; raising
estuary and salmon habitat issues; questioning whether site has been
surveyed for archaeological importance; challenging vesting rules including
application of ruGA ordinance #01-0117-95 and Zoning ordinance #09-0801-
94; questioning legality of proposed denSity; questioning application of
Binding Site Plan/Condominium chapter of subdivision code; asserting MPR
ordinance applies..
o. Schmitz, Bruce: seeking amenities associated with Resort Complex
dev~lopment; questioning the application of state vesting law and asserting
the use must be integrated into and support the on-si~e recreational nature of
the MPR; asserting the Trendwest use is a commercial use not a residential
use; questioning traffic analysis.
p. Smith~ Grant and Nancy: supporting project, noting economic benefits.
q. Thoren, Floyd: concerning public access trail to waterfront and suggesting a
name for the trail (Carl Anderson Trail).
r.Van Zonneveld, John and Elizabeth: concern over vesting, density, visibility of
buildings (visual impact), traffic, parking, general. environment, character of
conununity; questioning legality of time-share use; seeking amenities
associated with Resort Complex development.
19. Agency Conunent
a. Jefferson County Department of Public Works: stormwater management, use
of recommendations from the geotechnical report prepared by GeoEngineers
dated March 22, 1995, concurring generally with conclusions of traffic
assessment prepared for the project by Geralyn Reinart, PE, recommending a
pedestrian crosswalk on Paradise Bay Road, recommending a five foot wide
- -- - - - - ~. - - - - - - -- ---pav~-;-separated -p-ede-strialrw-a:lkway- along so1.1ffierly siaeoraccesS roaaon . - - - -
the site, recommending two designated 4 foot wide bike lanes on the access
road, determining a secondary access road is not required, and noting
general conditions for approval.
b. Jefferson County Sherift noting impacts on sheriff's office staffing from
increased population.
c. Jefferson County Assessor's Office (Sherrie Shold): no comments until or
unless a Condominium Declaration is filed.
d. Fire Marshal (port Townsend Fire Department): reiterating requirement for
20 foot wide travel lanes for emergency access, noting requirements for
turning radii and turnarounds.
e. Fire District #3: seeking mitigation fees pursuant to SEPA and Subdivision
approval.
Staff report and recommendation/MDNS
Ludlow Cove Division 2
SUBOS-GOOO4, SDPOS-OOOO2
. Page 6 of 24
L' {-,~-, i...- r ·
. 'ql~1 1:::.1\/1
.".,--L-_,.._._____~.
..JL~~
~-----
e
e
Jefferson County Department of Community Development
Ludlow Cove Division 2
July 26. 2005
f. Chimacum School District (per telephone message to Michelle Farfan as
noted in letter to Wayne Helm dated 12/1/2004): a school impact fee of 437.10
per lot would be charged. .
g. Olympic Water and Sewer~ Inc.: confirming that domestic water and sewer
hookups sufficient for the 120 dwelling unit project are available.
h. . Port Ludlow Drainage District regarding stormwater management;
applicable codes; environmental checklist; required NPDES permit and
Hydraulic Project Approval; geotechnical review; technical plan sheet review.
i. City of Port Townsend: regarding public access and use of native plant
materials in shoreline landscaping.
j. State Department of Ecology: noting that if use is commercial it would
require Shoreline Conditional Use approval; stating that project is on a
shoreline of statewide significance; emphasizing importance of public access
and stating that waterfront trails should be open to the general public and
connected to the overall trail system; recommending public parking, signage,
and shoreline trail landscaping be considered; also including standard
_. _ .comments for cleanup of toxic materials, should any be encountered, and
erosion and water quality protection.
PART V LAND USE CONSISTENCY REVIEW
20. 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. For Ludlow Cove Division 2 the code standards of
ordinance #09-0801-94, section 7.40. 1 (a)-(e) apply, as do reqUirements of the interim
critical areas ordinance, the shoreline master program, and the subdivision standards..
The critical areas standards will be addressed as part of this section along with land use
and zoning code issues. This part indudes a response to many questions raised in the
public comment letters including questions about vesting and whether the expected
time-share ownership of the project meets the applicable definition for residential use.
Consistency with shoreline permit standards is addressed in Part VI and with subdivision
standards for the binding site plan in Part vn.
21. Vesting. State law provides that a project vests to the land use controls that are
-- - -- -- - -- - - - -- m- effect on the date acomplete building permit or preliminary plat applicitfonTs---- - -- - -
submitted. A complete application for the Ludlow Cove project was submitted on
January 19. 1995. The project was approved on August 2, 2002 and included Conditional
Use approval for the current multifamily project. A three year time limit for submittal of
plans and commencement of environmental review for the multifamily project was
established. The current project has met that timeline. Citizen comments noted that the
Interim Urban Growth Area (IUGA) ordinance that the project vested to was appealed
and later invalidated. (The ruGA ordinance established a Multifamily designation for the
site with a 16 units per acre density maximum.) Even though the IUGA ordinance was
invalidated before the Ludlow Cove project was approved, the project remains vested.
This is based on state law, which provides that comprehensive plans and development
regulations are presumed valid when they are adopted, (see RCW 36.70A.320) and that
staff report and recommendation/MDNS
Ludlow Cove Division 2
SUB05-00004, SDP05-oooo2
Page 7 of 24
~
L
.,,--~L q)'
" , ~'''1-----"'-~
-~._--
--~-_.~~--.
e
e
Jefferson County Department of Community Development
Ludlow Cove Division 2
Jl,Ily 26. ?OO5
determinations of invalidity are prospective onlyRCW 36. 70A.302). Thus, the project's
vesting was not affected even though the JUGA ordinance waS overturned.
22. Because of the vesting rules,the current MPR Code and single family zoning is not
applicable to Ludlow Cove. In addition, new ordinances such as updates to critical area
regulations or updated storm and surface water manuals do not apply. Even the
Development Agreement for the entire Port Ludlow community, to the degree it >
establishes new development regulations, cannot extinguish vested rights without a
detailed and express waiver of such development rights.
