HomeMy WebLinkAboutLog220
r
-
.
November 3, 2006
STEPHEN K. CAUSSEAUX, JR.
Jefferson County Hearing Examiner
c/o Barbara Nightingale, Lead Planner
Jefferson County Community Development Department
621 Sheridan
Port Townsend, W A 98368
RE: MLA 06-00221 - Consolidated Permit Application
Dear Mr. Causseaux:
1. Introductory Matters. This letter responds to the Application, the response
by Mr. Marcy for Trend West, and the Staff Report ("Staff Report") prepared by
Jefferson County Department of Community Development ("DCD") in support of Port
Ludlow Associates, LLC ("PLA")'s consolidated permit application under MLA06-
00221 (the "Trend West Proposal"). I dissent the factual and legal conclusions reached
in the Staff Report. I will proceed sequentially with my dissent.
I request that the log for the Trend West Proposal include in addition to the log
items listed in the Staff Report, the entire logs for SUB05-00004 including the log items
associated with the Shoreline Hearing Board petition, Powers and Rozzell v. Jefferson
County, thereon, the log items listed in SUB 95-00003, ZON 95-0001, and SDP 97-0009,
the Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement for the Major Revision and the
revised proposal circulated with respect thereto, all under MLA 05-00407, ZON 03-
00044, SUB 05-00030, SDP 05-00019, ZON 05-00035, ZON 03-0044, the development
agreement ("Development Agreement") between Pope Resources and Jefferson County
of May, 2000, in its entirety, Jefferson County Auditor's No. 435974, CC & Rs identified
under Jefferson County Auditor's Number 435975 (the "PL VC CC & Rs"), and the
mediated partial settlement agreement among PLA, Rick Rozzell and the undersigned,
and the Port Ludlow Village Council's response to the Trend West Proposal, a copy of
which is attached.
I continue to voice objection to any participation in this proceeding by Trend
West or its counsel, Mr. Marcy. Trend West has not closed its purchase of Ludlow Cove
II, is not a property owner in the Port Ludlow MPR (the "MPR") or of Pope Property as
defined in the development agreement of May, 2000, initially between Pope Resources
and affiliates, including Olympic Resources, collectively ("Pope"), and Jefferson County
J(}(J
l
~
-
Stephen K. Causseaux, Jr
Jefferson County Hearing Examiner
November 3, 2006
Page 2
e
and novated in 2001 to PLA (the "Development Agreement"), which PLA seeks to
amend through this application.
11. Classification of Trend West Proposal.
A. Time Share Issue. Throughout the proceedings relating to SUB
05-00004, PLA and Jefferson County have sought to characterize a Trend West Resort as
a condominium time share or time share. That view is carried over to the Staff Report
which refers to the proposed project as a "Timeshare". Trend West neither develops
time share or condominiums. This was initially confirmed in a letter from Mr. Nielsen,
the architect for the project to Mr. Scalf which describes in detail that the project is not a
traditional vacation time share, does not vest use rights in the members, provides for an
average use ofless than four (4) days and is transient.1 In the BoCC Workshop held
earlier this summer, Mr. Helm testified that Trend West sells vacation plans. Under the
plans, the purchasers acquire a membership in Trend West's affiliated not for profit
vacation association, W orldmark, ("Association") which carries with it a number of
annually renewable number points that may be exchanged for occupancy at any of the
resorts owned by the Association and operated by Trend West. Mr. Helm confirmed that
occupancy averages less than four (4) days. The initial membership fee giving rise to the
points pays the cost of acquiring or developing the resorts. The annual dues pay costs
associated with upkeep and operation. Trend West manages the resorts for the
Association and controls its affairs. The Association has more than 250,000 members.
Through the Association, Trend West manages more than 4,500 resort units. In effect,
Trend West, part of a publicly traded for profit corporation, finances its acquisition,
maintenance and operation of resort properties through a not for profit association and
through vacation club rights Trend West sells therein.
The members are permitted at no cost beyond annual dues to renew their points in
perpetuity. The member interests with points are assignable but in practice there is
secondary market in the points. If a member has inadequate points to use a unit in a
particular resort, the member can make up the difference in cash. The points have a value
in exchange for rooms which also have a value. The value is set by Trend West or its
affiliate based upon the popularity of the resort and the time of year. There is no right in
any member to use any particular unit in any particular resort facility at all. This was
confirmed at the BoCC Workshop by Mr. Helm. Rather, a member has a priority right to
nonmembers to use units in all the resort. Actual use is based on scheduling, cost and the
like. Members trade vacation points and/or cash to use the units as scheduled. Members
1 SOO05-00004, Log No. l(a), pp. 9, 10. The letter describes the project under the IBC but the test for
hotel and motel and for transient is the same as that which applies to the Zoning Code. See Zoning Code,
Sec. 3.10(94) for transient. The letter requested Mr. Scalf to classify the project as transient to avoid
building code requirements that would otherwise apply to an R-2 classification, that is a residential
classification that would include vacation homes, time shares and ordinary residences. Mr. Scalf confmned
in December, 2004 that he agreed with the transient classification. What Mr. Nielsen requested and Mr.
Galt's fmding in his decision of December 7,2005, are based on the same argument an'l~enffEM
understanding of transient. # 2.2..0
Page 1.- of
,.
Stephen K. Causseaux, Jr tit
Jefferson County Hearing Examiner
November 3,2006
Page 3
e
do not own any of the units or any ofthe common areas. All of the units and common
areas are owned by the captive Association. Unlike a traditional residential time share or
condominium where the units or right of use thereof during specific periods are owned,
temporally or actually by the time share or condominium owner, here the owners of
vacation points do not own either. Unlike a condominium, the Trend West Proposal does
not involve the recordation of a declaration of condominium. Further unlike a traditional
time share or condominium which would have two or three employees for a facility of
one hundred twenty (120) units, according to Mr. Helm, there will be about 35 or 40 full
time employees, the number of employees one would expect to find in a hotel or resort
that does not offer restaurant service. Those employees offer the same services as any
such hotel or resort, room cleaning, linen, grounds, scheduling, and the like. In short,
what Mr. Helms described is a private vacation plan that shares in a large number of
resorts managed and operated through Trend West for its profit. What the members do is
provide the capital to build, maintain, and in part to operate the resorts and the population
likely to use one or more of the resorts because the member has already paid for the use.
Trend West's plan is simply one of a number of condominium hotel or time share resort
plans offered by Marriot and others.
These facts clearly distinguish Trend West from a condominium or a time share.
To be a condominium, the owners must own the unit in divided ownership and have an
undivided ownership in the common areas. They require a formal declaration recorded
with the county. A "Condominium" means real property, portions of which are
designated for separate ownership and the remainder of which is designated for common
ownership solely by the owners of those portions. RCW 64.34.020(9) provides "real
property is not a condominium unless the undivided interests in the common elements are
vested in the unit owners, and unless a declaration and a survey map and plans have been
recorded pursuant to this chapter. Clearly, members in Trend West are not condominium
unit owners and the property is not subject to a declaration making it a condominium.
Similarly, a Trend West project is not a time share. RCW 64.36.010(11) provides
"Timeshare" means a right to occupy a unit or any of several units during three or more
separate time periods over a period of at least three years, including renewal options,
whether or not coupled with an estate in land." This definition is incorporated by PLA in
Proposed Amendment No. 1. It is absolutely clear from Mr. Helm's admissions that
Trend West members do not have the right to use anyone or several units three (3) or
more separate times during a three (3) year period. The Trend West Proposal does not
involve a sale oftime share units, residential or otherwise. Trend West's use and that of
its members conflict the definition of time shares. As Mr. Nielsen confirmed, Trend
West does not sell traditional vacation time shares; it sells vacation plans. What Trend
West sells does not meet the definition oftimeshares under Washington law or even
under the definition contained in Proposed Amendment No. 1.
At Section 1 (c) it provides "timeshare unit means the real or personal property or
portion thereof in which a timeshare exists and which is designated for separate use." At
Section 1 (d) it provides "timeshare use means a right to occupy a unit or any ~QGJitEM
# 22,0
Page ~ of
Stephen K. Causseaux, Jr e
Jefferson County Hearing Examiner
November 3, 2006
Page 4
e
units during three or more separate time periods over a period of at least three years,
including renewal options, whether or not coupled with an estate in land." This is the
statutory definition contained in RCW 64.36.010(11) a definition that Trend West clearly
does not meet.
I emphasize the fact that Trend West does not develop or sell either
condominiums or time shares by way of introduction to an analysis of the nature of Trend
West's business plan and its inconsistency with the zoning applicable to Ludlow Cove 11.
I also emphasize same to show the degree to which Jefferson County will go to "get to
yes" for an economic development without regard to its legal qualifications. I emphasize
the conflict to put Jefferson County and PLA on notice that the proposed use as a
condominium or time share would require further permits and compliance that are not
associated with the consolidated permit application and render it incomplete. I finally
emphasize the conflict to put Jefferson County and PLA on notice that the proposed use
conflicts with the use permitted under Proposed Amendment No.1.
B. The Commercial Nature of Trend West. This application is based
on a misrepresentation. PLA initially urged with the support of Jefferson County that a
Trend West condominium time share was somehow a multifamily residential use
permitted at Ludlow Cove II, an area zoned G-l, that is single family residential, under
the Zoning Code in January, 1995, single family residential under the Comprehensive
Plan, and single family residential under the MPR Code, the development regulation for
the MPR. The Staff Report conclusion that G-l zoning is multifamily is in error. G-l
zoning is general. It allows single family residential use as a principal use and
multifamily use as a conditional use. See Ordinance 09-0801-94 ("Zoning Code"), Table
6.00. Hence, HE Berteig granted the right to multifamily use thereon as a conditional
use. See Berteig, 2002, SUB95-00003 Log No 385, pp. 7-9. The Development
Agreement contains at Exhibits 1-3, zoning maps covering Ludlow Cove 11. They
identify Ludlow Cove II as single family residential. They are taken from the
Comprehensive Plan. The MPR Code enforces development based on the classification
under the Comprehensive Plan. It sets forth permitted densities, size, setbacks, and uses,
principal and conditional that are permitted in a single family residential situation. The
MPR Code is incorporated by reference as a Appendix A to the Development Agreement.
It is a binding part thereof, independent of its significance as the development regulation
for the Port Ludlow Master Planned Resort. See Development Agreement, Sec. 4.7.
Whether or not Ordinance 01-0117-95 (the "Port Ludlow IUGA") rezoned the
subject property as multifamily is irrelevant because the matter was resolved, without
appeal, by final action of Jefferson County in Berteig (2002). ARE Galt so found on
December 7, 2005 ("Galt (2005)") when he issued his opinion vacating and remanding
HE Berteig's approval of Ludlow Cove II in HE Berteig's opinion of September 2, 2005
("Berteig (2005)"),. See Galt (2005); Berteig (2005). A copy of Galt (2005) and Berteig
(2005) are attached.
LOG 'TEM
# 22,,6
Page 3- of
Stephen K. Causseaux, Jr -
Jefferson County Hearing Examiner
November 3, 2006
Page 5
e
Ordinance 01-0117-95 was withdrawn as a result of Loomis v. Jefferson County,
SHB 95-2-0066 (September, 1995) in October, 1995. An examination of Log for SUB
95-0003 reveals that the applicant withdrew and resubmitted the application for Ludlow
Cove II in December, 1997, after the entry and effective date of the withdrawal ofthe
Port Ludlow IUGA, and that accordingly, the DCD Staff and HE Berteig erred in 2002 in
concluding that Ludlow Cove II vested in land use law in January, 1995, when the
original application was filed. See SUB 95-00003, Log Item No. 118, 119, 120. The
error, however, was not appealed. The question is relevant to the issue of the breadth of
conditional use (the "CUP") permitted to the subject property. AHE Galt remanded to
HE Berteig for a determination of the CUP that had been filed in connection with
SUB95-0003. See SUB95-00003, Item 128, the conditional use permit application filed
December 17, 1997.2
The issue throughout has been the permitted conditional use. The original
application submitted by Pope in January, 1995, was for the development of one hundred
forty five (145) town homes on dedicated individual individually owned lots on the thirty
acres comprising Ludlow Cove. See Proposed CC & Rs for town homes filed under SUB
95-00003, Log Item No.1, 4. The first request for conditional use was made on
September 10, 1997. The requested conditional use was for thirty two (32) attached town
homes on dedicated lots and fifty four (54) single family detached residences. Seventeen
of the thirty acres were to be left in common open space. This conditional use permit
request was withdrawn. See SUB 95-00003, Log Items 110, 114. A second conditional
use request was submitted December 17, 1997. It accompanied a new land use
application and requested thirty two (32) attached and thirty (30) detached single family
units on tracts A and B, now, approximately Ludlow Cove II. The remainder of Ludlow
Cove II is designated as twenty six (26) single family detached homes. See SUB 95-
00003, Log Item No. 128, dated December 17, 1997.
It is hard to see how the application could have vested in January, 1995 when it
was resubmitted in December, 1997. At the time of resubmission, the area was default
zoned as rural residential with a maximum density of one (1) residence for each five (5)
acres. This zoning controlled until the single family residential designation was applied
in 1998 under the Comprehensive Plan and was implemented under the MPR Code in
1999 and finally when provision was made for its development under the Development
Agreement between Pope Resources and Jefferson County. The application should have
vested in December 1997. Clearly, the conditional use that was proposed was proposed
in December, 1997. Equally clearly, it did not contemplate a resort masquerading as a
time share as a conditional use. An examination of the CUP filed on December 17, 1997
was for twenty six (26) single family detached units as a conditional use on the subject
property. How this squares with a Trend West resort is beyond comprehension. Only the
2 The conditional use was to build 26 detached single family residences on the subject property. Tracts A
was dedicated to 32 condominiums and Tract B to 30 single family detached residences. The 1997
proposal was to develop 88 dwelling units, 26 cottage style detached condominiums on Tract B and a mix
of attached townhouse style condominiums on Tract A. See SUB95-0003, Log Items 120, 128.
LOG ITEM
2 ?-tJ
t;"' _ of
#
Page
16. The parties to this proceeding seem to agree that an apartment building is
multifamily residential and that a hotel/motel is transient accommodation. The
basic dispute is whether Trendwest's proposal is more like an apartment than a
hotel/motel. The number and type of rooms in a unit can no longer (if ever they
could) be used to definitively distinguish an apartment from a hotel/moteli.Cf&1TEM
22.6
lp
Stephen K. Causseaux, Jr e
Jefferson County Hearing Examiner
November 3,2006
Page 6
e
casuistry ofthe applicant and the willingness of Jefferson County "to get to yes" for the
developer without regard to applicable land use laws offer any explanation. See SUB95-
0003, Log Items 120, 128.
From this history, it is clear that at no time did the conditional use, the use before
HE Berteig in 2002 ("Berteig (2002)") copy attached, include the development of a Trend
West resort or even time share use. It is clear that time share use could have been
proposed. The Comprehensive Plan, then under review, defined "time share" at p. G-16.
Chapter 64.36, RCW was initially adopted in 1987. Had there been any interest in a
"time share" ownership, clearly Pope knew that it was a permitted use and knew how to
identify it. Pope did not do so. Conditional use requires project specificity. See Zoning
Code, Sec. 7.20. Specific conditional uses were earlier requested on the project. They
were specific. No conditional use permit application meeting the requirements of Zoning
Code Sec. 7.20 that identifies a time share conditional use has been submitted. HE
Berteig admitted that the specific conditional use was to be provided in the future. See
Opinion of HE Berteig on Ludlow Cove dated July, 2002, ("Berteig, (2002)") pp. 7-9.
ARE Galt said that conditional use cannot be provided without project specificity. See
Galt (2005), p. 17. PLA did not apply for a conditional use in 2005 when it applied for
the Trend West project. See SUB 05-00004, Log Items No. l(a) and 5. It does not do so
in connection with the present application. There is no conditional use application on file
at any time for use of Ludlow Cove II as a time share project.
Even more important, the use that PLA proposes in Proposed Amendment No.1
is not a residential time share use at all. Rather, in conflict with the Staff Report's
misreading of AHE Galt's opinion, AHE Galt found that the proposed Trend West use is
that of a commercial hotel or resort and not residential at all. As to the right which PLA
enjoys to develop Ludlow Cove II, AHE Galt held:
The conclusions which follow show that PLA has a vested right to develop a
multifamily residential development on Tract E; the extent of that right is limited
by the representations made in the original 1995 Applications; that right requires
demonstration with CUP criteria which was deferred in 2002; the use presently
proposed by Trendwest is not a multifamily residential development; and
Trendwest's proposed use cannot be established under PLA's vested right.
See Galt (2005), Conclusions 1, p. 17.
ARE Galt further concluded that the proposed Trend West use was not residential but
rather commercial. He stated:
#
Page
of
Stephen K. Causseaux, Jr e
Jefferson County Hearing Examiner
November 3, 2006
Page 7
e
entire hotel/motel chains are based on a "suite" concept in which units may
contain more than one room and include cooking facilities. Neither can the
presence or absence of recreation buildings, swimming pools, barbeques, etc.:
Both apartment complexes and hotels/motels commonly have such features.
17. Trendwest stipulates that its members' occupancy would be transient by
definition (for 30 days or less). (Argument of counsel) Under the applicable 1994
Zoning Code definitions, the proposal would thus be a transient accommodation if
"compensation" is paid.
But "compensation" is almost universally involved in both multifamily residential
developments and in transient accommodations: Apartment renters pay rent to the
landlord for the right to occupy a unit; hotel/motel guests pay for the right to
occupy a unit. It would be wrong to suggest that "compensation" is unique to
transient accommodations.
18. The preponderance of the evidence shows that Trendwest members buy
vacation points so that they may vacation anywhere within the Trendwest system,
that they use these points to "rent" the accommodation they desire (paying more
points for a larger, more desirable unit or during "high" season), and that they can
supplement points with cash. The evidence also shows that the units are available
to non- Trendwest members when not reserved by Trendwest members.
No matter what the legal nuances of a Trendwest member's ownership are, the
reality is that Trendwest members pay compensation (points and/or cash) to use
units within the Trendwest system for vacation stays. Therefore, a Trendwest
resort is, under the applicable definitions, a transient accommodation, not a
multifamily residential development. Therefore, the proposed Trendwest resort is
not permitted under either the 1995 G-1 zoning or the current single family
residential zoning.
See Galt (2005), conclusions 16-18, pp. 19, 20. The conclusion is clear. AHE Galt
found as a matter of fact that Trend West use is transient and that compensation is paid
for the use. As a result, the use is not multifamily residential under the Zoning Code.
See Zoning Code, Sec. 3.10(32), (69), and (94). It is not residential occupancy. Under
the Zoning Code, transient occupancy is short term occupancy for consideration. See
Zoning Code, Sec. 3.10(94). AHE Galt found that Trend West met that definition.
Transient occupancy is by definition commercial.
The key to the issue as ARE Galt notes is whether the use is transient. There are
obviously residential uses such as apartments where the use of the property is keyed to
payment of rents. The test is how long the use is contemplated. In other words, what is
the nexus between the use and the community. Residential contemplates a long term
relationship; transient short term relationship or none at all. The use contemplated by
Trend West factually fits transient use as defined under the Zoning Code. Mr. Helms M
LOG lTE
# 1-~
Page -1-- of
Stephen K. Causseaux, Jr e
Jefferson County Hearing Examiner
November 3, 2006
Page 8
e
admitted at the Workshop that the average stay in a Trend West Resort is three (3) days.
He admitted that he contemplated that there would be three hundred fifty (350) or so
different guests every three (3) days. How is this in any way distinguishable from a hotel
or resort? Certainly the level of service and employment associated with the Trend West
resort is consistent with a commercial hotel, not residential housing. As ARE Galt notes
the consideration element and the short term element are admittedly present. The
definition of Zoning Code 3.10(94) are met. The use cannot be residential, either single
family or multifamily under that definition. It is exactly the kind of use that the zoning of
the property forecloses. It is commercial.
ARE Galt's opinion is the final action of Jefferson County on Ludlow Cove II.
Even though appealed it remains the governing law with respect to Consolidated
Application associated with SUB 05-00004. The structures and use contemplated for
those structures is absolutely identical to MLA06-00221. The only difference in the
proposals is the means by which PLA seeks to execute them. It sought to have SUB 05-
00004 approved by characterizing a Trend West "condominium time share or time share"
as multifamily residential use under 1995 zoning law, that is the Zoning Code. The
characterization was rejected by AHE Galt in Galt (2005) under the factual fmding that a
Trend West use is not residential under the Zoning Code. PLA did not then waive
vesting and seek to have the determination made under the MPR Code because the MPR
Code and the Development Agreement both recognize that the property is zoned single
family residential with a maximum density of four (4) residences to the acre and which
include no use other than single family use, home based businesses and supporting
facilities. The only other residential use permitted conditionally is single family attached.
This use includes nonstacked condominiums and town homes on dedicated lots. The Staff
Report errs in concluding that transient use is allowed under the MPR Code in an area
zoned single family. Only residential use is allowed. Transient use is not residential.
Multifamily use is not even allowed. The proposed structures clearly are multifamily
structures and therefore not permitted under the MPR Code in Ludlow Cove 11. See MPR
Code Sec. 3.102, 3.103. The problem with waiving vesting in favor ofthe MPR Code, is
that the land use is subject to the land use approved under the MPR Code and
Comprehensive Plan and not "multifamily" even as a conditional use. PLA is not
permitted to pick and choose the uses and procedures under which it is vested. See East
County Reclamation Co. v. Biornsen, 125 Wn.App. 432, 439 (2005). If it wants to adopt
the zoning law that it's predecessor Pope adopted under the Development Agreement, it
is stuck with the zoning thereunder, that is the zoning under the Comprehensive Plan and
the MPR Code.
Even if the property were treated as multifamily under the MPR Code, the Trend
West use would still not be permitted. Principal uses of multifamily zoned property are
limited to multifamily dwelling including condominiums, long term elder care facilities,
home based businesses, attached single family units, and accessory units. The emphasis
is upon a "residential environment". There are no principal or conditional uses that
suggest time share, transient housing, or private resorts as proposed by Trend West. The
Staff Report errs in concluding that transient use is allowed under the MPR Codl1 iAfUJ.
:~;'..!\.:;'l
._._'" k 1fi
AI ."
" ?,-.~Ir
=__u,
- .- ~;).
_,_~ --..=..'\II
e
Stephen K. Causseaux, Jr
Jefferson County Hearing Examiner
November 3, 2006
Page 9
~
area zoned multifamily. Only residential use is allowed. Transient use is not residential.
See MPR Code Sec. 3.302 and 3.303. A review ofthe Comprehensive Plan shows that
the distinction between residential and transient is maintained. Residential is defined by
reference to dwelling units. The examples of residential units include only long term
accommodations. See definitions of "Residential", "Dwelling Unit", "Single Family
Residence", "Multifamily Residence", and "Condominium" at Comprehensive Plan, pp.
G-15, G-13, G-11, G-5, and G-4. Contrast the definition of "timeshare" which contains
the notion of transience by reference to "occasional". See Comprehensive Plan, p. G-16.
It even excludes the Trend West use because of its requirement that the owners share in
operating expenses such as rent and upkeep. Keep in mind, Trend West collects dues for
its Association, where the dues are spent, that is which property is unrelated to any use by
the owners ofthat property and under the absolute control of Trend West, not the
Association or its members.3
In summary, in the final action of Jefferson County, AHE Galt has determined
that Trend West is not a residential use. The law applicable to that determination has not
been modified to change the result. The basic notion here is that by amending the
Development Agreement to permit a density of nine (9) residential units per one (1) acre
and to classify a time share as a residential use, the problem has been solved.
Unfortunately, that is not the case. The underlying issue, here, is not whether the
Development Agreement can be modified but whether its modification changes the MPR
Code and Development Agreement that attach legal conditions to the subject property not
met by Trend West use. As can be easily seen, the proposed use is not residential at all.
If in fact it is not residential, it cannot be made residential through a legal fiction. Even
PLA does not suggest that. Rather, it continues to urge that Trend West is not a resort but
in fact a residential use, a time share use, even though this conflicts with findings of fact
in Galt (2005) binding on Jefferson County and the admissions of Trend West about the
lack of right of its members in use any particular units at any particular time.
II1. The Authoritv Cited in the Staff Report from the Development Agreement
Does not Support Prol'osed Amendment No.1.
A. Flexibility and Vesting Do Not Justify the Amendment. What
PLA proposes is a change in zoning from single family residential with a multifamily
residential as a conditional use to a commercial use.
3 The distinction between time share and the kind of operation proposed by Trend West is preserved in JCC
18.15.123 governing permitted uses in a master planned resort. JCC 18.15.123(1) lists "time share and
fractional owned accommodations" as residential. JCC 18.15.123(2) describes "short term visitor
accommodations". Considering that payment for the use of the facilities is common between hotel rooms
and apartments, it is clear that "short term" is the distinguishing characteristic. It is equally clear that PLA
does not want to be governed as a new master planned resort. That would require 65% of the units to be
short term visitor accommodations, a requirement not within PLA's contemplation under the Propo~d.. ITEM
Major Revision to the Resort Plan, See Exhibits 13 and 15. LUlj
# 12~
Page l1 _ of
e
Stephen K. Causseaux, Jr
Jefferson County Hearing Examiner
November 3, 2006
Page 10
e
It is clear that a Trend West use is not a residential use at all. As Mr. Helm
admitted, Trend West's Association has two hundred fifty thousand (250,000) members
and more than forty (40) resorts with more than six thousand (6,000) rooms. The
preferred member group with family amounts to a pool of more than a million
(1,000,000) persons who have preferred use rights through points in the various Trend
West resorts. Preference is only vis a vis the general public who also use Trend West
properties on a retail basis as available. It is clear that members pay compensation in
points and cash for short term use of rooms in resorts on an as available basis. It is
equally clear that members have no ownership interest or use rights in any particular
room for any particular time and that their membership fee and dues have no nexus to any
particular rooms or resorts but are simply part of the funds available to Trend West to
cover development and operation. It is finally clear that Trend West provides far more
service than is customary in a residential unit where services are provided by the
occupant. These include room cleaning, linen service, utilities, scheduling, security, and
the like. This explains why the one hundred twenty (120) unit Trend West Resort will
hire thirty five (35) employees rather than two (2) or three (3) that would be common to a
traditional condominium or timeshare with a ground keeping service for common areas.
The facts demonstrate as AHE Galt found, a commercial transient operation, not a
residential development for which the property is zoned.
PLA initially proposed the Trend West project as an allowed use under existing
zoning. This approach was based on defining Trend West's use as a condominium time
share use and then defining that use as a permitted multifamily use under the Zoning
Code. AHE Galt rejected this based upon the obvious conflict between a private hotel or
resort and allowed residential use. PLA then investigated amending the Comprehensive
Plan to rezone Ludlow Cove II to allow a Trend West use. It decided not to pursue this
approach and in lieu thereofto attempt the same result by Proposed Amendment No. 1.
While a proposed zoning change through an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan, if
approved, would clearly permit a Trend West use, subject to the approval of the
associated shoreline substantial development permit ("SSDP"), and review under the
Growth Management Act, Chapter 36.70A, RCW (the "GMA"), it is equally clear that
the same result cannot obtain from an amendment to the Development Agreement. This
is the case without regard to language at Sec. 3.13 of the Development Agreement
permitting vesting at the time of later amendments filling in uses not provided under the
Development Agreement or language in Sec. 3.11 cited in the Staff Report as supportive
of an amendment to the zoning through an amendment of the Development Agreement
by reference to "flexibility".
The failure of the "vesting" argument clearly follows from the requirements of
Sec. 3.13 to complete missing items by amendment. The provision does not relate to the
amendment process but rather to the vesting that results therefrom. If there is an
amendment to fill in a missing item, vesting obtains at the time of the amendment, not in
2000, the time the Development Agreement was entered. Thus, the requirements of an
amendment must be sought under Sec. 4.06 which deals with amendments. Further, the
provision only applies to fill in missing matters. An examination of the provisioI1f..ef~'TEM
# ~16
Page (V of
e
Stephen K. Causseaux, Jr
Jefferson County Hearing Examiner
November 3, 2006
Page II
e
MPR Code governing single family residential and multifamily residential clearly show
that the provisions governing allowed uses under these zoning classifications are spelled
out in detail with respect to use, setbacks, size, and lot size. The change provided by
Proposed Amendment No.1 adds nothing. Given that time share use was already
permitted and provided in Jefferson County in 1998 in the Comprehensive Plan, its
absence from single family and multifamily use under the MPR Code clearly shows that
neither Jefferson County as a matter of governance or Jefferson County and Pope as
parties to the Development Agreement intended time share use, to say nothing of private
resorts, on Ludlow Cove II. Finally, a review of allowed uses under the MPR Code for
single family and multifamily residential zones, uses based on definitions contained in
the Comprehensive Plan, clearly shows that neither a time share use nor a Trend West use
would have been allowed on Ludlow Cove 11. AHE Galt's finding continues to control.
The proposed Trend West use is not residential. The Development Agreement adopts by
reference the zoning from the Comprehensive Plan and the applicability of the MPR
Code, the development regulation executing the Comprehensive Plan with respect to the
Pope Property, including Ludlow Cove 11.
Section 3.11 governing flexibility objectives does not just justify a change in
zoning. Flexibility looks to a situation in which there is a change in conditions that
justify modifications in the Development Agreement. The precatory language contained
in the provision admits the problem of forecasting development over a twenty year (20)
term. Similar modifications are envisioned for the Comprehensive Plan itself. The
changes, however, must respond to the achievement of a variety of purposes including:
Incorporation of new information; responding to changing community and market
needs; encouraging reasonably priced housing, and encouraging modifications
that provide comparable benefit or functional equivalent with no significant
reduction of public benefits or increased cost to the development (collectively,
"Flexibility Objectives").
See Development Agreement Sec. 3.11. The problem is that the Staff Report makes no
reference to any "Flexibility Objective" that has anything to do with changing the
allowed use of Ludlow Cove II from a significantly less intense use, single family
residential to a significantly more intense use, a private commercial hotel. The
justification presented at the BoCC Workshop was that Trend West would have a big
payroll that subcontractors would benefit from construction or that other businesses
would move to town and develop in response to the seven hundred twenty (720)
vacationers a week that would visit the resort. PLA repeated its promise that it would
donate the $3,600,000 purchase price from the sale of the Ludlow Cove II property to
build a golf club house. It testified that it was losing $400,000 a year on the golf course
and an additional $600,000 a year from the Inn at Ludlow Bay and the Harbormaster
Restaurant.
But does this story support a change in the Development Agreement to spot zone
Ludlow Cove II for a commercial resort. I think the answer is clear. It does not. [~lTEM
# ~ ~)J)
Page --ll- of
e
Stephen K. Causseaux, Jr
Jefferson County Hearing Examiner
November 3, 2006
Page 12
e
obvious from a review of the Proposed Major Revision to the Resort Plan. Here, PLA
asks that to be relieved of its obligation to build out the hotel to two hundred fifty (250)
rooms, to build an additional forty five thousand (45,000) square feet of restaurants, to
build a convention center, to build recreational facilities for youth and to build retail in
the Resort Zone. See FSEIS, Article I, p. 1-13 and Figure 5; Were these facilities built,
they would accommodate even more resort users than the proposed Trend West project
would accommodate. The proposal would have additional facilities to entertain, provide
recreation to, and attract recreational, resort and convention users that would support
exactly the same persons as Trend West promises to support, that is employees,
construction subcontractors, and new retail. The difference is that the Resort Zone is
already zoned for just this purpose, that the duty to execute the plan would remain with
PLA as successor to Pope under the Development Agreement, and that the resort under
the Development Agreement would remain a public facility rather than a private resort as
contemplated by the Trend West use. In short, PLA is already bound to develop public
resort accommodations, not private resort accommodations, contemplated in the Trend
West use, however, properly, with supporting recreational, convention, and retail
facilities. Why should it be permitted to avoid its own duty to develop the Resort Zone
and its public transient and recreational amenities for a private hotel located in an area
that was never zoned for that purpose? If Trend West is willing to build and operate a
private one hundred twenty (120) unit private resort, what basis is there to conclude that a
Flexibility Standard is implicated just because PLA is not currently able to operate its
public resort and hotel profitably? Flexibility Standards are not an excuse to protect PLA
from losses incurred through its own operations. At best, they would allow modification
of the overall resort and hotel to meet the actual and not promised demand. That is not
what is requested here.
The real deal is that the public resort concept that underlies a master planned
resort has been perverted into a private resort without recreational support facilities, a
situation never contemplated in the Comprehensive Plan, the MPR Code, the
Development Regulations or even the Washington Legislature when it authorized the
MPR under RCW 36.70A.362. In short, the Staff Report gives short shrift to the very
Flexibility Standards to which it cites in support of Proposed Amendment No.1.
B. Conditions to the Amendment of the Development Agreement Have Not
Been Met. In addition to the condition that an amendment to the Development
Agreement execute a Flexibility Standard or fill in the gaps, neither of which the case, an
amendment to the Development Agreement is here requires that the standards and
conditions of Development Agreement Sec. 4.6 be met. As a condition to amendment,
there must be "express written approval of the County and Pope (or its successors,
successor in title and assigns with respect to the property in which they have an
interest)." See Development Agreement Sec. 4.6, first sentence. PLA is not Pope.
Rather it is a "successor". I do not think this is challenged as to the Development
Agreement or Ludlow Cove 11. However, PLA is not the only person that meets the
definition of "successors, successor in title, or assigns" either generally or as to Ludlow
Cove 11. This follows because "successor, successor in title, and assign applies to LB'&nYTEM
1- 2--D
\ J.... of
#
Page
e
Stephen K. Causseaux, Jr
Jefferson County Hearing Examiner
November 3, 2006
Page 13
e
to whom there is a sale or assignment of the Pope Property to other persons and "who
will own, develop and/or occupy portions of the Pope Property and buildings thereon."
It applies to the assignment or "transfer of all or any portion of the respective interests,
rights or obligations" under the Development "Agreement or in the Pope Property". See
Development Agreement Subsec. 4.2.2.
It is immediately clear that anyone who has purchased a lot in the Pope Property
meets this definition. That obviously includes the undersigned as to its town home at 44
Heron Rd. The undersigned is further a successor or successor in title as to Ludlow Cove
II even though the undersigned's residential unit is not located in Ludlow Cove II.
To understand why, one must review the CC & Rs that Pope impressed upon the
Pope Property including Ludlow Cove II and my residential unit that were recorded at
Auditor's No. 435975 at the same time as the recording of the Development Agreement
(the "PL VC CC & Rs"). The PL VC CC & Rs invest the PL VC with Architectural and
Legal Review Authority ("ARC") over each new plat proposed or developed by PLA.
The authority goes both to design and compatibility with the community and with the
legality ofthe plat under land use law as explained under Sections 2, 5, and and Exhibit C
thereto. The project was proposed to the PL VC. It responded by requiring CC & Rs
approved by it consistent with those of the other master associations, the SBCA and the
LMC as a condition to the approval. See attached exhibit. Trend West rejected the
imposition ofCC & Rs. Hence, the Trend West project has not been approved. I say
this as background. What is important is that the PL VC CC & Rs are binding the Pope
Property. The rights to be exercised by the PL VC thereunder are "for the purpose of
enhancing and protecting the value, desirability, and attractiveness ofthe Property."
PL VC CC & Rs, Sec. 1.. The PL VC is entitled to grant exceptions to the conditions of
Exhibit Conly if "such exception appears reasonably likely to (a) enhance the use,
enjoyment, and value of the area subject to the exception, and (b) will not have a
materially detrimental effect on the remainder of the Property." Amendment to the
PL VC CC & Rs requires consent of the PL VC and a majority in interest of the owners of
the Pope Property. See PL VC CC & Rs, Sec. 6. The rights and powers under the PL VC
CC & Rs may be assigned only with the consent of "each of the owners ofthe Property".
PLVC CC & Rs, Sec. 14. It is clear from Exhibit C that the PLVC is entrusted with the
duty and power of protecting the owners of the Pope Property from development
inconsistent with the community standards or land use law and that such duty and power
is for the benefit of such owners. That duty is not one lightly to be disregarded by those
to whom it has been entrusted. See Riss v. Angel, 131 Wn2d 612 (1997).
The project was proposed to the PL VC under SUB05-00004. It was approved
subject to the condition that suitable CC & Rs be developed integrating the project into
the Port Ludlow Master Planned Resort. Trend West and accordingly PLA rejected this
condition. Even more important, the present Proposed Amendment No.1 has not been
presented to the PL VC. While the project is the same, the requirement of the PL VC CC
& Rs that the project be legal and that the PL VC declare whether it is so compels a
LOG ITEM
# 'J-j;)
Page _12- of
e
Stephen K. Causseaux, Jr
Jefferson County Hearing Examiner
November 3, 2006
Page 14
e
reevaluation of the project under the findings and conclusion of the Galt decision. This
has not occurred.4
I am such an owner for this purpose both as a beneficiary and as a person
owning property bound by the PL VC CC & Rs. Moreover, every other person who has
purchased lots that are Pope Property are similarly owners as is the PL VC as direct owner
of rights under the PL VC CC & Rs.
As a result of the PL VC CC & Rs, ownership of a lot from the Pope Property, and
as to the PL VC, as a direct grant, the PL VC and any other owner of a Pope Property lot is
a "successor, successor in title, or assign" of Pope under the Development Agreement.
The consent of each such person to the Trend West project is required if the project is
approved only through an amendment to the Development Agreement. This is
requirement to the approval of an amendment by the BoCC or by PLA. That condition
has not been met. The owners other than PLA have not approved the transaction.
Neither has the PL VC. Accordingly, until PLA can provide formal written approval of
Proposed Amendment No.1 by the property owners, including me and the PL VC, it has
not met the condition applicable to amending the Development Agreement. This is not a
question of the vestee of rights of enforcement under the PL VC CC & Rs. Nor is it a
question of enforcement of the PL VC CC & Rs. It is a question of the purpose and
intended beneficiaries thereof. It is a question whether Jefferson County can ignore the
interests of those property owners under the Development Agreement as recognized third
party beneficiaries with rights thereunder. Clearly, here that purpose is served by
requiring consent from owners of the Pope Property as a condition to the approval of
Proposed Amendment No.1, a requirement improperly dismissed and ignored by the
Staff Report by reference to non enforcement of CC & Rs.
IV. Proposed Amendment No.1 Is an Illegal Spot Zone of Ludlow Cove 11.
A. Effect of Proposal is a Spot Rezone. PLA and Jefferson County
assume that the effect of Proposed Amendment No.1 rezones Ludlow Cove II to permit
the Trend West use, a private resort-hotel, on a property zoned single family residential.
Ludlow Cove II is zoned G-1, single family with a possible multifamily conditional use
4 As I understand it, one of the members of the PL VC is trying to circulate a document purporting to be CC
& Rs that Trend West would approve. The document is not legally a set of CC & Rs, contains language
permitting the declarant to amend the document at any time without consent of the PL VC, and is a
meaningless act designed to provide cover to approve a nonconforming use by a PL VC member who puts
his personal views of Trend West over his duty to review the Trend West project under applicable law, here
the Galt decision. It is absolutely clear that the standards imposed under Exhibit C to the PL VC CC & Rs
impose a legal duty on the PL VC and every one of its members to every owner of Pope Property to reject
Trend West on Ludlow Cove II unless it is properly approved in a comprehensive plan amendment to the
Comprehensive Plan changing the zoning of the property from residential to commercial. I attach a copy
of that document and for comparison purposes the LMC CC & Rs to highlight the difference. LOG ITEM
1-2--~
I~ of
#
Page
e
Stephen K. Causseaux, Jr
Jefferson County Hearing Examiner
November 3,2006
Page 15
e
under the Zoning Code and Port Ludlow IUGA.5 The use is transient and it is
commercial. That finding in GaIt (2005) binds Jefferson County.
The proper procedure to rezone the property is to propose a rezone as an
amendment to the Comprehensive Plan. Thereunder, amendments, which may be
proposed annually, are fully vetted in public hearings and adequate public input is
solicited. See RCW 36.70A.035 and RCW 36.70A.106, JCC 18.45.010(2). The process
is substantially more open and designed to obtain public approval than the process
involved in amending the Development Agreement, a private agreement outlining
development terms over specific properties in accordance with the Comprehensive Plan
and the MPR Code, the applicable development regulation. See MPR Code, Sec. 1.20.
A similar carefully reticulated amendment process applies to development regulations
that implement the Comprehensive Plan. See JCC 18.45.090(1)(b). The MPR Code is
the development regulation for the Port Ludlow Master Planned Resort. This applies
because Proposed Amendment No. 1 conflicts the Comprehensive Plan as to the land use
permitted on Ludlow Cove 11. Compare LUPO Sec. 16 which applies tothe amendment
of the Development Agreement with the authority cited above on amending
Comprehensive Plans and the MPR Code.
The procedure identified in the preceding paragraph is consistent with the
provisions of the Unified Development Code (the "UDC") governing development
agreements. JCC 18.40.930(5), cited by PLA, the argument of which has been adopted in
the Staff Report, provides:
Consistency with Unified Development Code. 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.
For reasons set forth in my response to PLA's comments to the MLA06-00221 Log Item
132. comments, the provision does not apply because it was adopted subsequent to the
vesting of the MPR under the Development Agreement and the matters subject to it are
fully fleshed out in the MPR Code, itself Appendix A to the Development Agreement.
This is clear by reference to development regulations that are adopted under the UDC.
Here, the applicable development regulation, the MPR Code, while adopted by reference
in the UDC under JCC 18.15.138, precedes, is not part of, and is separately codified
under Title 17, JCC, not Title 18, JCC which codifies the UDC. Moreover, the provision
does not justify the notion that zoning can be changed by a change in a development
5 The Port Ludlow IUGA was vacated in the fall of 1995 in response to the opinion of the Western
Washington Growth Management Hearing Board in Loomis v. Pope Resources declaring same defective on
a variety of grounds. LOG ITEM
# 2,.}..-o
Page ~ of
e
Stephen K. Causseaux, Jr
Jefferson County Hearing Examiner
November 3, 2006
Page 16
e
agreement. Such an interpretation would read out the parenthetical from the provision,
an act not permitted by rules of statutory construction. This follows because the
parenthetical provides the condition that a development agreement must require a site
specific amendment to the Comprehensive Plan, a procedure that also must apply to the
amendment thereof when the development plan is adopted to implement a master planned
resort. Moreover, JCC 18.40.930 does not itself apply to amendments to development
agreements. It applies to their adoption and provides the basis why their terms may
conflict the UDC itself. It does not apply to the amendment process that is mentioned but
not fleshed out in JCC 18.40.960(3). To reason otherwise would be to reason that the
development agreement as amended need not be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan
on a site specific basis which is exactly what JCC 18.40.930(5) requires. It would also
mean that the reticulated procedure for modifying the Comprehensive Plan controlled by
statute and JCC 18.45.010. Nothing contained therein suggests that the Comprehensive
Plan can be amended by amending a development agreement which itself can conflict the
UDC only if it implements a site specific provision of the Comprehensive Plan.
Harmonizing these provisions requires a construction that requires amendments to a
development agreement for a master planned resort to be and remain consistent with the
site specific provisions of the Comprehensive Plan or to be executed by amendment of
the Comprehensive Plan under its special amendatory provisions. The view to the
contrary expressed in the Staff Report and by PLA must be rejected.
The general logic of the relationship between comprehensive plans, development
regulations and development regulations further requires rejection ofthe position ofPLA
and the Staff Report that spot zoning can be affected through the amendment of a
development agreement. Developmentagreements are provided by RCW 36.70B.170(1),
last sentence, requires development agreements to be consistent with the development
regulation that they execute. It recites that the development regulation is adopted under
the Growth Management Act, Chapter 36.70A, RCW. A development regulation is
adopted to implement one or more specific provisions or areas of a comprehensive plan.
RCW 36.70A.040(4)(d) provides that counties must adopt "a comprehensive plan and
development regulations that are consistent with and implement the comprehensive
plan". Development regulations may be amended only as provided in RCW 36.70A.106.
Inter alia, the amendment must provide for adequate public input and must be submitted
to the Washington State Department of Community Development for approval. There is
no evidence of compliance with this requirement. See MLA-6-00221.
Harmonized, it is clear that development agreements execute and musts be
consistent with development regulations that themselves must be consistent with and
implement comprehensive plans. The consistency requirement is grounded in the
comprehensive plan and the procedures applicable to the amendment thereof. In fact the
Development Agreement and MPR Code each contain language confirming consistency
with the Comprehensive Plan. See Development Agreement Sections 1.3.11 and 3.1, read
together, and MPR Code Sec. 1.20. They also contain language confirming that the
Development Agreement is consistent with the MPR Code. See Development
Agreement, Sec. 3.1. That language has not been modified by Proposed Amendment NOrEM
LOG I
'1-1:1>
\\1 of
#
Page
e
Stephen K. Causseaux, Jr
Jefferson County Hearing Examiner
November 3, 2006
Page 17
e
I. Hence, there is an anomaly. Proposed Amendment No.1 obviously conflicts the MPR
Code and Comprehensive Plan by permitting development on Ludlow Cove II that is not
permitted by either under applicable zoning. Yet Development Agreement Sec. 3.1
requires that the Development Agreement remain consistent with both.
From the foregoing, it is absolutely clear that the Development Agreement cannot
be used as a means of amending either the MPR Code or the Comprehensive Plan except
through the amendatory process applicable to each. It is also clear that a proposed
amendment to the Development Agreement that conflicts the MPR Code and/or
Comprehensive Plan is invalid unless accompanied by an amendment of each, as
applicable. Here, Proposed Amendment No. 1 conflicts the MPR Code and the
Comprehensive Plan as to zoning, use, and density of use ofthe property. The proposed
amendment is simply invalid; it does not amend the authorizing law providing for the
Development Agreement.
B. Spot Rezones are Prohibited. Washington law does not favor spot
rezones such as that proposed by PLA and urged by the Staff Report. In Citizens for Mt.
Vernon v. City ofMt. Vernon, 133 Wn. 2d 861, 947 P.2d 1208 (1997), the Court
reviewed a similar issue to that here presented. The developer wanted to locate a
commercial project in an area zoned residential. The Court described the situation:
The record here reflects Citizens participated in all aspects of the administrative
process and raised the appropriate project approval issues. Haggen suggests the
issue is R-2A zoning; Haggen is wrong. The issue is the city council's ability to
approve a commercial PUD in a residential neighborhood and on property zoned
residential. The precise, legal argument is compatibility between the project and
the underlying zoning.
Mt Vernon, supra, pp. 869, 870. As in the instant case, the underlying zoning code
prohibited the commercial use. At Mt. Vernon, supra, p. 870, the Court said:
Individual citizens did not have to raise technical, legal arguments with the
specificity and to the satisfaction of a trained land use attorney during a public
hearing. The fact remains that the city council's approval ofthe commercial PUD
project conflicted with the city of Mount Vernon's zoning regulations,
undermined established Washington zoning precedent, and was illegal.
The Court further elucidated how a development agreement and its amendment cannot
control the applicable development regulation or applicable zoning code. I quote at
length from Mt. Vernon, supra, pp. 875, 876 (citations generally omitted):
Spot zoning is a zoning action by which a smaller area is singled out of a larger
area or district and specially zoned for a use classification totally different from
and inconsistent with, the classification of surrounding land and not in accordance
with the comprehensive plan. The main inquiry is whether the zoning actiotOG ITEM
# 1_2.-'6
Page -t:l- of
e
Stephen K. Causseaux, Jr
Jefferson County Hearing Examiner
November 3,2006
Page 18
e
bears a substantial relationship to the general welfare of t he affected community.
Professor Richard L. Settle wrote in Washington Land Use and Environmental
Law and Practice, The vice of "spot zoning" is not the differential regulation of
adjacent land but the lack of public interest justification for such discrimination.
Where differential zoning merely accommodates some private interest and bears
no rational relationship to promoting legitimate public interest, it is "arbitrary and
capricious" and hence "spot zoning." Richard L. Settle, Washington Land Use
and Environmental Law and Practice Sec. 2.11(c) (1983). Spot zoning
emphasizes why the planned unit development does not trump underlying zoning;
if a planned unit development can be placed at any location within a city
regardless ofthe underlying or surrounding zoning, as Haggen argues, it might
raise issues of spot zoning and it might undermine the overall zoning plan.
Planned unit developments allow for flexibility in planning, in design, or in
density. They do not permit ad hoc land use decisions merely because a
developer has decided to employ the PUD process. The commercial use proposed
by Haggen is inconsistent with, and distinctly different from, the surrounding
neighborhood zoning. As this court stated in Lutz: The PUD achieves flexibility
by permitting specific modifications of the customary zoning standards as applied
to a particular parcel. The developer is not given carte blanch authority to make
any use which would be permitted under traditional zoning. Lutz, 83 Wash.2d at
568,520 P.2d 1374. The PUD process does not override underlying zones, nor
does a PUD trump specific zoning regulations.
A master planned resort is a PUD. See RCW 36.70A.360(1) and the initial paragraph of
RCW 36.70A.362 which permits an existing resort to qualify as a "master planned
resort". This must be understood by reference to the description contained in RCW
36.70A.360(1). That provision is incorporated by reference in RCW 36.70A.362(2). 2.
Here, an even more egregious result is urged by PLA and adopted in the Staff Report that
is an amendment in the private agreement creating the PUD should trump the Zoning
Code, the MPR Code, and the Comprehensive Plan. The Court in Mt. Vernon, supra,
specifically rejected that analysis.
V. Proposed Amendment No.1 is a Taking.
Proposed Amendment No.1 if adopted by Jefferson County will constitute a
taking of private property by Jefferson County. For reasons set forth above, my rights
and those of all other purchasers of lots from Pope or PLA that constituted part of the
Pope Property under the Development Agreement and that are subject to the PL VC CC
Rs constitute private property rights in the PL VC CC & Rs and every plat or land
division subject to review by the PL VC as ARC thereunder. In Viking Properties v.
Holm. 155 Wn.2d 112, 128, 118 P.3d 322 (2005), the Court declared that protections
under CC & Rs were vested property rights that could be taken by government action
only through condemnation for a public purpose and by payment of fair compensation.
The Court relied upon the GMA, and particularly RCW 36.70A.020(6) declaring private
property rights a priority protection under the GMA. The statute reflects the pror5~StTEM
i# , 1J:t>
?age~ of
-
Stephen K. Causseaux, Jr
Jefferson County Hearing Examiner
November 3, 2006
Page 19
e
e
ofthe Washington Constitution. The notion is that rights protected under CC & Rs are
private property rights benefiting the property subject to the restrictions and can be
conflicted or taken by government action only if there is adequate compensation and a
public purpose.
Here, there is no showing of any purpose other than to further the interests ofPLA
and Trend West and to further Jefferson County's tax base. These are not public
purposes. There is no appraisal or offer to pay persons with property interests that are
affected by the spot zone of Ludlow Cove II in favor of PLA and Trend West and in
conflict with the zoning under the Zoning Code and the MPR Code. Property rights of
persons such as me who have bought parcels of Pope Property and have rights under the
restrictive easement are denied or ignored. It is clear that the County cannot simply
ignore those rights. For example, in City of De Moines v. Gray Business, LLC, 130
Wn.App. 600, 611-4, 124 P.3d 324 (2006), the City terminated the vested nonconforming
use. The Court found that the City's exercise of police powers went beyond regulation
and that its action was a taking that required compensation. While this case is not
apposite, it shows that when local government by its action, here, approving a use that
conflicts with underlying zoning, violates rights of property owners, it must compensate
them and, inferentially, can go forward only ifthere is some public purpose that has not
been here demonstrated. What is requested of Jefferson County is that it change the
zoning rules to permit what is obviously not a residential use on property that is zoned
only for a residential use. The property is further subject to a common set of CC & Rs
that protects it and all other Pope Property and its owners. Honoring the request changes
the densities and uses in the area, affects the CC & Rs, violates the ARC decision made
thereunder, and violates property rights of owners such as me. The County can do so
only by showing a public purpose and by compensating those adversely affected through
its actions.
V1. The MDNS Does Not Comply with SEP A or the SMA.
I incorporate my earlier response to the proposed MDNS which concludes that it
is non compliant with SEP A. In further support thereof, I raise two arguments. First, the
Staff Report mischaracterizes the adequacy ofthe recreational amenities available to the
Trend West Resort by failing to disclose the statement of Mr. Helm that Trend West
provides minimal on site amenities and relies on a partnership with the community to
provide same. Second, like the initial proposed Trend West project, the proposal is an
example of prohibited piecemealing because it does not integrate the contemporaneous
proposal of PLA to eliminate the public resort amenities that have not been built in the
resort zone, eliminate the convention center, eliminate the public hotel expansion, and
downsize the existing restaurant facilities and other public resort amenities. See FSEIS,
Chapter I, pp., 1-7-8 and Figure 3A, Revised PLA Plan and Revised Plan of September
2006, which eliminates even the recreational facilities included in the Revised PLA Plan.
See ZON03-00044, Log Items 234, 235. Revised Resort Plan attached hereto as Exhibit
15. These are the very amenities included in the MPR Code as the Resort Plan. See
MPR Code, Sec. 3.901 FSEIS, 1-13, and Figure 5. They are incorporated by referenceLbG ITEM
# 1-21>
Page -11..,-- of
It
Stephen K. Causseaux, Jr
Jefferson County Hearing Examiner
November 3, 2006
Page 20
e
the Development Agreement and are a part of the resort buildout that Pope, then PLA
agreed to provide in connection with Jefferson County's agreement to designate Port
Ludlow as an existing master planned resort under RCW 36.70A.362, itself adopted at
the lobbying and instance of Pope and its attorneys to permit just such designation and to
overturn the effect of Loomis v. Jefferson County, supra. The issues surrounding the
proposed modification of the resort are subject to a contemporaneous proceeding under
the "Major Revision to the Resort Plan". However, as can be easily seen Trend West and
the Major Revision must be viewed together. Trend West creates by its own admission a
demand for recreational facilities that PLA seeks to eliminate with the Major Revision.
Trend West is a genre of use that is similar to the use that PLA is obligated to develop in
the Resort Zone, specifically, an expansion of the hotel, the overall purpose for which
master planned resort designation was approved. It seeks to avoid that obligation; it
seeks to have Trend West, in effect, substitute a variant, a private hotel, for its obligation,
but not in the Resort Zone, rather in an area zoned for single family use. The MDNS is
completely deficient in not evaluating these two proposals together. By doing so, it is
permitted to focus on the few amenities that are privately provided by the Trend West
Resort and to avoid the implications of Mr. Helm's testimony that Trend West looks for
local partners to provide the bulk ofthe amenities. The amenities likely to support Trend
West are the amenities that PLA is eliminating or shrinking, the youth center, the
museum, the retail, the restaurants. The MDNS is defective because it does not consider
the obvious effect of shrinking or eliminating amenities that Trend West has stated it
requires for its guests. The MDNS should be rejected for failing to consider Trend West
and the Major Revision together, for engaging in prohibited piecemealing.
The reviewer must consider all aspects of a proposal. These include both phases
and related projects that are so associated with the proposal that they should be
considered together. In East County Reclamation Co., supra. P. 441, the Court said:
But although phased review may be beneficial in some circumstances, FEIS
reviewers may not piecemeal the process by limiting review to "current segments
of public works projects and postponing environmental review of later segments
until construction begins." Concerned Taxpayers Opposed to Modified Mid-
South Sequim Bypass v. Dept. of Transl'., 90 Wn.App. 225, 231, n.2, 951 P.2d
812 (1998). Moreover, phased review of a project is inappropriate where phasing
avoids discussion or distorts the impact of a projects cumulative effects. See
Indian Trail ProP. Owner's Assn. v. City of Spokane, 76 Wn.App. 430, 443,886
P.2d 209 (1994).
See similarly, City of Lakewood v. Bennett,Unpub. Court of Appeals Opinion, 2005, p.
6. Emphasis is placed upon the interrelationship ofthe parts. See also WAC 197-11-
060(3)(b). Piecemealing is permitted only if "the first phase of the project is independent
of the second and if the consequences of the ultimate development cannot be initially
assessed; such review is impermissible where a series of interrelated steps constitute an
integrated plan and the current project is dependent upon subsequent phases. See Murden
Cove. Pres. Ass'n v. Kitsal' County, 41 Wn.App. 505, 526, 704 P.2d 1242 (1985). r5h ITEM
# 12-D
Page~O of
e
Stephen K. Causseaux, Jr
Jefferson County Hearing Examiner
November 3, 2006
Page 21
e
the steps in the Trend West and the Major Revision proposal are clearly interrelated in
effect and purpose. Their combined effect is not speculative. They must be reviewed
together to evaluate that impact.
It is obvious that considering Trend West and the Major Revision constitutes
prohibited piecemealing. The buildout of the master planned resort is statutorily
"integrated" and "self contained". See RCW 36.70A.362. Trend West is a proposal by
admission of its proponents that is engrafted on an existing resort. Here, the resort
contemplates the resort buildout. The 2000 resort is described in the Development
Agreement as a "small resort", certainly not of the scope that would support the right to
buildout 450 more residential units or the entire 1,200 acre Pope Property. See
Development Agreement, Sec. 1.3.12. Rather, the resort includes the resort to be built
under the Resort Plan contained in the MPR Code and incorporated by reference in the
Development Agreement. It is that resort with amenities to support transient visitors that
provides the necessary support for Trend West. It is this aspect of the resort that is being
eliminated under the Major Revision. Not considering the Trend West proposal and the
Major Revision together gives the false impression that there is an ongoing resort project
as promised under the Development Agreement. It leads those who review the project to
ignore the fact that except for the golf course, the Trend West proposal is free standing
and not to compare it with another free standing Trend West resort that struggles at
Discovery Bay. When Mr. Helm admits that Trend West looks to the community to
provide its visitors recreation, he also admits that portions of the buildout of the Pope
Property that affect the provision of recreation should be reviewed with the proposal.
In addition to recreational amenities that are not adequately mitigated in the Staff
Report so as to justify an MDNS, there are three other environmental issues that are also
not adequately mitigated. First, the Staff Report fails to deal with the report of the Fire
Chief given in a hearing on the Major Revision in which he admitted a lack of ability to
fight beach side fires. Hence, it is questionable whether construction in the shoreland
should be permitted without access roads to the beach side of all of the structures. That
provision is absent here. While the fire chief did not here respond, he did testify to the
issue in a companion hearing on the Major Revision, the exclusion of which results in
prohibited piecemealing. Second, the sheriff has admitted that it has no personnel to
spare for Ludlow Bay and that considering its population three officers should be
assigned. The cost to maintain three officers in the area is about $300,000. This
statement does not take into consideration the additional effect of a Trend West project
that will bring an additional 300 or so children and youth to the area weekly. The Staff
Report ignores the Sheriffs comment to the initial Trend West proposal although it is
substantively identical to the current proposal. It is unclear why the Sheriff did not
respond again or if the Sheriffwas even asked. See SUB05-00004, Log Item 23.
Third, the Staff Report ignores or disputes the jurisdiction of the statement contained in
Mr. Stewart's letter, MLA06-00221 Log Item 91. It makes reference to the lack of public
access and to the change of use from residential to commercial, that is from single family
residential to a resort. Mr. Stewart's comment does not concern zoning. Rather it
concerns intensity of use associated with a commercial Trend West project as compared
LOG ITEM
# 1~
Page 1.. \ of
e
e
StephenK. Causseaux, Jr
Jefferson County Hearing Examiner
November 3, 2006
Page 22
with the fifty eight (58) or so single family residences that could legally be built on the
project6 and would be used principally part time. The distinction is imbedded in
definitions contained in JCC 18.15.123 that apply to new master planned resorts. It is
based on the distinction found by AHE Galt, that is residential vs. transient. It
distinguishes a hotel/motel from a residential dwelling, apartment, condominium,
timeshare or fractionally owned unit. Because Trend West is not a residential use, its use
is not permitted in an area zoned for a less intense residential use. This acts to protect the
sensitive shoreland and estuary to Ludlow Creek. The Staff Report does not adequately
dispose the intensity of use issue relative to the shoreland raised in Mr. Stewart's letter
either in its MDNS or in its treatment of the SSDP.7 This follows because the SMA
distinguishes between residential and commercial use. If a shoreland is zoned residential,
a conditional commercial use is permitted only if it is water related. General commercial
use is not permitted. See WAC 173-26-211, 221, and 241 and 21, particularly WAC 173-
26-241(3)(d) and WAC 173-26-211(5)(f). Under this standard, consistent with its zoning
under the Zoning Code, the Comprehensive Plan and the MPR Code, the subject property
is zoned residential. This must be understood under the term "shoreline residential
environment". Non water related commercial development in a shoreline residential
environment is prohibited. It cannot here even be permitted. It is clear why Mr. Stewart
inquired into commercial use. It is not a prohibited inquiry into zoning law that is not
before the DOE as DCD's staff and Mr. Berteig erroneously concluded. See
Berteig(2005). The result of Mr. Galt's decision is that an SSDP cannot issue on the
subject property even with mitigation. It is clear that the cited authority does not
contemplate redefining "is" as a means of changing AHE Galt's conclusion that the
proposed Trend West use is a commercial use barred on Ludlow Cove 11.
None of these the issues were issues are mitigated. They are all environmental
issues listed in WAC 197-11-444. The effects are material. They are not in doubt.
Hence, to justify a threshhold decision that permits an MDNS to substitute for full SEP A
compliance, that MDNS must mitigated these issues.
Finally, the MDNS must be rejected because it is based on a staff report that
concluded that Trend West is a residential use under applicable zoning laws. See
SUB05-00004, Log Item 141. That conclusion was adopted by HE Berteig in his
September 2,2005 decision. See SUB05-00004, Log Item 144. The decision was
6 There were only twenty six (26) planned for Ludlow Cove II in December, 1997. See footnote I, supra.
7 It is not the case that an SSDP properly issued or would have issued to PLA for Ludlow Cove II. The
SHB held that Jefferson County did not approve the application by fmal action, that the application was
invalid, and remanded it to the County for proper approval in accordance with applicable procedures.
Statements in the Staff Report and Proposed Amendment No.1 to the contrary are erroneous. See Powers
and Rozzell v. Jefferson County et. AI. SHB 05-029. I understand that Mr. Loomis will introduce an email
and additional information from Mr. Brocksmith of the Hood Canal Coordinating Council showing the
sensitivity of the environmental issues along the estuary to Ludlow Creek as well as issues relating to the
hundred year flood classification of a part of Ludlow Cove II to be developed under this plan and the effect
of fill therein. I ask that this information be included for review of the SSDP application as well as SEP A
compliance. They appear to update and conflict in part with the environmental information submitted by
the applicant. A copy of Mr. Brocksmith's email is attached as an exhibit. LOG ITEM
# ;.:~ Q
Page Q,~ of
e
e
Stephen K. Causseaux, Jr
Jefferson County Hearing Examiner
November 3,2006
Page 23
vacated by AHE Galt in his December 7,2005 opinion. See Galt(2005). The decision of
AHE Galt is the final action of Jefferson County. See LUPO, Sec. 19. HE Berteig's
decision has no further legal effect. It cannot be quoted as supporting anything. The fact
that PLA has appealed ARE Galt's decision is irrelevant. Unless it is overturned on
appeal, it remains the final action of the County. It has certainly not been stayed. If the
Trend West use upon which the staff report relative to SEP A compliance is based is
based on a flawed conclusion that the Trend West use is residential rather than
commercial or transient, how can the MDNS that relies on the practical effect of that use
stand?
In summary, the MDNS does not adequately comply with SEP A's requirements
because it is based on a flawed piecemeal approach to Trend West and the Major
Revision and because it fails to mitigate public services, recreational availability, and
intensity of use.
The undersigned has filed an appeal of DC D's decision to adopt the MDNS
approved by HE Berteig in his approval of SUB05-'00004. The MDNS was issued under
analysis that concluded that the proposed Trend West use was residential, not
commercial. As I have said, HE Berteig's approval was vacated by ARE Galt in his
decision. He concluded that the proposed Trend West use is commercial, not residential
and not permitted on Ludlow Cove II under any applicable zoning. See Galt(2005). The
SSDP associated with SUB05-00004 was vacated and remanded by the SHB in May,
2006. As a result, the legal and factual basis for the Staff Report upon which the MDNS
for SUB05-00004 issued has been vacated and vitiated. It is no longer possible to adopt a
MDNS based upon that flawed legal and factual analysis of DCD as compliant with the
requirements of SEP A as they apply to MLA06-00221. Even if one assumes, arguendo,
that the same project is included in both which is not legally the case, the mitigation to a
decision to issue a determination of nonsignificance must be different if the conclusion is
that the use is commercial, not residential. This follows, inter alia, because this particular
type of commercial use would be barred. Moreover, if DCD wishes to argue that it can
redefine terms to include the use as residential, it must provide explanation in its SEP A
compliance to alert interested parties of the basis, if any, for that decision, other than to
accommodate the applicant. This it has not done. When there has been an error, the
adoption of prior compliance still requires a threshold decision and reissue thereof as a
new MDNS for the modified proposal. The undersigned has objected to this treatment in
MLA06-00221, Log Item 99. He has objected again in an administrative appeal. It was
rejected because the undersigned did not specifically appeal the MDNS when approved
on July 26,2005 for SUB05-00004. See MLA06-00221, Log Items 161 and 162. The
undersigned's administrative appeal was not included in the Log for MLA06-00221.
Apparently this is another exercise of DC D's discretion to include whatever it wants and
to exclude whatever it does not want in the log. See attached email from Ms. Nightingale
to the undersigned on that subject. The undersigned again appealed DCD's wrongful
decision to conflate SEP A procedural protections applicable to MLA06-00221 with those
of SUB05-00004. The undersigned requested that the matter be submitted to the Hearing
Examiner. DCD has not responded. The undersigned asked if its decision of oefftf TfEM
# _ 'L'1-b
Page ~'?- of -
-
e
Stephen K. Causseaux, Jr
Jefferson County Hearing Examiner
November 3, 2006
Page 24
to reject the undersigned's administrative appeal was the final decision giving rise to the
undersigned's appeal rights. DCD did not timely respond. The undersigned filed a
protective LUP A Petition based upon the procedural violations ofDCD. The
undersigned requested DCD to confirm its LUPA rights after the substantive decision in
an effort to eliminate the interlocutory SEP A judicial appeal. DCD has yet to provide a
straightforward confirmation ofthe undersigned's SEP A appeal rights under LUP A either
as to its substantive objection to the use of the MDNS based upon an erroneous
conclusion as to use and its violation of the undersigned's due process rights to appeal
administratively. The undersigned sent notice to DCD, PLA and to the Hearing
Examiner that it had filed a protective LUP A Petition and moved for stay because of
DCD's unwillingness to confirm absolutely the undersigned's appeal rights of the SEP A
compliance under LUP A after the ultimate administrative disposition ofMLA06-00221.8
The undersigned hereby requests a disposition of its administrative appeal rights
as a condition precedent to any review of the substantive consolidated permit application
under MLA06-00221. The undersigned urges that its procedural rights to require DCD to
issue a threshold determination on MLA06-00221, to give notice t hereof to the
undersigned and to permit the undersigned administratively to appeal that decision have
been violated and that this matter should be returned to DCD to comply with these
requirements prior to any hearing on the substantive permit application.
VI1. Concurrency Issues.
The GMA requires concurrency in the development of a master planned resort.
Concurrency means that public services, facilities and support infrastructure will be
available. Identified in Part V hereof are public services that are not available presently
and not being offered in connection with the Trend West project. These include fire
protection and police protection. These are not hypothetical issues. We have already had
a major fire which took out two condominium buildings in the Admiralties and a smaller
fire at the Beach Club. The fire department could not respond adequately to the
Admiralty fire. It could not effectively deploy equipment. The fire department has
admitted in a hearing on the Major Revision an inability to fight beach side fires. Yet,
there is no access to a portion of the proposed project on the beach side. Further, police
protection is admittedly inadequate. The Sheriff so testified. He testified that at least
three officers are needed at a cost of$IOO,OOO apiece. The inadequacy of police
protection is seen in the fact that Port Ludlow, principally inhabited with retirees had the
third highest crime rate in Jefferson County and that burglars succeeded in breaking into
virtually all of the commercial center businesses without any interruption by police.
Attached hereto are police reports supporting the foregoing statements. Further, no
attention has been paid to elder care housing. PLA's predecessor actually blocked an
attempt to put elder care housing into the commercial zone. Medical care for the
population is similarly lacking. Considering the age of the community elder care housing
8 A copy of the further responses from Mr. Alvarez, Mr. De Sa e Silva, and the undersigned's response
thereto filed on even date are attached as exhibits. LOG ITEM
# .1...'1.-1>
Page 14, of
e
e
Stephen K. Causseaux, Jr
Jefferson County Hearing Examiner
November 3, 2006
Page 25
and available medical care are necessities. Finally, other than one bank, there has been
no retail development during PLA's watch to support the community. None of the retail
promised in 2000 in the resort zone has been built. Neither has PLA attempted to expand
restaurant or food service availability. Finally, the adequacy of sewer and water is
completely unknown. DCD has admitted that it does not check beyond an assurance
from the local utility, itself owned by PLA, that water and sewer are available. The
system is nearly forty (40) years old. There have been no independent audits of its
facilities or its fmances. Each of these features are included in the features that generally
must be developed concurrently with each phase of the buildout. Nothing in Proposed
Amendment No. 1 addresses these matters. Their resolution is required under the GMA
and under JCC 18.15.126, 129, and 135 and under the Comprehensive Plan.
VII1. Pending Violation of Program and SMA by Applicant on Subiect
Property.
The applicant apparently has jumped the gun. At some time, apparently this year,
more than one third of Ludlow Cove II was cleared and the surface disturbed. The
clearing and disturbance of the surface lies within the shoreland protected under the
SMA. To conduct development activities requires the issuance of a shoreline substantial
development permit ("SSDP") as the final permit in the consolidated permits associated
with the project. While there is a diminimus exemption for activities of a value less than
Two Thousand Five Hundred and 00/100ths Dollars ($2,500.00), neither the activities on
the site viewed alone nor the project are exempt. Indeed, the consolidated permit
application with MLA06-00221 contains an application for an SSDP. The activity has
been reported to Mr. Alvarez, the Jefferson County civil deputy, and to Mr. Scalf ofDCD
with pictures showing the violation and a demand for a cease and desist order, a remand
of the consolidated permit application to the applicant, and damages including mitigation
until a mitigation plan is developed and implemented.9
DCD's response promised a physical inspection of the property. Ms. Nightingale
inspected the property today. She reported that the applicant had reseeded and put a
straw cover down on the property to prevent erosion and sedimentation of the estuary to
Ludlow Creek. She said the damage to the surface resulted from the County's parking of
equipment thereon during road construction. The undersigned and Mr. Rozzell reported
the use of the property, apparently to store and stage equipment by email dated July 25,
2006. That email with the exchange and pictures of the resulting disturbance of the
property is contained as Log Item 111 of MLA06-00221. The pictures show substantial
disturbance ofthe soil cover, enough so that it appeared to Mr. Rozzell that dirt was
being removed from the property. Ms. Nightingale reported then that none of the
disturbance affected the shoreland or critical areas. Yet, in the current report, Ms.
9 I attach as exhibits the exchange of emailsamongDCD.Mr. Loomis, and me regarding the photographs.
Reference is made to MLA06-00221, Log No. III which contains photographs and request for
investigation by the undersigned on July 25,2006 based on the same issue, disturbance of the property.
That request was likewise not followed by DCD.
#
Page
LOG ITEM
1.... 'L \)
ke) of
it
.
Stephen K. Causseaux, Jr
Jefferson County Hearing Examiner
November 3, 2006
Page 26
Nightingale reports that the reseeding and straw cover are an approved procedure to
prevent erosion and silting of the estuary. In addition, the area disturbed in the pictures
from July 25,2006, appears to be significantly less extensive the surface covered by
straw and bordered by existing vegetation. The undersigned does not question the
purpose of the reseeding and straw but rather the nature and extent of the disturbance of
the surface of the subj ect property and the purpose served thereby. If such disturbance
arose in connection with the parking of County heavy equipment on the subject property
and its use as a staging area, it would seem both that a permit should have been issued
and attention paid to possible cleanup resulting from any deposit of toxic materials from
the equipment on the subject property. DCD's response must include more than a
confirmation of the obvious, the application of straw to more than one third of the
property with a representation, obviously from the applicant, that it had reseeded the
property. It must confirm its own physical inspection of the subject property to see what
has actually been done in addition to the application of straw and what damage it sought
to cure. What DCD appears to have done is merely to conftrm the obvious and concur
with the representation of mitigation made by the applicant without a thorough
investigation of the circumstances leading to the problem for which mitigation was
necessary.
This is not an isolated violation. The applicant and Jefferson County have a long
history of ignoring Shoreline Management Act ("SMA") requirements. The sorry state of
the lagoon in the Resort Zone is clear evidence. SSDP 91-017 that governs the handling
of the lagoon, the Inn and the townhomes requires that half of the lagoon be seeded in
beach grass to provide bird loafing areas, that the water quality be maintained to
encourage aquatic life, and that eel grass be planted further to encourage shell fish and
other aquatic life within the lagoon. The lagoon is part of Ludlow Bay it is connected at
mean higher high tide. It has been systematically degraded by the applicant and its
predecessor by not following the conditions of SSDP 91-017 and by building an
unauthorized parking lot for the hotel along the east shore of the lagoon in violation of
the SMA and SSDP91-017. Demands have been made to cure the lagoon. They are met
by obfuscation by the applicant and by Jefferson County that is entrusted the obligation
of enforcing SSDP 91-017 under the Program. These culminated in an unsuccessful
attempt by the applicant to have the lagoon declared artificial and not protected to permit
it to construct residential units thereover and Jefferson County's attempt to obtain the
consent of the DOE for the benefit of the applicant. In a letter dated October 25,2004,
the DOE declared the lagoon part of Ludlow Bay and, as a lagoon, declared that
residential units can not be constructed over it. DCD continues to assist the applicant in
its quest to build to the waterline of the lagoon in violation of the Program. See Exhibit
10.
DCD and the applicant have been even more egregious in ignoring the
development limitations associated with SSDPs. SSDP 91-017 provided the applicant's
predecessor, Pope, five (5) years to construct its improvements on the property subject
thereto with the right to extend for one (1) year. Pope did not do so. The construction
right lapsed in 1998. Between 2001 when the applicant was novated to the Development
LOG ITEM
,-')..Q
llo of
#
Page
.
Stephen K. Causseaux, Jr
Jefferson County Hearing Examiner
November 3,2006
Page 27
e
Agreement and 2004, the applicant constructed twelve (12) townhomes on the property
subject to SSDP 91-017 in violation ofSSDP 91-017, the Program, and the SMA. It
made no attempt to obtain a new permit. Neither did Jefferson County enforce SSDP 91-
017, the Program and the SMA and issue a cease and desist order or other administrative
penalty or order to require compliance. After the undersigned discovered the problem,
DCD and Jefferson County continuously stonewalled and refused to take action to cure
the violation. The violation abides. Its excuse is that prior mistakes must be overlooked.
That is simply no excuse.
Not only are the townhomes in violation ofSSDP 91-017, the Program and the
SMA, but those in building 700 also violate the MPR Code. The MPR Code requires a
twenty (20) foot setback from Heron Rd. The building permits recite this condition. Yet,
the building units are built to the edge of the road. When the undersigned questioned
DCD, the response was that the site plans permitted the development. The site plans did
not permit the development. They identify the portions of the units violating the setbacks
as driveways, a permitted use, rather than garages and living quarters, a non permitted
use. In other words, DCD and its staff completely ignored the law in connection with the
development of building 700 and continues to refuse to enforce the law to force the
applicant to provide the setback and eliminate a completely unsafe condition. The
setback is a safety condition. Getting to yes for the applicant was more important than
the safety of the persons that own or live in the townhomes.
I recite these violations and continuing disregard for the safety of the community
at Ludlow Bay by the applicant and Jefferson County to put in context the issues raised
by the "seeding" and "straw" and the likely violation of the SMA and Program
committed by the applicant in connection with its clearing and grading a third or more of
the subject property. The message delivered here by the applicant and the tardy and slow
response of Jefferson County is that the decision to permit Trend West by Jefferson
County is a done deal. We are merely going through a kabuki dance. Only independent
hearing examiners, the SHB as to the SSDP, and either the Court or the WWGMHB as to
the consolidated application will be in a position to force Jefferson County to pay any
attention to the rights and safety of its residents or requirements of law. It is pretty
obvious to those of us who reside at Ludlow Bay that Jefferson County has little stomach
to protect environmental, safety, property, or other legal concerns of its own residents.
They are far from Port Townsend and of concern chiefly as a source of tax revenue. How
else can this gross violation of environmental law and Jefferson County's slothful
response be explained.
It is obvious and not contested by DCD that someone violated the SMA by
conducting activities on the shoreland resulting in its substantial disturbance. On the
basis thereof, the undersigned asks the HE to suspend consideration of the application
until the Jefferson County conduct a full investigation into the circumstances of the
violation, with the applicant develop an appropriate mitigation plan to restore the results
of the violation, and enter into a consent order prohibiting further violations. Why on
#
Page
LOG ITEM
1-~
'L'" of
Stephen K. Causseaux, Jr e
Jefferson County Hearing Examiner
November 3, 2006
Page 28
e
earth would an application be considered in the face of a pending violation of the very
law that applies to the application?
IX. Defect in Consolidated Permit Application.
The consolidated permit application before the hearing examiner is facially
defective. It includes only two items, the proposed amendment no. 1 to the Development
Agreement and an accompanying SSDP. Although accompanied by site plans and
related documents that suggest the proposal is part of a binding site plan, as Mr. De Sa e
Silva confirms, there is no binding site plan or any other plan associating any particular
project or use to the subject property. Rather, the proposal permits single family and
multifamily residential use of Ludlow Cove II to a density of nine dwelling units per acre
and with a redefinition of multifamily to include time share use as defined in the proposal
from language contained in RCW 64.36.010. Which such use is selected and where it
will be located remains unknown. There is no plat. There is no binding site plan. Ms.
Nightingale's notice ofSEPA rights, MLA06-00221, Log No. 48 confirms this.
Absent a plat or binding site plan how can a shoreline substantial development
permit issue. Such permit is the last permit. It must be adopted simultaneous with or
after the adoption of all other permits. See Program, Sec. 6.40, second sentence. Yet
here, by admission ofDCD, the final permit is a building permit that approves the design
of the structure and its situs on the property. A building permit is a Type I permit. It
does not require notice to anyone other than the applicant. See Chapter 18.40, JCC,
Table 8-1. The result of this slight of hand is that DCD and the applicant in a back room
without oversight and community comment can decide what to approve on Ludlow Cove
II, a result conflicting with even the most basic notion of notice and due process. While
one cannot fault PLA for pursuing a result obviously beneficial to it, one must question
the motives of Jefferson County to interfere with the due process rights of its residents at
every turn.
Absent a plat or binding site plan, the County's proper response is obvious. There
is no proposal upon which an SSDP can issue. There is no proposal for the BoCC to
consider. The matter must be remanded for the association of a binding land use proposal
to the application. What is here requested is an open pocket book, a proposal to develop
whatever is financially expedient without regard to infrastructure, concurrency and other
relevant issues applicable to the development of the Port Ludlow Master Planned Resort.
Without the specificity of a project, the SSDP, if approved is fatally flawed and will be
overturned before the Shoreline Hearing Board ("SHB"). Is that what we are doing here.
If the procedure is so fatally flawed as is here the case, it is the obligation of the hearing
examiner without further action to vitiate the consolidated permit and to return same to
the applicant and DCD for proper review.
X. Conclusion.
#
Page
LOG ITEM
1.')..t)
1'0 of
Stephen K. Causseaux, Jr .
Jefferson County Hearing Examiner
November 3, 2006
Page 29
e
The HE should reject the SSDP application and MDNS as SEP A compliance and
recommend against the Trend West proposal. It is not as advertised a residential
condominium or time share use which associates owners with their units and with the
community in which the units are located. It is rather one of a large number of resort
facilities owned by Trend West's not for profit affiliate principally to provide transient
accommodations for consideration to the Association's two hundred fifty thousand
(250,000) members and their families. Use is clearly transient. On average, Trend West
expects each use to last only three (3) days. Consideration is paid for the use in the initial
purchase of points and in additional payments to make up the difference between point
values and the value of the use of the units as determined by Trend West. Members own
neither an interest in the facilities or any specific right in their use. Employment and
services are consistent with any other hotel or resort. Units not in use are rented to the
general public as any other hotel or resort would do. In short, all the club structure
accomplishes is to shift the burden of financing the development, construction, and
operation of Trend West Resorts from Trend West to the members. Otherwise, it is no
different than any other hotel, motel or resort offering suites but not food services. AHE
Galt found this to be the case. It remains the case. Trying to redefine terms does not
change the substantive nature of the proposal which has remained the same since it was
first raised in late 2004 under SUB05-00004.
Transient use is not appropriate in an area zoned residential, whether single or
multifamily. AHE Galt so found. Like the Haggens, Trend West and PLA seek to avoid
the zoning and AHE Galt's fmding by a slight of hand, there, by persuading Mount
Vernon to impress the desired area with a commercial PUD, here by amending the
Development Agreement issued in connection with a master planned resort, itself a type
ofPUD. The same evil obtains. Zoning upon which buyers of property, residents in
neighborhoods relied is spot changed for the benefit of a developer and the short term tax
advantage of the municipality. For the same reason our Supreme Court rejected Mount
Vernon's and Haggen's attempt to sidestep zoning, the HE should reject the evil
presented by PLA's and Jefferson County's attempt do so here.1o
The HE should also consider the legal infirmities to the process proposed by PLA
and Jefferson County. Rezones are a creature of Comprehensive Plan amendments.
They require public input and notification of Washington Department of Community
Development, inter alia. They must fulfill a public purpose. They can be proposed only
once, annually. The HE should take notice that PLA could have proposed Proposed
Amendment No.1 as an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan. It chose not to do so.
Inferentially, the HE should conclude that PLA did not think its proposal would
10 It is pretty clear that DCD's principals in Jefferson County have already decided to approve Trend West.
It is the only reasonable explanation of the decision to expend road funds on the Oak Bay Road/Paradise
Bay Road crossroad. A review of the cutouts shows that they can only be explained by reference to the
proposed Trend West project. What is transpiring before the HE is a kabuki dance designed nominally to
comply with public input requirements under LUPO and the Development Agreement but to give PLA and
Trend West what they want without regard to the property rights and vested interest of the residents in the
established zoning within the :MPR.
#
Page
LOG ITEM
U"b
~q of
.
Stephen K. Causseaux, Jr
Jefferson County Hearing Examiner
November 3, 2006
Page 30
e
withstand full public scrutiny or governmental review. One simply cannot amend the
Comprehensive Plan or the development regulations issued thereunder by an amendment
to the Development Agreement. Proposed Amendment No. 1 would if adopted leave the
Development Agreement in conflict with the MPR Code and Comprehensive Plan. This
it cannot legally do.
The HE should consider contractual and property issues ignored by Jefferson
County in the promotion of Trend West. The Development Agreement requires as a
condition of amendment, written approval by the successors in title and assigns of Pope
with respect to the property affected by the amendment. Because I own a lot that is part
of the Pope Property and because that lot and Ludlow Cove II with the rest of the Pope
Property is impressed with the PL VC CC & R designed to protect the value and
enjoyment ofthe Pope Property, my written consent as well as that of every other
purchaser oflots from PLA is required. There is no legal basis to ignore our property
interest. In addition, because of my interest and that of all like lot owners in our various
lots and in the PL VC CC & Rs, we have a property interest that would be violated by
Jefferson County's approval of Proposed Amendment No. 1. That interest is protected
under the GMA and the Washington Constitution. It may be violated only for a public
purpose and with compensation. No public purpose has been here demonstrated and no
compensation has been offered.
The ancillary SSDP, GMA, and SEPA compliance should not be approved. The
DOE's underlying concern has not been mitigated. It raised concern about converting
residential to commercial use. That is exactly what is happening. Its concern is
obviously based on the intensity and difference in that use and its potential impact on
Ludlow Bay and the estuary to Ludlow Creek. The MDNS does not fully describe the
environmental issues associated with the project as a whole or mitigate them. Like the
rest of the proposal, it is a disguise for spot zoning a residential zone to commercial use
without making adequate disclosures or mitigating obvious problems resulting from the
change. Finally, the concurrency requirement of the GMA and Comprehensive Plan are
not met. Police and fire protection, health care, elder care, and recreational and retail
effects are simply passed offby reference to facilities that Trend West itself admits to be
inadequate and by ignoring them, or failing to admit comments previously made or made
in other venues by them, as to police and fire protection.
The HE should remand this consolidated permit application to Jefferson County
to comply with SEP A. It obviously faces different conditions relative to the same use
when that use has been declared commercial in the final action of Jefferson County, not
residential, a conclusion upon which DCD's MDNS was issued. It must identify the
conditions applicable to commercial use that apply. These affect the shoreland, the
SSDP, all clearly environmental issues. They again raise the comment and conclusion of
Mr. Stewart of the DOE which DCD erroneously ignored by classifying it as outside the
DOE's jurisdiction. There have been repeated errors in connection with the substantive
and the SEP A approvals on SUB05-00004 that led to the vacation of the permit
application and the SSDP. Those issues must be addressed by the DCD Staffin
LOG ITEM
#_ dt
Page ;Q of
e
Stephen K. Causseaux, Jr
Jefferson County Hearing Examiner
November 3,2006
Page 31
e
connection with its decision to use the self same MDNS for MLA06-00221. An
erroneous staff report supporting an MDNS that approves an erroneous land use
application cannot conceivably be the basis for a new land use application even if it
involves the same project but does not mitigate the error.
The applicant has violated or permitted the violation of the Program and SMA by
permitting the disturbance of the surface of Ludlow Cove II without any permit for same
and without any approved mitigation plan to restore damage caused by the use. A
demand has been made of Jefferson County under the Program to conduct a thorough
investigation of the circumstances of the violation, to develop and provide for the
implementation of a mitigation plan, and to obtain assurance that there will be no further
violations. The County is pursuing the matter without dispatch. It has made a tardy and
superficial inspection. It has not inquired into circumstances or even checked the
mitigation to see if it has been performed. Rather it has taken the word of the applicant.
The undersigned requests the suspension of further proceedings on the consolidated
permit application until the violations of the SMA are explained and fully cured.
Concern is raised that the violations will ultimately be excused if the project is approved
on the basis of "no harm no foul". Such approval, common to prior violations, does a
disservice to the Program and SMA and to the community.
The consolidated permit application for MLA06-00221 is fatally flawed. It is not
site specific. Rather, it gives the developer the right to develop any kind of residential,
broadly construing time share as residential. This is an application to "do as I want". It
violates SEP A and the SMA. It cannot be entertained. The consolidated permit
application must be returned to the applicant to complete the application and disclose its
business plan for Ludlow Cove 11.
Finally, without regard to the substantive SEP A issues, Jefferson County has
violated the undersigned's due process right of notice of the threshold decision to apply
the MDNS from SUB05-00004 to comply with the SEPA requirements ofMLA06-
00221. That right recognized by the Unified Development Code and grounded in the
Constitutional rights of the undersigned. Jefferson County recognized the requirement by
soliciting the undersigned's response to its proposed compliance with SEP A by notice of
June 23, 2006. The undersigned responded along with a number of other governmental
agencies. DCD as a threshold decision ignored the response of the undersigned and
adopted the MDNS from SUB05-00004 to comply with the SEP A requirements of MLA
06-00221. It failed to give notice to the undersigned as required by law. It wrongfully
denied the undersigned's appeal rights. It ignored the correspondence of the undersigned
giving notice to DCD ofthe violation ofthe undersigned's rights and the undersigned's
intent to seek judicial intervention. It is no answer that the undersigned failed to appeal
the MDNS issued under SUB05-00004. The matter before the hearing examiner is
MLA06-00221. Although it deals with the same subject matter, its result is varied by the
decision of AHE Galt and the SHB to vacate the consolidated permit application under
SUB05-00004 because the decision was based upon an erroneous conclusion by DCD
that the Trend West use was residential, not commercial as found by ARE Galt. The
LOG ITEM
# 2:2..0
Page ~I of
Stephen K. Causseaux, Jr e
Jefferson County Hearing Examiner
November 3,2006
Page 32
e
undersigned has been forced to file a LUP A Petition in response to DCD's wrongful
denial of the undersigned's due process rights and to move for stay of all proceedings on
the consolidated permit application, actions rendered necessary by DCD's unlawful
denial of the undersigned's due process rights under SEP A. The undersigned petitions
the remand of the consolidated permit application to DCD to correct the procedural
irregularities.
!.e~~~ II. Pot(/er-~
Leslie A. Powers
44 Heron Road
Port Ludlow, W A 98365
LOG \TEM
# 1... ?.:b
p;ge _ '? '2.._ of -
Stephen K. Causseaux, Jr e e
Jefferson County Hearing Examiner
November 3, 2006
Page 33
CITATION LIST:
1. Staff Report MLA 06-00221 Nos. 142 and unnumbered
2. Application MLA06-00221 No.3
3. FSEIS ZON03-00044, No 235.
4. Development Agreement Jefferson County Auditor's No. 435974
5. PL VC CC & Rs Jefferson County Auditor's No. 435975
6. ARE Galt decision of December 7, 2005 SUB05-00004, No. 217
7. HE Berteig Decision of September 2,2005 SUB05-00004 No. 144
8. MDNS SUB 05-00004, No.
9. Staff Report on MDNS SUB05-00004 No. 114.
10. October 25, 2004 letter from DOE to Al Scalf on Lagoon
11. HE Berteig Decision of July, 2002, SUB95-00003 No. 385, 386, and 387.
12. Loomis v. Pope Resources, WWGMHB September, 1995.
13. Ordinance 1/95
14. Site Plan for Structure 700
15. Revised Major Revision of September, 2006.
16. SHB Opinion on Powers and Rozzell v. Jefferson County
17. Sheriffs Letter SUB05-00004, No. 23.
18. Stewart Letter MLA06-00221
19. SSDP 91-017
20 Building Permit for Structure 700
21. Engineer's Report on Heron Rd. ZON03-00044 No. 184
22.
HE Berteig Decision of August 2, 2002 SUB95-0003 No. 385
#
Page
LOG ITEM
2?-t>
-;? of
e
Stephen K. Causseaux, Jr
Jefferson County Hearing Examiner
November 3,2006
Page 34
e
23. Letter Elizabeth Van Zonneveld to DCD of July 14,2006 confirming PL VC
position.
24. SUB05-00004, Log No. 1
25. SUB05-00004, Log No.4
26. SUB05-00004, Log No. 110
27. SUB05-00004, Log No. 114
28. SUB05-00004, Log No. 120
29. SUB05-00004, Log No. 128
30. Exchange on LUPA with Caussaux, Alvarez, DeSa e Silva
31. SUB05-00004, Log 1 (a), pp. 9,10, letter Nielsen to Scalf of November, 2004.
32. Proposed CC&Rs for Trend West
33. SUB05-00004, Log 5
34. Typical Restrictive and Protective Covenants
35. SUB05-00004, Log 124
#
Page
LOG ITEM
f).. A->O
Il., '{ of
e
e
DtJE"
LOG ITEM
# fJ 2-0
Page -;C of
e
e
JEFFERSON COUNTY
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
621 Sheridan Street
Port Townsend, WA 98368
AI Scalf, Director
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DIVISION
STAFF REPORT
TO
JEFFERSON COUNTY HEARING EXAMINER
Re:
Proposed Consolidated Land Use )
Application (amended development )
agreement and shoreline permit) )
for a 120-Unit Trendwest Timeshare
on Tract E in the Port Ludlow MPR
PROPOSED FINDINGS,
CONCLUSIONS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS
File No.:
Applicant:
MLA06-00221/Z0N06-00024/SDP06-000 19
Trendwest Resorts Inc.
Port Ludlow Associates LLC
SUMMARY APPLICATION AND RECOMMENDATION
Date of Application: Application was received on June 8, 2006 and found substantially
complete on June 14,2006. This application is vested under the ordinances in effect under the
Port Ludlow Development Agreement.
Open Record Hearing Date: The public hearing is scheduled for September 22, 2006 at 2:00
pm in the Auditorium of the Bay Club at 120 Spinnaker Lane, Port Ludlow, W A 98365.
Amendment to Development Agreement and Shoreline Permit
Proposal: The proposal would develop a 120-unit time-share residential project on 14.66 acres
situation within the Port Ludlow Master Planned Resort area in Jefferson County. The proposed
project would include six multifamily time-share residential buildings, one reception/recreation
building, a private road system, and recreational amenities, such as private swimming pool,
barbecues, spas, and public and private trails.
Recommendation: Approval with conditions. (Recl~lQ:>nditions attached to this
report). # ?..1-0 LO IT
. ~
Page 7:> l., of /I
Building Permits/Inspections Development Review Division Long 'PeIEP.
(360) 379-4450 ascalf@co.iefferson.wa.us FAX: (360) 379-4451
.ACKGROUND INFORMATION e
Proponents:
Trendwest Resorts Inc.l Port Ludlow Associates LLC
Representative:
Barbara Nightingale, Port Ludlow Lead Planner
Legal Description: The location is proposed for Paradise Bay Parcel 968 800 102 in Section 17,
Township 28, Range 01 East, WM, located on Paradise Bay Road at Breaker Lane, Port Ludlow,
W A 98365.
Project Proposal: The proposal would develop a 120-unit time-share residential project on
14.66 acres situation within the Port Ludlow Master Planned Resort area in Jefferson County.
The proposed project would include six multifamily time-share residential buildings, one
reception/recreation building, a private road system, recreational amenities such as private
swimming pool, barbecues, spas, and public and private trails.
The project will be served by a public water and sewer system, provided by Olympic Water and
Sewer, Inc. A storm drainage system for water quality mitigation will be constructed. A single
access road serves the site off of Paradise Bay Road across from Breaker Lane. Public access to
the waterfront will be provided by a trail across the property form Paradise Bay Road to the
Picnic Point area. The wetland and stream areas, along with their associated buffers, are located
in a Native Growth Protection Easement. A Habitat Management Plan describes a Wetland
Buffer Enhancement Plan to be completed as part of this proposal. Shoreline revegetation will
also be done according to a Landscaping Plan (dated May 9,2003) (Exhibit 449 Sub95-00003
Ludlow Cove) and Habitat Management Plan (Exhibit 446 SUB95-00003). This consolidated
application includes: 1) ZON06-00024, an amendment to the Port Ludlow Development Agreement
defining and allowing timeshare in the Port Ludlow Master Planned Resort on this parcel; and 2)
SDP06-00019 a Shoreline Substantial Development Permit, in compliance with the Jefferson
County Shoreline Management Master Program.
A new threshold determination is not required. A Mitigated Determination of Non-Significance
(MDNS) was issued July 26, 2005 on the original proposal. This final determination was issued
pursuant to WAC 197-11-350(3). The proposal has no additional significant adverse impacts. No
appeal was received on the MDNS issued July 26, 2005.
Prior Related Projects: This project is located within Ludlow Cove. The original Ludlow Cove
project was submitted and substantially complete on January 19, 1995. That application was
vested to the land use rules and development standards in effect on the date the application was
submitted. Ludlow Cove includes a subdivision, 27.75 acres, for single-family residence and
Tract E, 14.66 acres, with development proposed by this application. The entire Ludlow Cove
project, Division 1 and Division 2 proposal, are projects anticipated as part of the Port Ludlow
MPR build out. The Development Program was reviewed in a 1993 EIS that established many
mitigation requirements for the entire bui1dout. Among those requirements were conservancy set-
asides, water quality and groundwater resource monitoring, and shoreline public access points.
Site improvements and infrastructure for Ludlow cove Division 1 are complete, includib8)G ITEM
partial trail and bridge for the required beachfront public access at Picnic Point. # 2'2-6
The 2002 Hearing Examiner Decision on Ludlow Cove (SUB95-0003/Z0N95-0~~'3)~7 of
0009) stands as the law of that case and bound all parties of that project. In 2005, PLA ~
an application for the 120 unit Trendwest Project. On December 2,2005, Hearinw:x .
Pag
Berteig, approved the Shore. Substantial Development Permit and! Binding Site
Plan/Condominium Subdivision proposal. A dispute arose as to the nature of the use of the site.
That is whether the PLA/Trendwest proposal is a multi-family residential or another type of use.
The Hearing Examiner decision was appealed to the Appellate Hearing Examiner John Galt, who
described the basic dispute to be whether Trendwest's proposal is more like an apartment than a
hotel/motel". The Appellate Hearing Examiner found the Trendwest proposal to be transient
accommodations not allowed under either the vested 1995 G-1 multi-family zoning nor under the
current single family residential zoning. This decision has been appealed to Superior Court and
remains there. To resolve this issue, the applicant has chosen to define "timeshare" through an
amendment to the Port Ludlow Development Agreement. Although the Appellate Hearing
Examiner stated that transient accommodations are not allowed in single family residential
zones, under the current MPR Code, they are not prohibited in areas zoned for single family
residences.
Location and Site Description: The subject parcel is recorded as Tract E of Ludlow Cove
Division 1, Phase 1. It is located between Paradise Bay Road and Port Ludlow Bay,
approximately 1000 feet south of the intersection of Paradise Bay Road and Oak Bay Road.
Access to the site is across Paradise Road from Breaker Lane, which provides access to the
Village Commercial Center. Tract E comprises the parcels formerly shown as Tracts A and B
in the approved preliminary plat of Ludlow Cove. The property encompasses 14.66 acres, or
approximately 638,590 square feet. The site is located on the north shore of Ludlow Cove at
the west end of Port Ludlow Bay. This area of Ludlow Cove has commonly been called the
"log dump" by Port Ludlow residents. The site is currently zoned for single family residential
development according to the MPR Code, Ordinance #08-1004-99.
Wetland and Stream
A class II wetland of just over one acre is located on the north part of the site (Wetland I). A
small stream runs partially in a drainage ditch from west to east along the edge of Wetland I and
discharges into Ludlow Cove. This stream was reported as a Type 3 stream classifying the stream
when Ludlow Cove was originally reviewed even though the proponent submitted studies
classifying the stream as a Type 5 stream. To resolve the conflict between Type 3 and Type 5
buffers, a system of buffer averaging was approved by the County in consultation with the
Washington State Department ofFish and Wildlife that met the requirements for a Type 3
stream. The wetland, stream, and buffer areas for the project were established as part of the
original Ludlow Cove approval and were recorded with the final plat of Ludlow Cove Division
1. On the current plans the stream is shown as a Type 5 stream, but is subject to the recorded
buffer requirement.
The upland areas of the site slope from north to south toward the shoreline. The area of the site
proposed for development, the central and south portions, slope gently (2% to 7% slopes). The
area of Wetland I and the Type 3 stream slope more steeply (about a 16% slope). Along the
water's edge, the property drops steeply, with a vertical relief ranging form three to twenty feet.
The developable area of the site excludes Wetland 1, the stream and the associate buffers, which
are preserved in a Native Growth Protection Easement. Total developable area measured form
the line of ordinary high water to the NGPE or Paradise Bay Road is approximately 554, 385
square feet.
eEL- 11/2.1/ O/p
~
# j'l-r:
Page
Procedural Information:
Notice of Application: June 19,2006 (Exhibit 3.
Page
NOTICES AND CO~lff~M
2&p__~_
3g
· Mailed to Adjacent .perty Owners & Interested Parties: Jun!l, 2006 (Exhibit 44)
· Publication of Legal Notices: June 19,2006 (Port Townsend-Jefferson County Leader)
(Exhibit 39)
· Mailed to Agency Reviews with Mitigated Determination of Non significance (MDNS)
June 23, 2006 (Exhibit 48).
Notice of Public Hearing Mailed to adjacent property owners, agencies, interested parties,
applicant, newspapers, web site and official posting places (September 5,2006 (Exhibit 128)
· Publication of Legal Notices: August 2,2006 (Exhibit 111) and August 23,2006
(Exhibit 118) in the Port Townsend-Jefferson County Leader
Site Visit: Jefferson County Development Review staff conducted site visits on numerous
occasions since receipt of the application.
Comments Received from Interested Parties of Record:
Les Powers Exhibits 49/50/98/99/101/130
Bill Cooke Exhibit 52
H.H. Cloutier Exhibit 54
Alison Moss representing Lewis Hall Exhibits 56/102
Joe Kelly Exhibit 57
Port Ludlow Village Council Elizabeth Zonneveld Exhibit 60
Richard and Deborah Bozanich Exhibit 62
Bob Asbell Exhibit 63
Rick Rozzell Exhibits 64/98
Allen and Delee Panasuk Exhibit 65
Judith McCay Exhibit 66
Greg Hupp Exhibit 67
Bruce Schmitz Exhibit 68/70
Walter and Joan Kohn Exhibit 71
Walt and Maria Exhibit 72
Robert and Nancy Reasoner Exhibit 73
Jim and Ellen Larimer Exhibit 74
Thomas Stone Exhibit 75
Edward Hughes Exhibit 76
Chuck and Gale Byington Exhibit 77
Jim Boyer Exhibit 78
George and Caroline Exhibit 79
Gerry Abbott Exhibit 80
William e. and Phyllis L. Hansen Exhibit 81
Bud and Lennetta Johnson Exhibit 82
Tom and Mary Ann Callahan Exhibit 83
Adele Govert and Dean Morgan Exhibit 84
Jan Givens Exhibit 85
Bernie and Bev Kestler Exhibit 86
Bill and Beverly Browne Exhibit 87
Maria Biondi Exhibit 88
Douglas and Joy Herring Exhibit 89/90
Washington State Dept. of Ecology, Debi Nelson 91
Herman and Carolyn Voss Exhibit 92
Matt and Inette Wallace Exhibit 93
Bill and Barbara Schaefer Exhibit 95
Charles E. Main Exhibits 96/1 03
LOG ITEM
# 22-6
Page -1t- of
cE '--
'1/1Jl~
Cynthia and Tony Durham .bit 97
Jerry Conover Exhibit 104
Russ and Judy Michel Exhibit 118
Terry and Turney Oswald Exhibit 55
e
Comments from the Interested Parties of Record included comments in favor of the proposed
project and comments opposing the project. Comments supportive of the project were received
from twenty seven parties (Exhibits 55, 57, 62, 63, 65, 66, 71, 72, 73, 74, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81,
83, 84, 85, 87, 88, 89/90, 92, 96, 97, 104, and 118). In general their reasons were the economic,
service, and recreational benefits, to the larger MPR community that they believed the project
could provide. These comments reflected a general agreement that this proposed project is
consistent with MPR objectives and land-uses.
Twelve parties opposed the project (Exhibits 50/98/99/101, 52, 54, 56,60, 64/98, 67, 68/70, 82,
86,95, and 118). These parties expressed concern with the legality of changing the development
standards for an area presently zoned under the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan for a
density of 4 dwellings per acre or 58 dwellings to a density of 120 dwellings for the same area.
These parties also expressed concern with the lack of Covenants Conditions & Restrictions
(CC&Rs) attached to the land and object to the earlier subdivision and boundary line adjustment
that was approved by the County. Some of these parties hold the belief that pursuant to the
Master CC&Rs identified in the Development Agreement, the Port Ludlow Village Council
should have been a recognized authority in approving the agreement or any changes to the cited
parcels. One of the parcels in the list to which CC&Rs apply, was part of Ludlow Cove 1. The
parcel in question (821171011) has since then been retired, due to subdivision activity.
As Jefferson County is unable to enforce CC&Rs, staff considers this matter to be a civil matter
that the interested parties may take up with PLA. It does not however, effect the decisions or
authority of Jefferson County in its issuance of a building permit or approval for this proj ect. On
the subject of the legality of changing the development standards for Tract E, County staff
recognizes that the applicant has this path available pursuant to the PLDA Section 3. Concerns
include the adequacy of police and fire protection.
Staff requested review and comments on the proposal from the following agencies:
· Washington State Department of Ecology: Written comment is hereby incorporated by
reference (Exhibit #91).
· Washington State Department ofFish & Wildlife: No comment submitted
· Jefferson County Department of Public Works: No comment submitted
· Jefferson County Health Department: No comment submitted.
· Washington State Department of Health: No comment submitted.
· Port Townsend School District #49: No comment submitted
· East Jefferson County Fire Protection District: No comment submitted.
· City of Port Townsend: No comment submitted
· Jefferson County PUD #1: No comment submitted.
· Jefferson Transit: No comment submitted.
· Port of Port Townsend: No comment submitted Page ~ of
· Washington State Department of Transportation: No comment submitted.