23. Time-share Ownership. The applicable zoning ordinance (#09-0801-94) does
not specifically address time-share ownership. Multifamily Residential Development is
defined as folloy.rs at section 3.10.69:
Developments containing structures housing two (2) or more residential dwelling
units. Multifamily residential developments are those that are designed and
intended for residential occupancy in multifamily structures regardless of the
type of bUilding or ownership in which such use occurs. Examples include, but
are not limited to : townhouses, duplexes, multiplexes, condominiums, apartment
houses, boarding hoUses, and lodging houses. Accessory dwelling units, I.e.
mother-in-law and accessory apartments, shall not be considered multi-family
residences.
24. Commercial Use, General, is defined at section 3.10.21 as follows:
An activity that provides merchandise or services for the consumption of the
community at large through retail and/or wholesale outlets, including but not
limited to retail shopping, business and professional services, and transient
accommodations. For example: bakeries, banks, hardware stores, offices,
restaurants, theaters, vehicle sales and repairs, and veterinary hospitals.
25. Transient Accommodations is defined at section 3.10.94 as follows:
A building or group of buildings in which lodging or lodging and meals are
provided for transient guests for compensation. Transient accommodations
include but are not limited to cabins, resorts, hotels, motels, hostels, and
campgrounds. For the purposes of this Ordinance, transient shall be defined as
-- --- --- - --- - - --beingnot-more-than--ae--consecutive-days'-duration;-:---- -- -- ;---- - ---- - - - - - -- --
26. The Jefferson County Shoreline Master Program does not define multifamily use,
but does define Commercial at section 2.25 of the Master Program, as follows:
Uses and facilities that are involved in wholesale or retail trade or business
activities.
27. The noted definitions reveal a distinction between accommodations for business
purposes and accommodations of a standard residential type. Business activities,
excepting incidental retail or service activities, will not occur at the project site. Thus,
under the Shoreline code definition, the proposal would not be considered
.. commercial. II
Staff report and recommendation/MDNS
Ludlow Cove Division 2
SUB05-00004, SDPOS-DOOO2
Page 8 of 24
L' ,"""" ,1'~""\ ~"'"\;---'i--'''' to. -/I
l~q:;J I ! t: i\'~
m__f )'
- --~..._---
".2. 1\ '-_.-..
','.'~ ( j,--
"4 __~, .__
-~'"_._--- ~
e
e
Jefferson County Department of Community Development
Ludlow Cove Division 2 .
July 26. 2005 --~---'''-
28. Under the zoning code definition, transient accommodations are distinguished
not just by length of stay; but by the fact that the accommodations are available for hire
(for compensation). The proposal will not have rooms generally available for rent as
would a hotel, motel. or standard resort. Nor will the facility be subject to the County
hotel/motel tax.
29. Because the development operates through ownership interests, no direct outlay
of money is required for a member to use the residentlal facilities. This membership
interest is a personal property interest, but establishes ownership in an Association that
holds the fee ownership interest. The resulting property interest is different from the
, contractual interest one acquires when rentmg a room for a night in a hotel.
30. The County views timeshare ownership facilities as being "in between" a '
standard residential use and a purely commercial use. The facility. however, is more like
a regular multifamily use than a commercial use. In deciding this question, the County
relies strongly on the definition of multifamily residential development. As shown above,
, the applicable definition specifically excludes the question of ownership. Thus, the
County has concluded the proposed development qualifies as a multifamily residential
development.
31. Resort Amenities and other MPR Code Requirements; Eldercare. Because the
project is vested to a prior code, the MPR Code does not apply. Amenities associated
with future development of the Resort zone (the Resort Complex! Community Facilities
zone which includes the marina, Inn at Port Ludlow, restaurant, and other facilities) are
not tied to or triggered by development in the general Port Ludlow community. In
addition, the resort complex amenities reflect a range of permitted uses. The uses are
not specifically required merely by virtue of being listed as "permitted" in the MPR
code. Similarly, the idea of an eldercare facility in the Port Ludlow coinmunity is a
permitted use, but is not a requirement.
32. Critical Area Standards: Ordinance 05-0509-94. The applicant has not asked for
any variation or deviation from standard application of the Interim Critical Area
Ordinance (ICAO). The ICAO was reviewed and applied to the original Ludlow Cove
project and a set of conditions based on the terms and standards of the ICAO were
- -- - - - - - - - - aeveropedWr the_ongmarproJecr.-Some ennos-a conCh1ioilS alSO' coveredanawere - - - --
meant to apply to the current Division 2 proposal.
33. The prior approval for Ludlow Cove established requirements for wetland and
stream buffers and for a Habitat Management Plan and Landscape Plan that also apply to
the current project. The liMP was prepared by GeoEngineers in 2003 and approved by
Jefferson County and the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. A Landscape Plan
consistent with the HMP has also been prepared. The plan makes use of native plants in
wetland buffers and along the shoreline in areas that will be enhanced.
34. Upon review of the current proposal. the Department has determined that
compliance with the ICAO and prior conditions appropriately addresses critical area
protection issues. Although a simple statement that the project must comply with the
Staff report and recommendation/MDNS
Ludlow Cove Division 2
SUB05~4,SDPO~OO2
,. P?g~ 9 of 24
~ (\. .C"~ ''''''''Or'''''!, .,
L ;' ',' i I ,,,.,\ fl'
~'''-' 51\!
...----L.-i2
'.- ..." .-Ji:,~, .-----,
.-c _ C.
',,,r :J.
'--......,----...
e
e
Jefferson County Department of Community Development
Ludlow Cove Division 2
July 26, 2005
ICAO would satisfy technical compliance review, the Department has developed a set of
recommended conditions that restate the original conditions and will ensure that
important requirements are not overlooked. TheSEl recommended conditions to
implement the ICAO are set forth in Part X and are identified as lCAO conditions.