· Jamestown S'Klallam Tribe: No comment submitted
· Port Gamble S , Kla1lam Tribe: No comment submitted
· Peninsula Daily News and Port Townsend Leader: No comment sub
· Port Townsend Leader. No comment submitted. Page
#
LOG ITEM
2.2.6
CEL-
Ii /2-1(010
e
STAFF FINDINGS
e
REVIEW CRITERIA - AMENDMENT TO PORT LUDLOW DEVELOPMENT
AGREEMENT
Consistency Review: Project review requires that all code standards be met or that a project be
modified or conditioned to meet applicable standards before permits can be approved and issued.
State law provides that a project vests to the land use controls that are in effect at the date of a
building permit application. As this is a new application, without vesting rights in a previous
application, only the ordinances vested in the PLDA apply. These are: MPR Code Ordinance # 08-
1004-99, Stormwater Management Ordinance #10-104-96, Critical Areas Ordinance #14-0626-95,
Land Use Procedures Ordinance #04-0828-98, Jefferson County Subdivision Ordinance #04-0526-
92, and the Jefferson County Management Master Program adopted March 7, 1989.
As timeshare ownership is not currently defined in Jefferson County Code, the proposed
amendment to the PLDA defines the term timeshare. Jefferson County Code 18.10.200 defines
"transient residence or transient ADU as a single-family residential unit or ADU used for short-
term transient occupancy (for periods less than 30 days)". As a commercial use involving the
rental of any structure or portion thereof for the purpose of providing lodging for periods less
than 30 days. Similarly, JCC defines "commercial use" as a business use or activity at a scale
greater than a home business or cottage industry involving retail or wholesale marketing of goods
and services. Examples of commercial uses include offices and retail shops. As the development
proposes to operate through ownership interest, rather than directly outlay of money for each
stay, and the membership interest is in a personal property interest through ownership in an
association holding fee ownership interest, the resulting property interest is different from the
contractual interest one acquires when renting a room for a night in a hotel.
Applicable Ordinances and Plans:
· Growth Management Act RCW36.70A.362
· Growth Management Act RCW36.70B. Development Agreements .170, .180, .190,
and .200.
· Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan, adopted August 28, 1998, as amended:
Chapter 3, Land Use and Rural Element
o Land Use Map, p 3-45
· Port Ludlow Development Agreement. Jefferson County Resolution No. 42-00
(effective 5/8/00).
o Exhibit A Parties, Planning Concept and Recitals (pages 7-27)
o Exhibit 2 Map of Properties Owned by Pope Resources and
Subsidiaries (page 68)
o Exhibit 3 (page 69) Land Use Map Land Use designations taken
from Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan dated August 28, 1998
(page 69)
o Appendix A Port Ludlow Master Planned Resort Code (MPR Code)
(pages 70-98)
o Appendix B Resolution No. 72-98 (pages 99-125)
o Appendix C Stormwater Management Ordinance #10-1104-96
(pages 126-135)
o Appendix D Critical Areas Ordinance #05-0509-94 (pages 136-248)
o Appendix E Land Use Procedures Ordinance #04-0828-98 (pag
249-310) I.J G IT
· Chapter 197-11 WAC, State Environmen~~Cf{"~SEP A) Rul,
# 2. 'L.:O - Page
Page ~of_-
eEL
1I1tJ/~
REVIEW CRITERIA-SHORELINE SUBSTANTIAL DE.OPMENT PERMIT
· Jefferson County Shoreline Management Master Program 1989. JCCC 18.25.
(Appendix F of Port Ludlow Development Agreement (pages 420-541) Section Four.
Shoreline Designations and Project Classifications: The shoreline for this project is
designated as Urban. Residential use is a primary use for this shoreline. Residential
development and recreational facilities, overnight or day use, are primary uses along such
shorelines. The policies and performance standards of Sections 4.108 Urban Shoreline
Designation, 5.160 Residential, 5.190 Transportation, and 5.20 Utilities, apply to the
proposal. These sections were also applied to the original shoreline permit for Ludlow Cove
and resulted in a set of conditions applied to the project. Those conditions relate primarily to
public access, stormwater management, and compliance with the required development
standards under the Jefferson County Shoreline Management Master Program (SMMP).
The SMMP sets out a set of development standards that the project must comply with.
These standards include but are not limited to requirements for parking, landscaping,
setbacks, height, preservation of natural features, locations and limitation son fences and
accessory structures. The proposal as submitted meets these standards and they will not be
repeated as conditions of this approval. Similarly, standards related to general erosion
control and storm water management will not be repeated. Instead, a condition will be
recommended that requires any change in the approved plans to be submitted to the
Department for review to insure continuing compliance with applicable Shoreline and
zoning code standards.
The Washington DOE Letter: The Department received a letter form the Washington
Department of Ecology dated July 21, 2006 (Exhibit 91) that raised a number of issues that
must also be addressed. The first issue relates to the question of residential use and
timeshare ownership. That issue is presented in Land Use Consistency section of this report
(page--). It may be noted here that the Department Ecology has no jurisdiction over local
code interpretation and that the DOE letter simply states that if the use were to be
considered commercial use, a different permit process would apply.
The second DOE issue concerns public access to the waterfomt. The prior approval for the
original Ludlow Cove project considered the entire site, including the current development
parcel. Public access to Picnic Point was required based on Shoreline Master Program and
SEP A authority. Those conditions have been partially fulfilled to date as part of the
Division 1 project. The conditions are reiterated in this project which will fulfill the public
access requirements imposed on the Ludlow Cove project.
The Department also notes that certain major components of the public access plan for the
entire MPR community were established in the 1993 EIS for the Port Ludlow Development
Program. Those components included public access at the Marina and Burner Point, signage
and maintenance agreements.
The WDOE letter also stated that the proposal site was located on a shoreline of statewide
significance. All areas of Puget Sound lying seaward form the line of extreme low tide are
considered shorelines of statewide significance. No part of this project, however will occur
waterward of the line of extreme low tide, below the ordinary high watermark, or even
within. the sh~re1ine setback, expect the Lff(jIfrEWfegetation required
shorelme permIt. # _ 7.. ?_:Q,"CCC_ #
page.-.:ib ,_0.- Page of
L-- I
CEr/1-\{61, I
ItAFF ANALYSIS & CONCLUSIONSft
1. Growth Management Act RCW 16.70A.362 Master Planned Resort-Existing resort may be
included. An MPR means a self-contained and fully integrated planned unit development, in a
setting of significant natural amenities, with primary focus on destination resort facilities
consisting of short-term visitor accommodations associated with a range of developed on-site
indoor or outdoor recreational facilities. A master planned resort may include other residential
uses within its boundaries, but only if the residential uses are integrated into and support the on-
site recreational nature of the resort. Staff concludes that a residential time-share multi-family
project is consistent with the nature of the MPR as a destination resort and complies with the
Growth Management Act (GMA). This particular project is also adjacent to the MPR commercial
village which can provide visitor accommodations, such as groceries, toiletries, gas station, and
restaurant opportunities.
2. Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan-Land Use and Rural Element-Master Planned
Resort
Master Planned Resort-Goal LNG 23.0 states: Maintain the viability of Port Ludlow as Jefferson
County's only existing Master Planned Resort (MPR) authorized under RCW 36.70A.362. The
policies to achieve this goal include LNP 23.1 ensure that development in Port Ludlow complies
with County development regulations established for critical areas and that on site and off-site
infrastructure impacts are fully considered and mitigated. LNP 23.2 The provision of urban-style
services to support the anticipated growth and development of Port Ludlow shall occur only within
the designated MPR boundary. LNP23.3. No new urban or suburban land uses will be established
in the vicinity of the Port Ludlow Master Planned Resort. LNP 23.4 The total number of residential
lots allowable within the MPR boundary shall not exceed the 1993 Port Ludlow FEIS total of 2,250
residential dwelling units. LNP23.5. Port Ludlow shall accommodate a variety of housing types,
including affordable housing, single family and multi-family housing and assisted living care
facilities. LNP 23.6 Support efforts to preserve and protect Port Ludlow's greenbelts, open spaces
and wildlife corridors. LNP 25.6.1. Support the establishment of a Ludlow Creek Nature Preserve.
LNP 23.7 No preliminary plants will be processed by Jefferson County for the 200-acre south of the
Port Ludlow Golf Course within the MPR boundary 9as depicted on the official Jefferson Land Use
Map) until such time as a conceptual site plan has been approved by the County. LNP23.8 The Port
Ludlow Master Planned Resort commercial area shall be designed as the Port Ludlow Village
Commercial Center. Staff finds that this proposal would meet the goals and policies of the Jefferson
County Comprehensive Plan.
This project has submitted an approved stormwater plan, a habitat management plan, a landscaping
plan, an archeological and culturally sensitive areas assessment, a traffic impacts analysis, and a site
plan under the previous application SUB05-0004. These documents identify environmentally and
culturally sensitive areas, buffers, precautionary measures, and post construction restoration
p1antings. In consideration of these assessments, precautions, and restoration planning, Staff
recognizes this project to be environmentally sensitive with landscape and habitat management
actions being taken that can restore and enhance the natural environment of the area.
3. Port Ludlow Development Agreement. Jefferson County Resolution No. 42-00 (effective
5/8/00) Auditors File Number 435974 is an agreement between only Port Ludlow Associates LLC
and Jefferson County. Major elements of the development agreement are Planning Concept and
Value, Property Elements, Development Standards, Flexibility and Modification of Property ~L-
Development elements and county Review Procedures and Standards. I I IT M I I
LOG ITEM ~ 11 ~ ~lP
2..1l.:O ~ # It{ ')..
# - GI"l.. ~ .- Page
page~O'-
o PLANNING CONCfr AND VALUE: A plan for future blout within the MPR that
promotes growth management and planning objectives of the County, including reasonable priced
housing; innovative and sensitive land development with clustering and critical area tracts;
environmental protection; creative mix of resort, commercial and residential uses; and sustainable
economic vitality.
o PROPERTY ELEMENTS: (Section 2.3 pages 9-10 and Map ofMPR and Permitted Uses,
Exhibit 3 page 69). The parcel proposed for development is designated for single family residence
at a density of 4 dwellings per acre
o DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS: the agreement establishes permitted land uses, density
standards within the MPR (Appendix A), planning goals (Appendix B), surface water standards
(Appendix C), Critical Area Standards (Appendix D), Shoreline Master Program (Appendix F),
Water, sewer, police and fire.
o FLEXIBILITY and MODIFICATION OF POPE (PLA) PROPERTY DEVELOPMENT
ELEMENTS. STANDARDS FOR DEVELOPMENT AND OTHER MITIGATIONS BY
COUNTY:. This section of the agreement provides for flexibility to the initial development
standards during property buildout in response to new information, changing community and
market needs, encouraging reasonably priced housing; and encouraging modifications that provide
comparable benefit or functional equivalent with no significant reduction of public benefits or
increased cost to the development.
o COUNTY REVIEW PROCEDURES AND STANDARDS: are set by the Land Use
Procedures Ordinance #04-0828-98 (Appendix E) and SEP A. The agreement is vesting in the
standards found in Appendices A-F. GENERAL PROVISIONS allows amendment by only the
Parties of the Development Agreement (PLA and the county). The Board of County
Commissioners must approve all amendments to this Agreement by ordinance or resolution and
only after notice to the public and a public hearing. The Development Agreement does allow the
flexibility to change development standards for a specific site, if it is approved by both the County
Board of Commissioners and PLA.
4. Exhibit A Port Ludlow Development Agreement sets a residential unit maximum of 2,250
single family units in the MPR boundaries. Presently approximately 200 additional residential
units can be added to the MPR. As a residential project with 120 units, the cap of 2,250 allows for
120 with approximately 80 residential units remaining for development. Therefore, this project does
not exceed the residential development cap for the MPR.
5. Exhibit C. Jefferson County Stormwater Management Ordinance #10-1104-96. This
ordinance adopts a stormwater management manual, thresholds for determining development
requirements; and provide a means of regulating land disturbing activities on private and public
land and subsequent stromwater runoff. The provisions of this ordinance are to guide and advise all ,
who conduct new development or redevelopment. The provisions of this ordinance establish the
level of compliances that must be met to permit a property from which stormwater flows into or
potentially flows into the Puget Sound Basin to be developed within Jefferson County.
The application includes an extensive stormwater drainage plan (dated and a geotechnical
engineering subsurface investigation by Geoengineers (dated 3/22/1995) (Exhibit 98 SUB95-
0003 and Supplemental Geotechnical Engineering Services (dated June 27,2005) (Exhibit 216
SUB05-0004 Ludlow Cove 2). A stormwater Management Facility Maintenance Agreement has
been entered into by Port Ludlow Associates and Jefferson County Public Works for the Ludlow
~ ~~
LOG ITEM LO IT 11 J2-I/5lP
# nt2,,- ~
Page 3~l)f
-
6. Exhibit D. Jefferson 'UIlty Interim Critical Areas ordin!e # 05-0509-94. These
regulations allow for development to proceed in a manner consistent with the rights of individuals
to peacefully use and enjoy their property, while simultaneously regulating and mitigating
development that will have adverse impacts on property and the environment, thereby benefitting
all the residents of the County. These regulations offer protection of critical environmental features
without diminishing the potential for sustained economic development in Jefferson County. This
proposal is accompanied by a Habitat Management Plan (May 6, 1995), Wetland Assessment (June
23, 1995) (Exhibit 99 SUB95-0003 Ludlow Cove), and Landscaping Plan (July 24, 2003)
delineating wetland buffers, buffer enhancement and restoration plans.
7. Appendix E. Land Use Procedures Ordinance #04-0828-98. Section 7. Processing
Consolidated Applications. This ordinance states that a land, use application that involves two or
more permits, may, at the option of the Applicant, be consolidated into a single process using the
highest procedure required for any permit included in the application. For example, no application
involving Type A, B and C permits shall be process under Type C procedure. Section 16. Board of
County Commissioners Decision (Type C) Procedures. As a Type C Application, a Board of
County Commissions Hearing is required for a decision. The Board of County Commissioners may
refer such an application to the Hearing Examiner for an open record hearing. The Hearing
Examiner will transmit a written recommendation from the open record hearing to the Board of
Commissioners. Appeal of the BoCC decision is only to Superior Court.
8. Archaeological and historical site protection. An archeological and culturally sensitive area
assessment has been conducted for this site (Exhibit 97 SUB95-00003 Ludlow Cove). The
following shall be stated as a condition of approval on all development permits issued by the
county: If during excavation or development of the site an area of potential archaeological
significance is uncovered, all activity in the immediate area shall be halted, and the Administrator
shall be notified at once. This proposal will comply with this requirement as a condition of
approval. No earth disturbing activity shall be allowed in sensitive areas unless witnessed by Larson
Anthropological/ Archeaological Services (LAAS). Approved Construction Drawings designate this
area as a Sensitive Area rather than "Shell Midden" in compliance with State Law (See Special
Note #1 on Sheet 5 of the Approved Construction Drawings). No earth disturbing activity is
allowed within the sensitive area unless witnessed by Larson Anthropological/Archeological
Services (LAAS). In the event Archeological items are discovered during construction, builders and
lot owners shall observe the following protocol: Stop Work. Do not further disturb the area or
remove any materials there from. Notify immediately the Jefferson County Director of Community
Development 360-379-4450. The Director of Community Development will immediately notify the
Washington State Office of Archeology and Historic Preservation (OAHP)(306-407-0752). Protect
the area from vandals and collectors. Obtain services of a qualified archeologist to evaluate the site
and make recommendations for further work in the area. If further excavation or disturbance of the
site is necessary, obtain the appropriate permit from the OAHP. Proceed only in compliance with
the terms and conditions of said permit.
9. SEPA
The SEP A Responsible Official issued a Final Threshold Determination (MDNS) on July 26,
2005 per WAC 197-11-340, 197-11-350 and 197-11-510. No appeal was filed on the final
threshold. 36 Recommended Conditions were required prior to permit issuance or any clearing or
site disturbance. These are found in the original SEP A document (Exhibit Item 114 SUB05-0004 l--
Ludlow Cove 2). ce.
LOG \TEM I M J J /2.-' /6b
# _ 2,1-0
Page 5_of
~
~
10. Roads
This proposal will abide by the previous approval from Jefferson County Public Works. The
proposal is also accompanied by a Traffic impact Analysis (May 1996) (Exhibit 96 SUB95-
00003 Ludlow Cove).
e
-
RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS
Prior to Permit Issuance or Any Clearing or Site Disturbance
1. Proposed roadways, access drives, parking areas, and trails shall be designed to the standards
of the Jefferson County Public Works Department and the American Association of State
Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO). All necessary plans and specifications shall
be submitted to the Public Works Department for review and approval.
2. The plans shall include an 8 feet wide pedestrian walkway along the southerly side of the
access road to the buildings. The walkway shall be surfaced with all-weather materials. Plans
shall be submitted to the Public Works Department for review and approval.
3. The plans shall include two four foot wide bicycle lanes, which may constitute paved and
demarcated shoulders, along the main entry drive, except at the boulevard entrance. At the
boulevard entrance, two 13 foot asphalt driving lanes will be supplemented with seven feet wide
shoulders of grass-pave or similar material to achieve a 20 foot section sufficient for fire and
emergency vehicle access. Lane width along the balance of the entry drive may be reduced to 10
feet in each direction, exclusive of the bicycle lanes. Plans shall be submitted to the Public
Works Department for review and approval.
4. The building permit plans shall include lighting specifications and details to con:fimi that
lighting fixtures are designed and hooded to prevent the light source from being directly visible
form outside the boundaries of the property. The intensity or brightness of all security lighting
shall not adversely affect the use of surrounding properties or adjacent rights-of-way.
5, The applicant shall obtain a Road Approach Permit form the Public Works Department for
access onto Paradise Bay Road.
6. Plans and construction activities shall conform to the recommendations in the geotechnical
report prepared by GeoEngineers dated March 22, 1995, provided that a revised geotechnical
report conforming to the requirements of the ICAO (Ord. # 05-0509-94) maybe submitted in
support of a request for revisions to the recommendations. The Community Development
Department may approve a revision when equal or better protection of critical areas will be
obtained.
7. Clearing limits for roads, water, sewer, and storm water utilities, erosion control facilities and
all site construction shall be marked in the field and approved by the County. Critical area buffers
shall be marked with signs at intervals of one every 100 feet. The signs shall contain the
following language: "Critical area buffer. Do not remove or alter existing native vegetation."
8. A Stormwater site Plan that includes a Large Parcel Erosion and Sediment control Plan and a
Permanent Stormwater Quality Control Plan and that conforms to the requirements of the
Stormwater Management Manual for the Puget Sound Basin and Public Works Department
standards shall be submitted and approved. Minimum Re9..uires #1-11 from the Sto T
Management Manual shall apply. LOG ITEM #
# 1...UJ
Page ~ of Page
eeL
Jf(2-J (FIo
e
e
9. A fire district Impact Fee shall be payable at a rate of$193.00 per unit for each building permit
at the time of issuance.
10. All fees for permits to be issued and other work performed associated with t he permits shall
be paid.
During Construction
11. As described in the Habitat Management Plan developed for the Ludlow cove project and to
limit ongoing site disturbance with the potential for erosion and water quality impacts, all site
work involving the use of heavy equipment for infrastructure installation, logging, clearing,
grubbing and grading shall be completed in one phase. Following this phase, restoration and
stabilization shall be conducted, including the application of mulch, hydro seed, stabilization of
cut and fill areas, construction of bios wales, and the planting ofre-vegetated areas.
12. A set of approved plans shall be on site at all items during construction.
13. Temporary erosion control Best Management Practices shall be implemented continuously in
conformance with the approved plans.
14. Seasonal construction limitation: Construction activity between November 1 and April 1
shall require approval of a Temporary Erosion and Sedimentation Control (TESC) Plan including
Best Management Practices and meeting the requirements of Jefferson County and the 1994
Stormwater Management Manual for the Puget Sound Basin.
15. The proponent shall arrange for all required inspections from the applicable County
department or other agency such as Olympic Water and Sewer, inc., the Fire District or fire
Department, or the Health District.
16. Construction hours of operation shall be limited to form 7:00 AM to 6:00 PM Monday
through Friday and 8:00 AM to 5:00 PM on Saturdays.
17. To ensure archaeological resources are protected, a professional archaeologist shall monitor
any ground disturbing activities within the buffer area for Site 45JE208, as staked and described
in the Archaeological Resource Assessment prepared for the project. If archaeological resources
are encountered during land development activities, the following procedure shall apply.
a. STOP WORK. A void further disturbance to the area or removal of any materials.
b. Notify the Jefferson County Director Community Development at 360-379-4480; The
county will immediately notify the State Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation
(OAHP) at 206-783-5010.
c. Protect the area form vandals and collectors.
d. Have a qualified archaeologist evaluate the site and make recommendations for
managing any further work in the area.
e. Obtain a permit from OARP if further excavation or disturbance of the site is
necessary.
Prior to Occupancy Of Any Building
18. The project engineer shall certify to Jefferson County that construction and all relat
disturbing activities have occurred in conformL'O~iMMecommendations of the
# _ ,~~"f2,_ ~ # V
Page _~:t!:1- of Page
oeJ;j ~ 1 fI,
1995 geotechnical report or aPdated report approved by the J effers~ounty Department of
Community Development.
19. The proponent shall, after consultation with the Public Works Department, trim the shrubs
and brush along Paradise Bay Road the property's frontage, as needed to improve sight distance
and visibility from the access drive. Any trimming of shrubs and brush within the Native Growth
Protection Easement shall be accomplished in a manner compliant with the condition no. 28
below to minimize impact on the NGPE.
20. The provisions of the Habitat Management Plan and Landscape Plan required by and
developed in accordance with the original Ludlow Cove approval shall be completed.
a. A permanent physical separation between wetland and stream buffers (or the Native
Growth Protection Area) and the developed portion of the site shall be installed.
b. A notice to the title disclosing the presence of the wetland and stream buffers and the
Native Growth Protection Area shall be recorded with the Auditor in a form approved by
the Prosecuting Attorney.
Prior to Final Approval
21. The proponent shall comply with all processing time1ines and final biding site plan/final plat
requirements as established by the Public Works Department.
22. All fees for work performed prior to final approval shall be paid.
23. All easements of record shall be graphically portrayed on the final plat and shall include the
Auditor's File Number (AFN). Utility easements shall be made by a separate recorded easement,
or declaration or dedication of easement, and by graphic portrayal on the final plat.
24. The pedestrian trail along the edge of the Native Growth Protection Easement and accessing
the waterfront at Picnic Point as shown on the approved plans shall include an easement ten feet
wide for public use. The final plat shall include the following language: "Trail to be part of the
Port Ludlow Trail System. The Port Ludlow Community shall have the right to use the trail for
pedestrian purposes. The Port Ludlow Trails Committee, under the direction of the Port Ludlow
Village Council shall be responsible for maintenance of the Trail".
25. Infrastructure systems including the water and sewer system, power and communication
system, access drives, parking, and pedestrian trails and bicycle improvements shall be installed
in accordance with the approved plans, and inspected and approved by Olympic Water and
Sewer, Inc., Jefferson County, Fire District #3, the County Fire Marshal, or other applicable
agency, as required: PROVIDED that the applicant may enter into a surety agreement with the
Department of Public Works as an alternative to complete installation of required road or
driveway improvements prior to final plat approval. The surety may not exceed one year and
must be in a form acceptable to the County Prosecutor. All such sureties must include an
estimate of the 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.
26. The project engineer shall certify to Jefferson County that construction and all land disturbing
activities have occurred in conformance with the recommendations of the March 22, 1995 CJ:::;,.~
LOG ITEM G IT )} / f,1 ) iJ1p
# ~'J)
'age ~ of
e e
geotechnical report or an updated report if approved by the Community Development
Departments.
27. The proponent shall enter into a Stormwater Management Facility Maintenance Agreement
with the County. The agreement shall be signed and filed with the Jefferson County Auditor prior
to final plat approval.
28. The applicant shall enter into an agreement with Jefferson County to areimburse the County
for the full cost of designing and constructing a crosswalk across Paradise Bay Road in the
vicinity of the site access drive.
29. The proponent shall pay a School district Impact fee in the amount of$1748.40 ($437.10 per
lot to the Chimacum School District.
30. The entry drive for the site shall be named and the name shall be shown on the final plat. The
proponent shall select the rod name in consultation with the Department of Public Works to
avoid duplication of existing road names.
For the Life of the Project
31. The trees shall not be removed from the Native Growth Protection Easement area unless a
professional arborist determines a potential safety hazard exists. In the event a tree within the
NGPE needs to be removed for safety purposes, the tree shall be cut no closer than 3-feet off the
ground so as to keep the root system intact in order to ensure stability of the slope, native
vegetation (shrubs or tress) appropriate for slope stability purposes should be planted to replace
the tree that was removed.
32. Native vegetation in critical ateas, buffers, throughout the Native Growth Protection Are and
along the shoreline shall be maintained in compliance with the approved Habitat Management
Plan and Landscape Plan.
a. Trees shall not be removed unless it is determined by a professional arborist that a
potential safety hazard exists. In such a case, the tree shall be cut no closer than three feet
to the ground and the root system shall be kept intact.
b. Maintenance work shall be done by hand or with minimal mechanical apparatus.
33. Landscaping on the developed portion of the site shall be maintained in compliance with the
approved Landscape Plan.
34. Roads, utilities, structures, and other improvements shall comply with the applicable policies
and performance standards of the Jefferson County Shoreline Management Master Program.
35. The project shall be built and maintained in compliance with the approved plans.
36. The recreation building, Building 7, shall be operated as an accessory use to the residential
complex.
LOG ITEM
# ,2~<?,"
Page -~1
#
Page
eEL
1I/uJ6lo
.
.
'TWD
LOG ITEM
# ~2..o
Page ')b of
" .
..
. .
,
,
RECEKVED
JEFFERSON COUNTY
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
621 Sheridan Street. Port Townsend" Washington 98368
360/379-4450. 360/3794451 Fax
www.co.jefferson.wa.uslcomrndevelopment
JHffRSON COUNIY DCll
MLA: .Mktr01.- 0022-1
~
What kind of Pennll? (Check each box that applies)
o Building 0 Vallance (Minor, Major or Reasonable Economic Use)
o DemoUUon Permil 0 Conditional Use [CIa}. C(d). or C) ..
o Single Family 0 Discretionary "0- or Unnamed Use ClassifICation
o Garage Attached / Detached 0 Special Use (Essential Pub6c FaCIlities) ..
o Manufactured Home 0 Boundary Une Adjustment
o Modular 0 Short Plat ..
o Commercial. 0 Binding Site Plan ..
o Change of Use 0 Long Plat"
o Address I Road Approach 0 Planned Rural Residential Development (PRRD)IAmendments ..
o Propane 0 Plat Vacation/Alteration ..
o Allowed "Ves. Use Consistency Analysis 0 Shoreine Masler Program ExempDonlPennil Revisions ..
o Stormwater Management 0 Shoreline Management Substantial Development"
o Site Plan Approval Advance Determination (SPAAD) . 0 Shoreline Management Variance
o Temporary Use 0 Comprehensive PlanlUDCIland Use District Map Amendment
o Wretess Telecommunication. yo~~orello8 Master program Amendment
o Forest Practices ActIReIease of Six-Year Moratorium ~ ~ ~'t.~ ~~e
. May require II Pre -Application Conference Requires II """Application Conference
Please identify any other local, state or federalperrnits required for this proposal, If known:
I
./
By signing this application form, the owner/agent attests that 01
hIs, her or It's knowledge. Any matella! falSehood or any omission of a
may result in this permit being null and void.
I further agree to save, indemnify and hold harmleSs Jefferson County against all liabilities, Judgments, court costs. reasonable attorney's fees and
expenses which may in any way acaue.against Jefferson Coul'lty as a result of or in consequence of the granting of U\is penniL
I further agree to provide access and right of entry to Jeffenlon County and Its employees, representatives or agents for Ole sole purpoee of app6cation
review and any required Illter inspections. Access and right of entry to this properly shall be requested and shan occur nly during regular business
hours.
Signature:
ovlded herein, and In any attachments, Is trUe and correct to the best of
I fact made by the ollmer/agent with respect to this application packet
Date:
The action or actions Applicant will undertake as a result of the Issuance f . permit may negatively Impact upon one or more threatened or
endangered species and could tead to a potential "take" of an endange species as those terms are defined in Ole federal law known as the
"Endangered Spedes Ad." or "ESA.. Jefferson County makes no assurances to Ole applicant that the actions that win be undertaken because this
permit has been Issued wHl not violate the ESA. Any individual, groop or agency can fde a lawsuit on behalf of an endangered species regarding your
aelion(s) even If you are In compliance with the Jefferson County development code. The Applicant acknowledges that he, she or it holds IndMdual
and non-transferable responsibility for adhering to and complying wi ESA. The Applicant has read this dlscla er nd signs and dates It below.
Signature: . Date:
C:\DocumcnI& and Seuiap\mocbi1\Desktop\Maslllr Peanit Applicalion 7.8-04.<11-0 G ITEM
~ P-i>
#_".....~.
Page ~,Sl_; of
, .
.
.
R.ReR IV} I
LAWYBIU
II
JEfFERSON COUNJY D
Davis Wright Tremaine LLP
ANCHOIl.AGE aSlitlVUI LOS ANGltlS NEW YOa.K 'OR.'n.AND SAN fll.ANCISCO SUTTLII SHANGHAI WASHINGTON. D.C.
2600 CENTUllY SQUA&B
1501 I'OUllTH AVBNUE
SEATTLE, WA 98101~U8B
TEL (206) 622-3150
PAX (206) 628-7699
www.clwt.com
March 3, 2006
VIA ELECTRONIC MAn..
AND CERTIFIED MAIL, RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED
AI Scalf: Director
Department ofCommumty Development
Jefferson ColDlty
621 Sheridan Street
Port Townsend, Washington 98368
Pat Rodgers
Board of County Commissioners
Jefferson County
1820 Jefferson Street
Port Townsend, Washington 98368
David Sullivan
Board of County Commissioners
Jefferson County
1820 Jefferson Street
Port Townsend, Washington 98368
Lorna Delaney
Clerk of the Board of County Commissioners
1efferson County
P.O. Box 1220
Port Townsend, Washington 98368
Phil1ohnson
Board of County Commissioners
Jefferson County
1820 Jefferson Street
Port Townsend, Washington 98368
John Fischbach
County Administrator
Jefferson County
1820 Jefferson Street
Port Townsend, Washington 98368
Re: Amendment No. 1 to Port Ludlow Development Agreement
Ladies and Gentlemen:
I represent Port Ludlow Associates LLC and Olympic Water and Sewer. Inc. (collectively,
''PLA''). I am writing in connection with the Port Ludlow Development Agreement dated May
1,2000, and effectiye May 8, 2000 (the "Agreement"), between Pope Resourc~ Olympic
Property Group LLC. Olympic Resorts LLC, Olympic Water and Sewer, Inc., and Olympic Real
Estate Development LLC (collectively ~'Popet1, and the County, which was recorded in the real
property records of 1efferson County, Washington, under Auditor's File No. 435974.
The Agreement relates to the development ofland within the Port Ludlow Master Planned
Resort, which was designated by Jefferson County in 1998 under the authority ofRCW
SEA 1762306v1 65364-1
ScaUle
LOG ITEM
#' ~-o .
Page 52- of
. ,
.
.
RECEJrVJED
Jefferson County, Washington
March 3, 2006
Page 2
Ii
JEffERSON COU~JTY OCO
36.70A362. PLA acquired the interest of Pope in August 2001 and is the assignee and successor
to Pope under the Agreement.
Trendwest Resorts, Inc., proposes to develop a timeshare community on a parcel of land
commonly known as Tract E of the Plat of Ludlow Cove. The project would have 120 timeshare
units and would significantly enhance the resort features of the Port Ludlow MPR. Tract E
comprises a 14.66-acre portion of the Port Ludlow MPR. Tract E C1.UTelltly is owned by PLA but
is under contract for sale to Trendwest.
PLA and Trendwest believe that timeshare stlUetures and uses are multi-family residential
structures and may be developed within Tract E to a vested density ofup to sixteen (16)
timeshare units per acre ofland (althOUgh the Trcndwest proposal is for approximately nine (9)
units per acre). In a decision dated September 2, 2005, your Hearing Examiner agreed with
PLA, Trendwest, and. your Department of Community Development staff, and approved the
Trendwest project
A dispute has arisen between three property owners within the Port Ludlow MPR., on the one
hand, and PLA, Trendwest, and the County, on the other hand, whether timeshare structures and
uses are permitted on Tract E under the Agreement. Last fall, those three individuals appealed
the binding site plan decision of the Hearing Examiner to the Appellate Hearing Examiner and
appealed the shoreline decision of the Hearing Examiner to the Shorelines Hearings Board.
In a decision dated December 7, 2005, the County Appellate Hearing Examiner agreed with the
three property owners as to the binding site plan decision, and PLA and Trendwest have
appealed that decision to Jefferson County Superior Court, where the matter is pending. The
Shorelines Hearings Board has not yet made a decision in the shoreline appeal.
PLA and Trendwest believe that the Hearing Examiner's decision was correct and that the
Appellate Hearing Examiner's decision was made in error. PLA and Trendwest also expect that
the Shorelines Hearings Boord will affirm the Hearing Examiner's favorable shoreline decision.
However, the Trendwest project could be delayed for a significant period of time, at great
expense to p~ Trendwest, and the County, by the three appellants, regardless whether or not
their appeals have merit. The prompt resolution of the controversy is of significant public
importance in the Port Ludlow community and will provide benefits to the County and to its
citizens.
The Board of County Commissioners has the authority to approve an amendment to the Port
Ludlow Development Agreement that will resolve the disagreement - made evident in the
conflicting decisions of the Hearing Examiner and Appellate Hearing Examiner - whether
timeshare structures and uses are permitted within Tract E. The amendment does not require an
amendment to the MPR zoning code or comprehensive plan. I am writing to request your
approval of such an amendment, and PLA's proposed draft is enclosed for your consideration.
SEA17~vl~1
Sallie
LOG ITEM
# Z. Z-o
Page ~3 of
. '
.
.
RECEIVJED
Jefferson County, Washington
March 3,2006
Page 3
Ii
JEffERSON COUNTY Den
It is a requirement of state law and County ordinances that your review of this application be a
public process and that you hold a public hearing prior to your decision. However, because
County staff already has completed the environmental review of the Trendwest project, and
because a complete set of conditions and mitigation measures already has been developed, the
process can be completed quickly.
I propose the following schedule to complete the process:
Filing of complete application: March 3
Publication of notice of application and public comment period: March 15
End of public comment period: April 14
Staff report: April 28
Publication of notice ofBOCC public hearing and availability of staff report: May 3
BOCC public hearing: May 18 (third Thursday)
BOCC decision: May 18
Deadline for LUP A appeals: June 8
It is possible that Trendwest will submit to the County new binding site plan and shoreline
permit applications and ask that they be consolidated with this application. This would allow the
County to approve the Trendwest project under the new development standards descnDed in our
proposed amendment. PLA consents to and would support such consolidation.
You will receive strong and repeated opposition to this proposed amendment from our three
opponents and from some ofthcir friends. As you consider their comments, I hope that you will
consider the significant benefits of the project to the Port Ludlow community, the thorough
evaluation and approval of the project given by the Department of Community Development and
Hearing Examiner, and the significant compatibility of a timeshare community with a master
planned resort.
SEA 1762306vl 65364-1
ScatlIc:
LOG ITEM
# 22--0
Page~of -
.
Jefferson County, Washington
March 3, 2006
Page 4
Thank: you for your consideration.
Sincerely yours,
~;~~.
RECE I"D
Iifi
JHtERSON rlntl~f~ fitD II!
Enclosures
Amendment No.1 to Port Ludlow Development Agreement
00: Michelle Farfan
David Alvarez
Randy Verrue, Hev
Troy Crosby, HCV
Diana Smeland, PLA
Mark Dorsey, PLA
Larry Smith, OWSI
Wayne Helm, Trendwcst
Carmen Cook, Trendwest
Don Marcy, Caimcross & Hempehnann
Lyn Keenan, Reid Middleton
SEA 1762306\'165364-1
Scatlle
LOG ITEM
# ---A.'Ll:) ~_~,~___~
Page 'f:jC) of
.
.
WHEN RECORDED, RETURN to:
Marco de Sa e Silva
Davis Wright Tremaine ILP
2600 Century Square
1501 FourthAvenue
Seattle, Washington 98101
RECEIVED
JHfERSUN COUNTY DeD
AMENDMENT NO.1
TO
PORT LUDLOW DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT
Grantor:
JEFFERSON COUNTY, a political subdivision of tho State of Washington
PORT LUDLOW ASSOCIATES LLC, a Washington limited liability company
OLYMPIC WATER AND SEWER, INC., a Washington corporation
Grantee:
Legal Description:
Tract E as depieted on the Plat of Ludlow Cove Division'No. 1, Phase I, recorded
in Volume 8 of Plats. pages 1 through 6 inclusive, records of lefferson County,
Washington.
Assessor's Property Tax Parcel Account Numbers:
968 800 102
Reference to Related Document:
AF. No. 435974 (original agreement)
SEA 17SS097v3 65364-1
3.3.06
LOG ITEM
# ~1-b
,Page ~~ of
.
.
RECEIVED
AMENDMENT NO.1
. TO
PORT LUDLOW DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT
JEFfERSON COU~JTY DW
TInS AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO PORT LUDLOW DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT
(this "Amendment") is made this -'-- day of ~ 2006, by PORT
LUDLOW ASSOCIATES LLC, a Washington limited liability company, and OLYMPIC
WATER AND S~ INC., a Washington corporation (collectively "PLA''), and
mFFBRSON COUNTY, a political subdivision of the State ofWasbington (the "County''). This
Amendment amends and modifies that certain Port Ludlow Development Agreement dated May
1, 2000, and effective May 8, 2000 (the "Agreement''), between Pope ResolU'Ccs, Olympic
Property Group LLC, Olympic Resorts LLC, OlyInpic Water and Sewer, Inc., and Olympic Real
Estate Development LLC (collectively''Pope'') and the County, which was recorded in the real
propertyrecords of Jefferson County, Washington, under Auditor's File No. 435974.
RECITALs
A. Pope and the County made the Development Agreement effective May 8, 2000.
PLA is the assignee and successor to Pope under the Agreement. The Agreement is a
development agreement under RCW 36.70B.170 and UDC 18.40.850. The Agreement governs
the development of real property owned by PLA and located in the approximately l,200-acre
Port Ludlow MPR, which is a master planned resort designed by Jefferson County in 1998 under
the authority ofRCW 36.70A.362.
B. Tract E, which comprises a 14.66-acre portion of the Port Ludlow MPR, was
subject to vested land use and subdivision applications pending on the effective date of the
Agreement. In making the Agreement, the County did not intend that the Agreement would
impair the rights of Pope or it successors, 41cluding PLA, to proceed under their vested land use
and subdivision applications. ~LA claims that under its vested applications, it may establish
timeshare structures and uses within Tract B, in a density ofup to sixteen (16) timeshare units
per acre ofland, and by a decision dated September 2, 2005, in the case captioned In Re
Application by Port Ludlow Associates, County File No. SUB05-00004lSDP05-00002, the
County Hearing Examiner agreed with PLA.
C. A dispute has arisen between three property owners within the Port Ludlow MPR,
on the one hand, and PLA and the County, on the other hand, whether timeshare structures and
uses are permitted on Tract B under the Agreement. The dispute is subject to a land use appeal
captioned Powers v. Jefferson County, Iefferson County Superior Court Case No. 05-2-00356-1,
and a shoreline appeal captioned Powers v. Fort Ludlow Associates LLC, Shorelines Hearings
Board Case No. S 04-029. By decision dated December 7, 2005, in the case captioned In Re
Appeals of Powers, Rozzell, and Hale, County File No. SUB05-00004, the County Appenate
Hearing Examiner agreed with the three property owners.
D. In. response to the order of remand from the County Appellate Hearing Examiner
in the case captioned In Re Appeals of Powers, Rozzell, and Hale, County File No. SUB05-
00004, the County Hearing Examiner issued an "Order Response to Remand" dated Febrnary 6,
SEA 1755097\'365364-1
3.3.06
2
LOG ITEM
# 1.- 'l- t>
Page TI-~. of
.
. Ji'lJe;CC: 1 V ED
JEffERSON CUUNTY DeD
Ludlow Associates, County File No. SUB05-00004/SDPOS-OOOO2, which environmental review
is hereby adopted and incorporated herein by this reference as authorized under RCW
43.21C.034.
K.. PLA and the County desire to amend the Agreement for the sole purpose of
clarifying and modifying the development standards that apply to Tract E, in order to clearly
permit the establishment of timeshare structures and uses within such tract.
L. By the making of this AmendJnent, PLA agrees that future land use and
subdivision decisions by Jefferson County relating to Tract E will be vested under the
development standards described in this Amendment, rather than. the Jefferson County
subdivision and zoning ordinances in effect 011 January 19, 1995, which had been the Tract B
vesting date prior to the making of this Amendment, and that by the making of this Amendment
PLA. is surrendering valuable rights in exchange for greater certainty.
M. This Amendment was the subject of a fifteen (15) day comment perio~ which ran
from ~ 2006, to ----J 2006. As required by
RCW 36.70B.200, a public hearing was held before the 1efferson County Board of County
Commissioners on . ---' 2006. The Board of County Commissioners
reviewed and took official action adopting this Amendment on ---' 2006.
NOW, THEREFORE, :in consideration of the mutual covenants, conditions, and
agreements of the parties, it is agreed by andbetween the parties that the Agreement shall be
amended and modified as follows: '
AGREEMENT
1. Defined Terms. The following tenns used in this Amendment shall have the
following meanings:
a. ''PLA Property" means those portions of the Pope Property that are owned
by PLA and located within the Port Ludlow MPR as of the effective date of this Amendment
b.
Timeshare Units.
"Timeshare Structure" means any structure containing one or more
c. "Timeshare Unit" means the real or personal property, or portion thereof,
in which the timeshare exists and which is designated for separate use.
d "Timeshare Use" means a right to occupy. a unit or any of several units
during three or more separate time periods over a period of at least three years, including renewal
options, whether or not coupled with an estate in land.
e. "Tract En means 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 is located generally as depicted on the drawing attached hereto as
Exhibit A.
SEA 17SS097v3 65364-1
3.3.06
4
LOG ITEM
# .2.2--0
Page ~ of
. .
.
.
RECEIVED
JHHRSON COUNTY OLD
2. Tract E Development Standards. The development standards set forth in the
Agreement, except as they may be modified or waived by or pUISU~ to this Amenc1men4 sball
constitute the development standards (collectively, '"Developme11t Standardsj governing the
development and use of Tract E. The development standards and other provisions that shall apply
to and govern and vest the development, use, and mitigation of the development of Tract E for
the remaining term of the Agreement shall be as follows:
a. All project clements, including without limitation permitted uses,
nonresidential densities and intensities, and bUilding sizes, are govemed by the Development
Standards, provided, however, that within Tract E, the following supplemental development
standards (''Supplemental Development Standards" shall apply, and in the event of any conflict
between. the Development StandaIds and the Supplemental Development Standards, the
Supplemental Development Standards shall control:
i. Uses pennitted outright shall include Timeshare Uses, multi-family
residential uses, and single-family residential uses, in addition to other uses permitted under the
Development Standards.
ii. The maximum pennitted density of Timeshare Uses, multi-family
residential uses, and single-family residential uses shall be nine (9) Timeshare Units, multi-fiunily
residential dwelling units. and singlc-f8mily residential dwelling units per gross acre ofland.
b. Landscaping. buffCIs. parks, recreation ~ open space, and similar
features are governed by the Development Standards.
c. Development is not required to provide affordable housing.
d. All required mitigation measures, development conditions, and other
requirements of Project approval are governed by the Development Standards.
e. All required financial agreements, including any required impact fees. in-lieu
fees, inspection fees, dedications, financial contnbutions, and reimbursement provisions are
governed by the Development Standards.
f. Design standards are governed by the Development Standards.
g. Review procedures and standards for implementing Project decisions shall
be governed by the Development Standards.
h. Infrastructure requirements, including roads, waterl sewer. and stomJ.
drainage, shall be governed by the Development Standards.
i. Tract E shall be developed in a maximum of one (1) phase.
3. MERU's. AJi of the effectiv~ date of this Amendment, the Port Ludlow MPR has
approximately _ developed homes, condominiums and platted lots, as well as a resort and
commercial center. All parties acknowledge there is a development cap for the Port Ludlow
5
#
Page
LOG ITEM
~z;t>
tot> of
i
i
I
~ I
- I
I
j;EA 1755097v3 65364-1
3.3.06
. .
.
. RECEIVED
I~HEHSON COUf~TY OW
otherwise defined herein shall have the meanings given them UI1der the Agreement. 't'Xcqn as
contained within the Agreement and this Amendment, there are no other agreements or
understandings between PLA and the County relating to the subject matter of the Agreement and
this Amendment. The Agreement is hereby confirmed and ratified.
JEFFERSON COUNTY
Jefferson County Board of County
Commissioners
By
By
By
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Prosecuting Attorney
AI Scalf
Director of Community Development
PORT LUDLOW ASSOCIATES LLC, a
Washington limited liability company
By
Its President
SEA 1755097v3 65364-1
3.3.06
7
LOG ITEM
# ~2:6
Page U 2- of
.
.
RECE4 I\f YY'I D'
_'- l{'.. ;.1 v ,r.d.. x
JHftRSON COUNTY Den
MPR set forth in the zoning chaptet as "Measurement ERU's" (Measurement Equivalent
Residential Units or MERU's). Total allowed development within the Port Ludlow MPR is
2,575 MBRU's, with a residential unit maximum of2,250, as set forth in zoning chapter adopted
by the Board of County Commissioners on October 4, 1999, in Ordinance 08-1004-99. Each
Timeshare Unit established within Tract E as provided in this Amendment shall be -counted as
one (1) residential unit for purposes of calculating MERU's within the Port Ludlow MPR.
4. PLA as Assignee and Successor. PLA is the assignee of and successor to Pope
lDlder the Agreement and as such is subject to all of the benefits and burdens of Pope under the
.Agreement
S.' Notices. All communications, notices and demands of any kind that a party under
this Agreement requires or desires to give to any other party shall be in writing deposited in the
U.S. mail, certified mail postage prepaid., return receipt requested, and addressed as follows:
To the County:
AI Scalf
Jefferson County Department of Community Development
621 Sheridan Street
Port Townsend, W A 98368
Board of County Commissioners
P.o. Box 1220
Port Townsend, W A 98368
Jefferson County Prosecuting Attorney
cc:
And cc:
To PLA:
Diana Sme1and
Port Ludlow Associates LLC
44 Breaker Lane
. Port Ludlow, W A 98365
Randy Verrue
HeV Pacific Partners
cc:
San Francisco, CA 9_
Marco de Sa e Silva
Davis Wright Tremaine LLP
2600 CentuIy Square
1501 Fourth Avenue
Seattle, WA 98101
6. Effect of Amendment. This Amendment amends and modifies the Agreement and
shall be effective as of the date ofmutual execution aJ1d delivery hereof: In the event of any conflict
between the Agreement and this Amendment, this Amendment shall controL Capitalized terms not
6
And cc:
SEA 175S097v3 6j)64.1
3.3.06
LOG ITEM
#_ 1-?J>
~:}age ~ of
. .
.
. RECEIVED
JHffHStH~ CUUNTY oeD
2006, in which the County Hearing Examiner ordered that (1) the County has no authority to
arbitrarily limit its consideration of vested rights to the initial land use application, rather than a
subsequent application, (2) the division of Tract E is protected by the vested rights doct:riJu:" (3)
binding site plan and building permit applications relating to Tract E are vested under prior
regulations, not current regulations, and (4) applicable laws vest the land use to be considered
under the applicable land use regulations, not under the iDitia11and use application, and the
County's 2002 decision to approve a conditional use permit for multi-family use within Tract E
at a maximum density of 16 dwelling units per acre is barred ftom further review by the Land
Use Petition Act, RCW Chapter 36.70C.
E. There.exists a significant controversy regarding the choice of development
standards, the interpretation of applicable development st~ and the scope of the vested
rights doctrine, with respect to the proposed development of Tract E. The controversy is causing
signincant expense to the County and PLA and does not promote the public health, safety, and
welfare. The prompt and certain resolution of the controversy is of significant public importance
and will provide benefits to the County and to its citizens.
F. In the Agreement, the parties agreed to certain flexibility objectives: "The
development of [PLA Property] described in this Agreement, including the Exhibits and
Appendices, provides the desired initial definition and certainty of the [pLA Property) buildout.
However, the parties acknowledge that modifications to the proposed development will occur
during the buildout period in order to achieve a variety of purposes, including: incoxporation of
new information; responding to changing community and market needs; encouraging reasonably
priced housing; and encomaging modifications that provide comparable benefit or fimctional
equivalent with no significant reduction ofpubIio benefits or increased cost to the development
(collectively, "Flexibility Objectives'').'' Agreement Section 3.11 at pages 5-6.
G. In the Agreement, the parties also agreed to cooperate with eacb other: "The
parties sbaI1 not unreasonably withhold requests for information, approvals or consents provided
for in this Agreement. The parties agree to take further actions and execute further documents,
whether jointly or witbin their respeetivepowers and authority, to implement the intent of this .
Agreement" Agreement Section 4.17 at page 13.
H. By letter application dated March ~ 2006, PLA asked the County to approve
this Amendment in order to help resolve the pending dispute, clarify and modify the
development standards that apply to Tract E, and approve timeshare structures and uses on Tract
B.
I. The County bas determined that the resolution of the pending dispute, the
clarification and modification of the development standards that apply to Tract E, and the
approval of timeshare structures and uses on Tract E will further the flexibility and cooperation
objectives of the Agreement, will further the public health, safety, and general welfare, and will
serve the public use and interest.
J. The enviromnental review of timeshare structures and uses within Tract E under
the State Environmental Policy Act, RCW Chapter 43.21 C, was completed in connection with
the environmental review of the impacts of the timeshare proposal In Re Application by Port
SEA 17SS097v3 65364.1
3.3.06
3
LOG ITEM
# 7-?-t>
Page ~0 of
. .
. .
.
. RECEIVED
JfHfA~ON I\OUNTY DeD
OLYMPIC WATER AND SBWElf, JJ:t~.
By
Its President
EXHIBITS:
A Tract E Drawing
STATE OF WASHINGTON )
) 58.
COUNTY OF JEFFERSON )
On this _ day of . 2006. before me, a Notary Public in and for the
State of Washington, personally appeared . personally
known to me (or proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence) to be the person who
executed this instrument, on oath stated that he or she was authorized to execute the instrument,
and acknowledged it as the Port Ludlow
Associates LLC, to be th~ free and voluntary act and deed of said limited liability company for
the uses and pUIposes mentioned in the instl'umem.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and official seal the day and year
first above written.
NOTARY PUBLIC in and for the State of Washington,
residing at
My appointment expires
Print Name
STATE OF WASHINGTON )
) ss.
COUNTY OF JEFFERSON )
On this _ day of . 2006, before me, a Notary Public in and for the
State of Washington, personally appeared . personally
known to me (or proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence) to be the person who
executed this instrument, on oath stated that he or she was authorized to execute the instrument,
and acknowledged it as the of Olympic Water and
SEA l7SS097v365364-1
3J.06
8
#
Pag(~
LOG ITEM
2-V
Ct -; of
. '.. '
,
.
.I
RECEIVED
JHffRSDIJ taUNTY oeD
Sewer, Inc., to be the free and voluntary act and deed of said corporation for the uses and
pUIposes mentioned in the instrument
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and official seal the day and year
first above written.
NOTARY PUBLIC in and for the State of Washington,
residing at
My appointment expires
Print Name
STATE OF WASHINGTON )
) ss.
COUNTY OF JEFFERSON )
On this _ day of . 2006, before me, a Notary Public in and for the
State ofWashingto~ personally appeared .
. and . personally known to me (or
proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence) to be the persons who executed this
instrument, on oath stated that they were authorized to execute the instrument, and
ackno~ledged.it as the three members of the Jefferson County Board of County Commissioners
to be the free and voluntary act and deed of said Board, acting in their official capacity
representing Jefferson County, Washington, for the uses and pmposes mentioned in the
instrument
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and official seal the day and year
first above written.