35. Multifamily site development standards: 7.40.1(a)-(e). Section 7.40.1 (a)-(e) of
the applicable zoning ordinance provides site development standards for multifamily
residential development as follows:
a. PARKING LOT DESIGN: All parking lots for multifamily residential
developments shall contain fow: (4) or more parking spaces designed and
~hown in plan fonn with the following elements: proposed and existing
structures, traffic circulation, adjoining streets, drainage, lighting,
landscaping. fencing, and screening . The plan shall be incorporated as part
of the project and site plan submittal.
b. ACCESS DESIGN: All ingress and egress to a parking lot conta4ting four (4) or
more parking spaces shall be developed so vehicles entering and leaving the
parking lot are headed in a forward motion. .- .
c. SECURITY LIGHTING: Lighting fixtures shall be d~signed and hooded to
prevent the light source from being directly visible from 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.
d. SETBACK STANDARDS: In addition to the requirements of Section 12.00 of this
Ordinance, all multifamily developments shall confonn with the following
minimum setback standards:
i. Rear lot line: twenty feet (20')
ii. Side lot lines: each side setback should be no less than five feet
(5'); the sum ofthe side setbacks should be at least fifteen feet (15'
e. OPEN SPACE: Open space equal to fifty percent (50%) of total gross living
area shall be devoted to landscaping and/or outdoor recreational facilities.
Driveways, loading areas, maneuvering space and parking stalls shall not be
considered part of this required space. This open space shall not be covered
with impenneable surfaces except for tennis courts, swimming pools or other
similar uses which require an impermeable surface. Confonnance with this
_. - -- - - - - - - - --- - --stanaarclsha1lnof'lje-teqtiifearor conditIonal uses located witliii\ aTlCn- -- - - - - - -
zoning district.
36. The plans submitted with the proposal demonstrate compliance with four of the
five design standards, (a), (b), (d), and (e). All parking lots have four or more spaces
with sufficient aisle width to allow vehicles to drive forward when exiting the lot. The
plans display all required elements, including proposed structures (there are no existing
structures), traffic circulation, adjoining streets, drainage, lighting, landscaping, fencing,
and screening. Setbacks are dealt with as part of the general bulk and dimensional
standards below.
37. Section 7 .40.1 (d) establishes special setbacks and also refers to the standards of
Section 12. Section 12 contains the generally applicable bulk and dimensional standards
Staff report and recommendation/MDNS
Ludlow Cove Division 2
SUB05-00004, SDP05-00oo2
Page 10 of 24
_L~~T[M
L-.~_~
,.>;,_~_~::~~.-o_____~_
~-----~-"'-'
e
e
Jefferson County Department of Community Development
Ludlow Cove Division 2
--July 26, 2005
for each zoning district. Parking standards as provided in section 13 are included below
for zoning code consistericy. For the G-1 zone and multifamily dwellings the following
standards apply, as modified by 7.40.1 (d) for side and rear setbacks. Note that the
standards for the project reflect measurements as applied to the new lots to be created
by the binding site plan:
Requirement
a. Lot size: .5000 sq. ft.
b. Lot Width: 70'
c. Front Setback: Phase 1 & 4: 35'
from Paradise Bay Rd;
Phase 2 &3: 20' fm access easement
d. Rear Setback: 20'
e. Side Setback: 5', total 15'
f. Open Space: 50% of total gross
.living area
g. Building Height: 35'
h. Parking: 1.5 per unit or 180
Project
135,269 sq ft., smallest lot
120' Phase 3 lot, to over 500 feet.
over 150'
25' Bldg 4
30' from shoreline, Bldg 2
Varies from 30' to 100' from rear
(shoreline) lot lines
5' Bldg 3, all totals exceed minimums
Developed area-= '7'.10 acres; .
Permanent open space = 7.56 acres
35' or less all structures
184, allocated per unit per Phase
38. Open space required by section 7.40. 1 (e) must equal 50% of total gross living
area. The seven buildings proposed for the site have a total gross square footage of
174,624. The required open space is one half this area, or 87,313. The project provides
approximately 260,963 square feet of open area, not including driveways,maneuvering
areas, loading spaces, and parking, and not including the Native Growth Protection
Easement. Thus, the open space requirement is met
39. One element has not been detailed on the plans. The standard for shielding
security lighting, 7.40.1(c) is a requirement most often seen applied to building permit
review. The standard can be met by providing specifications and a detail of the lighting
proposed. The requirement is easily checked during review of building permit plans
prior to building permit issuance. This will be a recommended condition of approval.
-- -- - - -- ~ - - - - 'tD.- -nie Iasfzoriing -coae-iSsue relates to llieIBtrieqwreaparEngSpaces:-TfiiS-- -- -- ---
number assumes that the recreation building (building 7) is accessory to the residential
units in the complex and is not a commercial recreation center. A condition will be
imposed to limit the use of building 7 to accessory recreation unless the binding site
plan approval is formally revised and all development standards and requirements at
the time of the revision are met.
PART VI SHORELINE SUBSTANTIAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT
41. Multifamily residential use is a primary use in the urban environment for Jefferson
County. The policies and performance standards of Sections 4.105 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
Staff report and recommendation/MDNS Page 11 of 24
Ludlow Cove Division 2
SUB05-oooo4,SDPO~OO2
l t....~ tOe'\. ~ 1.... .If_ "
i " it."-' I ;,,,/',.111
"._.j~cr~ ~..,yl
:' q ~7'-'.._._'---'--
~'.I _>~"~~,__,.~.....~.
e
e
Jefferson County Department of Community Development
Ludlow Cove Division 2
July 26, 2005
Cove and resulted in a set of conditions that were applied to the project. Those
conditions related primarily to public access, stormwater management, and compliance
with the required development standards under the Jefferson County Shoreline Master
Program.
42. The Shoreline Master Program 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 limitations on 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 an4 stormwater 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 ensure continuing
compliance with applicable Shoreline and zoning code standards.
43. No new impacts or issues not already covered by the prior shoreline analysis
attach to the current proposal. With the imposition of a sinillar set of conditions to ensure
the Shoreline Master Program standards are met, no ii.uther review for the new shoreline
permit is required. See Part X for shoreline substantial development permit
requirements, identified as SDP conditions.