NOTARY PUBUC in and for the State of Washington,
residing at
My appointment expires
Print Name
SEA 11SS097v3 6S364-1
3J.ll6
9
LOG ITEM
# 1-2-D
Page -..LC::L of
LOG ITEM
# ?-2--6
. -
Page Co') of
.
e
,{
1~\lU
1
e
e
r
Port Ludlow Resort Plan Revision
Final Supplemental Environmental
Impact Statement
/_.
Jefferson County
Department of Community Development
May, 2005
LOG,.JTEM
#d.~~
Page of
LOG ITEM
# 1-1-0
Page (9 ~ of
."--
e
$
'-j
I 9:'1.,.'.:i, '. <,'( '11\0..1 I"(){ J~lrl'\i
., f J 'J ~ . - . .. "". I ~. ... ". ;'" ~ . I 11
(-i~~ 1 Shr:rid,;n ~.!rr:(:1
PorI Tnwn:-(~,,(j. \N A DW~68
AI Scalf. i 'Jirl'~dnr
'\
~~
i...'~~~.'.:
~~
rJ
CJ
nr~:p^J~TIV1J;:j'\IT OF c:nr.lll"n If'HTY J)f~VEf.orM'~NT
Date: May 18, 2005
NOTICEOFAV~LASIUAYOF
RNAL SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
FOR PORT LUDLOW RESORT PLAN REVISION
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that Jefferson County has issued a Final Supplemental Environmental Impact
Statement (FSEIS) under the State Environmental Policy Act Rules (Chapter 197-11 WAC) for the following
project:
Application: ZON03-OOO44. Environmental and Resort Plan Review
Applicant: Mark Dorsey. Port Ludlow Associates LLC
Representative:. Lyn Keenan. Reid Middleton. Inc.
Proposal: A revision to the QJrrent (1999) Port Ludlow Resort Plan is proposed. The Resort Plan
identifies the type and size of facilities to be located within the Resort Area. This FSEIS examines the
environmental impacts associated with the alternatives identified in the FSEIS. This FSEIS is not a land use
decision on any of the proposed alternatives in the FSEIS. The following documents are also adopted as
part of this Supplemental EIS:
1. Final Environmental Impact Statement, Port Ludlow Development Program
(Jefferson County. 1993),
2. Final Environmental Impact Statement, Inn at Port Ludlow (Jefferson County. 1993),
3. Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement Port Ludlow Marina Expansion
(Jefferson County. 2002)
4. Final Environmental Impact Statement, Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan
(Jefferson County. 1998).
Location:
Port Ludlow Resort, Port Ludlow, W A 98365
Legal DescrIption: Sections 9 and 16. Township 28 North. Range 01 East, WM
Required Approvals: Pennits and approvals are required from Jefferson County, Washington State
Departments of Natural Resources and Fish and Wildlife and US Army Corps of Engineers. No building
pennit for new commercial or reaeational facilities will be issued by Jefferson County until the completion of
this EIS. as outlined in Section 3.902 of the MPR Code (Ordinance No. 08-1004-99. adopted October 4.
1999).
Document Availability: The FSEIS is available for inspection at The Bay Club at Port Ludlow, 120 Spinaker
Place; Port Ludlow Beach Club. 121 Marine Drive; Port Hadlock Branch of the County Public Ubrary and at
(360) 379-4450
ascalftlJk:o.iefferson.wa.us
Long Range Planning LOG ITEM
fAX: (360) 379.&t51 2-1-'0
Page {01 of
Building Permits/Inspections
Devfllopment Heview Pivisi('1l
For Port Ludlow Resort PI8n Revision e
Page 2
..----.----------.---- ------.
-
-
~
i
the Department of Community Development, 621 Sheridan Street, Port Townsend. The FSEIS can be.
purchased at SOS Printing (360) 385-4194 located at 2319 Washington Street, Port Townsend for a
reproduction f~. The text and maps of the FSEIS are accessible on the Department website:
www.co.iefferson.wa.us/commdevelopmentl. Background data and other relevant information are available
at the Department of Community Development.
Appeal Period: According to Section 8.1 0.12.e of the Unified Development Code (UDC) the adequacy
of an EIS may not be appealed under the provisions of the UDC. Parties of record will be publidy noticed of
their appeal right under RCW 36.70 C (lUPA) on the adequacy of this FSEIS at the time of any land use
decision issuance.
Project Planner: Michelle Farfan
Responsible Official: AI Scalf
Position: Senior Planner Phone: (360) 379-4457
Position: Director Phone: (360) 379-4493
al
/J1ftf /B.2COS
Date of FSEIS' I
Entered into the PubflC Record
..
,.
#
Page
LOG ITEM
22:D
(0'0 of
e e
~. TABLE OF CONTENTS
CHAYfER 1 - SUMMAR Y ...........-....................'.........'.......................-.......................................1-1
1.1 PRoPOSED ACTION ........... ......................_.. .................. ........ ............................................ 1-1
1.2 LocATION OF 11IE PROPOSAL ..........................................................................................1-2
1.3 PuRPoSE/OBJECTIVES OF 11IE PROPOSAL ........................................................................ 1-2
1.4 PRomer RISTOR Y ..................................................................................................... ...... 1-2
History of the Port Ludlow Community and MPR ................................................................1-2
MPR Development Regulations ........................ ......... .......................... ............ ......... ............ 1-5
SEP A Review ................. ................................... .... ...... ...................... ...... ..... ............... ........... 1-5
1.5 SUMMARY OF ALlERNA TIVES ......................................................................................... 1-6
Alternative 1: Applicant's Proposed Project - 2003 Proposed Resort Plan...................... 1-7
Alternative 2: 1993 Resort Plan......................................................................................... 1 -11
Alternative 3: Existing 1999 Resort Plan........................................................................... 1-13
Alternative 4: Response to Comments................................................................................1-15
Alternative 5: No Action... .................... ............ ..................................... ..................... ........ 1-19
1.6 SCOPING NOTICE AND REQUEST FOR COMMEN'tS...~......................................................1-21
1.7 SIGNIFICANT ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION ....................................................................1-21
CHAPTER 2 - PROPOSED PROJECT AND AL TERNA TIVES .......................................2-1
2.1 DESCRIP'IlON OF PROPOSAL...... ................................ ....... .................... ............................ 2-1
2.1.1 Name of Proposal........ ...... ..... ......... ............... ..... .......................... ..................... ......... 2-1
2.1.2 Project Sponsor.... ..... ................ .................. ...................... ........... ..................... .......... 2-1
2.1.3 Project wcation... .................................. ............... ............. ............................ ............. 2-1
2.1.4 Existing Project Features............ ....... ...................................... ................ ................... 2-1
2.2 APPLICANT'S PRoPOSED PROJECT AND ALlERNATIVES .................................................. 2-3
2.3 BENEFITs!DISADV ANTAGES .OF DELAYING IMPLEMENTATION ...................................... 2-14
CRAYfER 3 - AFFECTED'ENVIRONMENT, ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS,
J\.fiTI G A TIN G l\1EAS URES ........................ ..-... ... .........................................'............................ 3-1
3.1 EARrn ............. ........... ..................................... ....................... ................... ......... .............3-1
3.1.1 Affected Environment ....................... ..... ......................... ...... .... ......................... .......... 3-1
3.1.2 Environmental Impacts .......... ..... ..... ........................... ......................... ....................... 3-3
3.1.3 Mitigating Measures....... ....... .......................... ...................... ...... ........................... .... 3-9
3.1.4 Unavoidable Adverse Impacts.................. .................................. ........... ........... ......... 3-10
3 .2 WATER .......... .......,.. ................................. ............................. ............................ ............ 3-11
3.2.1 Surface Water..... .................... ..... ............................ .... ........................... ................... 3-11
3.2.2 Groundwater...... .................... ..................................... ....................... ..... ..... ..... ........ 3-17
3.3 PLANTS AND ANIMAI...S .............................................................................................3-22
3.3.1 Affected Environment.. ....................... .......... ............... ................. ............................. 3-22
3.3.2 Environmental Impacts ........................... ........... .......................... ............... .............. 3-29
3.3.3 Mitigating Measures ...... .............................. .......... ...................... ............................. 3-37
3.3.4 Unavoidable Adverse Impacts. ............................. ...... ............................ ...... .............. 3-41
3.4 LAND AND SHORELINE USE.. ....................................... ............................. .................. ..... 3-43
----. 3.4.1 Affected Environment............................. ............................. ........................... ......... 3-43
3.4.2 Environmental Impacts ....... ............ ......................... .......................... ....... ............. 3-47
Port Ludlow MPR Resort Plan
Final SEIS
-j.
e
e
3.4.3 Mitigation Measures ..... ........ ...... ................... ....... ........... ....... ......... ................ ...... 3-59
3.4.4 Unavoidable Adverse Impacts .......................... ........................... .......................... 3-61
3.5 LAND AND SHORELINE USE - RELATIONSHIP TO PLANS AND POLICIES .......................... 3-62
3.5.1 Affected Environment................................. ......................... ............ ..... .................. 3-62
3.5.2 Environmental Impacts..... ....................................................... ............ .................. 3-68
3.5. 3 Mitigating Measures. ............................................................................ ................. 3-72
3.5.4 Unavoidable Adverse Impacts ...............................................................................3-72
3.6 TRANSPORT A nON ..................... .................................. ...... .......................................3-73
3.6.1 Affected Environment ................................ ........ .......... .............. ...................... .......... 3-74
3.6.2 Environmental Impacts ......... .... .......... ..................... ............................... .................. 3 -84
3.6.3 Mitigation Measures........... ....... ..... ............................ ..... ................ ... .................... 3-105
3.6.4 Unavoidable Adverse Impacts......... ............... .......... ............. .............. .................... 3-106
3.7 PuBLIC SERVICE AND U'I1LITIES ............................;...................................................... 3-107
3.7.1 Fire/Emergency Services ..................... ......... ....... ................... .................. ........... 3-107
3.7.2 Water Service ....................................................................................................... 3-110
3.7.3 Sanitary Sewer Service ........................................................................................ 3-113
CHAPTER 4 - DRAFT SEIS COMMENTS AND RESPONSES ........................................4-1
4.1 INTRODUCTION ........... ............................ .................................... ............. ........... ..............4-1
4.2 COMl\ffiNT I..E'rrERs . ......,.................. ....................:............. .............................. ................4-1
4.3 COMl\ffiNTS AND REsPONSES ......... ........................ ....... ............................ ........................4-3
4.3.1 Permitting Requirements
4.3.2 Resort Function
4.3.3 Aesthetics
4.3.4 Wildlife Habitat
4.3.5 Admiralty Open Space and Recreation Facilities
4.3.6 Transportation and Parking
4.3.7 Access to the Shoreline
4.3.8 Marina
4.3.9 Utilities
4.3.10 Environmental Review
4.3.11 Additional
LOG ITEM
# _ 1- 2-b
f'age iD of
Port Ludlow MPR Resort Plan
Final SEIS
-ii.
May 2005
~
I
I
1
n
D
n
n
D
I
~l
o
]
~ 1
..
L
o
o
u
u
-"r'1
U
,.
U
e
e
----
FIGURE LIST
(
Figure 1 - Vicinity Map.............................. .... ................................. ..... ................................ ....... 1-3
Figure 2 - Location Map............... ...................... ......................................... ................................ 1-4
Figure 3A - Alternative 1,2003 Resort Plan............................................................................... 1-8
Figure 3B - Alternative 1, Waterlront Site Plan...........................................................:.............. 1-9
Figure 3C - Marina Expansion Site Plan................................................. .................................. 1-10
Figure 4 - Alternative 2, 1993 Resort Plan................................................................................ 1-12
Figure 5 - Alternative 3, 1999 Resort Plan................................................................................ 1-14
Figure 6A - Alternative 4, 1999 Resort Plan............................................................................. 1-16
Figure 6B - Alternative 4, Waterlront Site Plan........................................................................ 1-17
Figure 6C - Alternative 4"Marina Expansion ...........................................................................1-18
Figure 7 - Alternative 5, No Action ..........................................................................................1-20
Figure 8 _ Site Topography. ............................. .................................... ..................... .................. 3-2
Figure 9A - Alternative 1, Section View Plan ............................................................................ 3-5
Figure 9B - Alternative I, Section A-A ...................................................................................... 3-6
Figure 9C - Alternative I, Section B-B .......................................................................................3-7
Figure 10 - Drainage Basins ......................................................................................................3-13
Figure 11 - Aquifers ............ ........ .......................... ................................. ................................... 3-19
Figure 12A - Conceptual Lagoon Landscape Types ................................................................3-38
Figure 12B - Conceptual Planting Plan, West and South Sides................................................ 3-39
Figure 12C - Conceptual Planting Plan, South Side ................................................................. 3-40
Figure 13 - Comprehensive Plan Land Use Designations......................................................... 3-45
Figure 14A - Alternative 1 Building Layouts ...........................................................................3-49
Figure 14B - Alternative 1 Typical Elevations ......................................................................... 3-51
Figure 15A.- Alternative 4, Building Layouts ...............................~.......................................... 3-57
Figure 15B - Alternative 4, Building Layouts........................................................................... 3-58
Figure 16 - Trail Plan. ................ ....................................... .............. .......... ....................... .... ..... 3-53
Figure 17 - Shoreline Environment Designations ..................................................................... 3-67
Figure 18 - Existing Traffic Volumes ....................................................................................... 3-75
Figure 19 - 2003 PM Peak Hour Volumes (Weekdays)............................................................ 3-79
-Figure 20......2003- EstimatedW eekend..Peak Hour Volumes...................................................... 3-80
Figure 21 - Alternative I, Estimated Weekend Trip Distribution............................................. 3-86
Figure 22 - Alternative 1,2010 Estimated Weekend Daily and Peak Hour Traffic
Vol umes ...... ............................................................................................... ................................ 3-88
Figure 23 - Alternative 2, Estimated Weekend Trip Distribution............................................. 3-94
Figure 24 - Alternative 2,2010 Estimated Weekend Daily and Peak Hour Traffic
Vol urnes..................................................................................................................................... 3-95
Figure 25 - Alternative 3, Estimated Weekend Trip Distributions ......................................... 3-100
Figure 26 - Alternative 3, 2010 Estimated Weekend Daily and Peak Hour Traffic
Vol urnes..... ............. ..................... ........... .................................................... ................ ............. 3-101
Figure 27 - Existing Resort Utilities ....................................................................................... 3-111
r-.
#
Page
LOG ITEM
~2D
7/ of
e
e
TABLE LIST
Table 1 - Summary of Environmental Impacts and Mitigating Measures ................................1-24
Table 2 - Comparison of Alternatives ....................................................................................... 2-13
Table 3 - Accident History.................... ..... .............................. ....... ...................... .................... 3-77
Table 4 - Existing Weekday Levels of Service ......................................................................... 3-81
Table 5 - Existing Weekend Levels of Service ......................................................................... 3-81
Table 6 - Estimated Weekend Trip Generation, Alternative 1 (proposed Action) ................... 3-85
Table 7 - 2010 Weekend Levels of Service, Alternative 1 .......................................................3-87
Table 8 - Estimated Weekend Trip Generation Alternative 2................................................... 3-93
Table 9 - 2010 Weekend Levels of Service .............................................................................. 3-96
Table 10 - Estimated Weekend Trip Generation, Alternative 3................................................ 3-99
Table 11 - 2010 Weekend Levels of Service .......................................................................... 3-102
Table 12 - Estimated Weekend Trip Generation, Alternative 4.............................................. 3-104
TECHNICAL APPENDICES
(All Technical Appendices are contained in a separate document, available at the
Jefferson County Department of Community Development)
Appendix List
Appendix A - Jefferson Co. Ord. No. 08-1004-99 Port Ludlow Development Regulations
Appendix B - Plants and Animals - Port Ludlow Resort Regional Conditions,
GeoEngineers, March 2004
Appendix C - Landscaping Plan, Port Ludlow Resort
Appendix D - Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan Parks and Recreation and Shoreline
Comprehensive Plan Goals and Policies
Appendix E - Port Ludlow 2003 Resort Plan MERU Calculation
Appendix F - Year 2010 Background Traffic Volumes and LOS Base Conditions,
Geralyn Reinart, PE
Appendix G - Fire District No.3 Correspondence
Appendix H - List of Acronyms Used
Appendix I - Plat of Ludlow Bay Village Mill Pond Assessment, GeoEngineers,
September 2004
Appendix J - Resort Parking
LOG ITEM
# __~.m~'l:-P
D. .oo_]~ of
I
I
.1
I
D
I
n
n
o
,
.---4
o
n
II
D
D
D
I)
-0
p
U
e
e
"'-..
FACT SHEET
Proposed Action:
The proposed action is the approval of a proposal bv Port Ludlow Associates. liC (PLA) to
complete development of the Plat of Ludlow Bay Village and an adjoining area commonly
known as Adiniralty III. under a revised Resort Plan that will decrease the range and size of uses
from those approved by Jefferson Count v in the 1999 MPR zoning regulations and the
Development Agreement of 2000. The proposed action will be processed as a Major Revision to
the Port Ludlow Resort Plan, consistent with Section 3.90 of Jefferson County Ordinance
No. 08-1004-99/Development Regulations for the Port Ludlow Master Plan Resort (MPR). The
Resort Plan identifies the type and size of facilities to be located within the Resort
Complex/Community Facilities Zone within the MPR.
~
The proposed revisions to the Resort Plan will decrease the size of the remaining facilities
allowed proposed to be loeated within the Resort area under Section 3.901. The focus of the
Resort will be shifted from a destination conference center orieRted to a destination resort
serving the traveling public, ratHer tllaR ser\'iRg as destiRatioR eORferenoe {aeility for large
groups. New facilities within the Resort zone are proposed to include a new Harbor Master
restaurant (relocated), e one new recreation building, a new marina office and store (retail), PLA
offices within the fonner conference building, a new maintenance building, 101 new residential
units, a loo-slip expansion of the marina, a central receiving dock, a new shoreline
boardwalk/esplanade, additional off-street parking, open space and trails, and associated
infrastructure improvements. In 2002, a project-level Supplemental EIS (Port Ludlow Marina
Expansion SEIS) was prepared to address the l00-slip expansion of the marina.
The proposed action will require Jefferson County approval of a maior revision to the Resort
Plan and a shoreline permit. A plat alteration or boundary line adjustment may also be required
for the plat of Luldow Bay Village. depending on the final approved Resort Plan. These actions
will be processed by Jefferson County as a single permit action requiring decisions by both
Department of Communi tv Development staff and the Hearing Examiner. The permit process
will use information from this environmental document. public comments received during fonnal
public comment oeriods. and a public hearing before the Hearing Examiner. The Hearing
Examiner may approve, approve with modifications. or deny the applications reauests.
This Final SEIS includes a new alternative that was developed bv the apolicant based on
comments received on the Draft SEIS. This new alternative is known as the "Response to
Comments" alternative: this alternative reduces the total number of new residential units by 14.
and reduces the number of new marina slips to 60. Further. no residential units would be built
over water. along the edge of the artificial lagoon.
"'-.
In order to maintain consistent references throughout the draft and final SEIS documents. this
Final SEIS continues all references to the original proposal and other alternatives described in
the Draft SEIS. while adding an analysis ofthe Resoonse to Comments Alternative. This
approach will allow the final decision maker to fully compare probable environmentt!(i)08tTlIiff/I
each alternative. # t-Z-6
Page I? of
Port Ludlow MPR Resort Plan
Final SElS
FS.1
--
e
e
I
1
1
Location:
The Port Ludlow MPR is located adjacent to and surrounding Port Ludlow Bay, Jefferson
County, Washington. Port Ludlow Bay is located on the west shore of Admiralty Inlet at the
mouth of Hood Canal (portions of Sections 9 and 16, Township 28, Range IE). Within the
MPR, the Resort complex is located north of the marina, between Oak Bay Road and Port
Ludlow Bay. The location of the project is shown in Figures 1 and 2.
III
Project Proponent:
Port Ludlow Associates, LLC
70 Breaker Lane
Port Ludlow, W A 98365
J
TI
n
D
n
Lead Agency:
Jefferson County Department of Community Development
621 Sheridan Street
Port Townsend, W A 98368
Responsible Official:
Al Scalf, Director
Jefferson County Department of Community Development
621 Sheridan Street "
Port Townsend, W A 98368
......)
Contact Person:
Michelle Farfan, .^~ssoeiate Senior Planner. Lead Planner for Port Ludlow
Jefferson County Department of Community Development
621 Sheridan Street
Port Townsend, W A 98368
]
SDPOO 00014, Shoreline Primary Use Substantial DevelopmentPennit
(Application pending, to be processed after eempletioR of ElS with Resort Plan
Revision)-SDPOO-OOO14. MIA 04-00428/SDP 04-00028
. 1
J
11
D
Jefferson County File No.:
EIS File No. ZON 03-0044
Resort Plan - Maior Revision - MIA 03-00360/ ZON 03-00044
u
Plat Alteration (aDD]jcation to be considered after decision on Resort Plan Revision) -LOG ITEM
MIA 04-00255/SUB 04-000 14
#
Page it.j of
u
n
u
Adoption of Existing Environmental Document:
The following documents are adopted as part of this Supplemental EIS:
. Final Environmental Impact Statement, Pon Ludlow Development Program (Jefferson
County, 1993)
. Final Environmental Impact Statement, Inn at Pon Ludlow (Jefferson County, 1993)
Port Ludlow MPR Resort Plan
Final SEtS
FS-2
.!mr.h,/:r~~
t 1
! t
f i
4o.i
e
e
r-.
. Final Environmental Impact Statement, Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan (Jefferson
County, 1998)
. Final Environmental Impact Statement, Port Ludlow Marina Expansion (Jefferson County,
2002)
Authors and Principal Contributors:
This l)faH Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement ~ SEIS) has been prepared under
the direction of the Jefferson County Department of Community Development and Lumsden.
International Inc.,: Research and analysis was provided by:
Reid Middleton, Inc. Document Preparation and Marina Engineering
728 134th Street SW, Suite 200
Everett, W A 98204
(425) 741-3800
Pentec Environmental, Inc. Analysis of the Marine Environment
120 Third Avenue South, Suite 110
~onds, WA 98020
(425) 775-4682
GeoEngineers, Inc.
1550 Woodridge Drive SE
Port Orchard, W A 98366
Analysis of Upland lIabitatand Artificial Lagoon
(
Geralyn Reinart, P.E.
1319 Dexter Avenue North
Suite 103
Seattle, W A 98109
Transportation Analysis
ESM, Inc.
720 South 348th St.
Federal Way, WA 98003
Upland Site Civil Engineering
Architectonics, Inc.
1018 Market Street
Kirkland, WA 98033
Upland Site Planning and Building Design
Required Permits and "Approvals:
The proposed action is the approval of a Major Revision to the Port Ludlow Resort Plan,
consistent with Section 3.90 of Jefferson County Ordinance No. 08-1004-99/Development
Regulations for the Port Ludlow Master Plan Resort. and other oermits and approvals. The
required permits and approvals are as follows:
Jefferson County
,-- . Resort Plan Revision, Department of Comml:lAity Develef'ment (Hearing Examiner~
. Construction Plan Approval, :Department of Public Works
Port Ludlow MPR Resort Plan
Final SElS
Fs-3
lOG ITEM
# 2Jt)
- C~n Ma 2005
Page ~ -'"-=--
e
e
.
Boundary Line Adjustment or Plat Alteration (Ludlow Bay Village), - Department of
Community Development or (Hearing Examiner) .
Preliminary and Final Plat Approval (Admiralty ill) - Hearing Examiner
Shoreline Primary Use Substantial Development Permits - Department of Community
Development Hearing Examiner
Building Permit - Building Department
.
.
.
State of Washington
. 401 Water Quality Certification - Department of Ecology
. Coastal Zone Management Consistency Determination
. Hydraulic Project Approval - Department of Fish and Wildlife
Federal Government
. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Section 10 Permit - Docks and Pilings (Marina expansion and
Boardwalk)
Date of Issue of Draft SEIS: April 23, 2004__
Date of Issue of Final SEIS: _May 18, 2005
Location of Final SEIS for Review:
Copies of this Final SEIS are available at the following locations for review:
Jefferson County Department of Community Development .
621 Sheridan Street
Port Townsend, W A 98368
Port Ludlow Bay Club
120 Spinaker Place
Port Ludlow, W A 98365
Port Ludlow Beach Club
121 Marine Drive
Port Ludlow, W A 98365
Port Hadlock Branch, Jefferson County Public Library
Port Hadlock, W A 98339
Technical reports, background data, and other relevant information are available at the Jefferson
County Department of Community Development.
Electronic copies of this FSEIS are available to download and print at the Jefferson County
website. The URL for this site is httt>:/Iwww.co.iefferson.wa.uslcomrndeveloDment
Copies of the DFSEIS are also available for purchase at SOS Printing, 2319 Washiington Street,
Port Townsend W A 98368. (360) 385-4194sale for $_ at the Jefferson County Department of
Community Development.
Port Ludlow MPR Resort Plan
Final SEIS
#
Page
LOG ITEM
:L~
7ft,\
.~
--~
F5-4
I
I
1
d
".
d
g
I
I
D
.,
~
D
U
I
n
U
U
IJ
.1 '
U
e DISTRIBUTION LIST e
r--
Copies Distributed:
Jamestown S'Klallam Tribe
1033 Old Blyn Highway
Sequim, W A 98382
Applicant
Port Ludlow Associates LLC
Mark R. Dorsey, P.E.
70 Breaker Lane
Port Ludlow, W A 98365
Point No Point Treaty Council
Environmental Review
7999 NE Salish Lane
Kingston, W A 98346
Jefferson County Departments
Jefferson County Public Works
621 Sheridan Street
Port Townsend, W A 98368
Utilities
Jefferson County Fire District 3
7650 Oak Bay Road
Port Ludlow, W A 98365
Jefferson County Natural Resources
615 Sheridan Street
Port Townsend, W A 98368
Port Ludlow Drainage District
P. O. Box 65261
Port Ludlow W A 98365
State of Washington Agencies
Department of Ecology
SEP A Review
PO Box 47703
Olympia, W A 98504-7703
Port Ludlow Roster
LMC Governmental Affairs Com
Richard Smith
P.O. Box 65060
Port Ludlow, WA 98365
(
Department of Ecology
Shorelands SW Region
Jeffree Stewart
300 Desmond Drive
Lacey, W A 98503
Port Ludlow Village Council
P.O. Box 65012
Port Ludlow, WA 98365
(2 Copies)
Department of Natural Resources
SEP A Review
Dave Deitzman
1111 Washington Street SE
Olympia, WA 98504-3135
Local Organizations
Port of Port Townsend
333 Benedict Street
Port Townsend, W A 98368
Department of Natural Resources
Jeff Schreck
411 Tillicum Lane
Forks, W A 98331
Olympic Environmental Council
PO Box 1906
Port Townsend, W A 98368
Port Ludlow Bay Club
120 Spinaker Place
Port Ludlow, W A 98365
Department of Fish & Wildlife
SEP A Review
1111 Washington Street SE
Olympia, WA 98504-3135
Port Ludlow Beach Club
121 Marine Drive
Port Ludlow, W A 98365
Tribal Government
Port Gamble S'Kla]Jam Tribe
31974 Little Boston Road
Kingston, W A 98346
Port Hadlock Branch,
Jefferson County Public Library
Port Hadlock, W A 98339
#
Page
Port Ludlow MPR Resort Plan
Final SEIS
DL.1
lOG ITEM
2-26
'77 of
--
e
Notice of Availability:
US ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS
SEATTLE REGULATORY BRANCH
A TTN: SUSAN GLENN
4735 EAST MARGINAL WAY SOUTH
SEATTLE WA 98124
NATIONAL MARINE FISHERIES SERVICE
ATTN: SHANDRA O'HALECK
510 DESMOND DRNE SE
SUITE 102
LACEY W A 98503
U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
ATTN: LOU ELLYN JONES
510 DESMOND DRIVE SE
SUITE 102
LACEY W A 98503
SALLY SMITH
l00AFAIRWAYLN
PORT LUDLOW W A 98365-9724
Wll.LIAM G. FUNKE
DIGGIE FUNKE
PO BOX 65334
PORT LUDLOW W A 98365
WENDI WRINKLE
172 HUBBARD CREEK
PORT LUDLOW W A 98365
RUTH ALTIS
2408 STATE AVENUE NE
OLYMPIA W A 98506
ROGER LARSON
142 RESOLUTE LANE
PORT LUDLOW W A 98365
LARRY LAWSON
10140 OAK BAY ROAD
PORT LUDLOW W A 98365
JACK MORRIS
ALICE MORRIS
PO BOX 650
MAPLE V ALLEY W A 98038
e
RAE BELKIN
MA TS MATS AREA COALITION
900 OL YMPUS BLVD
PORT LUDLOW W A 98365
BERT LOOMIS
LOOMIS PROPERTIES
9500 OAK BAY ROAD
PORT LUDLOW W A 98365
PAUL TAYLOR SMITH
NANCY TAYLOR SMITH
63 SCOlT COURT
PORT LUDLOW W A 98365
GRANT COLBY
LORI COLBY
PMB 526,2442 NW MARKET STREEf
SEATTLE WA 98107-4137
~IAM D. WElR
87 SCOlT COURT
PORT LUDLOW W A 98365
PETER A. JOSEPH
JEANNE M. JOSEPH
6 HERON ROAD
PORT LUDLOW W A 98365-9300
FRED P. DELMISSIER
DARLENE J. DELMISSIER
9514 NE 13TH STREET
BELLEVUE W A 98004-3445
DONALD S. CLARK
ANITA J. CLARK
8915 SE 56TH STREET
MERCER ISLAND W A 98040
JANET L. KENNEDY
26 HERON ROAD
PORT LUDLOW W A 98365-9300
MCCARRY FAMILY TRUST
2 HERON ROAD
PORT LUDLOW W A 98365
ALTON K. LANTERMAN
221 FIRST AVENUE W, SUITE 10.B..G ITEM
SEAlTLE WA 98194 L~
# r-Lb
Page --1a.- of
Port Ludlow MPR Resort Plan
Final SElS
DL.2
--
I
n
1
J
n
D
n
D
D
~J
o
'1
.__1
u
o
o
u
I 1
I I
,
.~,
U
\ ~
U
It
,,--
TIMOTHY J. HOWARD
KAZUKO M. HOWARD
13129 MUIR DRIVE NW
GIG HARBOR W A 98332-8897
GEORGE C. Hll..L~ TRUSTEE
BARBARA F. Hn.L, TRUSTEE
G&B Hll..L TRUST 8-18-75
22 HERON ROAD
PORT LUDLOW W A 98365-9300
BERNIE J. BROWN.
20730 BOND ROAD NE
POULSBO W A 98370
Wll..LIAM O. MASTER. JR.
JUDITH L. MASTER
10 HERON ROAD
PORT LUDLOW W A 98365-9300
COLLEEN J. FERRIS
1619 WINDERMERE DRIVE E
SEATIlE W A 98112-3737
r-
BURKE F. GmSON
DOLORES GmSON
89 CASCADE KY
BELLEVUE W A 98006-1023
THEODORA & BD.l.. CLARK
10 TRADER LANE
PORT LUDLOW W A 98365
VINCE PACE
211 GREENVlEW LANE
PORT LUDLOW W A 98365
HERMAN VOSS
60A FAlRW A Y LANE
PORT LUDLOW W A 98365
LOIS & CLARK RUGGLES
125 SEAWAY PLACE
PORT LUDLOW W A 98365
DENNIS MADSON
93 DRIFIWOOD COURT
PORT LUDLOW W A 98365
Port Ludlow MPR Resort Plan
Final SElS
e
CAROL & GERALD SABER
PO BOX 65487
PORT LUDLOW W A 98365
RONALD R. GARTON, PHD
33 MCCURDY LANE
PORT LUDLOW W A 98365
DALE AND DEllA WID
20 GAMBLE LANE
PORT LUDLOW W A 98365
BONNIE & KENNETH Mll..LER
30 GAMBLE LANE
PORT LUDLOW W A 98365
N.ROBERTJORGENSEN
111 GAMBLE LANE
PORT LUDLOW W A 98365
WD.l..IAM JACKSON
RIGGAN SHILSTONE
61 GAMBLE LANE
PORT LUDLOW W A 98365
. ARLETHA & ROBERT BERG
105 GAMBLE LANE
PORT LUDLOW W A 98365
DIANE & RONALD CAMPO
81 GAMBLE LANE
PORT LUDLOW W A 98365
JANNET & ROGER WlLCOX
143 GAMBLE LANE
PORT LUDLOW W A 98365
MARLENE & ROBERT BLACK
192 MONTGOMERY COURT
PORT LUDLOW W A 98365
SHERRllLANN & KARL BARDEN
290 OL YMPUS BLVD
PORT LUDLOW W A 98365
MARY & JAMES BRANNAMAN
563 PIONEER DRIVE
PORT LUDLOW W A 98365
LOG iTEM
# .2-?,O
Page 11 of
DL-3
~
_Wl!.liJWWI
e
MAGGIE & KEITH BROWN
343 CAMBER LANE
PORT LUDLOW W A 98365
MARGE & THOMAS CARTER
103 HERITAGE LANE
PORT LUDLOW W A 98365
BARBARA & WILLIAM COLLINS
154 SEA VISTA TERRACE
PORT LUDLOW W A 98365
HELEN & MAURICE COTTA
PO BOX 65068
PORT LUDLOW W A 98365
ESTHER M. DARROW
llO SEA VISTA TERRACE
PORT LUDLOW W A 98365
VICfORIA JO & OLIVER GARDNER
PO BOX 65156
PORT LUDLOW W A 98365
JUDITH & GARY HAGEN
96 HERITAGE LANE
PORT LUDLOW W A 98365
ELIZABETH & LEWIS HALE
10552 15m AVENUE NW
SEATTLE WA 98177
JOY & DOUGLAS HERRING
227 EDGEWOOD DRIVE
PORTLUDLOWWA 98365
LYNNE & EDWARD JONES
5517 17m AVENUE NE
SEATTLE WA 98105
P A TRlCIA & GREGG JORDSHAUGEN
17435 SE 47m STREET
BELLEVUE W A 98006
SHlRLEY & HARTMUT KEMPKEN
PO BOX 65187
PORT LUDLOW W A 98365
DORIS & ANTHONY MONTI
30 DEER HOLLOW ROAD
PORT LUDLOW W A 98365
Port Ludlow MPR Resort Plan
Final SEIS
e
BARBARA & LAURENCE NOBLES
81 HARMS LANE
PORT LUDLOW W A 98365
WANDA & REINHOLD PFLUGFELDER
135 TIMBER HEIGHTS DRIVE
PORT LUDLOW W A 98365
HEATHER & RICHARD ULLMAN
203 PUGET LOOP
PORT LUDLOW W A 98365
ELIZABETH & JOHN V AN ZONNERALD
PO BOX 65477
PORT LUDLOW W A 98365
KORl WARD
PO BOX 65114
PORT LUDLOW W A 98365
DIANE & DWAYNE wn..COX
271 MONTGOMERY LANE
PORT LUDLOW W A 98365
MERIL YNN A. WILSON
1707 WATER STREET
APT. 10
PORT TOWNSEND W A 98368
MARILYN & WARREN WILSON
91 DREW LANE
PORT LUDLOW W A 98365
Jefferson County Departments
JEFFERSON COUNTY BOARD OF
COMMISSIONERS
615 SHERIDAN STREET
PORT TOWNSEND, W A 98368
JEFFERSON COUNTY PROSECUTING
ATTORNEY'S OFFICE
615 SHERIDAN STREET
PORT TOWNSEND, W A 98368
JEFFERSON COUNTY HEALTH & HUMAN
RESOURCES
615 SHERIDAN STREET
PORT TOWNSEND, W A 98368
LOG 'TEM
# 2- 2-6
p~ge JiL of
DL-4
~
D
I
1
..
~
3
I
D
o
J
D
D
I
n
U
n
J
" '
'-'
e
,r-.
JEFFERSON COUNTY PLANNING
COMMISSION
615 SHERIDAN STREET
PORT TOWNSEND, W A 98368
Local Organizations
JEFFERSON TRANSIT
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
1615 SIMS WAY
PORT TOWNSEND W A 98368
W ASlDNGTON ENVIRONMENTAL
COUNCIL
JERRY GORSLINE
5528 CAPE GEORGE ROAD
PORT TOWNSEND W A 98368
JEFFERSON COUNTY POO #1
PO BOX 929
PORT HADLOCK W A 98339
CHIMACUM SCHOOL DISTRICf #49
PO BOX 278
CHIMACUM W A 98325
f
FOSTER PEPPER & SHELFELMAN Pll.C
1111 THIRD AVE. STE 3400
SEATTLE WA 98101
ATTN: JEFFREYB. TARADAY.
DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE LLP
MARCO DE SAE SIT. V A
2600 CENTURY SQUARE
1501 FOURTH AVE
SEATTLE WA 98101
State of Washington Agencies
Office of Community Development: GMP
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
SEPA REVIEW
PO BOX 47440
OLYMPIA WA 98504-7440
DEPARTMENT OF FISH & WILDLIFE
RANDI THURSTON
WDFW REGION 6
502 mGH AVE, STE 112
PORT ORCHARD W A 98366
Port Ludlow MPR Resort Plan
Final SElS
e
PUGET SOUND WATER QUALITY ACfION
TEAM
TIM RANSOM
PO BOX 40900
OLYMPIA WA 98504
PARKS & RECREATION COMMISSION
BILL KOSS
PO BOX 42653
OLYMPIA W A 98504-2653
Tribal Government
SKOKOMISH NATURAL RESOURCES
N 541 TRIBAL CENTER
SHELTON W A 98584
Utilities and Services
OLYMPIC WATER AND SEWER INC.
70 BREAKER LANE
PORT LUDLOW, W A 98365
PORT LUDLOW DRAINAGE DISTRICf
DICK REGAN .
PO BOX 65041
PORT LUDLOW W A 98365
News Media
PORT TOWNSEND LEADER
COpy EDITOR - HEARING
PO BOX 552
PORT TOWNSEND. W A 98368
PENINSULA DAILY NEWS
922 W ASlDNGTON STREET
PORT TOWNSEND W A 98368
THE VOICE
PO BOX 65077
PORT LUDLOW W A 98365
LOG ITEM
# 2-'2.,0
Page -4- of
DL-5
..
e
Commentors on DSEIS not listed above:
BOB & CONNIE Wll..KINSON
114 SKIFF LANE
PORT LUDLOW. W A
TOM AND MARY ANN CALLAHAN
134 TIMBER MEADOW DRIVE
PORT LUDLOW. W A
HUGH & ANNE JENINGS
SERENDIPITY SLIP #E-29
705 RAINIER LANE
PORT LUDLOW. WA 98365
POWERS & THERRlEN. P.S.
3502 TIETON DRIVE
YAKIMA. W A 98902
RAY B. BENEDICf
30 ADMIRALTY LANE. # 321
PORT LUDLOW. WA 98365
DELOS DUNN
385 soum BAY LANE
PORT LUDLOW. W A 98365
TERESA L. SMITH
42 HERON ROAD
. PORT LUDLOW. WA
GARY & SUSAN KA YSINGER
46 HERON DRIVE
PORT LUDLOW. WA 98365-9300
GARY & KATHY HASHBARGER
38 HERON ROAD
PORT LUDLOW. W A 98365
RICHARD ROZELL
41 WINDROSE DRIVE
PORT LUDLOW. W A
BROWN- NO ADDRESS
ALLEN B. & DOROTHY A. WRIGHT
40 KELLER LANE
PORT LUDLOW NORTH BA Y. W A 98365
MARIAN PETERSON
P.O. BOX 65183
e
PORT LUDLOW. W A 98365
DON PLORDE
55 MCKENZIE LANE
PORT LUDLOW. W A 98365
DOUGLAS SCHIEBEL
192 SEAWAY PLACE
PORT LUDLOW W A 98365
ED & JAN KNODLE
121 SOUTH KEEL WAY
PORT LUDLOW. W A 98365
RALPH ARCHUNG
P.O. BOX 65164
PORT LUDLOW. WA 98365
PETERS- NO ADDRESS
SOurH BAY COMMUNITY ASSOC.
THE BAY CLUB
120 SPINNAKER PLACE
PORT LUDLOW. W A 98365
R.E. SOW A TSKY
654 PIONEER DRIVE
PORT LUDLOW. WA 98365
FREDERICK H. KING
83 DUNSMUIR ROAD
PORT LUDLOW. W A 98365
GERALD AND DIANE PURDY
14 FOREST LANE
PORT LUDLOW. WA 98365
DANIEL & ESTHER DARROW
110 SEA VISTA TERRACE
PORT LUDLOW. W A 98365
LENETT A & BUD JOHNSON
64 AMES LANE
PORT LUDLOW. W A 98365
LOA BOARD OF DIRECfORS
MELANIE LEWIS. PRESIDENT
MICHAEL DERRIG LOG ITE
100 A FAIRWAY LANE # 1- 2-.6
PORT LUDLOW. W A 9836~age ~ 'L of
Port Ludlow MPR Resort Plan
Final SElS
DL-6
--
I
I
-1
ill
I
I
I
n
D
,
__4
o
u
u
n
u
: !
~J
u
e
r--
JOHN & LYNNE MARCH
322 ADMIRALTY LANE
PORT LUDLOW. WA 98365
ROBERT H. HERBST II
P.O. BOX 65399
PORT LUDLOW. WA 98365
STEPHEN J. FAll.T A
114 TIMBERRIDGE DRIVE
PORT LUDLOW. W A 98365
PLVC DEVELOPMENT COMMrCfEE
P.O. BOX 65012
PORT LUDLOW W A 98365
HOWARD & CAROL SLACK
100 PATHFINDER LANE
PORT LUDLOW. W A 98365
VAUGHN BRADSHAW
61 NORTH BAY LANE. #6
PORT LUDLOW. W A 98365
JOHN GOLDEN
101 EOOEWOODDRIVE . -
PORT LUDLOW. W A 98365
JOHN ARMES
114 DUNSMUIR. ROAD
PORT LUDLOW. W A 98365
RAY B. & MARCET H. BENEDICf
30 ADMIRALTY LANE. #321
PORT LUDLOW. WA 98365
HARVEY WILLIAMSON
82 TIMBER HEIGHTS DRIVE
PORT LUDLOW. WA 98365
R.P. & M.J. BALCK
192 MONTGOMERY COURT
PORT LUDLOW. W A 98365
LUDLOW MAINTENANCE COMMISSION
P.O. BOX 65060
PORT LUDLOW. W A 98365
Port Ludlow MPR Resort Plan
Final SEIS
e
DOUG BARKER
10233 BELGROVE COURT NW
SEATTLE. W A 98177
MARK PEARSON
1201 LUDLOW BAY ROAD
PORT LUDLOW. WA 98365
PAUL E & MARGARET A. YTURRI
106 EDGEWOOD DRIVE
PORT LUDLOW. WA 98365
LOG ITEM
# 1-2D
Page ~3 of
DL.7
--
e
e
CHAPTER 1 . SUMMARY
1.1 Proposed Action
The applicant's proposed action is the approval of a proposal bv Port Ludlow Associates, LLC
(PLA) to complete development of the Plat of Ludlow Bay Village. adjoinine aQuatic lands. and
adjoining uplands commonly known as Admiralty Ill. under a revised Resort Plan that will
decrease the range and size of uses from those approved by Jefferson County in 1999 and 2000.
The proposed action will be processed as a Major Revisionl to the existing Port Ludlow Resort
Plan and will result in the reduction of the scale of the resort function from that presently
allowed under Section 3.901 of Jefferson County Ordinance No. 08-1004-99.
Port Ludlow Associates proposes to construct 101 atttached dwelling units in Ludlow Bay
Village and Admiralty m. 100 new marina slips in adjoining aquatic lands. a new and relocated
Harbormaster Restaurant (and demolition of the existing restaurant building). a marina office and
store. a private recreation facility. a maintenance building. a central receiving dock. emergency
helipad. and surface parking for 387 vehicles.
The current Resort Plan was approved in 1999 as part ofJeffersoB Co\;1flty Ordinance No.
08-1004-99/Development Regulations for the Port Ludlow Master Plan Resort (MPR); the
approved Resort Plan (1999 Resort Plan) is described in Section 3.901 of that Ordinance.
Section 3.904 of this Ordinance states that detailed environmental review for future resort
development is required, and that a project-level Supplement to the Port Ludlow Development
Program EIS (finaled April 1993), or new stand-alone EIS shall be prepared.
The proposaled revision to the Resort PlaA (.!..!2oo3 Resort Plan~) will shift the focus of the Resort
from a conference facility serving large groups, to a destination resort for the traveling public.
The proposed revision will eliminate those features and amenities in the 1999 Port Ludlow
Resort Plan and associated development regulations that are designed to accommodate large
conference groups. The proposed revision will reduce the overall amount of resort development
at build-out and will include fewer commercial and public facilities, but it will include more
residential units than the existing 1999 Port Ludlow Resort Plan. This SEIS is designed to meet
the requirement set forth in Ordinance No. 08-1004-99, Section 3.902 and addresses project-
specific and cumulative impacts anticipated due to completion of development under the 2003
Proposed fevisiofl. of the Port Ll:ldlow Resort Plan. The following documents are also
incorporated by reference adopted as part of this Supplemental EIS: Draft and Final
Environmental Impact Statement& Port Ludlow Development Program (Jefferson County, 1993),
Draft an.d Final Environmental Impact Statement~ Inn at Port Ludlow (Jefferson County, 1993),
Draft and Final Environmental Impact StatementJ, Port Ludlow Marina Expansion (Jefferson
County, 2002), and Draft and Final Environmental Impact Statement& Jefferson County
Comprehensive Plan (Jefferson County, 1998).
I Under the existing Jefferson County Code regulating the Port Ludlow Master Planned Resort. a "Maior Revision"
includes any increase in the intensity of use. or in the density of develooment described in the 1999 Resort Plan.
Although the currentlv oroposed Resort Plan would significantlv decrease the intensity of commercial uses. it would
increase the intensity and density of residential uses. It is therefore classified as a "Maior Revision" which means
that the prooosal must be aporoved bv the Hearing Examiner rather than the Deoartment of Community
Develooment. LOG ITEM
# ~~O
page~
Port Ludlow MPR Resort Plan
Final SElS
1.1
~
I
I
I
id
n
D
n
D
o
.-
o
IJ
U
o
U
U
n
,..
f :
LJ
; \
.:.- .
e
e
,--- .
1.2
Location of the Proposal
The Port Ludlow Master Planned Resort (MPR) is located adjacent to and surrounding Port
Ludlow Bay, Jefferson County, Washington. Port Ludlow Bay is located on the west shore of
Admiralty Inlet at the mouth of Hood Canal. The changes addressed in this SEIS affect the
marina and Resort Complex/Community Facilities zone of the Port Ludlow MFR. This zone is
specifically located on uplands adjacent to and north of the marina (portions of Sections 9 and
16, Township 28, Range IE). The location of the project is shown in Figures 1 and 2, located on
pages 3 and 4.
1.3 Purpose/Objectives of the Proposal
The objectives of the propos,&ed r-evisioRs to the Resert Plan are:
. To respond to shifting market trends and reduced demand for large conference facilities
in the Pacific Northwest.
. To sustain the growth of the Port Ludlow community.
. To improve customer satisfaction with the condition of the facility.
.To upgrade and enhance services and amenities provided in the Resort
Complex/Community Facilities Zone.
. To minimize potential environmental impacts.
. To comply with Jefferson County development regulations.
1.4 Project History
History of the Port Ludlow Community and MPR
The Port Ludlow community was established in the mid-18oos as a logging, shipbuilding, and
sawmill town. Pope & Talbot purchased the Port Ludlow sawmill and adjacent property in the
1870s. By the 1880s, Port Ludlow was comprised of a sawmill, log dump, numerous houses, a
hotel and other facilities. The sawmill was permanently closed in 1935 and subsequently
dismantled. The existing homes were moved to Port Gamble.
Development of the current Port Ludlow Resort Master Planned Resort (MPR) was initiated in
the late 1960s. The multi-phase Port Ludlow MPR encompasses 1,800 acres surrounding the
inner portion of Port Ludlow Bay. The MPR as a whole includes residential, commercial, and
recreational/resort development, as well as significant tracts of penn anent open space. The
original owner, Pope and Talbot, Inc.. transferred ownership to Pope Resources in 1985. The
MPR was then managed -by Olympic Real Estate Management, a subsidiary company of Pope
Resources until 2001, when Pope Resources sold its Port Ludlow assets to the present owners,
Port Ludlow Associates, LLC.
The Resort portion of the MPR is located on the site of the original Port Ludlow community -
along the north side of Port Ludlow Bay, between Oak Bay Road and Port Ludlow Bay. Resort
development of this area began in the late 19605, with construction of the 285-slip marina, the
Harbormaster Restaurant, and the homeowners' Beach Club. t6~fm~ center building and
* 't:?~~'N~
.~S-
Page _..m,
Port Ludlow MPR Resort Plan
Final SEIS
1.2
May 2005
.~
i
-
~\ \
.;io.
\~
\~,
;\
~~\
~{~ \
-:\
\"
-./....,:;... '"
Pori T~nd
D
I
....r-\
~.
\
/
/
, if
10 '.1
Shcll,QR ;\
k_.1 !
,I
n.'....
...... ..
~y,- ':-',:
..; .,'
north
N.T.S.
LOG ITEM
2,t>
~l.L of:_
#
Page
,
j
y
~ !
~(
L 't1 ~
~l
r-
\
.,,~ lI"
t",..,.
J])
.'
'___,T
,':;.,
.: ,
..
-,
"- 1
I
I
-
,.,'.
Port Ludlow
Master Plan
Resort
Boundary
e
..-
-,
I
I.
Ql.
,
":l
~V;lle,lYct,
-" --' .Vtlalket:t~,.
G"
&.
'D
if
~.<.- ,^.. .>
Q:- ..-." . ~<
B;:"- \~ ~
........( , \- "pe.v.~
",~/~"6....,;1'#'-
~
#'"/1
f ._9P'v. I
",..l.w"",,-
'-""':-;;~-'-'-<4~.;"",,,.r'-'''I'''-~~'~,,,,,,..
i~"""""'>;,J:t. .:,..........,..''':"~,;..... ~~.,.::..
';...~il'.,,,,~.....) .
-'~""~~~.:: ..",,-..,
",,\.\:'
'.J.'-
I
r
:,:,. "-"
l\
.>'~~'<;".>./.>
-'..
. . "-
--.
I
I
L
~
--
/
Teal 1
-
II
"C
i
at
I
Of
I
~
~
<J
$;
If
l'
,.
~
',~
~
,~i
?
lOG ITEM
# no__
Page --n of
e
e
residential units were also constructed in the Admiralty I and n areas within the northeastern
portion of the Resort. The Inn at Port Ludlow (fonnerly known as the Heron Beach Inn) was
constructed in 1994, and adjacent townhomes were constructed beginning in 1994. The artificial
lagoon was first created in 1967 and expanded to its present size in 1994 in conjunction with
construction of the Inn and townhomes and the plat of Ludlow Bay Village.
MPR Development Regulations
Jefferson County development regulations pertaining to the MPR have evolved over the last
fifteen years, most recently after adoption of the 1998 Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan as
required by the State of Washington Growth Management Act. Since 2000, development within
Port Ludlow has proceeded under the "Port Ludlow Development Agreement" and Jefferson Co.
Ordinance No. 08-1004-99 (an attachment to the Development Agreement), which sets forth
detailed development regulations for the MPR. Ordinance No. 08-1004-99 is reprinted in
Appendix A of this document.
Under the MPR regulations, the Port Ludlow MPR is divided into several zoning districts, one of
which is the "Resort Complex/Community Facilities Zone." Section 3.90 - "Resort
Development" of Ordinance No. 08-1004-99 describes the approved "Resort Plan" and identifies
the specific facilities (and their sizes) that are to be developed within the Resort
Complex/Community Facilities Zone. Changes to the Resort Plan that decrease the listed sizes
are allowed.
Under Section 3.90 of the MPR regulations, the Resort at Port Ludlow was envisioned to be a
destination resort for large groups, as well as the traveling public. The Resort facilities were
anticipated to encompass 498,300 square feet of development, not including residential
structures. Facilities were to include a 275-room hotel, two restaurants, resort retail, a
conference center, a recreation complex, museum or interpretive center, amphitheater, youth
center, an expanded marina, and public open space.
Since adoption of the MPR regulations, it has become evident that a destination resort oriented to
large conference groups is not feasible for Port Ludlow and that the resort must be oriented more
to the traveling public. A change to the Resort Plan as outlined in Section 3.906 of Ordinance
No. 08-1004-99 is therefore proposed.