44. State DOE Letter. The Department received a letter from the state Department
of Ecology dated March 2, 2005 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 Part V, Land Use Consistency. It maybe.noted
here that the Department of Ecology has no jurisdiction over local code interpretation
and that the DOE letter simply states that tithe use were to be considered a commercial
use, a different permit process would apply.
45. The second DOE issue concerns public access to the waterfront. This issue was
also raised in a letter-received from the City of Port Townsend. The prior approval for the
original Ludlow Cove project considered the entire site, including the cunent
development parcel. Public access to Picnic Point was required based on Shoreline
Master Program and SEPA authority. Those conditions have been partially fulfilled to
date as panofffie DiVlslonTproJect.-The conaitIonsare reiferated iiilEIS-project, (see ~- - - - - - - - - -
Part X) which will fulfill the public access requirements imposed on the Ludlow Cove
project.
46. 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.
47. The DOE letter also stated that the proposal site was located on a shoreline of
statewide significance. All areas of Puget Sound lying seaward from the line of extreme
low tide are considered shorelines of statewide significance. No part ofthis project,
however, will occur waterward of the line of extreme low tide, below the ordinary high
Staff report and recommendation/MDNS
Ludlow Cove Division 2
SUB05~4,SDPO~OO2
PR9~ 1 nOj2.~ "
I '..' ,....,.
L l) ,~':l i . \:,,,. i ,/1
LC()
_._-~._-_._-_._'"~-'~-
......_,- ---
'" ~.
~.f '''_,~_._,,''~_^.._''.....,... ___~._. ...
(~......>-
l-~'
e
e
Jefferson County Department of Community Development
Ludlow Cove Division 2
July 26. 2005
water mark, or even within the shoreline setback, except the shoreline revegetation
required as part of the original approval and shoreline permit.
PART vn BINDING SITE PLAN/SUBDIVISION AN1\LYSIS
48. In order to provide easy access to the vested development regulation, the
provisions of Jefferson County Subdivision Ordinance #04-0526-92 Section 11 are shown
below in full:
CONDOMINIUM nMSIONS
11.10 Applicability. This section cons.titutes a "binding site plan process" for divisions
of land into lots or tracts, as permitted by RCW 58.17 .040(1},-whenthEdrnprovements to be
constructed thereon will be included in one (1) or morecondominiurns or owned by an
association or other legal entity in which the owners of units therein, or their owner's associations,
have a membership or other legal or beneficial interest.
11.20 Administration. 1. The administrative procedure for review of condominium divisions
containing four (~) o~ fewer dweUing1,Ul.its shall be the same procedure as described in Section 5,.
Subsection 5.20 of this ordinance.'
. :2. The administrative procedure for review of condominium
divisions containing five (5) or more lots or tracts shall be the same procedure as described in
Section 6, Subsection 6.20 of this ordinance
11.30 Design
11.301 General: 1. All condominium divisions shall conform with the Jefferson
County Comprehensive Plan and/or applicable community development plan, the provisions of
the Jefferson County Development code, Np. 3-89, the provisions of RCW 58.17 including the
adoption of required findings. and the requirements of this ordinance, PROVIDED, in the even of
a discrepancy between the standards established herein and those contained in any applicable
plan, control, or ordinance,the stricter standards shall apply.
2. The applicant shall demonstrate that the lots or tracts, street
patterns, and configuration of dwelling units proposed are specifically adapted to the uses
anticipated, and take into account other uses in the vicinity.
11.302 Schools and Schoolgrounds. All condominium divisions shall comply with the
school and schoolground provisions of Section 7, Subsection 7.303 of this ordinance.
11.303 Transit/School Bus Stops: Applications for condominium divisions shall be
reviewed to determine whether transit or school bus stops are necessary to promote the public
___ _._____ ----aGGeSs--tQ--sa-fe-and-conv-enient--tRvel.- - ----- - - - -- -- -
11.304- Sidewalks. Applications for condominium divisions shall be reviewed in
order that provisions necessary to ensure safe walking conditions for pedestrians, and students
who only walk to and from school, receive adequate consideration. Construction of sidewalks, or
similar planning features may be required for final binding site plan approval.
11.305 Screening and Buffering: 1. Screening and buffering areas shall be
established with a minimum width of twenty-five feet (25') along all exterior property lines.
2. Screening and buffering areas shall not contain any constructed facilities, erected or
placed, with the exception of utility lines, fencing ,or security posts. 3. Screening and buffering
areas shall be left in their natural state, or, if necessary, supplemented by plants.
11.306 Open Space Land: All condominium divisions shall comply with the open
space requirements of Section 5, Subsection 5.305 of this ordinance, PROVIDED that the minimum
area for open space shall be twenty-five percent (25%) of the total gross area of the condominium
division consistent with the Open Space Standards in Appendix G of this ordinance.
Staff report and recommendation/MDNS
Ludlow Cove Division 2
SUB05-OO004, SDP05-00002
Page 13 of 24
L~ (~:) <~-::[ ~ '~r F:
(q)
......-;\.i[~~:=--=_.=~-
e
e
Jefferson County Department of Community Development
Ludlow Cove Division 2
July 26, 2005
11.307 State Environmental Policy Act Review: All condominium divisions shall
- comply with the environmental review provisions of Section 6, Subsection 6.307 of this ordinance.
11.308 Significant Natural Features: This section does not apply because the project is
subject to SEPA.
11.309 Roads: 1. Does not apply. 2. Condominium divisions consisting of
five (5) or more dwelling units shall comply with the road design requirements described in
Section 6, Subsection 6.308 (should be 6.309) of this ordinance.
11.40 Re<:pIired Improvements
11.401 Roads: Roads in Condominium divisions shall comply with Section 6,
Subsection 5.401 of this ordinance.
11.402 .Off-SiteTrafficIrnpacts: Condominium divisions shall proceed in
compliance with the off-site traffic impacts provisions of Section 5, Subsection 6.402 of this
ordinance.
1 1.403 Bridges: Does not apply.