In addition to the above market factors, the 1994 plat of Ludlow Bay Village (located within the
Resort zone) and subsequent construction of townhomes within this plat, has legally and
practically limited the ability of Port Ludlow Associates, LLC to site some of the larger facilities
anticipated by the MPR regulations. An attempted Redevelopment Agreement was proposed to
reconcile the conflicts between the MPR regulations and the plat, but this agreement failed for
lack of ratification. The failure of the Redevelopment Agreement legally and practically makes
implementation of the existing MPR Resort Plan infeasible.
SEPA Review
SEPA review is required for this project pursuant to WAC 197-11, SEPA Rules and Section 3.90
of Ordinance No. 08-10-1004-99. Jefferson County is using phased review, as authorized by
SEPA (W ACI97-11-060(5)(b)) and Section 3.902.1 of Ordinance No. 08-1004-99 in its review
of development projects within Port Ludlow. LOG ITEM
# !L2-t>
Page ~
Port Ludlow MPR Resort Plan
Final SEIS
.......
May 2005
1.5
..~II',H!P!I~~
n
n
1
.,
D
I
n
n
o
-~,
o
J
lJ
n
U
u.
l}
U
U
",,-. ...
r
e
e
Previous SEPA review for projects within the Port Ludlow Resort area has coincided with the
permitting process. In 1993, the MPR underwent a County permitting process for continued
development. Two EIS documents were prepared at that time - a programmatic document and a
project-level document. The 1993 programmatic EISfor the Port Ludlow Development Program
addressed the proposed build-out of the residential and commercial components of a Port
Ludlow Master Plan, including build-out of the Resort. The 1993 project-level EIS for the Inn at
Port Ludlow addressed proposed development within the southern portion of the Resort:
specifically, construction of the Inn at Port Ludlow (i.e., Heron Beach Inn), the addition of 72
residential units and 2,500 square feet of commercial space, construction of a Town Hall,
landscaping, parking for 400 vehicles, placement of riprap along the marina parking lot,
replacement of underground fuel tanks with partially aboveground tanks, expansion of the
artificial lagoon, and expansion for the marina and upland marina facilities (office, etc.).
In 2002, a project-level Supplemental EIS (SEIS) was prepared to address the l00-slip expansion
of the Port Ludlow Marina, an allowed Resort facility. This Supplemental EIS focused primarily
on issues associated with in-water construction in Port Ludlow Bay and was part of the in-water
permitting process which included the D.S Army Corps of Engineers, NOAA Fisheries, the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service, and the Washington Department ofFish and Wildlife, as well as
Jefferson County. The impacts identified in the "Port Ludlow Marina Expansion EIS" are
included in this SEIS to identify cumulative impacts as required by Sections 3.902 and 3.904 of
the MPR regulations.
The current SEP A process for the Resort is specifically addressed in Sections 3.902 and 3.904 of
Jefferson County Ordinance Number 08-1004-99. Section 3..902.1 states, "A project-level SEIS
analyzing the resort plan is required prior to issuance of building permits for any new resort
development. Environmental review of the Resort Plan shall not be piecemealed or broken into
smail segments...." One intent of this section was to assure that cumulative impacts of all new
development within the Resort area would be addressed.
Section 3.902.6 similarly provides, "Actual resort development may be undertaken in phases, but
only following completion of review and approval of a full resort build-out plan through the
SEIS process." Jefferson County will not issue a land use or building permit for any resort
expansion until a project level SEIS for the full Resort Plan has been completed.
Section 3.904 identifies the preliminary scope of the required Resort SEIS or EIS. The scope is
to include, but not be limited to, the following elements: earth, water, plants and animals, land
and shoreline use, transportation, and public services and utilities.
1.5 Summary of Alternatives
The proposed Resort Plan revision (Alternative 1) and twe four alternatives are evaluated in this
~ Final Supplemental EIS. The twe four additional alternatives are based Oft-include:
.!.-Itwo alternative development plans for the Resort area - the Resort Plan as proposed in 1993,
and the Resort Plan approved by Jefferson County in the MPR code in 1999~
· A Response to Comments alternative developed in response to comments received on the
Draft SEIS. and
Port Ludlow MPR Resort Plan
Final SEIS 1-6
LOG ITEM
# 2~t> '_.
r;. May 2005
Page_~1 Of_
e
e
. The "No Action" alternative. or stopoing all new develooment. Under this alternative. the
site would remain in its partially developed state. subiect to potential future develooment
proposals.) The No Action alternative was also evaluated in the 1993 Port Ludlow
Develooment ProJ!ram EIS. and 1993 The Inn at Port Ludlow EIS (adopted as oart of this
SEIS).
The 1999 Resort PlaR is eORsider~d the "No .^.ctiOt'l" alternative for this 8tUi-lysis; if He ehaflge to
the Resort PlaA is made at this time, development mayeofl1iA\:le uRder the 1999 PlaR, per eKistiRg
County regulatiofls and the existiflg practical cGflstraints related to the plat at L\:ldlow Bay
Village. Other "No l\etiofl" alternatives were evaluated iA the 1993 p.eFt UtdlslV Devclspmellt
Program E!S, BAd 1993 The InR at P-S1't Lutlk;w E.f.S (adopted as part of this SElS) iA which the
"No Aetiofl" altemati'les were Raf\:lrther developmeAt e.g., the site r-emaiRiAg ifl its partially
developed state, s\:lbjeet to poteAtial fut\:lr~ developmeRl prefJosals. The passage of time siRee .
1993 has Rat chaRged the BfIalyses of thase "Na ActioA" alternatives aAd those aRalyses are Rot
repeated here.
fall three All-alternatives except No Action would result in build-out of the Resort area, including
a 100 slip expansion of the marina.
Alternative 1: Applicant's Proposed Pr-eferred Project - 2003 Proposed Resort Plan
The 2003 Resort Plan proposes that the Resort serve as a destination resort for the traveling
public, as opposed to large conference groups. This change will decrease the size of many resort
facilities identified in the 1999 regulations and will increase the number of residential dwellings.
Conferences will still be accommodated, but on a smaller scale and will be housed in existing
facilities such as the Inn at Port Ludlow, the Bay Club, and the relocated Harbonnaster
Restaurant. Phasing of the new develooment is addressed in Chapter 3.4 of this FSEIS. At
build-out, development within the resort area will include the following existing and new
facilities:
191G residential units (the 90 89 existing units within Admiralty I and IT and Ludlow Bay
Village (in 2005) + 101 new residential units)
Inn at Port Ludlow (37 rooms), including restaurant and lounge (existing)
Reconfiguration of the access to the Inn at Port Ludlow to restrict access to/from Heron
Road
Harbonnaster Restaurant - 5,000 square feet (relocated)
Private Recreational Facility - 7,500 square feet (new)
Private LMC Beach Club Recreational Facility (existing)
Marina - 380 slips (280 existing slips + 1oo-slip expansion)
Central Receiving Dock (new)
Pennanent Emergency Helipad (new)
PLA Offices (within existing conference building)
Maintenance building - 2,900 square feet (new)
Off-street parking (expanded and reconfigured, with new elevator)
Lagoon Landscaping (new)
Shoreline BoardwalklEsplanade (new)
Open space, trails (existing and new)
A conceptual site plan for Alternative 1 is shown in Figures 3A:..... -aHEl-3B. and 3C.
lOG ITEM
# 2-1-0.c , May 2005
Pane ~nOf~.. ~
,~~ ~~ ..--:" III!W~
Port Ludlow MPR Resort Plan
Final SElS
1.7
I
. rl
-1
D
n
J
~ I
n
D
,
-~
n
LJ
J
iJ
o
u
11
: i
~;
~ 1
: ;
J
'-. ~
l ~
e
Altprnative 1 - Figure 3A
, c'ort Ludlow Resort Plan FSEIS
~
i
r--
"--'
MARINA
380 SUPS
2003 Resort Plan
LO EM
1..2-6
Page OJ, of
/
..-
/
"\
\
"---
...-----
,-
.-~--- __J
--
---
~
,
~
I
->
~~
~I!~
~~
"';.~
i..~
c
~
.
~ .
"-
'\
I
\
\
\
lTE~
7-'l. () "-
t( 1 of
c::: t:..:::l
~ -
L.:J ~
~
.::l
Cj:2
~
.J
:::..
~
II
J-
.
~
n
\-.----\.
" ("
,
i\ .,
~\ \
~
arlna xpanslon - Igure
fort Ludlow Resort Plan FSEIS
c
z
~
IL
;:)
\ \ l
.,(.....~ v... '...
'.
\
LOG 'TEM
# 2-20
Page ~ of
'-: \~.: \
" ~
k\':~:::::'::::~
.._..;:.;:;)~:::::::::~.,
I
! : 5
55555 I ;
~;~:: ~! !
>
~
m
:it
o
...
D
:::>>
...
....
a:
o
IL
~!
ZQ.
:J
(/)
...
e
e
Alternative 2: 1993 Resort Plan
Alternative 2 is the Resort Plan as identified in the 1993 Environmental Impact Statements
prepared for Port Ludlow. This plan is similar to the Alternative 1 - 2003 Applicant's Proposed
Resort Plan, but has slightly fewer residential units, new retail commercial space, a new town
hall and marina manager's efHeeoffice, but no new maintenance or recreation facility-;-. This
alternative is included for evaluation because it addresses build-out of the entire "Resort
Complex! Community Facilities" zone, in a manner that places more of the new residential
development within the Admiralty area, and introduces a small amount of Resort retail use and a
community "Town Hall" to the Ludlow Bay Villa2e area. -At build-out, the 1993 Resort Plan
would include:
186 residential units (64 existing in Admiralty I and n in 1993 + 122 new units in
Admiralty and Ludlow Bay Village)
Retail commercial building - 2,500 sq ft (new)
Heron Beach Inn (now know as the Inn at Port Ludlow)- 37-room Inn, including
restaurant and lounge (existing in 2(05)
Harbor Master Restaurant - 5,000 sq ft (retained in its current location, and existing in
1993)
Town Hall - 1,850 sq ft (new)
Marina - 380 slips (280 existing slips + l00-slip expansion)
Marina manager's office (new)
Off-street parking
Open space, trails (existing)
-./
The conceptual site plan for Alternative 2 is shown in Figure 4.- It is acknowledged that given
the continued townhome development within the plat of Ludlow Bay Village, this Alternative
could no longer be fully developed as described above. If townhome development were to stop,
however, many features of this Plan could still be constructed within the Resort area.
-.
LOG ITEM
# 2.20
Page ~ of
_J
Port Ludlow MPR Resort Plan
Final SElS
1.11
May 2005
~
l
r1
e
Port Ludlow Resort Plan FSEIS
n
1
MARiNA"
380 SUPS
I j
n
U"
..
u
..1
\
~
- ;
.' ,l./
1993 Resort Plan
LOG \TEM
Page- q~of_
------l
It
e
Alternative 3: Existing 1999 Resort Plan
Alternative 3 is development of the Resort as described in Section 3.901 of the existing MPR
regulations. No revision to the Resort Plan would be approved. At build-out, development of
Alternative 3 would originally have provided for 498,300 gross square feet of Resort
development, described as follows:
Hotel Guest Rooms - 275 rooms (37 existing in 1999, 238 new)
Restaurants - 59,000 square feet
One 2oo-seat, year-round restaurant (new)
One. 125-seat, seasonal restaurant, near the marina (new)
Also includes hotel lobby & registration area, spa, kitchen offices, and storage
rooms (new)
Lounge, 1 year-round, 125 seats - 5,000 sq ft (new)
Resort Retail- 2,500 sq ft (new)
Plus assoc. storage - 1,400 sq ft
Conference Center, associated with, and physically part of Hotel Building - 22,000 sq ft
(new)
Plus support areas and storage - 8,000 sq ft (new)
Indoor tennis courts - 26,000 sq ft (new)
Indoor sports and pool complex - 13,500 sq ft (new)
Structured/underground parking :""119,000 sq ft (new)
Museum or Interpretive Center-7 ,500 sq ft (new)
Support Buildings - 12,000 sq ft (Maintenance, Ware~ousing, Housekeeping - new)
Youth Center-4,OOO sq ft (new)
Marina Expansion - 280 existing slips + loo-slip expansion
Amphitheater - One (new)
YachtClub- One (new)
Four Single-Family Dwellings, and one-l-4e 5-unit townhome structure (square footage
not part of Resort square footage)
All existing townhomes (in i999 - 1 single-family dwelling, 13 townhomes, M
cORdomiHi1:UBS units - square footage not part of Resort square footage)
.-./
This alternative also includes partial filling of the artificial lagoon. assuming necessary
environmental permits could be obtained. An illustration of this Resort Plan is shown in
Figure 5.
It is acknowledged that given the continued townhome development within the plat of Ludlow
Bay Village, this Alternative could no longer be fully developed as described above. If
townhome development were to stop, however, many features of this Plan could still be
constructed within the Resort area.
LOG ITEM
# 22tJ
Page q& of
Port Ludlow MPR Resort Plan
Final SEIS
1-13
May 2005
...
Port Ludlow Resort Plan FSEIS
II
, '
U e
n
,.----
Ii
n
n
0
n
u
T ~
.ti
I~-
L
U
MARINA
380' S.UPS
1999 Resort Plan
Page _ ti 1- 01 -
-
e
Alternative 4: Response to Comments
Alternative 4 was developed as a response to comments received on the Draft SEIS concerning
impacts on residential density. construction of residential units over the artificial lagoon. the
adeauacy of oarking in the marina area. and the aoorooriate size of the marina exoansion.
~---
Alternative 4 is similar to Alternative 1. but would result in slightly less residential density (7
fewer units in Admiralty III. and 7 fewer units in LBV). a smaller marina exoansion (60-slios vs.
100 slips for Alternative 1), and no buildine.s extendine. over the edge of the artificial lagoon. At
build-out. development within the resort area would include:
177 residential units (the 90 existing units within AdmifaIty I and n and Ludlow Bav
Village in 2005 + 87 new units)
Inn at Port Ludlow (37 rooms). includimz restaurant and lounge (existing)
Reconfi e.uration of the access to the Inn to restrict access to/from Heron Road
Harbormaster Restaurant - 5.000 square feet (relocated)
Private Recreational Facility - 7 .500 square feet (new) .
Private LMC Beach Club Recreational Facility (existine.)
Marina - 340 slips (280 existine. slios + 6O-slip expansion)
Central Receiving Dock (new)
Permanent Emergency Helipad (new)
PLA Offices (within existine. conference building)
Maintenance building - 2.900 SQuare feet (new)
Off-street oarkine. (exoanded and reconfigured. with new elevator)
Lagoon Landscaoine. (new)
Shoreline BoardwalklEsp1anade (new)
Open soace. trails (existing and new)
.-,
A conceptual site. olan for Alternative 4 is shown in Fie.ures 6A. 6B and 6C.
LOG ITEM
$ ~,-~--,~~
-----'~
,;Jagfj Cl/A of
~
Port Ludlow MPR Resort Plan
Final SEIS
1.15
May 2005
~
e
.
~
LOG ITEM
# l2.JO
Page Pf 1 of
....
e
\\'.I.~"~. ..,....\1..1\\\\1\\ IJ.l\ 'J'-., ........... ........ .
,.,,_ _\Y." .... P1E.iiiiJT ....
on this !5-r day of M lit'L__.1QOO. befqreme,aNotar:f Publicin an<! f!Jr
olVl ~on. pe;;;;JJ.-J appeared G!egMcCorrY' :pelSonallY \010- to m,e (o!
to me on the basis of satisfactory evide;n<}e) to be thepelSOO who e"ecuted this
roment, 00 oath stated that be was ~uth<>ri't<;<\ 10, e"ecutelM iJJst:rUll'\,:"t. ""d
nowledged. the president andC\lief Ope!ati.~g office! of Olyn1l"c l'ropertY Groop
C. a wholly own,,<I subsidiWf ofP"l'e Resources. to.;>e tl\e,ftee ""d voluntWf act."d
ed of sai<l corporation for \h~ u",", and pl)Ijloses m<"t\One<l Ul the l1lSt:rUll'\out,
, OF WASl-lINGTO'N)
) 55.
lTY OF JEFFERSON )
nei 'lear first above written.
tN It ~'hl
STATE OF WASHINGTON)
) S5.
COUN"rY OF JEFFERSON )
()rl. this e:-- day of~' 2000. before me. a }<ntar:f public in aI1
\he State W as\>inglon.porsonalIY appeare<l Greg McC~' porsonallY \010- t(
pfOve<l to me on the baS;' of satisfactOn' .,,;dence) to b. fue person wno ex ""ute<
iostflUUent. on oath stated funt he was auth.mz.ed to ""eco'" the UlstflUUeot. and
ac\cnOwled oed;t as the 'l'r.s;dentandcmeO;"ecntiVe Orec'" of Olytn'l"c Real'
Developn\:nt leLC.a w\>.ollY owned subsidiWf of'l'o:pe Resources, to belli. fret
voluntWf acl an<! deed of said cot:poratiol1 for !he uses aIld pl)Ijloses """,\lOned
instnJ.It\ent.
LOG \TEM
'!I)i'.....,....t.-k.9.
.page....s\.,.,''1'Ot
LOG ITEM
# 2:2 fJ
Page ~of
.
e
~VL
'. )1t. "'::.:: ;/.;.
t., . .
~: ".' "." .
,
."'"
. '-. ....... '
'. . ,. ','
- ....... ".... .',
.e
", " ,..... :. '.
, " .
" :',". ". ': . ~'";',: ,~' ~.:." : '.. '
. .'
'", -" I "
".:' :
e
- FilE COpy
Master Declaration of
Covenants, Conditions, Restrictions, Assessments,
Charges, Liens, Reservations and Easements for
Ludlow Bay Village
LOG ITEM
:./I 1~'2D
Page -a..k- of
(
vo~~!3~~23S
OF Or-F .r'! \. -or: roo
........!.. r:......
~ REOUESiOF
-T-'UC<L "'VO-<:;Du-N'o,,"- 37Z695
199\ JUN :"g'--p}f q:4~ .
e 0
~.
1994
M ~ 0" r; :: 1 Qf'!UIOY
. ~",III.. .... .....""'''''''41 ;;'\
~~f"';:"S(jH CCjJNrf AUDITOR
~\).~&{ t\ .1lElun
c? 7":') 5:1'"
. "'- ~..I l.
MASTER DECLARATION OF
COVENANTS 1 CONDITIONS, RES'l'R:IC'TIONS, ASSESSMENTS,
CHARGES, LiENS, RESERVATIONS AND EASEMENTS FOR
LUDLOW BAY ViLLAGE
.t'
BY
SAt.r:~. ':':.
C.-:~ ::"-"-. ." .". .. .
B~'~-~~J
~,
.
~Q&. 507 PA.c 184
JUN - 9 S9It ,,'
LOG ITEM
# Z. 2..6
Page 127 of
'ta. 500 ~:<~c 7D&-
* Rerlcordc4 to insert Exhibit A.
..'
..
e
e
MASTER DECLARATION OF
COVENANTS, CONDITIONS t RESTRICTIONS f ASSESSMENTS I
CHARGES, LIENS, RESERVATIONS AND EASEMENTS FOR
LUDLOW BAY VILLAGE
SECTION
1.~
1.2
1.3
1.4
~.5
1.6
1.7
1.8
1..9
1..1.0
1..11
1.12
1.13
1.14
1.1.5
1.16
1.1.7
1..18
1.19
1..20
1..21
1.22
1..23
1.24
1..25
~.26
1..27
1.28
1..29
1~30
T~BLE OF CONTEN1~
ARTICLE :r;
DEFINITIONS
Annual Assessment
Architectural Review Committee
Articles
Assessable Property
"Assessment Lien
Associations
Board
Bylaws
Common Areas
Covenants
Declarant
Developer
Dwelling Unit
Exempt Property
Governing Documents
Inn
Lot
Ludlow
Ludlow
Master
Master
Member
Membership
occupant
Owner
Resident
single-Family
Special Assessment
Town Home Association
visible From. Neighboring Property
Bay Village
Bay Village
Association
Declaration
Rules
Design Standards
:ot
#
Page
LOG ITEM
Z:z. 0
I 2- ~ of
...
'10;' 596 r~c 796
vn: 507 ,,::,. 1 R~
PAGE
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
j
3
:3
::;
3
3
3
J
::;
4
4
4
4.
4
4
I~
4
4.
5
5
5
5
';"..,
4.22
4.23
4.24
4.25
to.
Section
5.1
5.2
5.3
5.4
5.5
5.6
5.7
Section
6.1
6.2
Section
7.1
7..2
7..3
7.4
7..5
7.6
7.7
7.8
7.9
7.10
e
e
Additional Wells
Pesticides, Herbicides and Fungicides
Declarant's Exemption
Disputes
1""4
14
14
14
ARTICLE 5
ORGANIZATION OF THE ASSOCIATIONS
Formation of the Master Association
Formation of the Town Home Association
Ludlow Bay Village Rules
Non-Liability of Officials and
Indemnification.
Managing Agent
Records and Accounting
Inspection of Books and Records
15
17
19
20
20
21
21
ARTICLE 6
MEMBERSH!P AND VOTING
Master Association
Town. Home Association
21
22
ARTICLE 7
COVENANT FOR ASSESSMENTS AND CREATION OF LIEN
Creation of Lien and Personal Obligation of
Assessments 22
Annual Assessments 2~
Determination of Annual Assessment 23
Rate of Assessment 24
Superiority of Assessment Lien 24
Maximum Annual Assessment 24
Special Assessments for Capital Improvements
and Extraordinary Expenses 25
Billing and Collection Procedures 25
Collection ~osts and Interest on Delinquent
Assessments 26
Evidence of Payment of Annual and Special
Assessments 26
iii
LOG ITEM
# Z1-D
Page ~ of
Ya~~
VOl
507 Pl.:, 187
~...
Section
~
11.1
11.2
11.3
11.4
11.5
11.6
11.7
11.8
Section
12.1
12.2
section
13.1
13.2
Section
14.1
14.2
14.3
14.4
14.5
e
e
ARTICLE 11
ARCHITECTURAL CONTROL
Lots Subject to Ludlow Maintenance
commission Architectural Review 32
Establishment of Master Association
Architectural Review Committee 33
Review by Co~~ittee 33
Appeal 34
Fee 34
Ludlow Bay Village Design standards 34
Violation of Approved Plans of the Committee 34
Non-Liability for Approval of Plans or
Directions Regarding Maintenance and Repair 35
ARTICLE 12
RIGHTS AND POwERS OF THE ASSOCIATIONS
Rights and Powers
Contracts with Others for Performance of
the Associations' Duties
35
. 35
ARTICLE 13
INSURANCE
Insurance on Common Areas
Insurance on other Properties
36
'37
ARTICLE 14
EASEMENTS
Maintenance Easement
Future utility Easements
Access and Use Easements Within the
Town Home Lots
Rights'of Declarant Incident
Easements Deemed created
38
38
38
to Construction 39
',:"" . 39
v
LOG ITEM
# 1~ 2r6
P~{le I ~D of
!;A.:t:!
VGt 507 'A~, 189
,L
i
! I~ ..
,
'I
19.3
19.4
i .
I
I
e
e
Rule Aqainse Perpetuieies
Reterences to the Master Declaration in
Deeds
4'2
42
LOG ITEM
# 2 ?...O
Page..12JL of
vii
'10L 507 p~c 191
\#a,,~
v'
e
e
MASTER DECLARATZON OF
COVEN~~S, CONDITIONS, RES~RICTIONS, ASSESSMENTS,
CHARGES, LIENS, RESERVATZONS AND EASEMENTS FOR
LUDLOW BAY VILLAGE
THIS ~~STER DECLARATION of Covenants, Conditions,
Restrictions, Assessments, Charges, Liens, Reservations and
Easements (hereafter referred to as lithe Master Declaration") is
made this 25.:.n day of I"\I"~'\J, 1994, by POPE RESOORCES, A Delaware
Limited Partnership (hereinafter referred to as llDeclarant").
WITNESSETH:
WHEREAS, Declarant is the Developer and Owner of certain
real property located in Jefferson County, Washington, consisting
of 17.87 acres, legally described in Exhibit A, attached hereto
and incorporated herein by this reference, which is located in
the unincorporated community of Port Ludlow (hereafter referred
to as IILudlo~"" Bay Villagelf). Declarant intends to incorporate a
mix of uses within Ludlow Bay Village, inclUding a restaurant,
marina, :3 6 rooI':!. 'lIInn at Ludlow Bay, II 53 residential town homes
and 5 single family residences; and
WHEREAS, Declarant intends to dedicate portions of Ludlow
Bay Village for limited public use and access; and
WHEREAS, Declarant desires to fOnll two non-profit
corporations,. namely a (1) Master Association, the "Ludlow Bay
Village Association" (hereafter referred to as "Master
Association"), which is intended to provide for the management
and maintenance of the overall Ludlow Bay Village, including all
Common Areas; and (2) Town Home Association, the IIT,own Homes At
Ludlow Bay Associationlt (hereafter referred to as uTown Home
Associationn), which is intended to provide for. the management
and maintenance of the 53 residential town homes within Ludlow
Bay Village (the Master Association and Town Home Association may'
be collectively referred to herein sometimes as If the
Associations"); and
WHEREAS, Declarant wishes to subject Ludlow Bay Village to
the covenants, conditions, restrictions, assessments, charges,
liens, resetvations and easements set forth in this Master
Declaration (hereafter referred to as uCovenantsll); and
WHEREAS, in order to cause the Covenants to run with the
property comprising Ludlow Bay Village, and to be binding thereon
and upon the Owners, Residents ~nd Occupants thereof from and
MASTER DECLARATION - 1
vat
.
507 PA:c192
Yor~G ITEM
.# 1-2- D
Page J'lJ2- of
L'
e
e
after the date of recorc1ation of this Master Oeclaratiol1.,
Declarant hereby makes all conveyances within Ludlow Bay Village,
whether or not so provided therein, subject to the Covenant.s
herein set forth ~ and by accepting deeds, easements or other
grants or conveyances to any property within Ludlow Bay Village,
the Owners, Residents and other transferees for themselves and
their heirs, executors and administrators, trustees, personal
representatives, successors and assigns, agree that they shall be
personally and collectively bound by all of the Covenants
(including but not limited to the obligation to pay assessments)
hereinafter set forth.
NOW, THEREFORE, DECLARANT hereby declares as follows:
ARTICLE J.
DEFINITIONS
The words, phrases or terms used in this Master Declarati-::".
shall have the fol~owinq meanings:
section 1..1 "Annual J\.ssessmentll
levied and assessed each year against
Article 7 of this Master Declaration.
shall
each
mean the charge
Lot pursuant to
Section J..2 UArchitectural Review Committeell shall mean the
committee of the Master Association to be created pursuant to
Article ~1 of this Master Declaration.
section 1.3 "ArticlesU shall mean the Articles of
Incorporation. of the Associations as the same may from time-to-
time be amended or supplemented.
section 1.-4 ItAssessable property" shall mean all property
within Ludlow Bay Village, including, but not limited to
residential town home and single family lots; marina, restaurant
and Inn, except any portion of Ludlow Bay Village designated
herein as Exempt Property.
section 1.5 nAssessment Lien" shall mean the lien createg.
and imposed by Article 7.
section ~. 6 tlAssociations" shall mean the Ludlow Bay
Village Association and the Town Homes At Ludlow Bay Association,
hoth of which are Washington non-prOfit corporations, organized
by Declarant to exe~cise all rights, powers and duties set forth
in this Master Declaration and other Governing Documents.
section 1.7 "Boardtl shall mean the Board of
the Associations.
Directors of
LOG \TEM
~1--o
# - "1- t
Page _\ J,"7_ 0 -
MASTER DECLARATION - 2
VQ~ 507 Ph:C 193
~Ot~
'.
e
e
sect.ion 1.8 "Bylawslt shall mean the Bylaws of the
Associations as the same may from. time-to-time be amended or
supplemented.
Sect.ion 1.9 "Common ).reasll shall mean Tracts A, B, C, 0 and
E as shown on the face of the map of Ludlow Bay Village, which
shall remain open space in accordance with the terms and
conditions set forth herein, for the life of the project.
Thereafter, use of the Common Areas shall be at the discretion of
the Master Association Board.
section 1.1.0 "Covenantsll shall mean the covenants,
conditions, res~rictions, assessments, charges, liens,
reservations and easements set forth in this Master Declaration.
section 1.11. II Declarantlt shall mean Pope Resources, A
Delaware Limited ?artnership, organized under the laws of the
state of Delaware.
Section 1. .12 "Developer" shall mean and refer to Pope
Resources, A Dela~are Limited Partnership.
Section 1.1.3 ~Dwelling unit" shall mean any building or
portion of a building, including a town home 0= single-family
residence, situated upon a Lot designed and inter.ded for use and
occupancy as a residence. '
Section 1. ..1~ "Exempt Propertyll shall mean the following
portions of LUdlow Bay Village:
(a) All land and improvements owned by or dedicated
to and accepted by the United States, the State of
Washington, Jefferson County, or any political
subdivision thereof, for as long as any such
governmental entity is the owner thereof or for so
long as said dedication remains effective: and
(b) All Common Areas.
Section 1..15 "Governing Documentslt shall mean this Master
Declaration, the Articles and Bylaws of the Associations, any
applicable Ludlow Bay Village Rules, Ludlow Bay Village Design
Standards, and any subsequent amendments to said documents.
Section J. .16 "Inn" shall mean the new Inn at Ludlow Bay I
which is being constructed on the property subj ect t,o this Master
Declaration. .
Section 1.17
within Ludlow Bay
or single family
MASTER DECLARATION - 3
"Lot" shall mean any area of real property
Village designated as a residential town home
residential Lot by any appropriate means of
LOG ITEM
# __ 1".1,-0
Page I ?~ of'
va, 507 .'A~c 194
. .
'.
e
e
governmental approval recorded or approved by Declarant, together
vi th all appurtenances, improvements, and residences. now or
hereafter built or placed on the Lot.
section 1.18 uLudlow Bay Village Rules" shall mean the
rules for LudloW' Bay Village established or adopted by the
Oeclarant or Master Association Board pursuant to Article 5.
section 1.19 IILudlov Bay Village Design standards" shall
mean the Ludlc'l Bay Village design standards established or
adopted by the Declarant or Master Association Board as set forth
in Article 11.
section 1.20 IIMaster Associationll shall mean the Ludlo^, Bay
Village Association, a Washington non-profit corporation.
Sect.ion 1.21 "Master Declarationll shall mean this Master
Declaration of covenants, Conditions, Restrictions, Assessments,
Charges, Servitudes, Liens, Reservations and Easements, as
amended or supplemented from time-to-time.
section J.. 22 "Kemberll shall mean any' person holding a
Membership in the Associations pursuant to this Master
Declaration. ~embers of the Master Association shall, ~ithout
exception, mean and refer to the owner(s) of any Lot, the marina,
the restaurant and the Inn. Members of the Town Home Association
shall, without exception, mean and refer to the O~er{s) of any
Town home Lot. Membership shall be appurtenant to, and may not
be separated from, ownership of land within Ludlow Bay Village.
Section'1..23 "Membership" shall mean a Membership in the
Associations.
section J.. 2 4 ltoccupantll shall mean any person rightfully
occupying a Lot or other property within Ludlow Bay Village.
Section 1.25 lIo'WIlerll shall mean the record owner of a fee
simple interest in any Lot or other property within Ludlow Bay
Village, but excluding anyone who holds such title merely as
security. Purchasers and their assignees under recorded real
estate contracts shall be deemed Owners as against their
respective sellers or assignors.
seotion 1. 2 6 IlResidentlt shall mean:
(a) An Owner ac~ually residing in a residential
town home or single-family residence located on a
town home or single-family residential Lot within
Ludlow Bay Villagei
MASTER DECLARATION - 4
#
Pa.ge
LOG ITEM
220
I?~of
VOl. 507 p~:c195
e
e
(b) MeDbers of the immediate family of each Owner
actually living in the same household within Ludlow
Bay Village with such Owner; and
(c) Tenants/Renters actually residing within a
residential town home or single-family residence
located on a town home or single-family residential
Lot in accordance and compliance with the terms and
conditions of this Master Declaration.
Sectio::L 1.27 "single-Family", shall mean a group of one or
more persons each related to the other by bloodl ma.rriage or
legal adopt~onl or a group of persons not so related, but within
the occupancy limitations established by Jefferson County, who
maintain a com:on household in a Dwelling Unit. For purposes of .
this Master Declaration, "single family" shall also include a
corporation, partnership or other entity that owns a town home or
single family residence within Ludlow Bay Village for use by its
directors, shareholders, employees, quests and inv i tees;
provided, that this definition shall not include any corporation,
partnership or other entity fonned for the purpose of cooperative
or co~~unal living purposes to circumvent the intent of this
Section.
Section ~. 28 "special Assessmenttl shall mean any assessment
levied and assessed pursuant to the Special Assessment provisions
of Article 7.
Section .1.29
Homes At Ludlow
corporation.
"Town Bome Association" shall mean 'the Town
Bay Association, a Washington non-profit
Section 1.30 "visible From Neighboring property" shall
mean, with respect to any given object, that such object is or
would be visible to a person six feet tall, standing at ground
level on any part of a Lot or other property within Ludlow Bay
Village.
ARTICLE 2
PROPERTY SUBJECT TO KASTER DECLARATION
section 2..1 General Declaration creating Ludlow Bay
Village. Declarant intends to develop Ludlow Bay Village into a
mix of cO&llIiJ.ercial and residential uses. Declarant hereby
declares that all of the real property within Ludlow Bay Village
is and shall be held, conveyed, encumbered, occupied, built upon
or otherwise used, improved or transferred, in whole or in part,
subj ect to this Master Declaration, as amended from tiroe-to-time.
This Master Declaration is declared to be in furtherance of a
general plan for the overall improvement of Ludlow Bay village
MASTER DECLARATION - 5
VOt
06 pk..,8
LOG ITEM
# 7 !L,O
Page (1i., of
vet
:107 Jlt. ..1 ~IA
.~
e
e
and is established for the purpose ot enhancing and perfectihg
the value, desirability and attractiveness ot LUdloW' Bay Villaqe.
This Master Declaration, as hereafter may be modified or amended,
shall run ~ith all property within Ludlo~ Bay Village and shall
be binding upon and inure to the benefit of Declarant, the
Associations, all Owners, Residents and Occupants, and their
successors and assigns. However, nothing in this Declaration
shall be construed to prevent Declarant from dedicating or
conveying portions of Ludlow Bay Village, such as streets,
portions of the Common Areas and/or easements to any governmental
entity.
section 2.2 Associat.ions Bound. . This Master Declaration
shall be binding upon and shall benefit the Associations uoon
issuance of Certificates of Incorporation for the Associations~ b~
the state of Washington.
ARTICLE 3
EASEMENTS AND RIGHTS OF ENJOYMENT
IN COMMON AREAS
section 3.1 Easements Of Enjoyment. Every Owner, Resident,
Occupant and Merr~er of the Master Association shall have a non-
exclusive right and easement of enjoyment in and to the Common
Areas, which easement shall be appurtenant to and shall pass with
the title to all property within Ludlow Bay Village, subject to
the following provisions:
3.1.1. The right of the Master Association to suspend
the voting rights and right to use of the Common Areas by any
Member ,( i) for any period during which any Assessment against
such Owner's property remains delinquent: (ii) For a period not
to exceed sixty (6Q) days for any infraction of this Master
Declaration, Ludlow Bay Village Rules or Ludlow Bay Village
Design Standards; and (ili) for successive sixty (60) day periods
if any such infraction is not corrected during any prior sixty
(60) day suspension period; .
3.1.2 The right of the Master Assoc~ation to dedicate,
grant or transfer such permits, licenses and easements for
utilities, roads, public use and access and/or other purposes
consistent with the intended use of the Common Areas or ~,~
otherwise provided in this Master Declaration, and reasonably
necessary or desirable for the proper use, maintenance or
operation of the Common Ar~as;
3.1.:3 The right of the Master Association to regulate,
through Ludlow Bay Village Rules, use of the Common Areas as set
forth herein. The Master Association shall have the right to
implement normal behavior standards and reasonable usa
~CL 507 fA:t197
LOG ITEM
# ').,2,0
Page I ~1 of
Yat~ f.\~, BaS
MASTER DECLARATION - 6
e
e
r7s~rictions wit~ regard to the Common Areas, including, but not
l~m~ted to, the r~ght to regulate the number of guests, hou~s and
uses of the Cotn..'1lon Areas, and restrict or prohibit pets,
vehicles, alcohol consumption and/or loud music. In' addition,
the Master Association shall have the right to restrict access to
those portions of the Common Areas, such as drainage e~se~ents
and/or ponds and/or steep slopes, that are not intended for
general use; provided, however, that it is expressly understood
that the Maste= Association shall not restrict use of the Comeon
Areas by guests of the Inn or the Port LudloW' Marina beyond those.
restrictions a~plicable to all Owners;
3.1.4 The right of Oecla::-ant, reser\led hereby, to non-
exclusive use of all Common Areas for display, sales,
promotional, and other purposes deemed useful by Declarant and
its agents and representatives in advertising or promoting Ludlow
Bay Village. This right shall permit Declarant to allow
unlimited use of the Common Areas by guests and prospective
purchasers.
ARTICLE .(
~~ USE CLASSIFICATIONS, PE~~ITTED USES AND RESTRICTIONS
The follc'.dnq covenants, conditions and restrictions are
hereby imposed upon all properties within Ludlow Bay Village:
Section 4.1 Architectural Control. No improvements,
alterations, repairs, excavation, grading, removal of trees with
base trunk diam.eter exceeding six inches (611) I landscaping or
other work which in any way alters the exterior appearance of any
property within Ludlow Eay Village, or the improvements located
thereon, from its natural or Declarant icproved condition
(existing as of completion of Declarant 1 s construction thereon or
improvements thereto) shall be made or performed without complete
compliance with Ludlow Bay Village Design Standards and prior
written approval of the Architectural Review Committee. All
subsequent additions to, changes or alterations in any building,
structure, including exterior color scheme, or landscaping and
all changes in the grade of any property within Ludlow Bay
Village, shall be subject to complete compliance with Ludlow Bay
Village Design Standards and prior written approval of the
Architectural Review Committee. No changes or deviations in or
from the plans and specifications once approved by the
Architectural Review Committee shall be made without prior
written approval of the Architectural Review committee. All
original construction as well as any modifications or additions
thereto as shall be constructed by Declarant shall be exempt from
the provisions of this Section.
MASTER DECLARATION - 7
LOG ITEM
It: _ 1-1,,6
Page, I ,,~ of
VOl. 507 ~{..;:: 198
vat~
e
e
seeeion 4.2 Animals. No animal, bird, fowl, poultry or
livestock, other than one (1) generally recognized house or yard
pet ("Pet"), shall be maintained on any Lot and then only if it
is kapt thereon solaly as a domestic pet and not for commercial
purposes. No Pet shall be allowed to make an unreasonable amount
of noise or to become a nuisance. No structure for the care,
housing or confinement of any Pet shall be maintained outside of
any Dwelling unit, nor shall any pet be permitted to be housed or
kept outdoors. Each Owner shall be responsible for the removal
and disposal of all solid animal waste of his Pet from any
property within Ludlow Bay Village. No Pet shall be permitted on
any property ~ithin Ludlow Bay Village, other than the Owner's
Lot, unless controlled on a leash or similar device. Upon the
written request of any Member, the Master Association Board shall
conclusively determine, in its sole and absolute discretion,
whether for the purposes of this Section a particular animal,
bird, fowl, poultry or livestock is a nuisance or a generally
recognized house or yard pet and whether there has been a
violation of this Section. Any decision rendered by the Master
Association Board shall be final and binding and enforceable by
Court injunction and/or any other remedy provided by Washington
law.
Section 4~3 Temporary Occupancy And Temporary Buildings.
No travel or other trailer, camper or canopy, recreational
vehicle, boa~, basement of any incomplete building, shed, tent,
shack or garage, and no temporary buildings or structures of any
kind, shall be used' at any time for a residence, either temporary
or permanent.
Section ~.4 storage sheds And outside storage. No storage
buildings or sheds, whether prefabricated, metal or any other
construction whatsoever, whether permanent or temporary 1 shall be
moved, placed, assembled, constructed or other~ise maintained on
any Lot. Furniture, fixtures, appliances, or other goods not in
active use shall not be stored on any property within Ludlow Bay
Village in such manner that such items are 'visible From
Neighboring Property.
Section 4.5 Nuisances; Construction Activities; Hazardous
Activities; Lighting. No rubbish or other debris of any kind
shall be placed or permitted to accumulate upon or adjacent to
any property within Ludlow Bay Village" and no odors or loud
noises shall be permitted to arise or emit from any property
within Ludlow Bay Village so as to render any such property or
any portion thereof, or activity thereon, unsanitary, unsightly,
offensive or detrimental to any other property within Lud~ow Bay
Village or to the occupants of such property. No other nui,sance I
unsafe or hazardous activity shall be permitted to eX1.st or
operate upon any property within Ludlow Bay village so as to be
,offensive or detrimental to any other property within LudloW Bay
LOG ITEM
# J~?p
Page ~ of
MASTER DECLARATION - a
ve;.
507 fA:: 199
VO'
e
e
Village or Occupants thereof. Normal construction activities and
parking in connection with the building of improvements shall not
be considered a nuisance or otherwise prohibited by this Master
Declaration. The Master Association Board in its sole discretion
shall have the right to determine the existence of any nuisance,
which decision shall be binding and enforceable . Without
limiting the generality of the foregoing, no firearms shall be
discharged ~ithin Ludlo~ Bay Village, and no explosives of any
kind shall be discharged or stored upon any property within
Ludlow Bay Village or permitted within LudIc" Bay Village;
provided, however I that the Master Association Board may consider
permission on a case-by-case basis, at .its sole discretion, with
regard to promotional activities, such as fireworks displays and
similar extraordinary events. Further, the Declarant, and its
employees, agents I representatives or. contractors I shall be
entitled to store and discharge explosives, if necessary, with
regard to development of Ludlow Bay Village. No open fires shall
be lighted or permitted on the Lots, except in a contained
outdoor fireplace or barbecue unit while attended. Artificial
outdoor lighting on Lots shall be arranged so that the light is
shaded and otherwise directed a~ay from adjoining properties and
50 that no more than one foot candle of illumination leaves the
Lot boundaries.
Section 4.6 Repair Of structures~ No structure on any
property within Ludlow Bay Village shall be pe::m.i tted to. fall
into disrepair and each such structure shall at all times be kept
in good condition and repair and adequately painted or other~ise
finished. In the event any structure is dam.aged or destroyed,
then, subject to the approvals required herein, such structure
shall be ilfu<lediately repaired and rebuilt, unless otherwise
provided in this Master Declaration.
\
Section ~.7 Antennas, Satellite Dishes ADd Cable
Television. No antenna, satellite dish or other similar device
for the transmission or reception of television or radio
(including ham radio) signals or any other similar device shall
be erected, used or maintained outdoors on any property within
Ludlow Bay Village; provided, that the Master Association Board
shall have the right to designate a specific location within th~
Common Areas for the placement of any such device if (l} the
device is intended to service Ludlow Bay Village in general, such
as a community satellite dish; and (2) the device is adequately
screened in the opinion of the Master Association Board. It is
expressly declared that Declarant or the Master Association will
likely establish either satellite service or cable television
service during the initial development of Ludlow Bay Village. If
so, then each Lot shall be required to connect to said system, and
pay periodic fees I if applicable, for said serv~ce.
Notwithstanding anything to the Qontrary herein, in the event
that advanced or future technology is available sUE(;G~
# 2.,~{)
Page ~ o"f
MASTER DECLARATION - 9
vaL
507 PA;,'200
e
e
antennas, satellite dishes or other similar devices can be
adequately screened and made aesthetically pleasing, then the
Master Association Board, at its sole discretion, may modify this
covenant regarding such devices.
section 4.8 ~rash Containers And Collection. No trash or
other debris shall be placed or kept on any property within
Ludtow Bay Village, except in covered sanitary containers of a
type and size -;.thich are approved by the Architectural Review
Committee. With regard to Lo,ts, Declarant or the Master
Association may establish a trash collection procedure that will
apply to all, .0:- a portion of, the Lots. This procedure must be
followed, unless alternative arrangements are establis~ed by the
Master Association. With regard to other property within Ludlow
Bay Village, all trash collection containers shall be properly
screened, such that they are not Visible From Neighboring
Property, ex~ept during brief periods of collection. No outdoor
incinerators shall be kept or maintained on any Lot.
Section -t .9 Clothes Drying Facilities And Playground
Equipment. No outside clotheslines or other outside facilities
for drying or airing clothes; and no playground equipment
including, but not limited to, swing sets, slides and sandboxes,
shall be maintained on any Lot.
section '" .1.0 Machinery And Equipment. No machinery or
heavy' equipment of any kind shall be - placed, operated or
maintained upon any Lot, except (i) such machinery or equipme~t
as is usual and customary in connection with the use, maintenanc!t
or construction (during the period of construction) of a Dwelling
Unit, building, appurtenant structures, improvements or grounds
maintenance; or (ii) that which Declarant or the Master
Association may require for the operation and maintenance of any
portion ot Ludlow Bay Village.
Section 4.11 Signs. No signs whatsoever which are Visible
From Neighboring Property shall be erected or maintained on any
Lot except:
(i) Signs required by legal proceedings, or politica+
election signs (must be removed immediately after the election)',
and then the sign shall not exceed 1811 x 2411 and shall only be
permitted if affixed to the dwelling, unless otherwise mandate~
by Court or Washington law;
(ii) One IIFor Sale" or IIFor Rentll sign not exceeding
~B" x 2411 in area, provided that any such sign shall be affixed
to the dwelling (no yard or post signs shall be permitted) ;
VOL
for individual
designated by the
LOG ITEM
12--0
r.~r',... e~ 'LJ, of
.c,,~ ~
:#
(iii) One identification sign
residences not exceeding 611 x 1211 in a location
MASTER DECLARATION - 10
'tal. 507 Fk:C 201
e
e
Declarant or approved by the Architectural Review Committee;
and
(iv) Signs of Declarant or signs authorized by
Declarant for olacement on any property within LUdlow Bay
Village. All such signs shall be removed by the Owner promptly
upon cOtlpletion of their intended use. .
Section -4.12 Restriction On Further Lot Subdivision,
Property Restrictions And Rezoning. No Lot within Ludlow Bay
Village shall be further subdivided. No portion less than all of
any such Lot, nor any easewent or othe~ interest therein, shall
be conveyed or transferred by an Owner; providedt however, that
undivided joint ownership is permitted. Notwithstanding the
above, this provision shall not, in any way, limit Declarant from
subdividing or separating into Lots any property within LUdlow
Bay Village at any time owned by Declarant or from subdividing
the same. No further covenants, conditions, restrictions or
easements shall be recorded by any Owner or other person against
any Lot without the provisions thereof having been first approved
in writing by the Master Association Board, and any covenants,
conditions, rest=ictions or easements recorded without such
approval b~ing evidenced thereon shall be null and void. No
application for variances, or special or conditional use permits
~hall be filed with any governmental authority unless the
proposed use of the Lot has been approved by the Master
Association Board and the proposed use otherwise complies with
this Master Declaration, as may be amended from time-to-time.
Section,~.13 Restrictions On Residential Rental.
'" . 13.1 Except as otherwise provided in subsection
14.13.2, the entire ~elling Unit may be let to a single family
tenant from time-to-time by the owner; provided, such tenancy
shall not be less than six (6) consecutive months to the same
tenant. No subletting shall be allowed. All leases and rental
agreements shall be in writing and specifically-shall state (l)
that they are subject to each and every requirement, covenant,
condition and restriction of this Master Declaration and other
Governing Documents, (2) that any failure by the tenant to comply
with the terms of the Governing Documents shall be a default
under the lease or rental agreement, and (3) that the Owner
grants to the Master Association Board and its Managing Agent, if
any, the authority to evict the tenant on the Owner's behalf for
such default, upon only such notice as is required by la~. If
any lease or rental agreement does not contain the foregoing
provisions, such provisions shall nevertheless be deemed to be a
part of the lease and binding upon the Owner and the tenant by
reason of inclusion in this Master Declaration. Neither the
Master Association Board, nor its Managing Agent, if applicablel
shall be liable to the Owner or the tenant for any eviction under
"
LOG ITEM
# ~~,
Page ~of
500 ~~ '{813 _
MASTER DECLARATION - 11 "
vo.. 507 f1A~c202
Vt
.
,
It
e
...
this subsection that is made in good faith. Copies of all leases
and rental agreements shall be delivered to the Master
Association office p:ior to co~~encement of any tenancy.
.. .13.2 In addition to the longer term rental permitted
by subsection 4.13.1. short term rental. defined as daily, wee.kly
or monthly, shall be permitted on town home Lots TH 1 through TH
1J; provided that all arrangements for short term rental shall be
made only through the Inn and subject to all terms and conditions
imposed by the Inn for such rental.
Section ..14 Utilities And utili~y Easements.
(a) All p:operties within Ludlow Bay Village shall be
connected to sanitary sewer and water' utilities provided by
Declarant, or its successors and assigns. Owners within Ludlow
Bay Village will be subje.ct to reasonable monthly or periodic
service charges as determined by the provider, utility company
and/or State of Washington. Owners may also be required to pay
a connection charge at the then standard rate established by said
companies at the time of connection in the event said utilities
were not installed by Declarant during the initial construction.
Certain utilities, s~ch as street lights, may be provided to the
Master Association and oaid with assessments collected oursuant
to this Master Declaratlon. -
(b) A blanket easement is hereby reserved, granted,
conveyed and created upon t across, over and under the Common
Areas, and all other property within LudloW' Bay village, for
ingress, egress, installation, repair and maintenance of all
Declarant authorized utilities as installed in connection with
the initial developnent of said properties including, but not
limited to, water, sewer, gas, telephone, fiber optic cable,
electricity and cable television systems. As a condition of the
easement, all utility companies shall be required to promptly
remove all debris and restore the surface of any affected
property within Ludlow Bay Village as nearly as possible to the
condition it was in at the time of commencement of such work.
(c) After the date of recording this Master
Declaration, and except for maintenance and repair of existing
utilities, no lines, wires, conduits, cables, pipes or other
devices for the communication or transmission of utilities
including, but not limited to, electric, gas, water, telephonet
fiber optic cable or cable television, shall be erected, placed
or maintained anywhere in qr upon any property within Ludlow Bay
Village, unless the same shall be contained underground, or
subsequently approved by the Architectural Review Coramittee.
However, temporary above-ground utilities incident to
construction of improvements' within Ludlow Bay Village are
permitted with Architectural Review Committee approval i provided,
YOt 507 fk:;,203
LOG ITEM
,jJ. .2 2..t>
'f'f~' ~.-.--- ~
"it::> I~? of
MASTER DECLARATION - 12
"
e
e
that removal of such temporary above-ground utilities must occur
immediately upon completion of construction.
section 4.15 ~alls, Pences Ana Hedges. Unless constructea
by Declarant dur:ng initial development of Ludlow Bay Village, no
~allt fence o~ hedge shall be constructed, placed or maintained
on any town home or sinqle-family Lot within Ludlow Bay Village.
All walls, fences and hedges on commercial properties shall be
subject to prio::: A::-chitectural Review Committee approval and
shall be in strict compliance with the Ludlow Bay Village Design
Standards.
Section ... Hi Trucks, Trailers, Recreational Vehicles,
Campers Or Boats. No motor vehicle classed by manufacturer
rating as exceecing 3/4 ton, recreational vehicle" mobile home,
travel trailer, ca~per (detached or otherwise), tent trailer,
utility trailer, camper shell t boat, boat trailer, or other
similar equipment or vehicles ~ay be parked, maintained,
constructed, reconstructed or repaired on any Lot within Ludlow
Bay village. Not~ithstanding the foregoing, any of the above-
described vehicles ~ay be stored inside a garage, providing said
vehicles are r.ot Visible From Neighboring Property.. This
restriction shall not apply to cleaning, loading or unloading and
short term parking which shall be permitted for a cumulative
period not to exceed twenty-four {24} hours in any calendar
month.
section ...17 Kotor vehicles. No automobile, motorcycle,
motorbike or other motor vehicle shall be constructea,'
reconstructed., repaired or rebuil t upon any property wi thin
Ludlow Bay Village, and no inoperable or unlicensed motor vehicle
(which otherwise would require a license) may be stored or parked
so as to be Visible From Neighboring Property; provided, however,
that this restric~ion shall not apply to (i) emergency vehicle
repairs which require less than eight (6) hours to complete; and
(ii) vehicles parked in garages, which are not Visible From
Neighboring Property.
section ~.18 Parking. It is the intent of the Declarant to
restrict on-street parking as much as possible. Vehicles of all
Lot Owners, Residents and Occupants, and their guests and
invitees, are to be kept in the garages, residential driveways
and other designated parking areas. No parking is allowed on any
streets wi thin Ludlow Bay Village, unless otherwise designated by
the Master Association' Board.