11.404- Signs: Road signs shall be installed in accordance with Jefferson County
standards. Road names shall be approved by the Board, pursuant to recommendation by the
Director of Public Works. Traffic signs and safety devices shall be provided and installed by the
applicant in accordance with the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices.
. 1.40S Drainage: Drainage facilities adequate to prevent erosion, flooding or
hazard to the use of the roads, property, or facilities within the condominium division, or to
. adjacent private or public property shall be installed according to a drainage plan approved by
the Director of Public Works in accordance with County standards. The plan shall show full detail,
including the locations, lengths, and sizes of culverts, and the method and location of run-off
water disposal.
. 11.406 Water Supply: Each dwelling site within a condominium division shall be
provi~ed vntila. water supply.in accordance with all applicable State statutes, the rules and
regulations. of the WaShington State Department of Health, the Jefferson County Hea1th
Department, and the Coordinated Water System Plan provisions regarding quantity, quality,
source, source protection, distribution and storage methods and facilities, and treatment and
testing procedures.
11.407 .. Sewage Disposal: Installation of sewage disposal systems within
condominium divisions shall be in compliance with regulations and standards of the Washington
State Department of Health, the Washington State Department of Ecology, and the County Health
Department, and shall be approved only after a site i.ru!pection by the _County Health Department.
-11.408 Fire Protection: Applicants for condominium divisions shall provide
adequate fire protection in accordance with the Uniform Fire Code and local fire district
___ _ _ _ ___J.eCOmmendatiOIl.S-Consistent-with-State-law.---- -- ~ ------------; - --- ---- - - - - - - - - - - -
11.409 Electric and Telephone Service: 1. Complete installation of electric and
telephone service is required in condominium divisions. 2. No new condominium division shall
be serviced by overhead utility facilities.
11.410 Surveys: (Technical requirements for survey data and monumentation)
11.S0 Inspections. (Technical requirements)
1 1.60 ~. (Technical Requirements)
49. Administration. Section 11.20 of the code is ambiguous with regard to whether
a project with more than four dwelling units but only four lots or tracts should be
processed as a full subdivision or as a short plat. The Department resolved this
ambiguity by requiring the more extensive process as for a full subdivision application.
staff report and recommendation/MDNS
Ludlow Cove Division 2
SUB05~4,SDPO~2
Page 14 ?!..~4<
< /"< ,,-. ,"". "fl.
Lt)i.,-:; I ! i:":'\\/I
...",,__i1-L-_~-~-
n 1} _." _._______
~,-~:uL-
e
e
Jefferson County Department of Community Development
Ludlow Cove Division 2
July 26, 2005
50. Compliance with the applicable Comprehensive Plan policies was addressed in
the original Ludlow Cove approval which addressed Countywide Growth, Housing and
Residential Development, Utilities and Transportation, and residential densities pursuant
to the Port Ludlow Interim Urban Growth Area ordinance. No further review pursuant to
section 11.301 is required.
51. Provisions for schools (section 1.302) require payment of a school impact fee of
$437.10 per lot, or $1,748.40, which will be imposed as a condition of approval. Transit
facilities (11.303) are not required; however, sidewalks (section 11.304) or trail
connections will be required to ensure safe walking conditions for pedestrians. In
addition, a change the access road or driveway design is required to-accommodate
bicycles.
52. Appropriate screening of more than 25' along all exterior property lines is shown
on the site plans (Section 11.305) and approximately 70 % of the total gross are_a-has
been pr~served as open space meeting the r~quirements of Section 11.306. (Total site
including NGPE equals approxlmate1y 638,590 sq: ft, minuS approx. 187,881 sq. ft of
building, drives, parking, walkways, equals approx. 450, 700 sq. ft of open space).
53. SEP A review has been conducted for the proposal. (Section 11.307)
54. The requirements of section 11.309 require that roads be designed with
appropriate consideration for existing and projected roads, anticipated traffic volumes
and patterns, topographic and drainage conditions, public convenience and safety, and
the proposed uses ofthe land served. (See 6.309). A traffic study was prepared for the
project and reviewed by the Public Works Department. The Public Works Department
reviewed the study and concurred generally in its conclusions. The Public Works
Department also recommends a change in design for the access road or driveway so that
bicycles can be accommodated more safely and that a crosswalk across Paradise Bay
Road be funded by the proponent. These recommendations are found in Part X, at
conditions no. 3 and 28.
55. The applicable section referenced by 11.309 goes on to describe requirements
for public and private roads in full subdivisions. The following section, 11.401, then
requires compliance with section 5.401, which sets out slightly different standards
applicable to short subdivisions. The Department and the Public Works Department
have resolved this inconsistency by reference to standard requirements for all
subdivisions and short plats with regard to roadway design, easements, infrastructure
design and installation, maintenance, road approach permits, road signs and naming,
inspections, surety, and final plat approval. These standard conditions are set forth in
Part X and identified as SUB conditions. Compliance with these conditions satisfies the
requirements of Sections 11.309 and 11.401 for Roads, 11.402 for Off-Site Traffic Impacts,
and 11.404 for Signs.
56. The project includes a stormwater drainage system with water quality treatment
meeting the requirements of the applicable 1994 Stormwater Management Manual for
the Puget Sound Basin. When construction is complete, the proponent will enter into a
Staff report and recommendation/MDNS
Ludlow Cove Division 2
SUB05-00004, SDP05-OO002
.'LPpqr-~l ~.q1 t1',fi
,j~,. !! 1...-..,1,,1
1 C()
".'---~-_~~}I.-'~---'=-~~-_..,
e
e
Jefferson County Department of Community Development
Ludlow Cove Division 2
July 26, 2005
Stormwater Management Facility Maintenance Agreement with the Port Ludlow Drainage
District to ensure the facilities are appropriately maintained for the life of the project.
The proposal therefore meets the requirements of section 11.405 for Drainage.
57. Section 11.406 and 11.407 deal with water supply and sewage disposal. The
project will be served by Olympic Water and Sewer, Inc. which has verified that
adequate capacity exists for the 120 unit project. Connection to the Olympic Water and
Sewer service system meets state and local requirements. Provisions for long term
monitoring of water supply and water quality have been made through the 1993 EIS and
prior development approvals.
58. Fire protection as required by section 11.408 is assured by required compliance
with the applicable fire code. In addition, the structures will be fully sprinklered. A fire
protection impact fee was requested by Fire District #3. The fee will be imposed
pursuant to Subdivision and SEP A authority to mitigate impacts generated by the
proposal. This fee is set according to an agreement between the County and the Fire
District at $193 per dwelling unit. Thus a totai fee of$23,160 Win be required as a
condition of approval. (See Part X, number 9).
59. No overhead utilities will be installed and full electric and telephone service will
be provided. meeting the requirements of section 11.409. .
. 60. The applicable code also provides standards for a range of matters including
addressing, fees, and inspections. Compliance with the applicable codes and standard
policies and practices ofthe Public Works Departm~nt will be required as a condition on
approval for the project.
PART VIII SEPA ANALYSIS
61. Procedure. According to Section 8.10.9 of the applicable SEPAordinance. when
the responsible official makes a threshold determination and issues a DNS or MDNS, the
responsible official shall use the "optional ONS process" pursuant to WAC 197-11-355.
This requires. an initial assessment, prior to publishing notice of the application, of the
significance of potential project-driven environmental impacts. In addition, the
Department must fully review all comments received during the comment period.
Following the notice of application comment period, the Department must determine
whether the DNS or MONS is still appropriate. A determination of significance (a OS
requiring an Environment Impact Statement) must be published if further review
indicates-the initial assessment was incorrect. For projects that are to be decided by the
County hearing examiner, the notice of the threshold determination shall be issued
concurrently with the notice of public hearing before the Hearing Examiner.
62. Incorporation of prior environmental review and documents. The following
environmental documents. as modified by this analysis, are incorporated by reference
into this review: 1993 EIS for the Port Ludlow Development Program; 2002 Final
Modified Mitigated Determination of Non-Significance (FMMONS) for Ludlow Cove,
SUB95-00003 and its supporting memorandum.
staff report and recommendation/MDNS
Ludlow Cove Division 2
SU805-00004, SDP05-oooo2
Page 16 of 24
l f- .......". ,-F.
1: "',.! c ': i ~
- ~~j ;~".....Y1 l
_",,_1~_,~~..._...
.----3~.---,_._-
e
e
Jefferson County Department of Community Development
Ludlow Cove Division 2
. July 26, 2005
63. Conditions and requirements from prior review . The original Ludlow Cove
approval included conditions and requirements for development of Tracts A and B (now
tract E for this proposal). Those conditions related to construction impacts, general site
development, wetland and stream protection, habitat management, drainage, grading
and erosion control, archaeological resources, and shoreline access. Many of the prior
conditions are code requirements that do not technically need to be duplicated through
SEP A review. Por clarity, the code requirements are detailed in Part Xas conditions of
approval and identified as ICAO, SUB, or SDP conditions. Certain SEPA conditions related
to the prior approval are also set forth in Part X and identified as SEPA requirements.
64. hnpacts Not Covered By Prior Enviro:n.mental Review. Because the full plans
for development of this site were reserved under the Phased Review approach for
Ludlow Cove, certain impacts could not be analyZed when the project was originally
approved. Those impacts relate to traffic and transportation, aesthetics, and impacts on
utilities and public services.
~.. w . _~-
65. . Traffic- aiidTransportation Impacts. A traffic impact. analysis was prepared for
Ludlow Cove Division 2 by. Geralyn Reinart P .E. in December 2004. The analysis found
that the proposal would generate approximately 728 new daily weekend trips, with 89
weekend trips occurring during the peak hour. The analysis discloses that the current.
levels of service (LOS) for all movements at the intersection of Paradise Bay Road is "A. II
Level of service is a qualitative measure describing operational conditions within a traffic
stream. Six levels are designated, with "A" representing the best operating conditions
and "P" representing the worst. The additional volumes generated by the project are
within the operational capacities of the intersections and roadways in the area. The hood
for left turn storage was reviewed and the report concludes that channelization warrants
are not met.
66. Accident data were also reviewed for the area near the project site. Three
accidents were found during the four year period surveyed from 2000 through 2003.
One rear-end collision occurred at Paradise Bay Road and Oak Bay Road. Two single
vehicle collisions, where the vehicles left the roadway, occurred on Paradise Bay Road
between Oak Bay Road and Spinnaker Place. The frequency of accidents is the area is
low and is not expected to change significantly as a result of the proposal.
67. A sight distance analysis conducted for the proposal disclosed that shrubs and
brush located along Paradise Bay Road limit visibility and that trimming the shrubs and
brush would improve the entering sight distance to the east and northeast (from the site
driveway onto Paradise Bay Road. This recommendation will be imposed as a condition
of approval (no.I9).
68. The Jefferson County Public Works Department reviewed the traffic analysis for
the proposal and concurs in its conclusions regarding intersection level of service,
roadway capacity, and channelization warrants.L
69. The Public Works department also concluded that the proposal would generate
pedestrian traffic that would cross Paradise Bay Road to reach the existing commercial
Staff report and recommendation/MDNS
Ludlow Cove Division 2
SUB05~4,SDPO~002
Page 17 of 24
t. () (~.~; ; ~1" ;':-:~ ,':\ /i
/:',,__ q f;" .;,,"; " 1
c,b~- -T-'
~ .-/~.I-~, ';'"'" '_,~..,_,_~
,':'<'-\
~--".r.
e
e
Jefferson County Department of Community Development
Ludlow Cove Division 2
July26.2005
center. Public Works further recommended that the applicant fund construction of a
crosswalk. On review of this recommendation, Community Development staff .
recommended to the responsible official that if a crosswalk is required, it be constructed
near to the Ludlow Cove Division 2 access drive, rather than at Ebbtide Court as initially
suggested by the Public Works department. The responsible official concluded that a
condition requiring funding of the design and construction of a crosswalk would mitigate
potential adverse impacts generated by the project. See Part X, condition no. 28.