Section ..19 Right ot Entry. During reasonable hours and
upon reasonable notice to the Owner, Resident or Occupant of any
property within Ludlow Bay Village, any member of the
Architectural Review Committee (upon authorization of the ~as~er
. Association Board), and any member of the Master Assoc~atlon
LOG iTEM
# ,_ 1-2-0
~of
MASTER DECLARATION -' 13
'faL. 507 fA:t204
e
e
Board, Declarant, or any authorized representative of any ot
them, shall have the right to enter upon and inspect any property
within Ludlow Bay Village, and the improvements thereon, except'
for the interior portions of any Dwelling Unit, for the purpose
of ascertaining cOwpliance with this Master Declaration and other
Governing Documents.
Section ~.20 Unnatural Drainage. Under no circumstances
shall any person be permitted to deliberately alter the
topographic conditions on any Lot in any way that would adversely
affect the approved and constructed storm water drainage or sewer
system.
Section ,(.21 No Prefa.bricated, Modular Or Manufactured
Housinq. No prefabricated, modular or manufactured housing,
including mobile homes, shall be moved, placed, assembled or
maintained on any Lot as a Dwelling Unit or otherwise.
Section ".2:2 Additional Wells. To preserve and enhance the
water supply in the Port Ludlow area, no water wells shall be
placed on any property within Ludlow Bay Village.
Section ,(.23 Pesticides, Herbicides And Fungicides.
Within Ludlow Bay Village, pesticides-and herbicides shall only
be applied by applicators licensed by the Washington State
Department of Agriculture consistent with the requirements of thp.:
Washington Pesticide Application Act, RCW 17.21, and the
Washington Pesticide Control Act, RCW 15.58, as either Act may
from time-to-time, be amended or modified. Pesticides;
herbicides and fungicides with the shortest hydrolysis half-life
shall be used when reasonably available. A two week half-life is
desirable. Moreover, pesticides appearing on the United States
Environmental Land Agency I s "Priority List of Leaching
Pesticides" shall not be used. Whenever feasible, pesticides,
herbicides and fertilizers should be applied during the dry
summer season, rather than the winter runoff periods.
Section 4.2~ Declarant's Exemption. Nothing contained in
this Master Declaration shall be construed to prevent the
erection or m.aintenance by Declarant, or its duly authorizeQ.
agents, of any buildings, utilities, structures, improvements or
signs necessary or convenient to the development of sale of
property within LUdlow Bay Village.
Section ~.25' Disputes. The Master Association shall have
juriSdiction over activiti~s permitted within the Common Areas.
The Master Association, through the Master Association Board,
unless specifically provided otherwise, shall have the right and
duty to enforce this Master Declaration, and shall have the right
to manage, maintain and govern the Common Areas as provided
herein. All disputes, complaints or other matters relating to
VOi. 507 fA:c 205
LOG \TEM
:i:f ."~~
.v~.. 506 :';'~l;...J 4~ at -
-
MASTER DECLARATION - 14
-
e
e
the Master Declaration or other Governing Documents shall be
submitted to the Master Association Board for determination,
unless other~ise provided herein to be within the authority of
the Architec~ural Review Committee. The decision of the Master
Association Board or Architectural Review Cor.unittee, as
applicable, unless othe~Jise provided, shall be final.
ARTICLE 5
ORGANIZATION OF ~HE ASSOCIATIONS
Section 5. 1 Formation Of The Haste::: Association. The
Master Association shall be charged with the duties and vested
with the powers set forth in the Governing Documents. Neither
the Articles nor Bylaws of the Master Association shall, for any
reason, be amended or otherwise changed or interpreted 50 as to
be inconsistent with this Master Declaration. The following
shall apply to the Master Association:
5.1.1 In ,order to assure that Ludlow Bay Village
will be adequately administered during the initial development
period, the affairs of the Master Association shall be managed
and conducted by Declarant for a period of five (5) years from
the date this Master Declaration is recorded, or until Declarant
voluntarily relinquishes such right, whichever shall occur first.
During this period of time, Declarant shall have the exclusive
right to appoint all members of the Board of Directors, which may
consist of between three (3) and nine (9) members, and who may be
persons who are either employees or representatives of Declarant
or who own, or are purchasers of, properties within Ludlow Bay
Village. The Master Association Board appointed by Declarant
shall have the full authority and all rights, responsibilities,
privileges and duties to manage the Master Association in
accordance w.ith this Master Oeclaration and other Governing
Documents.
5.1.2 At the expiration of control -by Declarant
as set forth in subsection 5.1.1, all administrative power and
authority shall vest in the Master Association Board, to' be
composed of nine (9) members, which shall be designated a~
follows:
(A) owner{s) of the marina property shall be
entitled to designate one (1) member to the Master Association
Board;
(8) Owner(s) of the restaurant property shall be
entitled to designate one (1) member to the Master Association
Board;
YO" 507 Pt.:, 206
LOG ITEM
# --12..0
-1'Ik oi_
-
MASTER DEC~~TION - 15
vat 50{} f~~c817
e
e
(C) Owner(s) of the Inn shall be entitled to
designate three (3) members to the Master Association Board;
(D) The Town Home Association shall be entitled
to designate three (3) members to the Master Association Board;
and
eE) Owners of single-family Lots, by majority
vote among single-family Lot Owners, shall have the right to
designate one (l) member to the Master Association Board.
Each member of the Master Association Board shall be entitled to
one (1) vote on all matters to come before the Master Association
Board. A majority vote shall be required for all matters to come
before the Master Association Board,. except as otherwise
specifically provided herein.
5.1.3 The Master Association, through the Master
Association Board, shall be entitled to provide all goods and
services deemed necessary or desirable for the p'roper functioning
of LUdlow Bay Village, including, but not limited to, the
following:
(A) Providing for all utilities and other
services wi thi:-,. the Common Areas as deemed necessary or desirable
by the Master Association Board;
(B) Maintaining and landscaping the Common Areas
of the Master Association, including roads and streets, parking
areas, if any, and storm water and drainage control systems,
including, but not limited to, catch basins, piping, conveyance.
facilities, retainage and detainage ponds and oil separ;:ators
within Ludlow Bay Village Common Areas;
(C) Operating, maintaining (including insuring at
the discretion of the Master Association Board) and rebuilding,
if necessary, signs, monuments, walls, fences, and other
improvements originally constructed by Declarant or the Master
Association within Ludlow Bay Village Common Areas and/or
easements granted to the Master Association, if any;
(0) Paying real estate and personal property
taxes, assessments and other charges on Common Areas and
improvements thereon, to the extent not otherwise taxed to
individual Ow~ers;
(E) Insuring all improvements which the Master
Association is obligated to maintain against damage by ca7ua~ty
to the full extent deemed appropriate by the Master Assoc~at~on
Board;
'Igi.5Q7 F~t207
LOG ITEM
# 2Z-b
p;::::.r.. ICl I u" of
~'''~V~
MASTER DECLARATION - 16
VOi.
e
e
(F) Hiring, firing, supervising and paying
employees and independent contractors to carry out the
obligations of the Master Association as set forth hereini
(G) Maintai~ing liability insurance and bonds to
protect the Master Association and the Master Association Board
from liability caused by occurrences or happenings on or about
the Co~~on Areas;
(H) Maintaining worben I s compensation insurance
for all em?loyees of the Master Association;
(I) Purc~asing goods,
services reasonably necessary for the
Obligations set forth herein;
supplies, labor
performance of
and
the
. (.J) Establishing and maintaining such cash
reserves, if any, as the Master Association Board may, in its
sole discretion, deem reasonably necessary for the maintenance
and repair of the Common Areas:
(K) Obtaining legal and accounting services
deemed desirable for the p=ope~ operation of the affairs of the
Master Association, and to meet the record keeping and financial
disclosure requirements set forth in the Master Declaration;
(L}Enterinq into such agreements and taking such
actions as are reasonably necessary and convenient for the
accomplish.:1ent of the obligations set forth in this Master
Oeclaration and the Governing Documents including, but not
limited to, the maintenance of all Common Areas and other"
amenities ~ithin Ludlow Bay Village: and
(M) Such other matters and powers as are provided
under the Governing Documents and Washington law for a non-profit
corporation.
section 5.2 Formation of the Town Rome, Association. The
Town Home Association shall be charged with the duties and vested
with the powers set forth in the Governing Documents. Neither
the Articles nor Bylaws of the Town Home Association shall, for
any reason, be amended or othe~Hise changed or interpreted so as
to be inconsistent with this Master Declaration. The following
shall apply to the Town Home Association:
5.2.1 In 'order to assure that management,
maintenance and repair of the town homes will be adequat,?lY
administered during the initial development period, the affa~rs
of the Town Home Association shall be managed and conducted ~y
Declarant for a period of five (5) years from the date t1;l~s
Master Declaration is recorded, or until Declarant voluntar~ly
MASTER DECLARATION - 17
VOt 507 FA~I: 208
'. LOG ITEM
:tt ~
yot5OB f'h;,8 ".i:;;~ie ~_ of
e
e
(
relinquishes such right, whichever shall occur first. During th'is .
period of time, Declarant shall have the exclusive right to
appoint all members of the Board of Oirectors, which may consist
of between three (3) and nine (9) members, and who may be persons
who are either e~ployees or representatives of Declarant or who
own, or are purchasers of, dwelling units. The Master
Association Board appointed by Declarant shall have the full
authority and all rights, responsibilities, privil'eges and duties
to manage the Town Home Association in accordance with this
Master Declaration and other Governing Documents..
S.2.2 At the expira1;ion of the control by
Declarant as set fcrth in subsection 5.2.1, all administrative
power and authority shall vest in the Town Home Association
Board, and such officers as the Town Home Association Board may
elect or appoint in accordance with the Town Home Associationls
Articles of Incorporation and Bylaws as the same may be amended
from time.-to-ti1'l.l.e. The Town Home Association Board shall he
composed of at least three (3) and no more than nine (9) members.
Each member of the Town Home Association Board 'shall be entitled
to one (1) vot.e on all matters to come before the Town Home
Association Boa=d. A majority vote shall be required for all
matters to come before the Town Home Association Board, except as
otherwise spe~~fically provided herein or as required by
Washington la'...-.
S. 2.. 3 The Town Home Association, through the Town
Home Association Board, shall be entitled to provide all goods
and ser..rices requisite to the proper maintenance, rep.air and
upkeep of the Town homes At Ludlow Bay, including the following:
(A) Providing for all utilities or services, if
any, serving c~ly the town hOQe Lots;
(8) Maintaining the exterior appearance of all
town homes within the Town homes At Ludlow Bay, which maintenance
shall be limited to (1) painting; (2) roof repair and
replacementi (3) gutters and downspouts; (4) siding repair and
replacement: and (5) lawn and yard ma~ntenance;
(e) Hiring, firing, supervising and paying
employees and independent contractors to carry out the
obligations of the Town Home Association as set forth hereint
(D) Maintaining liability insurance and bo~ds.to
protect the To'~ Home Assoc~ation and the Town Home Assoc~at~on
Board from liability caused by occurrences ~r happenin~s o~ or
about the town homes associated with the dutles and obllgat1ons
set forth herein;
MASTER DECLARATION - 18
LOG ITEM
#__ .l2l>
Paoe l.lJ VI of
1;",,1 --&:.::L-f--
'tat 507 ft:..c209
e
e
,
!
(E) Maintaining workmen's compensation insurance
for all employees of the Town nome Association;
(F) Purchasing
services reasonably necessary
obligations set forth herein;
goods, supplies, labor
for the performance of
and
the
(G) Establishing and maintaining
reserves, if any, as the Town Home Association Board
sole discretion, deem reasonably necessary for the
and repair of the town homes and town home lots;
such cash
may J in its
maintenance
(H) Obtaining legal, accounting and other
professional services deemed desirable for the proper operation
of the affairs of the Town Home Association, and to meet the
reco=d keeping and financial disclosure requirements set forth in
the Master Declaration;
(I) Entering into such agreements and taking such
actions as are reasonably necessary and convenient for the
accomplishment of the obligations set forth in this Master
Declaration and the Governing Documents including, but not
limited to, th~ maintenance of town homes; and
(J) Such other matters and powers as are provided
under the Governing Documents and Washington law for a non-profit
corporation.
Section 5.3 LUdlow Bay Village Rules. The Master
Association Board shall be empowered to adopt, amend, or repeal
Ludlow Bay Village Rules as it deems reasonable and appropriate,
which shall be binding upon all persons and entities subject to
this Master Declaration, whether Members of the Master
Association or not; provided, however, that Ludlow Bay Village
Rules shall not be inconsistent with the other Governing
Documents. Ludlow Bay Village Rules may also include the
establishment of a system of fines and penalties for enforcement
thereof. Ludlow Bay Village Rules may be established, modified
or amended at any special or regular meeting of the Master
Association Board.
Ludlow Bay Village Rules, as may be amended from time-to-
time, are deemed incorporated herein by this reference and shall
have the same force and effect as if they were set forth in and
were part of this Master Declaration and shall be binding on all
persons or entities having any interest in, or making any use of
properties within Ludlow Bay Village, whether or not Members of
the Master Association and whether or not copies of ,Ludlow Bay
Village Rules are actually received by such persons or e~t~ties.
The Ludlow Bay Village Rules, as adopted, amended, mod1f~eQ or
repealed shall be available for review at the principal OffT~EcMe of
, LOG I
#_ 1,1P
Pa~Je_.-1 ,~ of
MASTER DECLARATION - 19
'fCt
507 Pk:r 210
e
e
the. Master Association to each person or entity reasonably
entltled thereto. In the event of a conflict between any
provisions of Ludlow Bay Village Rules and any provisions of this
Master Declaration, the provisions of Ludlow Bay Village Rules
shall be deemed to be superseded by the provisions of this Master
Declaration to the extent of any such conflict. Any monetary
penalties or fines imposed by Ludlow Bay Village Rules shall be
treated as an assessment which shall become a ,lien against the
Members' property within Ludlow Bay Village, in the same manner
and subject to the same enforcement provisions as,set forth for
liens in Article 7.
section S. '" Non-Lial)ility Of Officials Jl..nd Indemnification.
To the fullest. extent pen:t.itted by Washington la....., Declarant, and
every Director, Officer, CotUI\ittee Member- (specifically including
members of the Architectural Review Committee), Manager(s), or
other employees of the Associations and of the Declarant, shall
not be personally liable hereunder to any Member, or to any other
person or entity, including the Associations, for any damagei
loss or prejudice suffered or claimed on account of any act,
omission, e:::-ror, or negligence and shall be indemnified and
defended by the Associations; provided, however, the provisions
set forth in this Section 5.4 shall not apply to any persons who
has failed to ac~ in goed faith or has engaged in willful or
intentional misconduct.
--
Section 5.5 Manaqinq ~qent. Each Association, through l~s
Board, is authorized to employ persons, including a Managing
Agent, and to contract with independent contractors to perform
all or any part of the duties and responsibilities of the
Association employing the same. Each Association, through its
Boardt is also expressly authorized to enter into one or more
management agreements ~ith third parties in order to facilitate
efficient operations and to carry out its Obligations. The terms
of any management agreeme~t shall be determined by the Eoard of
the Association entering into the agreement, in its sole
discretion, and shall be subject to the Governing Documents.
The Associations are expressly authorized to contract with
Declarant, or an affiliate, representative or company involving
some or all of the same individuals as Declarant, in order to
provide management and/or maintenance services or to perform any
other duties of the Associations. Each Owner, Resident and
Occupant shall be bound by the terms and conditions of all
management agreements entered into by the Board of the
Association entering into. the agreeme~t. A copy of all
management agreements shall be available to each ownez: upon
request at the Association office, or such other locatJ..on as
designated by that Association1s Boarda
MASTER DECLARATION - 20
LOG ITEM
#1-'[.6
Page --1Sl of
Vtii. 507 p~:c 211
"at
506 p~ ,,82?
-
e
tit
section 5.6 Records And Accounting. Each Association shall
keep, or cause to be Kept, true and correct books and records of
all financial affairs involving the Association including, but
not limited to, accounting for all assessments and expenses paid
by said Association. Financial statements for each Association
shall be prepared at least annually and available at' the
Association office, or such other location as designated by its
Board, to all members.
Section 5.7 Inspection ot Books And Records. The
1:Iembership register, books of account, minutes of meetings of the
Members and of the Board, shall be made, available for inspection
and copying by any metlber of said Association by the Board at any
reasonable time, at the Association office or at such other
location designated by the Board. Each Board may establish
reasonable rules concerning the following: (i) Notice to be
given to the custodian of the records by the member of the <Board
desiring to make the inspection; and (il) hours and days of the
week vhen such an inspection may be made. Unless otherwise
provided by the Board, any member of the Board that would like
copies shall be responsible for payment of any costs associated
with copying, including the cost of having the copies made by a
third party.
ARTICLE 6
MEMBERSHIP AND VOTING
seotion 6.1 Master Associa.tion. Every Owner of a town hom.e
or single-fam~ly Lot, and Owner(s) of the marina, restaurant and
Inn shall be Members of the Master Association. Membership shall
be appurtenant to and may not be separated from ownership of the
property to which the Membership is attributable. Each property
shall be entitled to one MembershipT which Membership sha~l be
shared by all Owners of interest in the property. The following
shall apply with regard to the Master Association:
6.1.1 The Membership shall have no voting rights
associated with the Master Association, except.with regard to any
matter required to be approved by a vote of the Membership by
Washington law. The Board, which is composed of representatives
of each of the various mix of uses within Ludlow Bay Village,
shall vote on all matters of interest to the Association.
Ei.1. 2 The rights and obligations of Membership in
the Master Association sh'all not be assigned, transferred,
pledged, conveyed or alienated in any way except upon conveyance
of the properties within Ludlow Bay Village by deed, intestate
succession, testamentary disposition, foreclosure or other legal
process pursuant to the laws of the State of Washington or the
United States. LOG ITEM
# 21..6
paaelSL. of
,",
MASTER OEC~TION - 21
VOL 507 f~:'c 212
y.o;
5GB- !'':..~ 823
-
r
e
e
section 6.2 Town Home Association. Every Owner of a town
home Lot shall be a Member of the Town Home Association..
Membership shall be appurtenant to and may not be separated from
ownership of the town home Lot to which the MeI:1bership is
attributable. If any town home Lot has been sold on contract,
the contract purchaser shall exercise the rights of the Owners
for purposes of the Town Home Association. Each town home Lot
shall be entitled to one Membership, which Membership shall be
shared by all O"'.ners of interest in the Lot. The follo~ing shall
apply with regard to the To~n Home Association:
6.2.1 Each Membership shall be entitled to one
(1) vote on all matters to come before the Town Home Association
for a vote of the Membership. Unless otherwise specified to the
contrary in this Master Declaration or other Governing Documents,
a majority vote is required on any issue to come before the
Membership for a vote.
S. 2.2 The rights and obligations of Membership in
the Town Home Association shall not be assigned, transferred,
pledged, conveyed or alienated in any way except upon conveyance
of the to~n home Lots, intestate succession, testamentary
disposition, foreclosure or other legal process pursuant to the
laws of the Sta~e of Washington or the United States.
ARTICLE 7
COVENANT FOR ASSESSMENTS AND CREATION OF LIEN
section 7.1 Creation of Lien And Personal Obligation Of
Assessments. The Declarant, for all properties within Ludlow Bay
Village, hereby covenants and agrees, and each Owner by
acceptance of a deed therefor (whether or not it shall be so
expressed in such deed)' is deemed to covenant and agree to pay to
the Master Association: (i) Annual Assessments; and (ii) Special
Assessments for capital improvements or other extraordinary
expenses or costs. The Declarant, for all town home Lots ~ithin
Ludlow Bay Villagei further covenants and agrees, and each Owner
by acceptance of a deed therefor (whether or not it shall be so
expressed in such deed) is deemed to covenant and agree to pay tg
the Town Home Association: (i) Annual Assessments; and (ii)
Special Assessments for capital improvements or other
extraordinary expenses or costs. The Annual and Special
Assessments, together with interest, costs, and reasonable
attorneys' fees, shall be a charge on the property of the O~er
within LUdloW' Bay Village. and shall constitute a continuJ.IY3'
servitude and lien with power of sale upon the property with~n
Ludlow Bay Village against which each such Assessment is made.
The lien may be enforced by foreclosure of the lien o,n ~he
defaulting Owner's property by either the Master AssocJ.atJ.on
and/or the Town Home Association, as applicable, in like manner
LOG ITEM
# 1-V:>_~
Page.l5:2-. of
~ 500 "A-.l:824-
MASTER DECLARATION - 22
Yat 507 fA:;r213
e
e
as a mortgage on real property, or in any other Qanner permitte4
by Washington law. The lien for each unpaid Assessment attaches
to the property after the due date and shall continue to be a
lien against such property ~~til paid. The costs and expenses
for filing any notice of lien shall be added to the Assess~ent
for the prope~ty against which it is filed and collected as part
and parcel thereof. Each such Annual and Special Assessment,
together with interest, costs and reasonable attorneys' fees,
shall also be the personal obligation of the Owner of the
property at the time when the Assessment fell due. The personal
obligation for delinquent Assessm.ents shall not pass to the
successors in title of the O~ner unless exoressly assumed by
them. . .
section 7.2 Annual Assessments. In order to provide for
the uses and purposes specified herein, including the
establishment of replacement and maintenance reserves, the Board
of each Association in each year, shall assess an Annual
Assessment. The Master Association Annual Assessment ,shall be
levied against all properties in Ludlow Bay village, except
Exempt Properties. The Town Horne Association Annual Asse5s~ent
shall be levied against all to~n home lots in Ludlow Bay Village.
with rega=d to town home and single-family Lots, no Annual
~ssessment s~all be levied or otherwise acc~ue in favor of the
Master Association or Town Home Association aaainst said Lots
until title to the Lot is transferred from Declarant to the first
purchaser of the Lot from Declarant. With regard to commercial
properties, including the Inn, Marina and Restaurant, the Annual
Assessment shall be levied or otherwise accrue against such
properties at such time as the Master Association Board com;mences
assessments within the'Master ~ssociation.
section 7.3 Determination Of :Annual Assessment. The Annual
Assessment against each' property shall be deterruined by the Board
of the Association levying the assessment. The Board of each
Association, at its sole discretion, shall determine when to
commence collecting the Annual Assessments. The p~dget for the
Master Association shall address the overall duties,
responsibilities and obligations of the Master Association with
regard to maintenance, repair, improvement and regulation of th~
Common Areas and other matters set forth in this Master
Declaration or other Governing Documents. The budget for the
Town Home Association shall address the maintenance, repair,
landscaping and replacement reserves (at the discretion of the
Board) associated with the town home Lots, together with any
other duties, responsibilit~es and obligations of the Town Home
Association. Annual Assessments for each Association shall be
collected in advance on a monthly, quarterly or annual basis as
specified by its Board. ITEM
# __.2.e?r6 _
Page _~ of
MASTER DEC~~TION - 23
YOt 507 rk~c214
'VOL.:
e
e
section 7." ilate Of Assessment. The following shall apply
with regard to each Association:
7....1 With regard to the Master Association, the
residential lets (town home and single-family Lots) subject to
assessment sha.ll be. required to pay an Annual Assessment equal to
forty (40%) of the total budgeted amount for the Master
Association, ~~ich shall be assessed pro rata at a uniform rate
for each of tr.e S8 residential Lots subj ect to assessment. The
Marina shall be required to pay an Annual Assessment equal to ten
percent (10%) of the total budgeted amount for the Master
Association. ~he Restaurant shall be required to pay an Annual
Assessment,e~al to twenty percent (20%) of the total budgeted
amount for t~e Master Association. The Inn shall be required to
pay an"Annual Assessment equal to thirty percent (30%) of the
total budgetec amount for the Master Association.
7...2 With regard to the Town Home Association,
the town home Lots shall be required to pay an Annual Assessment
established by the Board of the Town Home Association. The
Annual Assess~ent shall be set at a uniform rate for each town
home Lot.
section 7.5 Superiority Of Assess~ent Lien. To the extent
permitted by law, the Associations' lien on properties within
LudloW' Bay Village for Assessonents shall be superior to any
homestead exe:;.ption now or hereafter provid.ed by the law.s of
Washington, o~ any exe~ption now or hereafter provided by the
laws of the United States. Since the Owner will receive a copy
of this Maste= Declaration prior to Closing and/or the Master
Declaration is recorded of public record, the acceptance of a
deed to property subject to this Master Declaration shall
consti tute a voluntary and informed waiver of the homestead right
by the Ow~er and an acknowledgement that the lien should be paid
prior to any homestead claim.
section 7.6 Maximum Annual Assessment. As set forth above,
the Board of each Association shall decide when to commence
Annual Assess~ents. The following shall apply with regard to
determination of the Annual Assessments.
"
7.6.1 Prior to the first conveyance of a
residential lot (town home Lot or single-family Lot), the Board
of each Asscciation, shall establish the initial Annual
Assessment for the remaining portion of the existing fiscal year.
MASTER DECLARA!ION - 24
7.6.2 Each' fiscal year thereafter through the
fifth fiscal year, the Annual Assessment may be increased by the
Board of each Association a maximum of twenty percent (20%) over
the previous year's Annual Assessment. Any such increase,sh~ll
be effective at the beginning of each fiscal year. L~1,.~g
# 22Q ~
Page --L~~~ of
~Ct 507 p~c215
VQt~
e
e
with the sixth (6th) fiscal year, and each subsequent fiscal year
thereafter, the Annual Assess~ent may be increased by the Board
of each Association by a maximum amount equal to the greater of
either (1) five percent (5%) over the previous yea='s Annual
Assessment, or (2) the percentage inc=ease in the Consumer Price
Index, Sea~tle/Everett Metropolitan Area (or such other closest
geographic area available), as published by the Oepart~ent of
Labor, Washington, D.C., or successor governmental agency,
bet~een the first day of the previous full fiscal year and the
first day of the then current full fiscal year. Any such
increase shall be' effective at the beginning of the fiscal year;
7.6.3 No additional increase shall be permitted
du=ing the time that the Declarant has control of the Soard of
any Association where this subparagraph 7.6.3 is atte~?ted to be
invoked. However, at such time as Declarant is no longer in
control of an Association, and notwithstanding anything to the
contrary herein, the Annual Assessment may be increased by the
Board of either Association above the percentages set forth in
subsection 7.6.2 above, but only upon meeting the fOllowing
conditions: (1) With regard to the Master Association, there
must be a 70% approval on the part of the Board; ar.d (2) With
regard to the Town Home Association, there must be written assent
of Owners representing forty pe~cent (40%) of the town ho~e Lots.
The Board may schedule a special meeting for such purpose at its
discretion or, alternatively I may explain the need for the
increased assessment in writing and circulate the same to the
Me!nbership.
section 7.7 Special Assessments For Capital Improvements
And Extraordinary Expenses. The Board may, during any fiscal
year, levy a Special Assessment for the purpose of defraying, in
"".hole or in part, the cost of any acquisition} construction,
reconstruction, repair or replacement of a capital improvement
that it is Obligated to manage, or for the purpose of defraying
other extraordinary expense, but only upon meeting the following
conditions: (1) With regard to the Master Association, there
must be a 70% approval on the part of the Board; and (2) W~th
regard to the Town Home Association, there must be written assent
of Owners representing forty percent (40%) of the to....n home Lots,
Section 7.6 Billing And Collection Procedures. The Board
of each Association shall have the right to adopt procedures
consistent herewith for the purpose of levying and collecting
~~nual and Special Asse5s~ents. . The failure of either
Association to send a bill to a Member shall not relieve any
Member of his liability for any Assessment under this Master
Declaration, but the Assessment Lien therefor shall not be
foreclosed or otherwise enforced until the Member has been .L~:'~EM
not less than thirty (30) daysf written notice, at the addr~
the Member on the Associations I records. such noty;e may be 220
MASTER DECLARATION - 25 Page 1'\/, of
'fot 507 p~,216
'lOt 506 '1(,,~,tjL7
,
,
..
e
e
given at any time after delinquency of such payment. The
Associations shall be under no duty to refund any payments
received by it even though a property is sold; successor Owners
shall be given credit for prepayments, on a prorated basis, made
by prior O'offiers.
Section 7.9 Collection Cost.s And Interest On Delinquent
Assessments. Any delinquent installment of Annual or Special
Assess~ent shall bear interest from thirty (30) days after the
due date until paid at a uniform rate established by the Board of
each Association, which rate shall not exceed the maximum
interest rate legally allowed by Washington State. The Member
shall be liable for all collection costs, including attorneys'
fees, incurred by the Associations. The Board may also record a
Notice of Delinquent Assessment against 'the applicable property
as to which an Annual or special Assessment is delinquent and
constitutes a lien, and may further establish a fixed fee to
reimburse the Associations for costs associated with recording
such Notice of Lien, processing the delinquency and recording a
Notice of Payment, which fixed fee shall be treated as a
collection cost of the Associations secured by the Assessment
Lien.
. section 7.10 Evidence Of payment Of Annual And Special
Assessment.s.. Upon receipt of a written request by a Member,
each applicable Association within thirty (30) days shall issu<':.
a written certificate stating (a) that all Annual and Speci~~
;\ssessments (includIng interest, costs and attorneys I fees) ha-.l~
been paid with respect to any specified property as of the dats
of such certificate, or (b) if any Annual and/or Special
Assessments have not been paid, the amount of such Annual and/or
Special Assessments (including interest, costs and attorneys'
fees, if any) due and payable as of such date. The Associations
may make a reasonable charge for the issuance of such
certificates. Any such certificate, when duly issued as hereir~
provided, shall be conclusive and binding with.r~spect to any
matter therein stated as against any bona fide purchaser of, or
lender on, the property in question.
Section 7.11 Property Exempted From The Annual And Speci!11
Assessments. Exempt Property shall not be assessed Annual
and/or Special Assessments; provided, however, that in the event
any change of ownerShip of Exempt Property results in all or a~l
part thereof being removed from Exempt Property status, then the
same shall thereupon be subject to the assessment of the Annual
and Special Assessments (prorated as of the date it was removed
from Exempt property status) and the Assessment Lien.
MASTER DECLARATION - 26
#
Page,
LOG ITEM
" ~ ?,,-6
, ,7 of
I '
YOt 507 Fk~C 217
~Ui. 586 !'k~,828 -
e
e
, I sectioD 7.12 Declarant Subsidy. Declarant agrees to
provide the, follo~ing subsidies with regard to the ^ssociations:
7.12.1 With regard to the Town Home Association,
until forty (40) tow'n home Lots have been sold by Oeclarant,
Declarant agrees to subsidize the financial operations of the
Town Home Assoc:ation in the event that all Annual Assess:ents
and every othe~ revenue source received by the Town nome
Association fails to equal or exceed the actual expenses incur:::ed
during the fiscal year. The terms of the subsidy shall be
established by ~ritten agreement between the Declarant and the
Town Home Assoc:ation. Declarant shall have no obligation for
any such short fall resulting from the levying of an Annual
Assess~ent in a~ amount less than the maximum authorized, unless
the same has been previously approved in writing by Declarant.
The subsidy co~~emplated herein shall automatically terminate
upon the Closing of a sale on the 40th town home Lot, unless
terminated pric~ thereto due to the self-sufficient financial
condition of the Town Home Association.
7.12.2 With regard to the Master Association,
Declarant agrees to subsidize the financial operations of the
Master Associat:on for a period of four (4) yea~s, to the eX~ent
set forth herei~, in the event that all Annual Assessments and
every other revenue source received by the Master Association
fails to equal cr exceed the actual expenses incurred during the
fiscal year; provided, however, that ~he roaxirn~~ a~ount of any
such subsidy in any given fiscal year shall not exceed an a~ount
equal to the S~ of the number of unsold residential Lots ow~ed
by Declarant (including town home and single-family Lots)
multiplied by ~he amount of the pro rata share of the )~nual
Assessment levied against other residential L~ts by the Master
~ssociation. ~~e terms of the subsidy shall be established by
written agree~ent between the Declarant and the Master
, Association. Declarant shall have no obligation for any such
short fall resulting from the levying of an Annual .Assessment in
an amount less than the maximum authorized, unless the same has
been previously approved in writing by Declarant.
ARTICLE a
ENFORCEMENT OF PAYMENT OF ANNUAL AND
SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS AND OF ASSESSMENT LIENS
Section B. 1 Master ~ssociation As Enforcing Body. The
Master Association shall have the exclusive right to enforce the
provisions of this Master Declaration.
Section 8.2 Associations' Remedies To Entorce payment at
Annual And special Assessments. The Associations may enforce
payment of any delinquent Annual or Special Assessments I together
LOG ITEM
# __.-2.~-
VOt r5fl6 p~:.~lS! 01
MASTER DECLARATION - 27
\lOt 507 Fk~' 218
e
e
yith all collection costs and attorneys I fees, by taking either
or both of the following actions, concurrently or separately:
8.2..1. Bring an action at law and recover judgment
against the Member personally obligated to pay the Annual or
Special Assessments; and/or
a.2.2 Foreclose the Assessment Lien against the
property subject to the Assessment Lien in accordance with the
then prevailing Washington law relating to the foreclosure of
real estate mortgages (including the right to recover any
deficiency) .
section 8.3 Subordination Of Assessm.ent Lien TO First
Kortqa,qe; priori ty Lien. The Assessment Lien provided for herein
shall be subordinate to any first mortgage lien and any liens for
taxes and other public charges which by applicable law are
expressly made superior. Except as above provided, the
Assessment Lien shall be superior to any and all charges, liens
or encumbrances which hereafter in any manner may arise or be
imposed upon the property. Sale or transfer of any property
shall not af!ect the Assessment Lien, unless otherwise
specifically provided by law.
section s.~ Suspension Of Membership_ In addition to the
remedies set forth herein, and not to the exclusion or prejudice
thereof, the Board of each Association may also suspend a Member
from its Association and the privileges of Membership (including
use of the Common Areas with regard to Master Association), for
non-payment of Annual and/or Special Assessments.
ARTICLE 9
USE OF FUNDS; BORROWING POWER
Section 9~~ Purposes For Which The Associations' Funds May
Be Used. The Associations shall apply all funds collected and
received by them for the common good and benefit of the Members
by devoting said funds, among other things, to fulfilling th~
maintenance and other obligations of the Associations as set
forth in Article 10 hereof.
section 9.2 Borrowing Power. The Associations may borrow
money in such amounts, at such rates, upon such terms and
security, and for such period of time as their Boards determine
is necessary or appropriate.
Section 9.3 Associations I Rights In Spending Funds From.
Year-to-Year. The Associations shall not be obligated to spend
in any year all the sums received by them in such year (WhethMer
LOG \TE
1"W-..
e _t5~L
MASTER DECLARATION - 26
#
VCit 507 r~..t219
YO'
e
e
by way of Annual or Special Assessments or otherwise}, and may
carry forward as surplus any balances remaining and shall not be
obligated to reduce the amount of the Annual Assessment in the
succeeding year if a surplus exists from a prior year. Moreover,
the Associations are specifically authorized, at the discretion
of their Boards, to provide for reserves to meet anticipated
future improve~ent or replacement needs.
ARTICLE 10
MAINTENANCE AND O~BER RESPONSIBILITIES OF
TEE OWNERS AND ASSOC~ATIONS
Section 10.1 Maintena.nce Responsibilities of the Master
Association. T~e Master Association shall maintain, or provide
for the mainte:lance of, the Common Areas wi thin Ludlow Bay
Village, specifically including, but not limited to:
10.1.1 Maintenance of grounds and landscaping;
maintenance and repair of all private roadways; and maintenance,
repair and re9lace~ent, if necessary, of any signs, monuments,
walls, fences or other improvements located within the Co~~on
A=eas or private roadways;
10.1.2 Maintenance of all storm water and
drainage cont=ol systems located within the Common Areas,
inClUding, but not limited to, catch basins, piping, conveyance
facilities, retainage and detainage ponds, bioswales and oil
separators;
10.1.3 Management of all employment matters,
including hiring, firing, supervising and paying employees and
independent contractors to carry out the Master Association
obligations, including maintaining worben I s compensation
insurance, if applicable; and
lO.l.~ provision of all utilitie~~ real estate
taxes, insurance (including insurance specified in Article 13
hereof), administrative expenses of operation, management and
related expenses and services as more fully delineated in
subsection 5.1.3 of this Master Declaration.
section'10.2 Maintenance Responsibilities of the Town Home
Association. The Town Horne Association shall maintain, or
provide for the maintenance of the town home Lots and
improvements thereon to the ,extent provided herein, specifically
including:
MASTER DECLARATION - 29
10.2. 1 Maintenance of the exterior appearance of
all buildings, improvements and landscaping located on town home
Lots, which ~aintenance shall be limited to (1) paint~~GI~
#__2~
pa~e. I l1!~ of
vor56G fk.lC 8 f ~
vat 507 p;\;, 220
e
e
roof repair and replacement; (:3) gutters and downspouts: (4)
siding repair and replacement; and (5) lawn and yard maintenance.
Each town home Lot Owner shall be responsible for all other
repair and maintenance including, but'not limited to, plumbing,
exterior and interior glass, appliances, heating and cooling
systems, and private driveways;
10.2.2 Management of 'all employment matters,
including hiring! firing, supervising and paying employees and
independent contractors to carry out the Town Home ^5sociation
Obligations, including maintaining workmen J s cOw.pensation
insurance, if applicable: and
10.2.3 provision of all utilities, real estate
taxes t insurance, administrative expenses of operation,
management and related expenses and services as more fully
delineated in subsection 5.2.3 of this Master Declaration.
Section 1043 Maintenance Responsibilities ot single-Family
Lot And commercial Property Owners. Neither of the Associations
shall be responsible for any mainte~ance, repair or landscaping
associated with single-family Lots or comme~cial properties, nor
any improvements thereon. Each Owner of a single-family Lot or
commercial property shall be responsible for all maintenance and
repair.
section 10.4 Master Association Authority ~o Direct
Maintenance and Repair. The Master Association! through the.
Architectural Review Committee, shall have the authority to
direct the maintenance and repair of all buildings, improvements
and landscaping located on all town home and single-family Lots
and commercial property within Ludlow Bay Village. In the event
the Architectural Review comraittee determines that any buildings,
improvements or landscaping located on any town home or single-
family Lots or commercial properties require any repairs or
maintenance including, but not limited to, grounds or landscape
maintenance, painting, roof or gutter repai~; or siding
replacement or repair, then the Architectural Review Committee
shall do the following:
lO.4.~ With regard to town home Lots, the
Architectural Review committee shall contact the Board of the
Town HOlUe Association in writing and specify what repairs or
maintenance are required. The Town Home Association shall
complete the repair and/or maintenance within 90 days of the date
notified by the Architectural Review Committee, unless an
alternative schedule is agreed to in writing between the Town
Home Association and the Architectural Review Committee;
provided! however, that if the repair and/or maintenance is not
within the scope of work required of ,the Town Home Associationr
then the Architectural Review Committee shall contact ~~~
# ___~'l-6
Page ~ of
YOi.. r5fJ6 fk~
MASTER DECLARATION - 30
vat. 507 p(...( 221
e
e
directly as provided in subsection ~O.4.2 below for Owners of .
single-family Lots or co~ercial properties.
1.0.-1.2 With regard to single-family Lots and
comnercial prope=ties, the Architectural Review Committee shall
contact the Owner of the property in writing and specify what
repairs or maintenance are required. The Owner shall complete
the repair and/or t:1aintenance within 90 days of the date notified
by the Architectural Revier..l Committee, unless an alternative
schedule is agreed to in writing between the Owner and the
Architectural Review Co~~ittee.
10.'.3 The aggrieved Owner, or the Board of the
To~n Home Associa~ion, as applicable, shall have the right to
appeal any such decision to the Master Association Board within
seven (7) days of' notification from the Architectural Review
Committee in accordance with the procedures set forth in Section
~~.3 of this Master Declaration. The time period for perfo~ance
shall be tolled during the pendency of the appeal (from the date
the appeal notice is delivered to the Master Association Board
until the date of the final decision of the Mas~er Association
Board) .
10.4.4 In t~e event that the Owner, or the Board
of the Town Hc~e Association, as applicable, fails to perform the
Jjlaintenance 0::: repair specified' by the Architectural Rev'iew
Committee, or Board of the Master Association if there is an
appeal, then the Master Association shail have the right, but not
the obligation, to perform the maintenance or repair and charge
the property Owner, or the Town Home Association, as applicable,
for the entire costs associated therewith, together with an
adj01inistrative fee equal to an additional ~5% of the total costs,
and interest thereon at the rate of 12% per annum from 30 days
after an invoice for payment "is deiivered to the party
responsible for payment thereof. An Assessment Lien shall secure
repayment on the part of any Owner and be enforceable in the same
manner as other liens provided for herein. The Master
Association shall have the specific authority to pursue any legal
remedy available under Washington law to enforce this covenant in
accordance with its terms. In the event of litigation, th~
prevailing party shall be entitled to recover their reasonable
attorneys' fees and costs.
section ~O.5 Assessment of Certain Costs of Maintenance
And Repair. In the event that the need for maintenance or repair
is caused through the willful or negligent act or omission of any
Owner, Resident or occupant, or their tenants, guest$ or
invitees, the cost of such maintenance or repair may, at ~he
discretion of the Board of the Association otherwise charged wJ.th
remedying the saws, be charged directly to the Owner of ~he
property and shall be payable in accordance with the timLcfGltE~
# _J::f6
Pa, e Jl4- of
MASTER DECLARATIO~ - 31
val 507 f~~c222
';0'-
e
e
established by the Board. .An Assessment Lien shall
repayment and be enforceable in the same manner as
Assessments provided for herein.
....
secure
other
ARTICLE 11
ARCRITECTORAL CONTROL
Section 11.~ Lots Subject To LUQlow Maintenance commission
Architectural Review. At all times aftar conveyance from Pope
Resources, the Owners of each Town Home Lot and S ingle-Family Lot
within Ludlow Bay Village shall be subject to Ludlow Maintenance
Commission ("L"'!C1t) architectural cont::'ol, as set forth in A~ticle
17, in addition to architectural control by the Architectural
Review Committee of the Master Association as set forth below.
Prior to seeking approval of the Master Association Committee,
Owners must obtain approval of their plans and specifications
from the LMC Architectural Control committee. The fOllowing
applies to LMC architectural control:
No building or structure ( including fences or any
manmad.e obst~ction) shall be built or placed or thereafter
altered on any Lot, nor shall a Lot be cleared or excavated for
use, nor shalf ~ny tree of six-inch (6") or more breast dia~eter
be cut, until after the details and written plans and
specifications thereof disclosing clearing, size, materials,
location, finish, and elevations (and as to tree cutting, with
specific identification of individual trees to be cut) have been
subm'itted to and .approved by the !.Me Architectural Control
Committee. The !..Me Architectural Control Committee shall consist
of five individuals who shall be appointed by and subject to
removal or replacement by the Board of Trustees of the LMC. The
Address of the Architectural control committee shall be: Ludlow
Maintenance Co~ission, Inc., Post Office Box 6506, Port Ludlow,
Washington, 93365, Attention: Architectural Control Committee.
The address ~ay be changed from time to time by the Board of
Trustees of the LMC. Within thirty (30) days o~-submission of
plans and specifications to such committee, such committee by a
majority vote and in writing may approve or. disapprove or may
conditionally approve plans and specifications so submitted. It
such plans and specifications be so disapproved (or if
conditionally approved, then unless the conditions thereof be
complied with) the projected construction shall not be
undertaken, o~ if undertaken in violation hereof, may be abated
by legal proceedings instituted by the LMC or any aggrieved
party, irrespective of the time of completion thereof. The
committee shall in good faith exercise discretionary approval and
disapproval of plans and specifications on a basis of mini~izing
interference with enjoyment of nearby Lots and of enforc1ng an
improvement use and occupancy of the land in a pleasing but not
vet. 507 t'A..c223
LOG \TEM
# ___~!k:1E-.
Paoe _J~2. 'Of
.,J
MASTER DECLARATION - 32
e
e
necessarily uniform combination of permanent residences arid
recreational homes.
section 11.2 Est.a,l:,lishment of Master Association
Architectural Review Committee. Within the Master Association,
the Declarant shall establish an Architectural Revie~ Committee
(referred to herein as "Committeell) to perform the functions set
forth in this Master Declaration and may adopt procedural rules
and regulations for the performance of such duties, including
procedures for the preparation, submission and dete~ination of
the application for any approvals required by this Master
Declaration. The committee shall consist of three (J} members.
Declarant shall have the right to appoint the members of the
committee for five (5) years from the date this Master
Declaration is recorded: providing, howev~r, that Declarant, by
written notification to the Master Association Board, may elect
to terminate this right of appointment of the Committee at any
time. Upon termination of Declarant's right of appointment, the
Master Association Board shall have the power to appoint all
members of the Committee. For as long as Declarant has the right
to appoint the members of the Co~~ittee, Co~~ittee members need
not be Members of the Master Association and may specifically be
employees or agents of Declarant. Upon te~ination of
Declarant's right of appointment, the Master Association Soard
shall select members of the Co~~ittee from Members of the Master
Association. Decisions of the Committee shall be by a majority
vote of its members. Subj ect to the appeal provisions of Section
11.4, the ciecision of the Committee shall be final on all matters
considered by it pursuant to this Master Declaration.
Section 11.3
Review By Committee.
11.3.1 construction And Alteration Of Buildings ADd
:Improvements. After conveyance from pope Resources t prior
approval by t~e Committee shall be required for all new
construction of dwellings, buildings, structures, or permitted
improvements within Ludlow Bay Village. :In.. addition, no
alteration or modification to an existing dwelling, building,
structure, or other improvement within Ludlow Bay Village
previously constructed by Declarant or approved by the committe~
shall be made unless complete plans and specifications therefor
have been first. submitted to and approved in writing by the
Committee. The O~ners of any Town Home Lot or' Single-family
residential Lot subject to LMC architectural control shall first
obtain approval from the L~C prior to submission to the
Committee. The committee shall exercise its best judgment to the
end that all such changes, improvements and alterations requested
for properties within Ludlow Bay Village conform to and harmonize
with the existing character of Ludlow Bay Village and fully
comply with Ludlow Bay Village Design Standards.
vOt. 507 fk-.C 224
LOG ITEM
# 1-U>
Page .J.LCi of
MASTER DECLARATION - 33
VO~
e
e
11.3.2 Kaintenance And Repair. The Committee shalL
have the power and authority to provide for proper maintenance
and repair of all properties within Ludlow Bay Village as
specified in Article 10 of this Master Declaration.
Section 1.1.,( Appeal. Any Owner aggrieved by a decision of
the Committee may appeal the decision to the Master Association
Board in accordance with established procedures of the Master
Association Board, which shall be available to all Members at the
Master Association Office or such other location designated by
the Master Association Board. The determination'of the Master
Association Board is final and binding,on all parties.
section 11.5 Fee. The Master Association Board may
establish a reasonable processing fee to defer the costs to the
Master Association in considering any requests for approvals
submitted to the Committee, which fee shall be paid at the'time
the request for approval is submitted. The Master Association
Board may also establish a reasonable processing fee to defer the
costs to the Maste?: Association in considering any appeal
submitted to the Master Association Board, which fee shall be
paid at the time the appeal is delivered to the Master
Association Board.
section 1.1.6 LUd10v Bay Village Design standards. Ludlow
Bay Village Design Standards shall be initially prepared by the
Declarant or Master Association Board, at the discretion of
Declarant, and may include written guidelines setting forth the
mini~um standards for the' design, height, square footage,
location, style, structure, color, mode of architecture, mode of
landscaping, maintenance and other relevant criteria associated
~ith all properties within Ludlow Bay Village. The purpose of
Ludlow Bay Village Design Standards is to preserve and promote
the character of Ludlow Bay Village. By acceptance of a deed for
any property within Ludlow Bay Village, each Owner thereof and
his successors and assigns agree to be bound by all provisions of
Ludlow Bay Village Design Standards, as may be amended from time-
to-time by the Master Association Board, and to use diligence in
keeping abreast of the provisions thereof ~nd any amendments
thereto.
section 1.1.7 Violation ot Approved Plans of Tbe Commi ttee.
If the Committee determines that work on any property within
Ludlow Bay Village has not been completed in compliance with the
final plans approved by the Committee, then the Committee or the
Master Association Board m~y notify the Owner in writing of such
noncompliance, specifying in reasonable detail the particulars of
noncompliance, and may require the Owner to remedy the same. If
the Owner fails to remedy such noncompliance within a reasonable
time period designated by the Committee, then the Declarant or.
the Master Association Board shall have the right to enter upon
VOL 507 f~.., 225
#
LOG ITEM
2-kP
~of
MASTER DECLARATION - 34
e
e
the property of any Owner and obtain compliance or remedy
noncompliance as ordered by the committee and the cost of such
performance or remedy shall be charged to the Owner of t..'le
property in question, which cost shall be due within ten (lO)
business days after receipt of written demand therefor. In
addition, in the event of noncompliance, the Declarant or the
Master Association Board shall have the right to initiate
litigation - for injunctive relief and/or damages and the
prevailing party in any such litigation shall have the right to
recover reasonable attorneys I fees and costs (including both
court costs and reasonable additional expenses for experts I
consultants and others involved in the litigation) as dete~ined
by the Court.
section 11.8 Non-Liability For -Approval Of Plans Or
Directions Regarding Maintenance And Repair. Committee approval
of plans' shall not constitute a representation, warranty or
guarantee that such plans and specifications comply with good
engineering or design or with zoning or building ordinances, or
other governmental regulations or restrictions. By approving
such plans and specifications I neither the Committee, the me!J.bers
thereof, the Master Association, the Master Association Boa=d,
nor Declarant assumes any liability or responsibility therefor,
or for any defect in the structure constructed from such plans or
specifications. None of the above stated entities or individuals
shall be liable to any Member, Owner, Resident, Occupant or other
person or entity for any damage, loss, or prejudice suffered or
claimed on account of (a) the approval or disapproval of any
plans, drawings and specifications, whether or not defective, or
(b) the const~ction or performance of any work, whether or not
pursuant to the approved plans, drawings, and specifications; or
(c) any order given with regard to required maintenance or
repair.
ARTICLE 12
RIGHTS AND POWERS OF THE ASSOCIATIONS.
Section 12.1 Rights And Powers. The Associations shall
have the rights and powers set forth in this Master Declaration
and all other Governing Documents, together with all rights and
powers of a non-prOfit corporation incorporated in the State of
Washington. Upon incorporation of the Associations, a copy of
the Articles and Bylaws shall be available for inspection and
copying at the Associations I office (s) during reasonable business
hours.
Section 1.2.2 contracts with others For Performance Of The
Associations' Duties. Subject to the restrictions and
limitations contained herein, the Associations may enter- into
contracts and transactions with others I including Declarant and
LOG iTEM
MASTER DECLARATION - 35 # ---2-L2
VOi. 507 b\., 226 ...lfG. 500 1..r83~ge.Jl.tlL.. of
e
e
its affiliated companies, and such contracts or transactions
shall not be invalidated or in any way affected by the fact that
one or more Directors or Officers of the Associations, or members
of any Committee, is employed by or otherwise connected with
Declarant or its affiliat.es, provided that the fact of such
interest shall be disclosed or known to the other members of the
Board acting upon such contract or transaction, and provided
further that the transaction or contract is fair and reasonable.
ARTICLE 1.3
INSURANCE
sect.ion :1.3.1 Insurance On Common Areas. The Master
Association shall maintain insurance covering all insurable
improvements located or constructed upon the Common Areas. The
Master Association shall maintain the fOllowing insurance, to the
extent that such insurance is reasonably available, considering
the costs and risk coverage provided by such insurance:
13. ~.l A policy of property insurance covering all
insurable imorovements located or constructed on the Common Areas
with a ItRepiacement Cost Endorsement. \I Such insurance shall
afford protection against loss or damage by fire and other perilS
normally covered by the standard extended cove~age endorsement
and such other risks customarily covered with respect to projects
similar in construction, location and use, inCluding all perils
normally covered by the standard all risk endorsement, where such
is available.