70. Public Works also recommended that provisions for an onsite pedestrian trail and
for bicycle lanes along the sides of the internal access roads be required in order to
mitigate safety impacts and meet subdivision requirements for road design that
appropriately considers anticipated traffic volumes and patterns, public convenience,
and safety. These conditions are found in Part X, at nos. 2 and 3.
71. Aesthetics. The construction of six multifamily residential structures will create
aesthetic impacts different from what might be expected from the construction of single
family reSidences. .These impacts are mitigated in part by the site development
, standards that apply to this project pursuant to the original Ludlow Cove decision. In
addition, the slope of the site (down and away from Paradise Bay Road), and the large
wetland and natural habitat area that will be preserved between the road and the
developed area will reduce impacts. No significant view impact is expected, and no
further-mitigation is required.
72. Utilities. The project will be served by Olympic Water and Sewer, Inc., which
- has confirmed that sufficient capacity exists. No further SEPA analysis is requimd. .The
MERU allocation maintained by the County will be updated to reflect the addition of 120
new residential units.
73. Public Services - Sheriff. The County Sheriff commented that increased
residential development adds a burden to law enforcement and increases staffing
pressures. The same' comment was also recently submitted with regard to a proposed 80
unit single family residential development proposal in Port Ludlow. In response to the
first comment from the Sheriff, the applicant and the County reviewed whether the
impact was significant and whether SEP A authority existed to impose conditions on the
project. The review concluded that the impact was incremental and that the Sheriff's
office had several options and opportunities for dealing with budget impacts. No SEPA
authority to mitigate the incremental impact was found. The analysis for the current
project reveals the same information. The impact is not significant and SEPA mitigation
is neither required nor available.
74. Public Services - Fire District. The proposal site is located within Fire District 3.
Pursuant to an agreement with the Fire District, the County has used SEP A authority to
. impose an impact fee of $193 per unit to mitigate impacts directly related to new
residential development. The agreement with the Fire District does not specifically
address multifamily development or set a different fee for multifamily versus single
family development. Review of other jurisdictions' fee schedules was inconclusive about
the relationship between single family and multifamily development for fire district
Staff report and recommendation/MDNS
Ludlow Cove Division 2
SUBOS-Q0004. SOPOS-D0002
LC>(~QEn!~J124
."J u~Z_,,__~_____
Nl~t-.---
e
e
Jefferson County Department of Community Development
Ludlow Cove Division 2
July 26, 2005
impacts. Therefore, the standard fee based on the nUmber of units in the development
will be required.
75. Public Services - School district. The County also has collected a school impact
fee for the Chimacum School District based on an agreement similar to that used with the
Fire District. At the time the project vested in 1995, a fee of $437.10 per lot was
collected. Thus. a school impact fee of $1748.40 will be required.
76. Additional SEPA Issues Raised in Public Comment Letters. Additional issues
raised during the public comment period and not already addressed include questions
about noise control, archaeological resource protection, and salmon habitat. The County
will limit the ho~s of construction at the site to mitigate noise impacts based on the prior
analysis done for the original Ludlow Cove Project. Salmon ~abitat and other habitat
protection issues have been addressed, to the degree needed, as part of the required
Habitat Management Plan approved by the County and the Washington Department of
Fish and Wildlife.
77, . Archaeological resource protection was also addressed in the prior approval. An
Archaeological Resources and Traditional Cultural Places Assessment report was
completed in 2003 for the entire Ludlow Cove site. An existing archaeological site is
'located within Division 2. The conditions from the original Ludlow Cove approval
related to archaeological resource protection will also apply to Division 2. See Part X,
no. 17.
Part IX CONCLUSIONS
78. DNS. Jefferson County has determined that the above-described proposal,
conducted in conformance with the approved plans and required mitigation measures,
will not have a probable significant adverse impact on the environment. An environmental
impact statement is not required under RCW 43.21 C.030(2) (c). This determination was
made after review of a completed environmental checklist and other information on file
with the Jefferson County Department of Community Development, inspection of the site,
and consideration of comments submitted in response to the notice of application.
Comment Period. This determination is issued pursuant to WAC 197-11-355, the Optional
DNS Process. There is no additional comment period
Appeal. Any appeal of this final threshold determination must be submitted in writing
before 4:30 P.M. August 9, 2005 to the SEPA Responsible Official, Jefferson County
Department of Community Development, 621 Sheridan Street, Port Townsend, WA 98368
for consideration by the Jefferson County Hearing Examiner.
Appeal statements must make specific factual objections to the analysis presented in this
report. Contact the Department of Community Development to read or ask about the
procedures for SEPA appeals. If an appeal is filed, the appeal hearing will be held at
the public hearing on the overall project which is already scheduled for August 16,
staff report and recommendation/MDNS
Ludlow Cove Division 2
SUBOS-D0004, SDP05-QOOO2
, ,__,\9,9r ,t~-qr ~4
L~ ~ II ;."\/1
_'; _" ,.._l,!
._..Lt-",~-,~.._--,.,,---
';,' __::22 _~,__'__'____'
e
e
Jefferson County Department of Community Development
Ludlow Cove Division 2
, July 26, 2005
. 2005 at 1:30 pm in the Jefferson County Superior Courtroom, 2nd floor of the County
Courthouse.
79. RECOMMENDATION. The Department of Community Development
recommends Approval of the Binding Site Plan / Condominium Subdivision and
Shoreline Substantial Development Permit for Ludlow Cove Division 2, subject to
conditions as detailed below in Part X.
Signed:
Stacie Ho ns, SEPA Responsible Official
Jefferson County Director of Community Development
Date:~
Part X RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS
Code requirements pursuant to ICAO, the Shoreline Substantial Development
Pennit, and SUbdivision regulations are indicated as ICAO, SDP~ and SUB~
respectively. SEPA indicates a condition based on authority ofthe State
Environmental Policy Act as applied through the Jefferson County implementing
ordinance.