:1.3~:1..2 A comprehensive policy of public liability
insurance covering all Common Areas in an amount not less than
One Million Dollars ($1,000 1000.00) covering bodily injury,
including death to persons, personal injury, and property damage
liability arising out of a single occurrence, and such other
risks as shall customarily be covered with respect to projects
similar in construction, location and use.
13.1.3 In the event of damage to, or destruction of,
all or any portion of the Common Areas due to fire or othe~
adversity or disaster, the insurance proceeds, if sufficient to
reconstruct or repair the damage, shall be paid by the Master
Association for such reconstruction and repair. If the insurance
proceeds with respect to such damage or destruction are
insufficient to repair and reconstruct the damage or destruction,
then the Master Association shall present to the Members a notice
of Special Assessment for approval by the Membership in
accordance with Article 7 hereof. If such special Assessment is
not approved, the insurance proceeds may, after first being used
to clean and landscape damaged areas, be applied in accordance
with the direction of the Master Association Board.
MASTER DECLARATION - 36
YOt. 507 ~ :....( 227
YO~ ;z;~. 838. LUG ITEM
#_-
p,...~"..
u:
'l:4-b
llLL of
e
e
Section 13.2 Insurance On other Properties. Owners of all
properties Yithin Ludlow Bay Village shall maintain insurance
covering all insurable improvements located or constructed upon
their properties. Each Owner shall maintain the following types
of insurance with an insurance company with an,A.M. Best rating
of at least A-VI:
13.2.1 A policy of property insurance covering all
insurable improvements located on the Ownerts properties with a
t1Replacement Cost Enc.orse:nent. II Such insurance shall afford
protection against loss or damage by fire and other perils
normally covered by t~e standard extended coverage endorsement
and such other risks customarily covered with respect to projects
similar in construction, location, and use, including all perils
normally covered by the standard all risk endorsement, where such
is available. In the event of damage to, or destruction of, all
or any portion of an Owner's properties due to fire or other
adversity or disaster, the insurance proceeds shall be paid by
the Owner for such reconstruction and repair, unless otherwise
specifically p:::ovided by the Master Association Board in writing.
The Master Association shall be listed on all property insurance
policies as an, "additional insured II to ensure its ability to
require the insurance proceeds to be utilized for reconstruction
of the damaged improvements.
13.2.2 Insurance coverage on furnishings, other
personal property, and glass, together with all other forms of
insurance not specifically provided for in this Master
Declaration, 'shall be the responsibility of the Owner of
properties within Ludlow Bay Village.
13.2.:3 A comprehensive policy of public 1 iabili ty
insurance covering t~e Owner's properties in an amount not less
than One Million Dollars ($1,000,000.00) covering bodily injury,
including death to persons, personal injury, and property damage
liability arising out of a single occurrence, and such other
risks as shall customarily be covered with respect to projects
similar in construction, location and use.
13.2." An insurance policy provided for herein may not
be canceled or substantially diminished or reduced in coverage
without at least thirty (30) days' prior written notice to the
Master Association. Each Owner shall be required to deliver to
the Master Association a Certificate of Insurance which confirms
that the insurance coveraqe'outlined in this Article 13 have been
placed with an insurance company with an A.M. Best rating of at
least A-VI, and confirming that the Master Association has b7en
named as an additional insured as required herein, together w~th
a copy of the actual insurance policy. LOG ITEM
# tz--6
MASTER DECLARATION 37 Page~ot
Vat 507 ~~..c228
Y(jt~
e
e
ARTICLE 1....
E,"SEMEN'I'S
section 1~.1 Maintenance Easement. An easement is
reserved and granted to the Associations, their Officers,
Directors, agents, employees and representatives upon, across,
over, in and under all proge~ties within Ludlow Bay Village, as
reasonably necessary, to enable the Associations to perform the
duties and functions which they are obligated or permitted to
perform pursuant to this Master Declaration.
Section .1.4.2
Future Utility Ease~ents.
14.2.1 For a period of twenty-five (25) years from the
date this Master Declaration is recorded, and notwithstanding
anything to the contrary herein, Declarant reserves the right to
grant additional easements, licenses and permits upon, across,
over and under any property within Ludlow Bay Village (other than
directly under any constructed building unless the Owner consents
thereto) , for purposes including I but not limited to,
installation I maintenance I repair, replacement and improvet:lent of
any utilities,. such as electric, water, sewer, ,gas~ telephone,
fiber optic cable, television cable and drainage. Declarant nay
terminate the right to grant such easements by delivering notice
to the Master Association in writing at any time.
14.2.2 At the end of the time period set forth in
subsection 14.2.1 for Declarant1s right to grant easements, the
Master Association shall have the right to grant easements,
licenses and permits upon, across, over and unde= any portion of
the Cotr<.l"'aon Areas for installation, maintenance and repair of
utilities and drainage; provided said easements, licenses and
permits shall be (1) consistent with the intended use of
properties within Ludlo'", Bay Village; (2) reasonably necessary or
desirable for the proper use, maintenance and operation of Ludlo'",
Bay Village properties; and (3) substantially wfthout adverse
effect on the enjoyment of any affected properties within Ludlow
Bay Village.
Section 14.3 Access 'And Use Easements Within The Town Home
Lots. Each town home is located on a cluster of several Lots.
An easement is hereby reserved, conveyed and created upon, across
and over each town home Lot within a cluster of Lots on which a
town home is located I in favor of, and for the benefit of, each
town home Lot within the. cluster and the Owners I Residents,
Occupants, tenants, guests and invitees thereof, for purposes of
ingress, egress, utilities and use of driveways, walk~ays and
common courtyards, if applicable, adjacent to each town home.
MASTER DECLARATION - 38
LOG ITEM
# _~_k2!J__
PaOH -1~, of
VOL 507 ~~-~.. 229
e
e
...
Section 14.4 Riqbts Of Declarant Xncident To Construction.
An easement is reserved by and granted to Declarant, its
successors and assigns, for use, access, ingress, and. egress
over, in, upon, und.er, and across the Common Areas including, but
not limited to, the right to store materials thereon and to make
such other use the reo f as maY be reasonably necessary or
incidental to Declarant' 5 construction within Ludlow Bay village.
. Section 1.,(.5 Easements Deemed Creat.ed. All conveyances of
properties within Ludlow Bay Village hereafter made, whether by
the Oeclarant or other-..J'ise, shall be construed to grant and
reserve the ease:.\ents contained in ~aster Declaration, even
though no specific reference to such easements appears in the
instrument of such conveyance.
ARTICLE .1S
CONDEMNATION
Section 1.5.1 Actions And Awards. In the event proceedings
are initiated by any governmental entity seeking to take eminent
domain of the COmQon Areas, or any part thereof, or any interest
therein I' with a value as reasonably determined by the Master
Association Boa~d in excess of $10,000, then the Master
Association shall give prompt notice thereof to all Members. . The
Master Association shall have full power and authority to defend
said proceedings I and to represent the Owners in any
negotiations, settlements and agreements with a condemning_
authority for acquisition of the COmInon Areas, or any part
thereof, but ,the Master Association shall not enter into any such
proceedings, settlements or agreements pursuant to which all or
any portion or interest in the COmlilon Areas, or improvements
located thereon, are relinquished, without giving all Members at
least fifteen (15) days prior written notice thereof. In the
event following such proceedings, there is such a taking in
condemnation or by eminent domain of a part or all of said
properties, the a~ard made for such taking shall -be applied by
the Master Association to such repair and restoration of the
remaining CoItti.-non Areas, or improvements thereon, as the Board, in
its discretion, shall determine.
ARTICLE 16
PUBLIC ACCESS
Section 16.1 Public. Use And Access. Declarant hereby
declares that Tracts A, c, D and a public access easement across
portions of Ml, ~ithin Ludlow Bay Village (hereafter referred to
as "Public Access Tracts"), shall be available for public use and
access in accordance ~ith the terms and conditions set forth
herein, for the ll'fe of the project. Thereafter, such public use
MASTER DECLARATION - 39
VOL
507' I ~~r 230
LOG ITEM
# . ")1,
_~ ~t>
~i 5OG- ~k..,8~-Db_ of_
.
It
and access shall be at the discretion of the Master Association
Board.
section 16.2 Grant Of Public Use And Access Easement.
Declarant hereby grants to the general public a non-exclusive
access easement for the. life of the proj ect over the Public
Access Tracts; subject to the te~s and conditions set forth in
section 16.3 of this Master Declaration.
section 16.3 Public Access Use Restrictions. The Public
Access Tracts shall be available to the general public for
passive recreational use, such as walking, bird watching, and the
like, during daylight hours. The Master Association shall have
the right to implement normal behavior standards and reasonable
use restrictions with regard to the ,Public Access Tracts,
including, but not limited to, the right to restrict or prohibit
pets, vehicles, alcohol consumption and/or loud music within the
Public Access Tracts. General public parking for the Public
Access Tracts shall be provided and designated with appropriate
signage.
A.."tTICLE 17
LUDLOW MAINTENANCE CO~~ISSION
section 17.1 ~ovn Home and Single-Family Lots Subject To
Membership In Ludlow Ma.intena.nce Commission. Upon conveyance from
Pope Resources, the Owner(s) of each Town Home Lot and Single-
Family Lot within Ludlow Bay Village shall be a member of the
LudloW' Maintenance Commission (hereafter referred to as lithe
L.'1Cll), a non-profit corporation formed under the laws of the.
State of Washington, and shall be subject to the Articles and
Bylaws, Rules and Regulations thereof. As members, the Owners of
each Town Home Lot and Single-Family Lot will benefit fro~ the
common amenities, and be subject to the L~C assessments.
section 17.2 Assessments and Liens. The ~C is empowered
to establish assessments upon Lots for common purposes as set
forth in the Articles and By-Laws thereof. Such assessments
shall constitute a lien upon each such Lot as of the due dat~
thereof, and such lien may be foreclosed by the LMC in the sa~e
form and manner of procedure as the foreclosure of real property
'C\ortgage lien under the laws of the state of Washington. Expenses
of title examination and assurance, costs of attorneys, court
costs and interest at 10% per annum shall be included with the
amount of any delinquent assessment in the judgment of
foreclosure of such lien. The authority to establish assessments
and lien therefor against such Lots within Ludlow Bay Village
subject hereto shall, as to each Lot, first arise when the same
is first sold by deed or real estate contract from pope
Resources, its successors and assigns, to a grantee or contract
MASTER DECLARATION - 40
V'
LOG ITEM
# __ 2..'Lo
ace .-LlL of
,:.;
YOt 507 t~~t231
.
-
purchaser. Assessments shall be assessed and collected on a faIr
and uniform basis as among lots subject thereto. Subject only to
such reasonable differential as may be established by the By-Laws
of the LMC between improved lots and unimproved lots.
Section 17.3 Architectural Review. Uoon conveyance from
Pope Resources/ the Owners of each Town Home Lot and Single-
Fa:J.ily Lot within Ludlow Bay Village shall be subject to L'iC
architectural cont=ol as provided in Article 11 herein.
}....~TICLE 18
TER.."li 1\..\!Zm1:!.EN'rS; TER.~INATION
section 18.1. Term; Method ot Termination. This Master
Declaration shall be effective upon the date of recordation
hereof and, as amended fron time-to-time, shall continue in full
force and effect for a term of twenty-five (25) years from the
date of recording this Master Declaration. Fro~ and after said
date, this Master Declaration, as amended, shall be automatically
extended for successive periods of ten (10) years each, unless
there is an affi~ative vote to terminate this Master Declaration
by a vote of the (1) Mas~er Association Board ~ernbers casting
eighty pe::cent. '(80%) of the vctes of the Master Association Board
at a meeting held for such purpose; and (2) affirmative vote of
Owners representing eighty percent (80%), or more, of the town
home and single-family Lots. If the necessary votes are
obtained, the Master Association Board shall record a Certificate
of Termination in Jefferson County. Thereupon this Master
Declaration spall have no further force and effect.
section ~8.2 Amendoents. This Master Declaration may be
amended by obtaining (1) a vote of the Master Association Board
members casting sixty percent (60%) of the votes of the Board at
a meeting held for such purpose; and (2) affirmative vote of
Owners representing forty percent (40%), or morel of the town
home and single-family Lots; provided, however, that the
provisions of Article 16 cannot be amended without the consent of
3efferson County; and provided, further, that the provisions of
Article 18 cannot be amended without the vote of the (1) Master
Association Board members casting eighty percent (80%) of the
votes of the Master Association Board at a meeting held for such
purpose: and (2) affirmative vote of Owners representing eighty
percent (80%), or more, of the town home and single-family Lots.
Any amendment to this Master Oeclaration shall be recorded with
the Jefferson County Auditor as a Certificate of Amendment, duly
signed and acknowledged by the President of the Master
Association.
MASTER DECLARATION - 41
#
Page
LOG ITEM
9-2-6
112- of_
V~ 507. .~~. 232
.
~~{
Section 18.3 Right of Amendment If Requested By
Governmental A~encies Or Lendinqznstitutious. Not~ithstanding
anything to the contrary contained hereinl Declarant reserves the
right to amend all o~ any part of this Master Declaration to such
an 'extent and -,.;ith such language as may be requested by any
governmental e:-.tity or agency or lending institution as a
precondition oZr.1aking any loan. Any such amendment shall be
perfected by t::.e Declarant I;=.; recording of a Certificate of
~~endment, duly signed by an authorized signatory of Declarant,
and each Owner ::ereby grants his irrevocable power of attor:1ey to
Declarant for ~he purposes set forth herein, specificallYI
Declarant shal:!. have the right to execute and record said
Certificate of ~~endment on behalf of all Owners and bind all
properties wit~in Ludlow Bay Village to the terms 'and conditions
set forth therein.
AR':rICLE 1.9
MISCELLANEOUS
Section 19.1 Interpretation Of The Covenants. Except for
judicial const~~ction, the Master Association Board shall have
the exclusive=:ght to construe and interpret the provisicns of
this Master Declaration. In the absence of any adjudication to
the contrary; the Master Association f s construction' or
interpretation of the provisions hereof shall be final,
conclusive and ~inding as to all persons- and property benefitted
or bound by this Master Declaration.
Section ,19.2 Severability. Any dete~ination by any court
of competent jurisdiction that any provision of this Master
Declaration is invalid or unenforceable shall not affect the
validity or enf::::-ceability of any of the other provisions hereof.
section 19.3 Rule ~gainst Perpetuities. If any interest
purported to be created by this Master Declaration is challenged
under the Rule Against Perpetuities or any related rulel the
interest shall be construed as becoming void and of no effect as
of the end of the applicable period of perpetuities computed frOlL\,
the date when ~he period of perpetuities starts to run on th~
challenged interest.
Section 19.~ References To The Master Declaration In
Deeds. Deeds to and instruments affecting any of the properties
within Ludlow Bay Village may contain the covenants herein set
forth by reference to this Master Declaration; but regardless of
whether any such reference is made in any deed or instrument, <;-11
terms and conditions of this Master Declaration shall run w~th
the land and shall be binding on all persons c.la.iming any
interest thereinl their heirsl executors, adm~n~strators,
successors and assigns_
va" 5
LOG ITEM
# .1-2l)
Pao~:;, '11.. '''''f
'........ -, ,-...~~,,L2. ',..,I
MASTER DECLARATION - 42
Yu~ 507..:.. 233
--
e
"
IN WITYESS WllEREOF t POPE RESOORCES, A DELAWARE LIMI.TED
PARTNERSHIP, has hereunto caused its authorized officials to
execute this Master Declaration as of the day and year first
above-writte:l.
POPE RESOURCES, A DELAWARE
LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, Declarant,
by Pope MGP Inc.,a Delaware
corporation, its General Partner
.....
,-, ~
By: ,C:J. [d-. I .
George H. F~quet,
its presidertt and Chief
Executive Officer
STATE OF WASH!~GTON )
) 55.
County of K~~sap )
On this 25~day of M^v I 1994, before met the undersigned,
a Notary ?ublic in and tor the State of Washington, duly
commissioned and sworn, personally appeared George H. Folquet, to
me known to be the President and Chief Executive Officer of Pope
MGP, Inc. I a Delaware corporation, which is known to me to be the'
General Partner 'of Pope Resources, A Delaware Limited
partnershipt the partnership that executed the foregoing
instrumentt and acknowledged the said instrument to be the free
and volunta=y act and deed of said partnership, for the uses and
purposes therein mentioned, and on oath stated that he was
authorized ~o execute the said instrument.
WITNESS MY HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL hereto af fixed the day and
year first above written.
@mnuJ e. 2f1mrl oh,('\ffrL./
NOTARY WBLIC ih and for the
state o~ Washington, residing
at (-1)mt r--l(';llJrlL'tLmd-,
My commisS"ion expires: ;( 14.!Q5.
. . I
MASTER DEC~TION - 43
LOG ITEM
# _ 2...'7-t;
Page ~ of
veL 507 ~~..: 234
tit
e
"EXHIBIT An
That ponion of Government LotS 1 and 2, Section 16, all in Tav,'UShip 28 North. Range 1
East, \VM. in Jefferson County. \Vashington, lying Easterly aad Southerly of County road
right-of.way;
TOGETIIER WITH those par-ions of tidelands of the second class as conveyed by the State
of \Vashington and tidelands of the second class as lying in fronc of, adjacent to, and
abutting thereon, lying Easterly of a liI1e extending due South from U.S. Department of
Commerce Environmental Scie:lce Ser'v1ces Administration Coast and Geodetic Survey tidal
bench mark NQ.. 7 (1952) to r...~e outer limits of said tidelands conveyed by deed flied in
Volume 40. page 307.313 or the line or ordinary high water whichever lies further towards
the center of Port Ludlow Bay;
EXCEPT 'that portion lying :--;orth of the Southerly line of that certain tract of land
conveyed to the "LMC" by deed recorded in V oiume 43 of official records, pages 498
through 501, inclusive, and under AuditorJs File No. 221959;
ALSO EXCEPT Councy road rlght.of.way as conveyed by Auditor's File No, 333256;
.o.\LSO EXCEPT POrt Ludlow Condominiums No.1. as per instrument recorded in Volume
1 of Condominiums. pages 15 throu2.h 22. records of Jefferson County, \Vashington;
... ..
AlSO EXCEPT that portion of Government Lot 2, Section 16, described as follo\\(s:
Begio.ni.ng at a point on the Southedy margin of Port Ludlow.Chimacum County Road
distant South 01001' 04" East, 944.68 feet from tbe Northwesterly corner of said Section 16;
thence along the Southerly margin of the POrt Ludlow.Chimacum County Road Nonb 670
34' 30" East, 233.56 feet; thence along a curve to the right having a radius of 543.70 feet,
a distance of 52.43 feet; thence North 73006' 00" East, 201.15 feet to the Northwesterly
comer of the tract herein described and the True Point of Beginni..qg; thence continuing
along said Southerly margin of the Pon Ludlow-Chimacum County Road North 73006' 00"
East 160.0 feet; thence South 160 54' 00" East. 247.68 feet; thence along the Government
meander line in said Section 16, South 600 56' 30" West, 163.67 feet; thence North 160 5~'
00" \Vest, 282.15 feet to the True Point of Beginn.ing;
AlSO EXCEPT that portion of Government Lot 2 in Section 1.6, Township 28 North,
Range 1 East. \VM, Jefferson County, \Vashington. lying Southedy of Oak Bay Road. as
conveyed to Jefferson Councy by dee"ds recorded under Auditor's File No. 198906 and in
Volume 101 of Deeds, page 268. and at Volume 1 of Road Waivers, page 31: Easterly of
Port Ludlow Condomin.ium No.1 as per plat recorded in Volume 1 of Condominiums, pag.e
15, records of Jefferson County Auditor; and \Vesterly of a tract of land conveyed to LOUIS
E, Scott etux by deed dated September 17. 1991; and recorded Seprember 20, 1991. under
Auditor's File No. 343770, records of Jefferson County, Washington.
Situate in the County of Jefferson. State of Washington.
YOt 507 P"~t 235
LOG \TEM
# _"_~:LO
,J.15:. of
C""
,.,:":,":
c.:.:--
r-~~
<='::
f- ;:::,J';
'" #~ ~
t,.::-t.:.;
2. AMENDMENT OF MASTER DECLARATION. The following sections..;::::::::::.
modify and supersede' their corresponding Sections in the Master < X:- ~
Declaration: ~;5~ ~
::r. ;- ...
C ~.: ~ Q
Z-=-'
<0
No animal, bird, fowl, poultry, or livestock, other than v: W E;;
recognized house or yard pets ("Pets") I shall be maintained on any
Lot and then only if kept thereon solely as domestic pets and not
for commercial purposes. No pets shall be allowed to make an
unreasonable amount of noise or to become a nuisance. No structure
for the care, housing or confinement of any pets shall be
maintained ,outside of any Dwelling unit, nor shall any pets, be
permitted -10 be housed or kept outdoors. Each Owner shall be
responsible for the removal and disposal of all solid animal waste
of his Pets from any property within Ludlow Bay Village. No Pets
shall be permitted on any property within Ludlow Bay Vi1t.JeEtPtTEMler
#~Q
Page~of,
e
e
AFTER RECORDING
RETURN TO:
.
POPE RESOURCES
781 WALKER WAY
PORT LUDLOW, WA
98365
3811.39
, JfECOMVEO fi
i/OL._PAGE
OF OFFICIAL RECORDS--;"
REOY::ST OF
1S95 APR 27 A.IJf II: 36
~ gcmiA H. !:~~;\IOG,
Je,FHRSOfi CCUHT'r AUD1"O~
AMENDMENT TO I
KASTER DECLARATION OF COVENANTS, CO~I~IONS, RESTRICTIONS
ASSESSMENTS, CRARGES" LIENS, RESER~TrOl(~ Mm BSBKSItlfSYFOR
LUDLOW BAY VILLAGE
TH:r.S AKENDHElrr TO TRE KASTER DECLARATION OF COVENAN'rS,
CONDITIONS, RESTRICTIONS, ASSESSMENTS, CRARGES,. LIENS, RESERVATIONS
AND EASEKEN"l'S FOR LUDLOW BAY VILLAGE (referred to as the "Master
Declaration" 'When referring to the original, and the "Master
Declaration Amendment" whe!}.referring to this instrument) is made
and entered into this as:: \ day of ;4 ~'l.':: I , 1995 I by POPE
RESOURCES, a Delaware Limited Partnersnip (hereafter referred to as
ffDeclarant").
1. PURPOSE. Declarant is the owner of certain real property
located in Jefferson County, WaShington, consisting of 17.87 acres,
legally described in Exhibit A, attached hereto and incorporated
herein by this reference, which is located in the unincorporated
community of Port Ludlow (hereafter referred to as "Ludlow Bay
Villaqetl) '. Ludlow Bay Village is subject to the Master
Declaration, recorded' under Jefferson county Auditor's File No.
372516, and re-recorded under Jefferson county AUditorls File No.
3726954 The purpose of this Master Declaration Amendment is to
supersede those provisions of the Master Declaration specifically
changed herein and add, a provision relating to an exclusive
easement in favor of Ludlow Associates for the benefi~ of tha Inn
at Ludlow Bay. Except, however, as expressly modified herein, the
Master Declaration shall remain and continue in full force and
effect4
A.
Section ,(.2
Animals 4
AKENOMENT TO KASTER DECLARATION
- 1
e
e
than the Owner I s Lot, unless controlled on a leash or similar
device. Upon the written request of any Kember, the Kaster
Association .Board shall conclusively determine, in its sole an4
absolute discretion, whether for the purposes of this Section a
particular animal, bird, fowl, poultry or livestock is a nuisance
or a generally r~coqnized house or yard pet and ~hether there has
been a violation of this Section. Any decision rendered by the
Master Association Board shall be final and binding and enforceable
by Court injunction',andjor any other remedy provided by Washington
law.
B. Section 4.13 Restrictions On Residential Rental.
"..13.1. Long Term. Rental. The following shall apply
to long term rental, which shall be defined as rental for not less
than six (6) consecutive months to the same tenant{s). The entire
Dwelling Unit may be let to a single family tenant from time-tQ~
time by the Owner on a long term rental basis without utilization
of the procedures set forth in Section &\ .13.2 below. No subletting
shall be allowed with regard to long term rental. All leases and
rental agreements shall be in writing and specifically shall state
(1) that they ar~ subject to each and every requirement, covenant,
condition and restriction of the Master Declaration}. Master
Declaration Amendment and other Governi~g Documents; (2) that any
failure by the tenant to comply with the terms of the Governing
Documents shall be a default under the lease or rental agreement;
and (3) that the Owner grants to the Town Home Association Board,
and its Manaqing Agent, if any, the authority to evict the
tenant(s) on the Ownerls behalf for such default, upon only such
notice as is required by law. If any lease or rental agreement
does not contain the foregoing p~Gvisions, such provisions shall
nevertheless be deemed to be a part of the lease and binding upon
the Owner and the tenant by reason of inclusion in the Governing
Documents. Neither the Town Home Association Board, nor its
Managing Agent, if applicable, shall be liable to the . Owner or the
tenant(s) for any eviction under this subsection that is made in
good faith. Copies of all leases and rental agreements shall be
delivered to the Town Home Association office prior to commencement
of any tenancy.
4.13.2- Short Term, .~o?......t;~14 The following shall
apply to short term rental, which shall be defined as renta~ on a
daily, weekly} monthly or other periodic period less than.s1x (~)
c0nsecutive months to the same tenant(s). The entire DwellJ.ng Un~t
may be let to single family 'tenant (s) from time-to-time by the
Owner on a short term rental basis only under the following terms
and conditions:
~ (1) The rental shall be made only through a
professional rental management pool approved in advance by the Town
Home Association Board;
AMENDMENT TO KASTER DZCLARA~ION - 2
LOG \1E.M
:# __.:W---
_ \11 01
e
e
(2) Each tenant must enter into 'a written rental
agreement, in a form approved by the Town Home Association Board,
which among other provisions provides that (1) they ar~ subject to
each and every requirement, covenant, condition and restriction of
the Master Declaration, Master Declaration Amendment and other
Governing Documents: (2) any failure by the tenant(s) to comply
with the terms of the Governing Documents shall be a default under
the lease or rental agreement; and (3) the Owner grants to the Town
Home Association Board, and its Hanag.j.ng Agent, if any, the
authority to evict the short term tenant(s) on the Owner1s behalf
with 24 hours notice in the event of default, or shorter time if
law enforcement is utilized to accomplish the eviction. Even if
any rental agreement entered into with tenant(s) fails to contain
the foregoing provisions I such provisions shall nevertheless' be
deemed to be a part of the rental agreement and binding upon the
Owner and the tenant(s} by reason of inclusion in the Governing
Documents. Nei ther the Town Home Association Board, nor its
Managing Agent, if applicable, shall be liable to the Owner or the
tenant(s} for any eviction under this subsection that is made in
good faith. Copies of all rental agreements shall be delivered by
the Owner to the Town Home Association office prior to commencement
of any short term rental;
(3) The Town Home Association Board shall have the
right from time-to-time to establish Rules and Regulations relating
to short term rental use of Dwelling units and/or property within'
Ludlow'Bay Village.
C. Section 4.18 Parking.
~41B.l Authorized Parking 4 Vehicles of all Lot
Owners, Residents, Occupants, Tenants and their guests and
invitees, are to be kept in the garages, residential driveways and
other designated parking areas. Within any designated parking
areas, the, Town Home Association Board, at its sole discretion,
shall have the right to designate parking spaces for particular
Dwelling Units.
4.18.2 Unauthorized Parking. It is the intent of
the Declarant to eliminate on-street parking (unless authorized-by
the Master Association) and DC\!:'klng within parking areas deslqIJa:t;.eq
for the Inn (unless prior authorization is Obtained from the Inn) .
Any unauthorized vehicles parking on-street within Ludlow Bay
Village or within parking areas designated for the Inn may be towed
away at the direction of (1) the Master Association Board and/or
Managing Agent with regard to on-street parking; or (2) the Inn
with regard to designated parking areas for the Inn. The owner(s)
of said vehicles shall be fully responsible for any costs and
expenses a~ociated with such removal.
AMENDMENT TO MASTER DECLARATION - 3
LOG ITEM
, # _ 1-2..-0 '
-0.$.. of
e e
o. section 10.2 Maintenance Responsibili'ties ot. the Town
Home Assoeiation.
The Town Home Association shall maintain, or provide for the
maintenance of the town home Lots and improvements thereon to the
extent provided herein, specifically including:
10.2.1 Maintenance and repair 'of the exterior
appearance of all buildings (excluding porches/decks and railings) ,
improvements and landscaping located on town home Lots, which
maintenance shall be limited to (1) painting; (2) roof repair and
replacement i (3) gutters and downspouts; (4) siding repair and
replacement; and (5) lawn and yard maintenance. Each Lot, Owner
shall be responsible for all other repair and maintenance on their
town home Lot(s) including, but not l~mited to, decks/porches and
railings associated therewith, water lines from the water meter to
uses on the Lot, sewer servi.ce lines from the Lot boundary I
fireplaces and chimneys, plUmbing, exterior and interior qlass,
appliances, heating and cooling systems, and private driveways;
"10.2.2 Management of all employment matters,
including hiring', firing, supervising and paying employees and
independent contractors to carry out the Town Home Association
obligations, including maintaining workmen's compensation
insurance, if applicable; and
3.0.2.3 provision of' all utilities, real estate
taxes, insurance, administrative expenses of operation, managem~nt
and related expenses and services as more fully delineated in
subsection 5.2.3 of this Master Declaration.
3. ADDITIONAL PROVISIONS TO KASTER DECLARAT:ION.
Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in the Master
Declaration, the following provisions shall apply within Ludlow Bay
Village,:
A. Exclusive Easement over A portion of Tract C For Inn
Purposes. Declarant hereby grants, conveys and quit claims to
Ludlow Associates, a partnership, and its successors and a~signs,
for the benefit of Ludlow Associates, Inn quests and invitees, an
exclusive easement over a portion of Tract C as shown on "the map
attached hereto as Exhibit B (hereafter the Ileasement propertylt),
for any purposes associated with, and in conjunction with, the Inn,
including, but not limited to use, placement of improvements and
other amenities, maintenance and landscaping; providing, however,
that LUdlow Associates, its successors and assigns, shall be
responsible for all maintenance, upkeep and repair of the easeme~t
property. . Lot Owner (5) I Res idents , occupants, Tenants 1 'l;he.lr
guests or invitees, nor the general public, shall not be perm.ltted
access onto the easement propertYl unless otherwise permitted by
LUdlow Associates, its successors or assigns.
AMENDH2.NT TO KASTBR DECLARATION - 4
LOG rr:EM
#_,,~,,~_$Y! -
11 ~of
-
e
:Ill WI'rNESS WltEREOF, POPE RESOORCES, A DBLAWA.R.S. LIH:ITED
PARTNBRSH:IP" has hereunto caused its authorized officials to
execute this Master Declaration as of the'day and year first above-
written.
POPE RESOURCES, A DELAWARE
LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, Declarant,
by Pope MGP Inc~,a Delaware
:~~i7Lazner
. GREqOR M. CCA,R.RY , (\ _
rlcs Vice Pres~dent. DevelopJeht
., .
STATE OF WASHINGTON )
)55.
County of Kitsap' )
On this ~~ay of Af~t~, 1995, before me, the undersigned,
a Notary Public in and for the state of Washington, duly
'... commissioned and ,sworn, person~lly appeared &eO};,. U. FQ1~.-t.,. to C;tCe <3-
tlt;J\ Jie k,.uOWh Lo be th.?~idc.llt AFllil chIcf E]uu!""Ll., ill OffieGr of Pope t11 cCA-!?
.:im~'MGP I Inc. I a Delaware corporation, which is known to ~e to be the
Gener~l Partner of Pope Resources, A Delaware Limited'Partnership,
the partnership that executed the foregoing instrument, and
acknowledged the said instrument to be the free, and voluntary act
and deed of said p~rtnershipl ,for the uses and purposes therein
~entioned, and on oath stated that he was authorized to execute the
said instrument.
WITNESS MY HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL hereto affixed the day and
year first above written.
_-'-~~"""""""''"'''''-
;-.. ~rp.. 'f H. !'" .....'1,
: ~~.~.~...:::::.....:::~.~.; !~\
/ ....~.~::i..\t~..:.. ':!~/.~ ';~.'.:~:~: .~.\
: / NO ;"-f _ ''':1. \ IL~. .~
'I i ~.';,. ~~.,,~.,"J
II ...s. ! ~ : ~
I OJ : lit... :.J.
~ :,~, : i
'. ".,..-:\ ~(. :"
~" ..,. . .~.\ ,I,:;", ~c .:;
., ~... .... .... .. .~ ... ....~ 't. ~
.., ,....,;.:.:. .::, 'l.~:,,~5.1'." *i
'., c.....;.. '~:'..''''.I:'':'::'...:'..')' ,;'
t, ..:=/..~'" :.,: ,";,I~"; \." ~~.J
'....." ., "oJ I : I ; -"'... :""'''
,,\10 ..... .. ,,,_-.J.
. ...
~ M- (~
NOTARY PUBLIC in and for the
State 'of Was~ington, residing
atKlt\J~STVN .
'My commission expires =.:;2.01"1- 7'~.
AMENDMENT TO MASTER DECLA:aATION - 5
lOG ITEM
#_bbJL
Page _.iliQ_ of
LOG ITEM
# 1-'Lb
Page,~ of
e
-
t3'K
e
e
Powers & Therrien (Diane Sires)
From:
To:
Cc:
"John E. Galt" <jegalt@gte.net>
IIIMichelle Farfanlll <mfarfan@co.jefferson,wa.us>
IIIPowers & Therrienlll <powers_therrien@yvn,com>; IIIRick Rozzelllll <rr2dp@aol.com>; IIILewis
Halelll <LewisHale@aol.com>; IIIAI Scalf" <ascalf@co,jefferson,wa.us>; "'Don Marcylll
<DMarcy@Cairncross,com>; '''de Sa e Silva, Marcolll <MarcodeSaeSilva@DWT.COM>
Wednesday, December 07,20059:04 AM
SUB05-00004d,doc
Ludlow Cove 2 Decision attached
Sent:
Attach:
Subject:
Dear Michelle:
My Decision on the Powers/Rozzell and Hale appeals in re Ludlow Cove Division 2 is attached for copying and
distribution as required by applicable code. A signed hard copy will be in today's mail to you,
I have (by cc of this e-mail) sent a courtesy copy of the Decision to all of the principal parties.
John E. Galt
Hearing Examiner/Officer
Voice/FAX: (425) 259-3144
LOG iTEM
# _~__~~f-J-b
..llzL.. of
e
e
BEFORE THE APPELLATE HEARING EXAMINER FOR
JEFFERSON COUNTY
IN THE MATTER OF THE APPEALS
OF LESLIE A. POWERS/RICHARD L.
ROZZELL AND LEWIS J, HALE
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
DECISION
FILE: SUB05-00004
Ludlow Cove Division 2
DECISION SUMMARY
The Jefferson County Hearing Examiner's Decision is VACATED and REMANDED for
further proceedings in accordance with this Decision,
INTRODUCTION
Leslie A. Powers (Powers), 44 Heron Road, Port Ludlow, Washington 98365, joined by Richard
L. Rozzell (Rozzell), 41 Windrose Drive, Port Ludlow, Washington 98365 (C/o Powers &
Themen, P,S" 3502 Tieton Drive, Yakima, Washington 98902) and Lewis J, Hale (Hale), 10552
15th Avenue NW, Seattle, Washington 98177, separately appeal from the September 2, 2005,
Decision of Irv Berteig, Jefferson County Hearing Examiner (Examiner), approving the Binding
Site Plan/Condominium Subdivision of Ludlow Cove Division 2 and an associated Shoreline
Management Act (SMA) Substantial Development Permit (SDP), Port Ludlow Associates LLC
(PLA), C/o Marco de Sa e Silva (de Sa e Silva), Davis Wright Tremaine LLP, 2600 Century
Square, 1501 Fourth Avenue, Seattle, Washington 98101-1688, is the project applicant.
The Powers/Rozzell and Hale appeals were assigned to Appellate Hearing Examiner (Appellate
Examiner) John E, Galt.
Throughout these proceedings Appellants Powers/Rozzell have been represented by Powers,
Appellant Hale has represented himself, the County's Department of Community Development
(Department) has been represented by Mike Bergstrom (consultant to the County), and Applicant
PLA has been represented by Donald E, Marcy, Cairncross & Hempelmann, P,S" 524 Second
Avenue, Suite 500, Seattle, Washington 98104-2323 (who is attorney for prospective developer
Trendwest Resorts, Inc, (Trendwest)), LOG ITEM
,/oJ. J. :2..J2
.~~
,;,~""
p,~tC,t:>l ~ ~ of
c:\documents and settings\dsires\1ocal settings\temporary internet files\content.ie5\zvhgavur\;nbO~d~c
APPELLATE HEARING E~ERDECISION
RE: SUB05-00004 (PowerslRozzell and Hale appeals)
December 7, 2005
Page 2 of 22
e
On October 14, 2005, the Appellate Examiner issued an Initial Appeal Guidance letter to the
Parties, (Log Item No, 175) That letter included the following statement:
Therefore, unless persuasive statutory, ordinance, or contractual evidence can be
presented to prove the contrary, I find that I have no jurisdiction over the SDP,
That being the case, argument regarding the merits of the SDP Decision will not
be considered,
Appellant Powers sought reconsideration of that statement. (Log Item No, 179) The Appellate
Examiner denied reconsideration in an Interlocutory Order issued October 31, 2005, (Log Item
No, 181)
On November 22, 2005, Appellant Powers sought an indefinite continuance of the scheduled
hearing, (Log Item No, 206) The Appellate Examiner denied that request by Order issued
November 23, 2005, (Log Item No, 212)
The Appellate Examiner held a consolidated closed record appeal hearing on November 29,
2005, The Department gave notice of the closed record hearing as required by applicable
regulations, (Log Item No, 190) Appellants Powers/Rozzell, Appellant Hale, and Applicant PLA
submitted prehearing written argument. 1 (Log Item Nos, 1298,200, and 199, respectively) The
Department issued Staff Reports, (Log Item Nos, 210 and 211) The record made by the
Examiner below (Log Item Nos, 1 - 166), as well as those documents generated during the
appeal process (Log Item Nos, 167 - 212), were entered into the record of the closed record
appeal hearing,
The action taken herein and the requirements, limitations and/or conditions imposed by this
decision are, to the best ofthe Appellate Examiner's knowledge or belief, only such as are lawful
and within the authority of the Appellate Examiner to take pursuant to applicable law and policy.
FINDINGS OF FACT
1.
The proposed Ludlow Cove Division 2 is located within that portion of Jefferson County
known as the Port Ludlow Master Planned Resort (Port Ludlow MPR), (Log Item 144, p,
7, Finding 1 2) "The project site lies between Paradise Bay Road and Port Ludlow Bay,
east of the Village Center," (Log Item No, la, p, 5)
2
As a result of a challenge raised by PLA (by and through Mr, Marcy), the Examiner ruled orally during the
closed record hearing that Exhibit 1 to the PowerslRozzell hearing brief (Log Item No, !) constituted new
evidence which could not be considered in adjudicating the closed record appeal. Although the Exhibit was
not physically removed from the record, it has not and will not be considered,
Log Item citations are provided for the reader's benefit and indicate: 1) The source of a quote or specific
fact; and/or 2) The major document(s) upon which a stated fact is based, While the Appellate Examiner
considers all relevant documents in the record, typically only major documents are cited, The Appellate
Examiner's Decision is based upon all documents in the record, LOG ITEM
#' '1 2.D
-~-,..~_....
c:\documents and settings\dsires\1ocal settings\temporary internet fileS\Content.ie5\zvhgavuJ:~b~~0~C
APPELLATE HEARING mCA.ER DECISION
RE: SUB05-00004 (Powers/Rozzell and Hale appeals)
December 7, 2005
Page 3 of 22
e
2, In January 1995, Pope Resources (Pope), PLA's predecessor in interest, filed three
applications which the Department deemed to be complete as of January 19, 1995 (the
1995 Applications):
A. SUB95-0003, Ludlow Cove, a subdivision of 27.75 acres into 24 lots for single
family residential use and two tracts "(Tracts A and B) consisting of 15,65 acres
'" proposed as future residential development tracts," (Log Item No. la, p.25,
Finding 2 3) That application apparently also included two variance requests, one
for right-of-way width and one for setbacks. (Log Item No, la, p. 24)
B. ZON95-0001, a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) for Tracts A and B seeking
unspecified multifamily residential development approval. (Log Item No, la, p,
24)
C, SDP97-0009, an SDP for the subdivision, (Log Item No, la, p, 24)
The 1995 Applications were revised in July and December, 1997, March, 1999, January,
2000, and November, 2001. (Log Item No, la, p, 42)
3, On or about May 8, 2000, Pope resources entered into the Port Ludlow Development
Agreement (PLDA), executed pursuant to Board of County Commissioners (BoCC)
Resolution No, 42-00, The PLDA provides that development applications within the Port
Ludlow MPR are "vested to and governed by the Port Ludlow MPR chapter of the
Jefferson County Zoning Code (as defined in Section 3.1 and Appendices A-F) .,," for
the term of the PLDA, which is 20 years, (PLDA, 9 3,13, underlining in original, and 9
4.22)
Appendices A - F are listed on page 17 of the PLDA: Appendix A is the MPR chapter,
Ordinance No, 08-1004-99, later codified as Title 17 JCC (MPR Code); Appendix B
contains Port Ludlow MPR comprehensive plan policies, Resolution No, 72-98;
Appendix C is the Stormwater Management Ordinance, Ordinance No, 10-1104-96;
Appendix D is the Interim Critical Areas Ordinance (lCAO), Ordinance No, 05-0509-94
as amended by Ordinance No, 14-0626-95; Appendix E is the Land Use Application
Procedures Ordinance (LUPO), adopted by Ordinance No, 04-0828-98 4; and Appendix F
is the Shoreline Master Program, LUPO included Rules of Procedure (RoP) for the
Examiner and Appellate Examiner, 5
Log Item No, la consists of several documents, The page numbers cited herein are the page numbers
assigned to the Log Item, not the page numbers of the individual component documents, For example, the
Examiner's August 2,2002, Decision encompasses pages 22 - 40 in Log Item la and page 25 of Log Item
la is page 4 in that Decision.
LUPO was later repealed by Ordinance No, 11-1218-00 when the County adopted a Unified Development
Code (UDC), (See Ordinance No, 01-0203-03,) LUPO remains in effect for development within the Port
Ludlow MPR, however,
The BoCC adopted new RoP after adoption of the UDC. (Ordinance No, 01-0203-03) Those RoP do not
apply to applications subject to the PLDA. LO. r .'TI= .~
-.J! '_. M
. # 1.2.0
~-''''-"--'-"''-~''''----
c:\documents and settings\dsires\local settings\temporary internet fileS\Content.ie5\zvhg~Qj~~~~
4
APPELLATE HEARING E~R DECISION
RE: SUB05-00004 (Powers/Rozzell and Hale appeals)
December 7, 2005
Page 4 of22
e
Pope sold its interest in Port Ludlow to PLA in 2001. (Stipulation at hearing; see also
Log Item No, 199, p, 2,11. 18 and 19)
4, The 1995 Applications came on for hearing before the Examiner on July 16, 2002, (Log
Item la, p, 22) The July 10, 2002, Department Staff Report (1995 Staff Report) to the
Examiner advised that the applications were deemed complete as of January 19, 1995,
(Log Item No, la, p, 42) and that "the revised environmental checklist dated November 8,
2001 indicate [sic] that initially 24 lots will be developed and that tracts A & B mayor
may not be developed for an additional 64 residential units," (Log Item No, la, p, 46)
The 1995 Staff Report indicated that the "Jefferson County Zoning Code classifies the
site and the area to the south, northeast and a portion of the property to the north as
'General Use' (G-1)," (Log Item la, p, 44)
The 1995 Staff Report also stated that "The Conditional Use Review Criteria and the
Development Standards for Multi-Family Residential of the Zoning Code will apply to
the future development of Tracts A and B," (Log Item No, la, p, 57, ~ 66) In the
subsequent paragraphs, the 1995 Staff Report stated that the CUP review criteria of
Zoning Code Section 7,30,1 and the CUP Site Development Standards of Zoning Code
Section 7.40 applied to the application and that "the proposal has been conditioned to
assure compliance with these" criteria and standards, (Log Item No, la, p, 58, ~~ 67 and
68) The 1995 Staff Report does not include any discussion of any specific plan for the
development of Tracts A and B, (Log Item la, pp, 41 - 64)
5, On August 2,2002, the Examiner issued his Decision on the 1995 Applications (the 2002
Decision), (Log Item No, la, pp, 22 - 40) The 2002 Decision begins with the following
statements:
These applications are unique because they were filed as
"substantially complete" on January 19, 1995, The Department has
monitored the applications' review progress, and agrees with the
Applicant that applications are vested in the adopted plans and regulations
in place at the time of complete application, Although there were revisions
in 1997, 1999, 2000 and 2001, those revisions did not cause the
applications to lose their vesting status,
(Log Item No, la, p, 22) The Examiner "accepted" the Department's position on vesting
of the 1995 applications, (Log Item No, la, p. 27, Conclusion of Law 1) The Examiner
stated that the 1995 applications were subject to Port Ludlow Interim Urban Growth
Areas Ordinance No, 01-0117-95, Jefferson County Hearing Examiner Ordinance No, 1-
0318-91, the March 7, 1989, Shoreline Management Master Program, State
Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) Implementing Ordinance No, 7-84, Jefferson County
Critical Areas Ordinance No, 05-0509-94, and Jefferson County Zoning Code Ordinance
No, 09-0801-94, (Log Item No, la, p, 25, first Finding 2) The Examiner found that
"Phasing or divisions are contemplated," (Log Item la, p, 25, second FinCBrlh-EM
# __",~.:.k~-fJ
c:\documents and settings\dsires\1ocal settings\temporary internet files\content.ie5\zvhg~~~*
APPELLATE HEARING E~ER DECISION
RE: SUB05-00004 (powerslRozzell and Hale appeals)
December 7, 2005
Page 5 of 22
e
The Examiner stated that phased SEP A review was being applied and that "detailed
environmental review on the future development of Tracts A & B will be conducted
when that phase ofthe proposal is ready," (Log Item la, pp, 26 and 27, Findings 7 and 8;
quote from Finding 8)
The 2002 Decision does not include any discussion of any specific plan for the
development of Tracts A and B. (Log Item No, la, pp, 22-40) The 2002 Decision does
discuss a requirement of Ordinance No, 09-0801-94 that a permittee "must implement
that CUP within one year of approval." (Log Item la, p, 26, Finding 5) The Examiner
noted that "the one-year time limit could easily expire. '" The Applicant suggests that the
current regulations should be applied, which allow a 3-year minimum with extensions,"
(Id.) The "current regulations" referred to the Jefferson County Unified Development
Code (UDC) as the same existed in 2002, (Log Item No, la, p, 28, Conclusion of Law 6)
The Examiner then concluded as follows:
7, The Applicant's arguments for applying the current UDC
Maximum Duration time limit of 3 years plus a possible I-year extension
are valid, The UDC Maximum Duration provision only will be applied to
Tracts A & B,
8, In accordance with Staff recommended Findings 67 and 68, all the
provisions of Section 7.30 and development standards of Section 7.40 are
or will be met with conditions,"
(Log Item 1 a, p, 29)
The Examiner approved the 1995 Applications subject to a total of 65 conditions. (Log
Item No, la, pp, 30 - 40) One condition, No, 65, refers expressly to the CUP for Tracts A
andB:
The application was initially submitted in 1995 and is vested under the
ordinances in effect at the time of submittal. The Port Ludlow Master
Planned Resort Code was adopted effective October 4, 1999, At the time
of application submittal, the Jefferson County Zoning Code was in effect.
The Site Development Standards for Multi-Family Residential of Section
7.40,l(a,b,c,d, and e) would apply under vesting,
The current provisions of the Uniform Development Code [UDC] for
determining Maximum Duration of the Condition [sic] Use PermitL16)G ITEM
Tracts A & B shall apply as follows: # 1....').,.6
(1) The applicant shall initiate the SEP A portion ~~Wi\~ of
Review for Tracts A & B within three (3) years of the effective
date; and the applicant shall submit a complete application for a
building permit(s) for Tracts A & B within one (1) additional year,
c:\documents and settings\dsires\1ocal settings\temporary internet files\content.ie5\zvhgavur\sub05-00004d,doc
APPELLATE HEARING E~R DECISION
RE: SUB05-00004 (Powers/Rozzell and Hale appeals)
December 7, 2005
Page 6 of22
e'
(2) The Maximum Duration shall not count time devoted to the
SEPA portion of Phased Review, in accordance with UDC 8,10,5,
Initiation of SEP A Review; Limitation on Actions During Review,
(Log Item la, pp. 39 and 40)
6, Phase 1 of Ludlow Cove Division 1 was recorded in December, 2003, Phase 1 consisted
of eight single family residentia110ts and Tracts B - E, (Log Item No, la, pp, 16 - 21)
Former Tracts A and B were combined and recorded as Tract E, containing 14,66 acres,
Phase 2 as subsequently recorded contained nine more single family residential lots, for a
total in both phases of 17 (rather than the approved 24) such lots, (Stipulation at hearing;
see also Log Item No, 124, p, 3)
7, In 2004, PLA proposed to sell Tract E to Trendwest. (Stipulation at hearing; see also Log
Item No. 199, p, 3, 11, 3 and 4)
8, On January 13, 2005, PLA submitted a Master Permit Application (See Log Item Nos, 4,
5, and 12 - 16,) for "Ludlow Cove Division 2 - 120 unit condominium development
within Port Ludlow MPR", The Master Application covered Variance, Binding Site Plan
(BSP), and SDP applications (the 2005 Applications) affecting Tract E, (Log Item No, 5,
p, 1) The applications were assigned County file numbers SUB05-00004 and SDP05-
00002, (Log Item No, 144)
A separate BSP application described the proposal as "a 120-unit condominium
development situated on a 14,66 acre site known as Ludlow Cove Division 2," 6 (Log
Item No, 16, p, 1)
9, On May 9,2005, PLA re-submitted its applications, specifying that the BSP was for four
lots and describing the project as "a 120-unit time share multifamily development", 7
(Log Item No, 70; see also Log Item Nos, 68, 71, 72, and 74)
7
Section 11 of Jefferson County Subdivision Ordinance No, 04-0526-92 contained regulations relating to
"Condominium Divisions," Section 11 constituted "a 'binding site plan process' for divisions of land into
lots or tracts, as permitted by RCW 58,17,040(7), when the improvements to be constructed thereon will be
included in one (1) or more condominiums 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." Section 11 contained no explicit requirement to depict proposed buildings on application
materials, (Log Item No, 124, pp, 13 and 14, 'if 48) Section 58,17,040 RCW lists exemptions from the
subdivision requirements of Chapter 58.17 RCW, Thus, the BSP process is essentially a form of land
division which is exempt from standard subdivision requirements,
The 120 unit development has been variously described in record documents as a "condominium" (Log
Item Nos, 4, 5, 15, and 16), a "time share multiple family development" (Log Item No, 70), a "120-unit
multiple family development" (Log Items No, 72 and 74), and a "120-unit time-share multiple family
residential development" (Log item No, 124),
6
LOG 'TEM
# --"' ?2P
c:\documents and settings\dsires\local settings\temporary internet fileS\Content.ie5\zvhgavf)age~&af
APPELLATE HEARING E~ER DECISION
RE: SUB05-00004 (Powers/Rozzell and Hale appeals)
December 7, 2005
Page 7 of 22
e
10, The 2005 Applications came on for hearing before the Examiner on August 16, 2005,
(Log Item No, 144, p, 1) The July 26, 2005, Amended Final Department Staff Report (the
2005 Staff Report) noted the original1995 subdivision and CUP file numbers as well as
the two 2005 file numbers, but stated that only BSP and SDP approvals were required,
(Log Item No, 124, p, 1) The 2005 Staff Report stated that "[t]he multifamily component
of Ludlow Cove, i,e" this project - Ludlow Cove Division 2, was conditionally approved,
subject to future SEP A review" in 2002, (Log Item 124, p, 2, ~ 5) The Staff stated that
"[t]he site is currently zoned for single family residential development according to the
MPR Code, ordinance #08-1004-99, but was zoned G-1 for General Use when the
original Ludlow Cove proposal was submitted," (Log Item No, 124, p, 3, ~ 11)
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,
(Log Item No, 124, p, 4, ~ 14)
The four lot [BSP] 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,
(Log Item No, 124, p, 5, ~ 16) The 2005 Staff Report stated that the 2005 Applications
were vested to 1995 regulations, (Log Item No, 124, pp, 7 and 8, ~~ 21 and 22) The 2005
Staff Report contained an analysis of compliance with 1995 CUP multiple-family
development standards (Log Item No, 124, pp, 10 and 11, ~~ 35 -40), but not with 1995
CUP review criteria,
11.