Prior to Pennit 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 (.A.ASIITO). All necessary plans
and specifications shall be submitted to the Public Works Department for review and
approval. SUB
2. The plans shallinc1ude a 5 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. SUB, SEPA
3. The plans shall include two four feet 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 l~es 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. SUB, SEPA
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
Staff report and recommendction/MDNS
Ludlow Cove Division 2
SUBO~04,SDP05~002
Page 20 of 24
~~~TEi,1
.< "-"'-__~~~~f=~:---~-~~~-
e
e
Jefferson County Department of Community Development
Ludlow Cove Division 2
July 26; -2005
being directly visible from 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. Zoning Code, 7.40.1.(c).
5. The applicant shall obtain a Road Approach Permit from the Public Works
Department for access onto Paradise Bay Road. SUB
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. no. OS-
0509-94) ]l1ay be submitted in support of a request for revisions to the recommendations.
The Community Development Department may approve a revision wheI.\ equal or better
protection of critical areas will be obtained. lCAO
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 approyeq 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. II lCAO
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
Requirements # 1 - 11 from the Stormwater Management Manual shall apply. SHPA
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. SUB, SEPA
10. All fees for permits to be issued and other work performed associated with the
permits shall be paid. SUB, SEPA
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, hydroseed, stabilization of cut and fill areas, construction of
bioswales, and the planting of re-vegetated areas. lCAO, SEPA
12. A set of approved plans shall be on site at all times during construction. SUB
13. Temporary erosion control Best Management Practices shall be implemented
continuously in conformance with the approved plans. lCAO
14. Seasonal construction limitation: Construction activity between November 1 and
April 1 shall require approval of a Temporary Erosion and Sedimentation Control (TESC)
Stoff report and recommendation/MDNS
Ludlow Cove Division 2 '
SUBO~4,SDP05~002
Page 21 of 24
L{'-', )
,._{~r"-,_____.,. ....,____
---3),-'--------
tit
e
Jefferson County Department of Community Development
Ludlow Cove Division 2
July.26,2-OO5
Plan including Best Management Practices and meeting the requirements of Jefferson
County and the 1994 Stormwater Management Manual for the Fuget Sound Basin. lCAO
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. SUB
16. Construction hours of operation-shall be limited to from 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.
Monday through Friday and 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. on Saturdays. SEPA
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 of Community Development at 360-
379-4450. The County will immediately notify the State Office of
Archaeology and Historic Preservation (OAHP) at 206-753-5010.
c. Protect the area from 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. SEPA
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 March 22, 1995 geotechnical report or an updated report if
approved by the Community Development Department. lCAO
19. The proponent shall, after consultation with the Public Works Department, trim
the shrubs and brush along Paradise Bay Road at 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 condition no. 28 below to minimize impact on the NGPE. SUB, SEPA
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. lCAO, SDP
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 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. lCAO
staff report and recommendation/MDNS
Ludlow Cove Division 2
SUBO~4,SDPO~OO2
Page 22 of 24
Lr'\p'" ,.""'"'"
....__L~)? ,.
'- .?i.-'~' -"--.-.
e
e
Jefferson County Department of Community Development
Ludlow Cove Division 2
July 26. 2005 -.o'W"".
Prior to Final Binding Site Plan/Final Plat Approval
21. The proponent shall comply with all processing timelines and final binding site
plan/final plat requirements as established by the Public Works Department. SUB
22. All fees for work performed prior to final approval shall be paid. SUB
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. SUB
/4. 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 binding site plan/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
.. __ LudlowTIails Conumttee, under the direction of the Port Ludlow Village CounCil shan be
responsible for maintenance of the Trail." SDP
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 of the
cost of all improvements and the estimate must be approved by the Department of Public
Works prior to acceptance of the surety. No overhead utilities shall be installed. SUB.
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, 1996 geotechnical report or an updated report if approved by the
Community Development Departments. SUB, lCAO
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. SUB, SEPA
28. The appticant shall enter into an agreement with Jefferson County to reimburse
the County for the full cost of designing and constructing a painted crosswalk across
Paradise Bay Road in the vicinity of the site access drive. SUB, SEPA
29. The proponent shall pay a School District Impact Fee in the amount of $1748.40
($437.10 per lot for to the Chimacum School District. SUB, SEPA
Staff report and recommendation/MDNS
Ludlow Cove Division 2
SUB05~004.SDPO~OO2
Page 23 of 24
Lf..,.... c.
-~J~~ T-,.~_.;\1
~.--.1........-_........-.....-..-.......~-
.'^ .'-,'
'-. -~,,/ ,':\~,"
e
e
JeHerson County Department of Community Development
Ludlow Cove Division 2
July 26.. 2005
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 road name in consultation with the Department .
of Public Works to avoid duplication of existi.p.g road names. SUB
For the Life or the Project
31. Trees shall not be removed from the Native Growth Protection Easement area
unless a professional arborist determines a potential safely hazard exists. In the event a
tree within the NGPE needs to be removed for safely purposes, the tree shall be cut no
closer than 3-feet off the gro~d so as to keep the root system intact. In order to ensure
stability of the slope, native vegetation (shrubs or trees) 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 Area and along the shoreline shall be maintained in compliance with the
approved Habitat Management Plan and Landscape Plan. lCAO, SDP
a. Trees shall not be removed unless it is determined bya 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
A3. Landscaping on the developed portion of the site shall be maintained in
compliance with the approved Landscape Plan. lCAO
34. Roads, utilities, structures, an-d other improvements shall comply with the
applicable policies and performance standards of the Jefferson County Shoreline
Management Master Program. SDP
~5. The project shall be built and maintained in compliance with the approved plans.
SUB, Zoning Ordinance
3.P': The recreation building, Building 7, shall be operated as an accessory use to the
residential complex. Commercial operation of the facility shall not be allowed unless the
binding site plan approval is formally revised and land use, parking and all other
development standards applicable at such future time are met.
Staff report and recommendation/MDNS
Ludlow Cove Division 2
SUBO~4,SDP05~002
Page 24 of 24
..L,'1r-
'J ..~{J.....:'::i'c:m'