On September 2, 2005, the Examiner issued his Decision on the 2005 Applications (the
2005 Decision), (Log Item No, 144) The Examiner stated that BSP/Condominium
Subdivision and SDP approvals were being sought. (Log Item No, 144, p, 1) The
Examiner found that "the property was vested to the land use controls that were in effect
on the date that the 'Ludlow Cove' applications were submitted in 1995," (Log Item No,
144, p, 10, Finding 10) He further noted that "[a]t the time of project vesting, the site was
located within the Port Ludlow Interim UGA [Urban Growth Area] and designated in the
Comprehensive Plan for multifamily development with a maximum density of 16
dwelling units per acre," (Log Item No, 144, p, 9, Finding 7) The Examiner also found
that the 2002 Decision "included Conditional Use approval for a multifamily project."
(Log Item No, 144, p, 10, Finding 11)
LOG ITEM
# ib
c:\documents and settings\dsires\1ocal settings\temporary internet files\content.ie5\zvhgavuPa~000b d,doof
APPELLATE HEARING E~ER DECISION
RE: SUB05-00004 (PowerslRozzell and Hale appeals)
December 7,2005
Page 8 of 22
e
The nature of Trendwest's proposed use was apparently rather thoroughly argued before
the Examiner and his analysis of that issue occupies much of the 2005 Decision, (Log
Item No, 144) He ultimately concluded that "the Trendwest time-share proposal does not
change the project from multifamily residential to hotel or other commercial use," (Log
Item No, 144, p, 17, Conclusion of Law 13)
The Examiner approved the SDP and BSP/Condominium Subdivision subject to 36
conditions, (Log Item No, 144, pp, 19 - 25)
12, Powers, Rozzell, and Hale each own property in or live in Port Ludlow, (Log Item Nos,
144 {p, 2}, 162, and 174) Powers and Hale participated in the Examiner's August 16,
2005, open record hearing; Rozzell attended but did not testify, (Log Item No, 144, p, 2)
Each has standing to appeal.
13, Powers and Hale timely filed separate Motions for Reconsideration, (Log Item Nos, 152
and 162) The Examiner denied both Motions, (Log Item Nos, 165 and 166) Hale and
Powers/Rozzell subsequently timely filed appeals, (Log Item Nos, 173 and 174) It is
those appeals which are now before the Appellate Examiner,
14, The Hale Ludlow Cove Division 2 appeal raises one issue: "whether the Trendwest Resort
is a 'multi-family residential development' or 'transient accommodations' ," (Log Item
No, 173, p, 2) Hale argues that the Department and Examiner have mis-interpreted the
1994 Zoning Code provisions, He believes that the proposal is a transient
accommodation, not a multifamily residential development. Hale seeks denial of the
proposal based on the fact that transient accommodations are not allowed under the 1994
G-l zone, (Log Item No, 173)
15, The Powers/Rozzell Ludlow Cove Division 2 appeal raises five issues: 8 That Pope
waived its right to develop under the 1995 regulations when it entered into the PLDA in
2000; that the proposed Trendwest use constitutes transient accommodations, not allowed
on the subject property under either the 1995 or current codes; that the SDP should not
have been approved (The Appellate Examiner dismissed this issue based on lack of
jurisdiction; see the Introduction, above, and Log Item No, 181.); that the proposal does
not meet the self-contained/integrated requirements of a master planned resort under the
growth Management Act (GMA); and that the effect of the South Bay Covenants,
Conditions, & Restrictions (CC&Rs) on Tract E development is an "open issue," (Log
Item No, 174)
16, Several participants in the Examiner's hearing provided information about the Trendwest
business model, some of which was quoted from the Trendwest web site and/or
Trendwest materials,
The Department has identified nine issues in the PowerslRozzell appeal. (Log Item No, !) The Appellate
Examiner's identification of five issues results from "collapsing" some of the Department's identified
issues into fewer, slightly more broadly stated issues,
LOG ITEM
# ,22-0
It;o f
c:\documents and settings\dsires\1ocal settings\temporary internet files\content.ie5\zvhgavu&~O
APPELLATE HEARING E~ER DECISION
RE: SUB05-00004 (Powers/Rozzell and Hale appeals)
December 7,2005
Page 9 of 22
e
A single corporation will own all the units in this particular project. Club
Members buy only the right of use among 4500 or so other units in other
locations and for short periods of time, According to the CC&R's
provided by Trendwest, Club Members are not owners of the real property
, " The number of employees claimed to be needed for operations, 40-50
as quoted by the Trendwest executives, ,."
(Log Item No, 88, p, 2)
Following are from the Trendwest website:
"Trendwest is the developer, marketer and manager of W orldMark
properties, The company purchases and develops vacation properties and
transfers them debt-free to WorldMark, a nonprofit mutual benefit entity
that owns, operates and maintains the resorts,"
"WorldMark is a pure credit-based resort system that allows you to
vacation where, when and how long you want. In contrast, a typical
timeshare program requires you to purchase a specific unit in a specific
resort for a specific period each year,"
"When you become a W orldMark owner, you purchase vacation credits
through Trendwest. You can "spend" your credits like currency on resorts
in the WorldMark network of resorts,"
(Log Item No, 96, p, 2)
Trend West [sic] is part of Cendant. Its basic business is to acquire
or develop facilities, to sell the facilities to timeshare owners on weekly
timeshare time slots, to bring the owners as part of the package into a
vacation club and to operate the facilities, The owners receive points based
on the value of their units, Valuation is done through Value Mark, which
is associated with Trend West. Owners apply the points to acquire the
right to use units for vacation purposes, The units, the use of which the
owners acquire would only by accident be the units they own or the time
slots to which they would be entitled as owners, The owners pay the
maintenance of the units through periodic dues in the club, Key here is
that the owners are investing in a vacation club and receiving a theoretical
discount for making the investment. They are not investing in a residential
unit that they necessarily intend to use themselves in the time slot they
purchase, Rather they are investing in the right to visit any of 5,000 units
under management of Trend West. Currently about 250,000 membf.~G ITEM
share ownership in such units, Trend West operates the units aw maKes 2.2...6
c:\documents and settings\dsires\local settings\temporary internet files\content.ie5\zvhgavur\su~ElI>4d ~':JJ of
APPELLATE HEARING E~R DECISION
RE: SUB05-00004 (Powers/Rozzell and Hale appeals)
December 7, 2005
Page 10 of 22
e
money from their initial sale and from their ongoing operation, It puts the
staff onsite, , " Cendant is publicly traded, '" Trend West has the
exclusive control over a resort project using investor vacationer money
both for capital costs and operations, '"
, " [Trendwest] is a pool of buyers of a rental unit that is then leased to a
vacation club for use of its members, '"
(Log Item No, 119, pp, 7 and 8)
Trendwest sells blocks oftime (or points) to timeshare purchasers that join
its vacation association, Members must either use points as credits against
the facilities they want to use, pay cash for points, or use a combination of
points and cash, ,,' The timeshare units are reserved by TrendwestIW orld-
Mark members in blocks of one week.
(Log Item 134, p, 3)
, , , Cendant Corporation, a publicly traded holding company, owns
Trendwest who will develop and maintain the buildings, ".
The company's own literature indicates that you are unable to tie owners
to specific unit [sic] within a building, ,,' "Traditional timeshare makes
luxurious vacations affordable and helps owners beat vacation inflation,
but may people find it too restrictive - they're tied year after year to a
fixed week in the same unit at the same property, With many people
taking shorter, more frequent vacations, most of the time within driving
distance of home, a more flexible system of vacation ownership was
needed, Enter Trendwest and its innovative points-based program, When
you become a W orldMark owner, you purchase vacation credits through
Trendwest. You can spend your credits like currency on resorts in the
WorldMark network of resorts,"
(Log Item No, 137, p, 2, quote from ..http://www.trendwestresorts.comlownership/..as
the same existed when visited by the author of Log Item No, 137)
17, In the process of seeking a ruling in 2004 from the Department regarding the number of
accessible dwelling units which would be required, the Trendwest architect described the
project in the following terms:
The Trendwest Resort under consideration provides transient
residential occupancies, The average stay of Trendwest Membeb()(B ITEM
# 7-/-6
c:\documents and settings\dsires\1ocal settings\temporary internet files\content.ie5\zvhgavur\~&~~00t~t of
APPELLATE HEARING E~ER DECISION
RE: SUB05-00004 (Powers/Rozzell and Hale appeals)
December 7, 2005
Page 11 of 22
e
Trendwest resorts is less than 4 days, The members do not have any
ownership interest in any particular property or unit. In general, all
members may use any unit in any Trendwest resort based on a point
system, Members do not have a right to return to any particular unit at any
particular time, Members make reservations based on rooms available at
the time a reservation is made,
(Log Item No, 1 a, p, 9) 9
18, At a public meeting held at Port Ludlow on March 24, 2005, a Trendwest executive's
explanation of the proposal led to the following description in the "Peninsula Daily
News":
Trendwest is to develop the site, Hensley [Trendwest Executive
Vice President] said,
After that, W orldMark, the Club, which is owned by Trendwest,
would own and manage the resort through a flexible, point-based system,
As part of Trendwest, WorldMark counts 220,000 members who
continuously use its 56 resorts worldwide, Hensley said,
(Log Item No, 57, p, 1)
19. Any Conclusion deemed to be a Finding of Fact is hereby adopted as such,
PRINCIPLES OF LAW
Authority
Appeals from Hearing Examiner Decisions on Type III (formerly Type B under LUPO)
applications are heard by the Appellate Examiner, [JCC 18.40,040, Table 8-2; LUPO S 18,A]
Examiner decisions "on a type III permit (including its [sic] decision on the underlying project
.. ,) may be appealed by a party of record to the appellate hearing examiner," [JCC
18.40,360(3)(b)] The Appellate Examiner's Decision is final subject to the right of
reconsideration and appeal to Superior Court, [LUPO S 18,D,7 and RoP III. 13]
9
PLA argued at hearing that this description should not be accorded great weight in determining the nature
of the use under zoning, based on the fact that it was written for the purpose of seeking a building code
ruling, not a zoning ruling, The Examiner assumes that the Trendwest architect provided a true, factual
description of the nature of the proposed use, That such a description might lead to one determination under
the building code and a different determination under the zoning code, does not alter the truth of the
description,
LOG ITEM
# 1-2-6
c:\documents and settings\dsires\local settings\temporary internet files\content.ie5\zvhga~e~'bf
APPELLATE HEARING E~ER DECISION
RE: SUB05-00004 (Powers/Rozzell and Hale appeals)
December 7, 2005
Page 12 of22
e'
The Appellate Examiner may:
a, Affirm the decision; or
b, Reverse the decision; or
c, Affirm the decision with modifications; or
d, Remand the decision to the Hearing Examiner for further consideration,
including a statement of the issues to be reviewed on remand,
[LUPO S 18,D,l]
Vested Rights
Vesting of development applications in Washington State is based on either statutory law or
judicial recognized common law doctrine, Subdivision and short subdivision applications are
governed by a statutory vesting rule: Such applications "shall be considered under the
subdivision or short subdivision ordinance, and zoning or other land use control ordinances, in
effect on the land at the time a fully completed application.., has been submitted.. ,," [RCW
58,17,033]
The judicially recognized common law vested rights doctrine has been applied to only certain
applications, including CUPs:
Washington does adhere to the minority rule that a landowner obtains a vested
right to develop land when he or she makes a timely and complete building permit
application that complies with the applicable zoning and building ordinances in
effect on the date of the application, Our vested rights rule also has been applied
to building permits, conditional use permits, a grading permit, and a [shoreline
management] substantial development permit.
[Norco Construction v, King County, 97 Wn.2d 680, 684, 649 P,2d 103 (1982), citations
omitted] 10
Under the PLDA,
All development proposed on Pope Property shall be vested to and governed by
the Port Ludlow MPR chapter ofthe Jefferson County Zoning Code (as defined in
Section 3,1 and Appendices A-F) .." The vesting period shall be the same as the
term of this Agreement. Except as otherwise provided in Section 3 ,13 ,1 through
3,13,3 below, any new or different development standards adopted by the County
during the term of this Agreement shall not apply to the Pope Property, To the
extent this Agreement does not establish standards or requirements covering a
subject, element or conditions, then the development approval sought shall vest to
lO Other states recognize and apply different forms of common law vesting ofland use applicath9G ITEM
# 2.2..b
.
Paae ~ of
c:\documents and settings\dsires\local settings\temporary internet files\content.ie5\zvhgavur\subO~00004d,doc
-
APPELLATE HEARING E~R DECISION
RE: SUB05-00004 (Powers/Rozzell and Hale appeals)
December 7, 2005
Page 13 of 22
.--
e~
and be governed by the County codes, regulations and standards in effect upon the
date of the future application, ,..
(PLDA, S 3,13, underlining in original) PLDA Sections 3,13,1 - 3,13,3 address public health and
safety requirements, the Endangered Species Act, and structural codes, The PLDA expires on
May 8, 2020, (PLDA, S 4.22)
Standard of Review
The applicable standard of review is set forth at LUPO S 18,D.2:
The Appellate Examiner may grant the appeal if, following a review of the record,
one of the following standards has been met:
a, The land use decision is an erroneous interpretation of the law;
b, The land use decision is not supported by evidence that is substantial when
viewed in light of the whole record;
c, The land use decision is a clearly erroneous application of the law to the
facts; or
d, The land use decision is outside the authority or jurisdiction of the Hearing
Examiner,
Scope of Consideration
The Appellate Examiner has considered Log Items Nos, 1 - 212; applicable adopted laws,
ordinances, plans, and policies; and the pleadings, positions, and arguments of the parties of
record,
DISCUSSION
Vested Rights
The "Principles of Law" section, above, contains a basic statement of the vested rights doctrine
as applied to land use applications in Washington State, As the Examiner quite properly noted
(Log Item No, 144, p, 13, Conclusion of Law 6), vested rights serve to fix the regulations which
will be applied in the review of an application, Vested rights do not assure that the application
will be approved, What vests is the right to consideration under a fixed set of regulations, not the
right to approval under those regulations,
A key question in the present appeal is: When one has a vested right, what exactly does it
protect? The State Supreme Court addressed that question in, among other cases, Noble Manor v,
Pierce County, 133 Wn,2d 269,943 P.2d 1378 (1997):
We conclude that it is not only the right to divide land which vests at the time of a
[, , ,] subdivision application, but also the right to develop or use property under
the laws as they exist at the time of application, The issue then becomes what
development rights vest at that time,
LOG ITEM
# J- .if)
c:\documents and settings\dsires\1ocal settings\temporary internet fileS\Content.ie5\zVhga~@fd~c0f
e
APPELLATE HEARING E~ERDECISION
RE: SOO05-00004 (PowerslRozzell and Hale appeals)
December 7, 2005
Page 14 of22
w-
e
Two alternatives are possible. Either (1) all uses allowed by the zoning and land
use laws on the date of the application for the [",] plat should be vested at the
time of application, irrespective of the uses sought in an application; or (2) an
applicant should have the right to have the uses disclosed in their application
considered by the county or local government under the laws in existence at the
time of the application, We conclude the second alternative comports with prior
vesting law,
[at 283, emphasis added] Applications, not property, vest. Thus, the only thing which vests is the
particular application at issue and the uses disclosed within and on that application, Other uses,
not disclosed, which might be allowed under then-current land use regulations do not vest. Put
differently, it is the particular uses disclosed on the particular application for a particular
property which vest, not every use allowed by the then-current regulations that might
conceivably be developed on that particular property,
Once a subdivision has received final approval and been recorded, 11 it is subject to and benefited
by the provisions ofRCW 58,17,170:
, , , Any lots in a final plat filed for record shall be a valid land use
notwithstanding any change in zoning laws for a period of five years from the
date of filing, A subdivision shall be governed by the terms of approval of the
final plat, and the statutes, ordinances, and regulations in effect at the time of
approval under RCW 58,17,150 (1) and (3) for a period of five years after final
plat approval unless the legislative body finds that a change in conditions creates
a serious threat to the public health or safety in the subdivision,
The Noble Manor court explained the difference between this "vesting" of a recorded final plat 12
and the RCW 58,17,033 vesting of a preliminary subdivision application:
RCW 58,17,170 was enacted in 1969 and it gave rights to a developer to use a
subdivision lot in accord with the terms of approval of the final plat and the laws
in effect on the date of final plat approval (not the date of subdivision application)
for a period of five years from the date of approval. This section of the statute
applies only to formal subdivisions and not to short subdivisions,
(Noble Manor, at 281, footnote omitted)
11
The subdivision process is a two step procedure: Preliminary approval followed, after construction and/or
bonding of the required physical improvements within the proposed subdivision, by [mal approval and
recordation with the County Auditor (or equivalent office in charter counties), [Chapter 58,17 RCW]
A "plat" is the graphic representation of a "subdivision," [RCW 58,17,020(2) and (1), in that order] The
two terms are often used interchangeably, although it is technically incorrect to do so,
12
LOG ITEM
c:\documents and settings\dsires\1ocal settings\temporary internet fileS\Content.ie5\zvhttv,u\.,ub6j-M6~C
Page l PilL of
-
APPELLATE HEARING E~ER DECISION
RE: SUB05-00004 (Powers/Rozzell and Hale appeals)
December 7, 2005
Page 15 of22
.
e
Section 58,17,170 RCW is irrelevant to the issues in this case, PLA/Trendwest seek vested rights
protection based on the date of the 1995 Applications, not on the dates (the earliest of which was
in 2003) that the two phases of Ludlow Cove Division 1 were recorded,
Multifamily Residential v, Transient Accommodations
The question of whether the PLA/Trendwest development proposal for Tract E is a multifamily
residential development or a transient accommodation depends in large measure upon the
application of a number of provisions within the applicable regulations, For ease of reference, the
text of the key provisions is provided below; their effect on the facts in this case will occur in the
Conclusions, below,
The first provisions of interest are definitions from Jefferson County Zoning Code Ordinance
No, 09-0801-94, Section 3,10:
32, DWELLING UNIT: One or more rooms physically arranged so as to
create an independent housekeeping establishment for occupancy by one family
with separate toilet and facilities for cooking and sleeping,
69, MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT: Developments
containing structures housing two (2) or more residential dwelling units, Multi-
family residential developments are those that are designed and intended for
residential occupancy in multi-family structures regardless ofthe 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,
94, TRANSIENT ACCOMMODATIONS: 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 being not more than 30 consecutive days
duration,
The word "residential" is not defined in Jefferson County Zoning Code Ordinance No, 09-0801-
94, Words which are not defined are to be given their common, ordinary meaning, unless the
context clearly requires some special meaning, A dictionary may be used to ascertain that
meaning, [US West v, Utilities and Transportation Commission, 134 Wn,2d 74, 97, 949 P.2d
1337 (1997)] "Webster's Encyclopedic Unabridged Dictionary of the English Language," 1989
Edition, defines "residential" as "1. of or pertaining to residence or to residences: a residential
requirement for a doctorate, 2. adapted or used for residence: a residential neighborhood,"
(Emphases in original) The same dictionary defines "residence" as "1. the place, esp, the house,
in which one lives or resides; dwelling place; home: Their residence is in New York City, 2. a
structure serving as a dwelling or home, esp, one of large proportion and superior quality: They
have a summer residence in Connecticut, "," (Emphases in original)
LOG ITEM
c:\documents and settings\dsires\1ocal settings\temporary internet files\content.ie5\zvhgtm.\~l:tbf)S Bsee1El,26fb
Page ~ of
-
APPELLATE HEARING E~R DECISION
RE: SUB05-00004 (Powers/Rozzell and Hale appeals)
December 7, 2005
Page 16 of22
..
e
The second group of provisions of interest are found in the CUP submittal and review
requirements within Jefferson County Zoning Code Ordinance No, 09-0801-94, Section 7,
[Application] forms shall require the following minimum information: ,.. 5, A
plan of the proposed use showing existing and proposed streets, structures, open
spaces, uses of each structure, parking areas, fencing, pedestrian paths and trails,
buffers, and landscaping,
[97.20] The CUP review criteria in 9 7,30,1 state that CUP applications "shall not be ,.. granted
unless all of the following findings are made in the affirmative:". One of the required six
findings is that "The character of the use is in harmony with the surrounding area", (9 7,30,1(5))
The following provisions from Chapter 36,70C RCW, the Land Use Petition Act (LUPA), are
also particularly relevant:
(2) A land use petition is barred, and the court may not grant review,
unless the petition is timely filed with the court and timely served on the
following persons who shall be parties to the review of the land use petition:
(3) The petition is timely if it is filed and served on all parties listed in
subsection (2) of this section within twenty-one days of the issuance of the land
use decision,
[RCW 36,70C,040] LUP A has been "the exclusive means of judicial review of [virtually all local
government] land use decisions" since its enactment in 1995. [RCW 36,70C.030] The exceptions
in Section 040 would not apply to subdivision or CUP applications,
CONCLUSIONS
1, The Conclusions which follow show that: PLA has a vested right to develop a
multifamily residential development on Tract E; the extent of that right is limited by the
representations made in the original 1995 Applications; that right requires demonstration
of compliance with CUP criteria which was deferred in 2002; the use presently proposed
by Trendwest is not a multifamily residential development; and Trendwest's proposed
use cannot be established under PLA's vested right. The Appellate Examiner concludes
that the Examiner's 2005 Decision contains erroneous interpretations of the law, resulting
in a clearly erroneous application of those laws to the facts which were before him,
2, The Conclusions which follow address Hale's one appeal issue (nature of the Trendwest
proposal) and two ofPowerslRozzell's appeal issues (vesting and nature ofthe Trendwest
proposal), In view of the conclusions reached on those two issues, the remaining
Powers/Rozzell issues are moot. Moot issues are not normally addressed, The moot
issues in the Powers/Rozzell appeal will not be addressed, LOG ITEM
e:_uments and ""ttmg,l<tsrr",Uoeal ""tting,ltemponu:y internet fil"'\contentie5lzVhgaVlli'~b05-~ f
f-Iage 0
APPElLATE HEARING ExlER DECISION
RE: 80005-00004 (Powers/Rozzell and Hale appeals)
December 7, 2005
Page 17 of 22
.
e
3. The Conclusions in this Decision are grouped by topic only for the reader's convenience.
Such groupings do not indicate any limitation of applicability to the Decision as a whole.
4. Any Finding of Fact deemed to be a Conclusion is hereby adopted as such.
Vested Rights
5. The Examiner's 2002 Decision cannot be disturbed. The time to appeal from that
decision ended 21 days after it's issuance (or, if reconsideration had been sought, 21 days
after issuance of the Examiner's decision on reconsideration). It is now some three years
later. No right of appeal exists.
Thus, the Examiner's 2002 ruling on vested rights stands as the law of the case and binds
all of the current parties. The Appellate Examiner need not consider Appellant Powers'
waiver of vested rights argument since the time to challenge the 2002 Decision has long
passed.
6. However, the preceding Conclusion does not fully resolve the vesting challenge, for we
must determine what vested before we can answer the question of whether the current
BSP and Trendwest proposal are vested to the regulations as they existed on January 19,
1995.
7. A BSP is not a subdivision; rather, it is a form ofland division which is exempt, by law,
from subdivision requirements. Was a BSP a part of the 1995 Applications? The record
available to the Appellate Examiner is not sufficient to provide a reliable answer to that
question. From what is available in this record, it would not appear that it was: The plan
was to create a number of single family residential lots with multifamily residential use of
Tracts A and B. The record available here does not indicate that further division of Tracts
A and B was contemplated under the 1995 applications. The record available here also
does not allow one to determine the configuration of Tracts A and B, nor to determine
why they were combined into Tract E when Ludlow Cove Division 1 was recorded.
8. If further division of Tracts A and B was disclosed in the 1995 Applications, then that
further division is vested, whether it be by further subdivision, short subdivision, or
exempt BSP division. If further division of Tracts A and B was not included in the 1995
Applications, then no vested right exists and such further division must occur subject to
the regulations in effect when the application for that further division was/is filed. Just
because a proposed subdivision vested in 1995 to 1995 regulations does not mean that
every succeeding division of land within that original subdivision is somehow also vested
to 1995 regulations.
9.
The 2005 Applications need to be remanded to the Examiner for a factual determination
as to whether the 2005 BSP land division application is or is not vested to 1995
regulations, with consideration of the merits of that application to follow subject to the
applicable regulations.
LOG ITEM
1.2h
c:\documents and settings\dsires\local settings\temporary internet files\content.ie5\zvhgavur\~?--00004d.doc of
ye \ '1 ~
#
APPELLATE HEARING E~RDEClSION
RE: 80005-00004 (Powers/Rozzell and Hale appeals)
December 7,2005
Page 18 of22
.
e
10. The available record shows that as of January 19, 1995, what is now known as Tract E
was zoned G-l and, as such, had a potential for up to 16 dwelling units per acre of
multifamily residential housing upon issuance of a CUP. Only the 1995 Applications and
the uses expressly disclosed therein vested to the 1995 regulations. Future uses of the
property that might have been allowed under the G-l zoning do not vest; only the uses
proposed in the 1995 Applications for that property enjoy a vested right. [Noble Manor v.
Pierce County, 133 Wn.2d 269,283,943 P.2d 1378 (1997)]
The record available to the Appellate Examiner (which is not the entire 2002 record)
indicates that the 1995 Applications were for a 24 lot single family residential
subdivision and a CUP for multifamily housing on Tracts A and B (now Tract E). The
most specific description mentioned in this record of the multifamily development
portion of the 1995 Applications indicated that Tract E mayor may not be developed
with 64 units of multifamily residential housing. If that is, in fact, the most specific
description of the multifamily proposal in the 1995 Applications, then that description
represents what was proposed and what enjoys a vested right.
11. Since the 1995 applications included a CUP for multifamily residential development of
Tract E, some level of multifamily residential development of Tract E is vested under the
1995 CUP application. Substantial modifications between the date an application is filed
and the date it is eventually heard may result in its losing any vested right which it
otherwise would have enjoyed. A 120 unit multifamily residential development would be
almost twice as large and dense as that which was apparently represented to be the
project within the 2002 record. The 1995 vested right would not protect a 120 unit
multifamily development proposal if what was vested was a 64 unit multifamily
development proposal.
The Examiner should have the opportunity to again review the 1995 Applications to
determine whether the current proposal, whatever it may ultimately be, is so changed
from the concept described in the 1995 Applications and at the 2002 hearing as to cause
the vested right to lapse. Remand of the matter is the appropriate way in which to allow
that action to occur.
12. Under the zoning regulations in effect on January 19, 1995, a CUP application required
submittal of a specific site development plan which then formed the basis for the required
CUP compatibility review. The present record contains no evidence that any specific site
development plan was before the Examiner in 2002, nor that the required compatibility
review was performed. (The required review could not be performed without a specific
development proposal to review.) In fact, the available record makes abundantly clear
that no plan was presented: Multiple family development of Tract E would be evaluated
at a later time.
LOG ITEM
# ')-1-0
c:\documents and settings\dsires\local settings\temporary internet files\content.ie5\zvhgPvaga,O~ QQQQ4dQbc 1ffi
.
e
13. Unfortunately, that analysis has never occurred because the 2005 applications and the
2005 Decision overtly exclude the CUP component. 15 While a vested right to a CUP for
multifamily residential development of Tract E does exist, the review process required
under the vested regulations has never been completed. The multifamily residential
development right that vested with application ZON95-00001 is not a right to avoid
compliance with the applicable 1995 regulations. Since the Examiner deferred that
compliance in 2002, that compliance must yet occur.
The 1995 CUP application should have been before the Examiner in 2005. The case must
be remanded to allow the applicable CUP requirements to be met. In that process, the
Examiner will have to determine whether the proposal has so changed as to void the
vested right.
Multifamilv Residential v. Transient Accommodations
14. Whether Trendwest's current proposal is a multifamily residential development or
transient accommodations must be decided based upon the definitions found in the 1994
Zoning Code (because the CUP for multifamily residential development of Tract E is
vested to that version of the Zoning Code). If it is multifamily residential, it would be
allowed subject to issuance of a CUP under the zoning to which the 1995 CUP is vested;
if it is a transient accommodation, it could not be allowed.
15.
The type of ownership of the buildings is, according to the definition of multifamily
residential development, completely irrelevant to the question at hand.
16.
The parties to this proceeding seem to agree that an apartment building is multifamily
residential and that a hotel/motel is transient accommodation. The basic dispute is
whether Trendwest's proposal is more like an apartment than a hotel/motel. The number
and type of rooms in a unit can no longer (if ever they could) be used to definitively
distinguish an apartment from a hotel/motel: Some entire hotel/motel chains are based on
a "suite" concept in which units may contain more than one room and include cooking
As has been noted, it is too late to challenge the Examiner's 2002 Decision. That Decision must be applied
as it stands.
The Powers/Rozzell appeal questions how 2002 CUP term of approval standards could be used when PLA
was claiming a vested right to 1995 regulations. (Log Item No. !) A recent appellate court case [East
County Reclamation Co. v. Bjornsen, 125 Wn. App. 432, 105 P.3d 94 (2005)] holds that vested rights may
not be applied selectively in that fashion. However, as noted, it is too late to challenge the 2002 Decision.
The statement in the 2002 Staff report that the CUP "has been conditioned" to assure conformance with
required standards was simply not correct since there was no specific site plan present to be conditioned.
LOG ITEM
# . 12.b
c:\documents and settings\dsires\local settings\temporary internet files\content.ie5\zvhgavur\~~~&0~ of
13
14
15
APPEllATE HEARING ~R DECISION
RE: SOO05-00004 (Powers/Rozzell and Hale appeals)
December 7, 2005
Page 20 of 22
20.
.
e
facilities. Neither can the presence or absence of recreation buildings, swimming pools,
barbeques, etc.: Both apartment complexes and hotels/motels commonly have such
features.
17. Trendwest stipulates that its members' occupancy would be transient by definition (for 30
days or less). (Argument of counsel) Under the applicable 1994 Zoning Code definitions,
the proposal would thus be a transient accommodation if "compensation" is paid.
But "compensation" is almost universally involved in both multifamily residential
developments and in transient accommodations: Apartment renters pay rent to the
landlord for the right to occupy a unit; hotel/motel guests pay for the right to occupy a
unit. It would be wrong to suggest that "compensation" is unique to transient
accommodations.
18. The preponderance of the evidence shows that Trendwest members buy vacation points
so that they may vacation anywhere within the Trendwest system, that they use these
points to "rent" the accommodation they desire (paying more points for a larger, more
desirable unit or during "high" season), and that they can supplement points with cash.
The evidence also shows that the units are available to non- Trendwest members when not
reserved by Trendwest members.
No matter what the legal nuances of a Trendwest member's ownership are, the reality is
that Trendwest members pay compensation (points and/or cash) to use units within the
Trendwest system for vacation stays. Therefore, a Trendwest resort is, under the
applicable definitions, a transient accommodation, not a multifamily residential
development. Therefore, the proposed Trendwest resort is not permitted under either the
1995 G-l zoning or the current single family residential zoning.
19.
Another approach to the issue is to consider the meaning of the word "residential." The
words "residence" and "residential" clearly imply a significant degree of permanence. (If
this were not true, then a hotel would be a residence and would qualify as a multifamily
residential development. The illogic of that result is apparent.) Such permanence is not
present at a Trendwest resort. A Trendwest resort is likely not the "residence" of any of
its guests; rather, it is a vacation resort, a place to get away from one's residence. Since it
does not contain residences, the proposal cannot be a multifamily residential
development.
A third approach is to consider the examples of each defined term as listed in the Zoning
Code definitions. Only "transient accommodations" includes "resorts" in its list of
examples. The examples under multifamily residential development are not at all similar
to the Trendwest model. 16
16
The "condominium" example in the defmition was discussed in the 2005 Decision. The evidence available
to the Appellate Examiner leads to the inescapable conclusion that the Trendwest proposal would not
qualify as a condominium: Trendwest members have no interest in the real property and, even if they did,
LOG ITEM
1-U
(Footnote continued on next page.)
#
c:\documents and settings\dsires\local settings\temporary internet files\content.ie5\zvhga~~cef
APPELLATE HEARING E:tR DECISION
RE: SOO05-00004 (Powers/Rozzell and Hale appeals)
December 7, 2005
Page 21 of 22
.
e
21. All three approaches to this issue lead to the same result: The Trendwest proposal is a
transient accommodation resort, not a multifamily residential development. Transient
accommodations are not allowed under either the 1995 G-l zoning nor under the current
single family residential zoning.
22. The Examiner's acceptance of the position that Trendwest's proposal is a multifamily
residential development was clearly erroneous.
23. Since PLA is the legal successor to the party whose 1995 Applications vested and
Trendwest is but the prospective developer of Tract E, PLA should not lose its vested
right just because the prospective developer's plan is not allowed under either vested or
current zoning. Therefore, the most appropriate action is not to deny the entire
application, but to remand for compliance with the holdings of this Decision.
DECISION
Based upon the preceding Findings of Fact and Conclusions, the Appellate Examiner hereby
VACATES the Examiner's September 2,2005, Decision and REMANDS the matter for further
proceedings in accordance with the holdings of this Decision.
Decision issued December 7,2005.
\s\ John E. Galt (Signed original in official file)
JOHNE. GALT
Appellate Hearing Examiner
the common areas would not be restricted in their use to only those few members who actually "own" a
unit in the proposed resort. At best, the proposal is a "timeshare" resort.
LOG ITEM
# 'L-2lJ
c:\documents and settings\dsires\local settings\temporary internet fileS\Content.ie5\zvhgfl~5-0~1b.4ri:
APPELLATE HEARING E~RDECISION
RE: SOO05-00004 (Powers/Rozzell and Hale appeals)
December 7,2005
Page 22 of 22
.
e
NOTICE of RIGHT of RECONSIDERATION
This Decision is final subject to the right of any party of record to file a written motion for
reconsideration within 10 working days following the issuance of this Decision in accordance
with the procedures of RoP III. 13 .2. The filing of a motion for reconsideration does not stop the
period provided to appeal the Appellate Examiner's Decision. See RoP III.13 for additional
information and requirements regarding reconsideration.
NOTICE of RIGHT of APPEAL
This Decision is final subject to the right of a party of record with standing, as provided in RCW
36.70C.060, to file a land use petition in Superior Court in accordance with the procedures of
LUPO 9 18.D.7. Any appeal must be filed within 21 calendar days following the issuance of this
Decision.
#
Page
LOG ITEM
~U
1...~of
c:\documents and settings\dsires\local settings\temporary internet files\contentje5\zvhgavur\sub05-00004d.doc
I
.
e
LOG ITEM
/I 1-16
Page 2.bC) of
Cj6JE~
,..--." 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
-'. 15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
I
...
e
BBFORB THE HEARING EXAMINER FOR JEFFBRSON COUNTY
Irv Berteig, Hearing Examiner
RE: Application by Port Ludlow
Associates for a Shoreline
Substantial Development Permit
Binding Site Plan/Condominium
Subdivision
File No. SUB05-00004/SDP05-00002
)
)
and)
)
)
)
)
)
)
BACKGROUND INFORMATION
FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS,
"Ludlow Cove Division 2"
AND DBCISION
"Ludlow Cove" was heard and approved in 2002, and included the
Long Subdivision, Variance, Conditional Use, and 'Primary' Shoreline
Substantial Development permit. A key factor in 2002 was that the
applications were "substantially complete" on January 19, 1995.
The current application was contemplated in the conditional use
portion of the 2002 decision, and the expiration date of the
Conditional Use Permit was noted as three years after the effective
date of the 2002 decision.
PROCBDURAL INFORMATION
Site Visit:
August 16, 2005.
Open Record Bearing Date: August 16, 2005.
The hearing was opened at 1:30 p.m. in the Superior Courtroom. After
the procedures were explained, testimony was accepted. All testimony
was taken under oath. A verbatim recording of the hearing was made
and the recording is maintained in the Jefferson Permit Center file.
Participants:
Faith Lumsden, Consultant to DCD
LOG ITEM
Michelle Farfan, Dcn
#
Page 1.J;1~of
Mark Dorsey, P.E., Project Manager, PLA
Wayne Helm, Architect, 9805 Willows Road, Redmond, WA 98052
III t.~
~
Port Ludlow Associates
SUB05-OOO04 & SDP04-o0002
Findings, Conclusions
and Decision
Page 1
"Ludlow Cove 2"
I
.,
e
Donald E. Marcy, Cairncross & Hemplemann, P.S., representing Trendwest
Resorts, Inc., 524 Second Ave, Ste 500, Seattle, WA 98104-2323
Bruce Schmitz, 717 Rainier Lane, Port Ludlow, WA 98365
Elizabeth Van Zonneveld, PO Box 65477, Port Ludlow, WA 98365
John Golden, 101 Edgewood Drive, Port Ludlow, WA 98365
Barbara Tipton, 23 Clear View Lane, Port Ludlow, WA 98365
Lewis Hale, 28 Heron Road, Port Ludlow, WA 98365
Paul Mosely, 101 Fleet Dr, Port Ludlow, WA 98365
Larry Nobles, 81 Harms Lane, Port Ludlow, WA 98365
Barry Baker, PLDD, 701 Dexter Ave N, Seattle, WA 98109
Kevin Ryan, 124 S. Bay Ln , Port Ludlow, WA 98365
Les Powers, 3502 Tieton Dr, Yakima, WA 98902 [via special email]
Other parties present but did not testify:
Greg McCarry, PLA, 70 Breaker Lane, Port Ludlow, WA 98365
Lisa Berntsen, Geo Engineers, 1550 Woodridge Dr SE,
Port Orchard, WA 98366
Mike Derring, 100A Fairwayn, Port Ludlow, WA 98365
Bill & Beverly Browne, 113 Outlook Lane, Port Ludlow, WA 98365
Lyn Keem, CTRG, 9805 Willows Rd, Redmond, WA 98052
Wendell Johnson, Reid Middleton, 728 134th St SW, Ste 200,
Everett, WA 98204
Dwayne Wilcox, 271 Montgomery, Port Ludlow, WA 98365
Richard Rozzell, 41 Windrose Dr, Port Ludlow, WA 98365
Diane Sineland, 70 Breaker Lane, Port Ludlow, WA 98365
Jeff ? 70 Breaker Lane, PO Box 65041 , Port Ludlow, WA 98365
Richard P Regan, 61 Resolute Lane, Port Ludlow, WA 98365
Barbara Wagner-Jauregg, 171 Martin Gale PI, Port Ludlow, WA 98365
Larry Lawson, 10140 Oak Bay Rd, Port Ludlow, WA 98365
Margaret Carter, 103 Heritage Lane, Port Ludlow, WA 98365
Port Ludlow Associates Page 2
SUBOS-OOOO4 & SDP04-GOOO2 "Ludlow Cove 2"
UI
..
e'
1 F. Wickeham, 194 Crestview Dr , Port Ludlow, WA 98365
2 Tom McCay, 40 Mariner PI , Port Ludlow, WA 98365
3 Geri Reinart, 1319 Dexter N, #183, Seattle WA 98109
4 Don Cooper, 221-S N. Bay Lane, , Port Ludlow, WA 98365
5 Don Clark, 20 Herren Rd , Port Ludlow, WA 98365
6 Sue Ryan, 124 S. Bay Lane, Port Ludlow, WA 98365
7 No other parties were present to testify.
8 The Hearing Examiner closed the public hearing at 5:15 p.m. and held
9 the record open to receive three documents with reserved Log Items for
10 Log 126 (Habitat), Log 127 (Landscape) and Log 128 (Archaeological).
11 The record was closed on August 19, 2005.
12 TABLB OP BXHIBITS:
13
:i;;tOG ITEM ' , ::".:', :;:POCI::lM5NT .':. :.::::.;.-"'.'.i:. ii..,' .,..:.....DATE
I ' ' :.' .. . .
1 Cases, Findings, Conditions, permissions for Parcel 1/18/2005
1A Pre-Application Packet No date
2 Email Re Fees between Lyn Keenan & Michelle Farfan 1/13/2005
3 Copy of fee payment and receipt 1/12/2005
4 Transmittal letter for applicants 1/13/2005
5 Master Land Use Application 1/13/2005
6 Title Report by First American Title 1/13/2005
7 Adjacent Property OWners (APO) list by title co 1/13/2005
8 Copy of ltr fr Larry Smith, Olympic Water & Sewer 1/13/2005
9 Traffic Impact Assessment by Geralyn Reinhart, P.E.
10 Environmental Checklist
11 Large site maps
12 Reduced copy of large site maps
13 JARPA application (SDP05-00002)
14 Environmental Health subdivision application
15 variance application
16 Binding Site Plan (BSP) application
17 ESA maps 1/25/2005
18 Determination of Completeness 1/25/2005
19 Fax from Tom Aumock PT Fire Dept to Mark Nielson 1/28/2005
20 Certification of Mailing 2/1/2005
21 Fax copy of Notice of Application, Posting 2/2/2005
22 Newspaper article from the Leader 2/9/2005
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
Port Ludlow Associates
SUB05-00004 & SDP04-QO002
Page 3
"Ludlow Cove 2"
Findin~~'i~
# :L ~()
Page ..1- O$~ of
25
26
27
28
29
I
.
e'
1
;~OG ITEM;..., ......,.....", .;;', ~ 'r[iX1XlUMENTmmi' .....~ --C..'....... .' "pArE
""".,. ..",...,,'..----, "; ..... .':.
23 Comment from Jefferson Co Sheriff 2/11/2005
24 Email comment from Assessor 2/10/2005
25 Comment from Bruce Schmitz 2/15/2005
26 Comment from Bill &: Luanna Cooke 2/17/2005
27 Email between Les Powers &: Greg McCarry 2/21/2005
28 Email between Bert Loomis, Michelle, Dwayne 2/24/2005
29 Email between Les Powers &: David Alvarez 2/24/2005
30 Email between Al Scalf &: Les Powers 2/24/2005
31 Comments from City of PT Long Range Planning 2/16/2005
32 Email between Greg McCarry, Bert Loomis, Les Powers 2/22/2005
33 Email between Greg McCarry, Bert Loomis, Les Powers 2/22/2005
34 Email between Al Scalf, D. Alvarez &: Les Powers 2/24/2005
35 Fax comment from Fire District 3 3/1/2005
36 Emai1 between Bert Loomis, Michelle, John Fischbach 3/2/2005
37 Email comments from Lewis Hale 3/2/2005
38 Email comments from Les Powers 3/2/2005
39 Email comments from John Fischbach to Bert Loomis 3/2/2005
40 Email comments from Les Powers 3/2/2005
41 Comment letter from DOE 3/2/2005
42 Comment letter from Port Ludlow Drainage District 3/2/2005
43 Comment letter from Port Ludlow Fire &: Rescue 3/2/2005
44 Comment Email from Gregory Hupp 3/4/2005
45 Comment Email from Harry Cloutier 3/4/2005
46 Comment Email from Nancy Hayden 3/4/2005
47 Comment Email from Brett &: Susan Oemichen 3/4/2005
48 Comments from DOE (original of Log 41) 3/4/2005
49 Comment letter from Doug Herring 3/7 /2005
50 Comments from Dept of Public Works (Jim Pearson) 3/7/2005
51 Ltr to Mark Dorsey &: Lyn Keenan w/ Logs 23-49 3/7/2005
52 Comment 1tr from South Bay Community Assoc 3/9/2005
53 Fax from Lyn K with Responses to comment letters 3/21/2005
54 Transmittal from Lyn K 3/22/2005
55 Original of responses to comment letters (Log 53) 3/22/2005
56 Email from Les Powers 3/28/2005
57 Peninsula Daily News Article 3/25/2005
58 Email between Lea Powers and Michelle Farfan 3/30/2005
59 Email from Les Powers 3/29/2005
60 Email from Bert Loomis 4/1/2005
61 Emai1 from Bert Loomis + exchange 4/3/2005
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
Port Ludlow Associates
SUB05-00004 & SDP04-00002
LOG ITEM
Page 4 # '11,0 Findings. Conclusions
"Ludlow Cove 2 -~,- and Decision
Par <~ II O!;\Jf
;:Jt- J--..J
25
29
I
..
e'
1
L9GJJEM . .,'. D9~UiMENTi':ii":'lii'i .,.l:!' '!!i'!' i' ." I PATE
'"
62 Email from Al Scalf to Bert Loomis 4/5/2005
63 Email forwarded from Les Powers 4/6/2005
64 Emai1 from Les Powers to Bert Loomis and others 4/27/2005
65 Port Ludlow Voice5/2/2005 5/2/2005
66 Revised Application - Environmental Checklist 5/9/2005
67 Revised Application - Prel Binding Site Plan 5/9/2005
68 Revised Application prel Binding Site Plan (LARGE) 5/9/2005
69 Jefferson County Environmental Health Subdivision 5/13/2005
Review Application transmittal
70 Letter from Lyn Keenan to Michelle Farfan 5/9/2005
71 Jefferson County Environmental Health Subdivision 5/9/2005
Review Application
72 Revised Binding Site Plan Application 5/9/2005
73 Revised Front page copy: Master Permit Application 5/9/2005
74 Property Description - copy 5/9/2005
75 Certification of Mailing 5/11/2005
76 Affidavit of Posting Public Notice 5/12/2005
77 Comment Itr from Ross Goodwin, DNR 5/17/2005
78 Affidavit of Posting Public Notice 6/1/2005
79 Email from Les Powers 6/2/2005
80 Comment from Marylee Pabst 6/1/2005
81 Email from Bruce Schmitz w/letter 6/10/2005
82 Email from Mal & Fran Jester 6/11/2005
83 Email of letter from Harry Cloutier 6/11/2005
84 Email from Mal Jester 6/12/2005
85 Email from Les Powers 6/13/2005
86 Subject correction emai1 from Les Powers 6/13/2005
87 Email from Susan Kaysinger 6/13/2005
88 Letter from Elizabeth Van Zonneveld 6/13/2005
89 Fax Transmittal from Mark Dorsey of article 5/27/2005
90 Email from Lewis Hale 6/12/2005
91 Comment Ltr from Floyd Thoren 6/14/2005
92 Memo from Jim Pearson, Public Works to revised app1 6/15/2005
93 Copy document from a previous and different Received
application - not appropriate for this record 6/10/2005
94 Email from Les Powers to A1 Scalf 6/17/2005
95 Email from Les Powers to A1 Scalf 6/17/2005
96 Emai1 from Lewis Hale - arguments regarding "mu1ti- 6/22/2005
family" versus "transient accommodations"
97 Email from Lewis Hale 6/22/2005
98 Email from Lewis Hale 6/22/2005
LOG II t:M.
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
26
27
28
Port Ludlow ASSOCiates
SUB05-00004 & SDP04-00002
Page 5
"Ludlow Cove 2" # _.
P.:t..
G;.~
Findings. ConclUSions
1.1..Q. nnd Decision
iJ...1 (7_ of.
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
e
e
1
. LOG ITEM.' .., ':.<'!'ii i": ..i'mmm ~ ,..,' .,,>..>...),.'.....m m,'!,'!i'" DATE
'''....'' I..>..,,>.... ,
99 Email from Les Powers - forwarded by Leslie Locke 6/27/2005
100 Email from Les Powers to Al Scalf 6/27/2005
101 Email from Les Powers to Al Scalf 6/27/2005
102 Email from Grant Smith to Al Scalf 6/27/2005
103 Comment letter from Port Ludlow Drainage District 6/30/2005
104 Comment letter from Bill & Beverly Browne 6/30/2005
105 Email comment from Larry Lawson 7/1/2005
106 Email from Les Powers 7/1/2005
107 Email from Gary & Sue Kaysinger 7/1/2005
108 Email from Bert Loomis 7/1/2005
109 Email confirmation sheet from Les Powers 7/2/2005
110 Email confirmation exchange - Les Powers & Al Scalf 7/5/2005
111 Certification of Mailing 7/20/2005
112 Affidavit of Posting 7/20/2005
113 Affidavit of Posting 7/20/2005
114 Staff Report & MONS 7/27/2005
115 Certification of Mailing Staff Report & MONS 7/26/2005
The following Log Items were presented at the beginning of the hearing:
116 Email Al Scalf response to Lewis Hale 8/4/2005
117 Email exchange - A1 Scalf & Lewis Hale 8/5/2005
118 Emai1 from Lewis Hale 8/5/2005
119 Email transmittal of Comments from Les Powers 8/16/2005
120 Email response to Les Powers 8/15/2005
121 2002 SEPA Memo on original Ludlow Cove file 6/26/2002
122 2002 Final Modified MONS for Ludlow Cove 6/26/2005
123 2002 Shoreline Permit for Ludlow Cove 8/2/2002
124 Amended Final Report for Ludlow Cove 2 (in red) 8/15/2005
125 Email from Examiner re: Les Powers request 8/15/2005
The following Log Items were submitted during the open record hearing:
126 (reserved Log Item) Habitat Management Plan by Received
GeoEngineers dated May 9, 2003 8/19/2005
127 (reserved Log Item) Ludlow Cove Landscape Plan by Received
GeoEngineers dated July 24, 2003 8/19/2005
128 (reserved Log Item) Ludlow Cove Archaeological Received
Resources and Traditional CUltural Places 8/19/2005
Assessment dated May 14, 2003
129 Letter from Donald Marcy, Attorney for Trendwest Dated
5/23/2005
130 Copy of visual presentation by wayne Helm, 8/16/2005
Architect inclUding Aerial View, Site Plan, view
from South Across Inlet, and Color Board
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
Port Ludlow Associates
SUB05-00004 & SDP04-00002
Page 6 lOG ITEM Findings. Conclusions
"Ludlow COVfP" l'bJL-"[!!rr". '........; and Decision
Pa ~'I "
ge,~of"-,.,. __.
e
e
1
LOG ITEM . :.,. '. . ~~~!;NT .""',.:J:'. ." ,":,. DATE
.. ". '.. ':...,..,
131 Memo from Geralyn Reinart, P.E. , regarding traffic
issues raised by Bruce Schmitz Ltr Log #81
132 Reid Middleton response re stormwater management
133 GeoEngineers response re potential impacts to
Ludlow Creek, Port Ludlow Bay and salmon
134 Testimony by Bruce Schmitz
135 Statement by Elizabeth Van Zonneve1d
136 Letter statement by Attorney Novelle Ballard
137 Testimony by Barbara Tipton
138 Testimony by Lewis Hale
139 petitions submitted by Paul Mosely
140 Wayne Helm reply to Larry Nobles
141 Annotated Staff Report by Barry Baker, PLDD
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
FINDINGS OF FACT
12
1.
The Ludlow Cove Division 2 proposal would develop a 120-unit
13
time-share multifamily residential project on 14.66 acres situated
within the Port Ludlow Master Planned Resort urban growth area in
14
15
Jefferson County. The proposed project would include six multifamily
16
time-share residential buildings, one reception/recreation building, a
17
private road system, recreational amenities such as a private swimming
18
pool, barbeques, spas, and public and private trails.
19
a.
The project will be served by public water and sewer
20
systems provided by Olympic Water and Sewer, Inc. A storm drainage
21
system for water quality mitigation will be constructed.
22
b.
A single access road serves the site off of Paradise Bay
23
Road across from Breaker Lane.
24
c.
Public access to the waterfront will be provided by a trail
25
across the property from Paradise Bay Road to the Picnic Point area,
26
as required in the prior approval.
27
d.
The wetland and stream areas, along with their associated
28
buffers, are located in a Native Growth Protection Easement.
The
29
Habitat Management Plan developed as part
of the or;~inal approval
LOG ITEM
~ Findings, Conclusions
? ,() and Decision
1.1~f
Port Ludlow Associates
SUB05-OO004 & SDP04-00002
Page 7
"Ludlow covih..
Page.
e
e
1 describes a Wetland Buffer Enhancement Plan that will be completed as
2 part of Division 2. Shoreline revegetation will also be done
3 according to a Landscape Plan required as part of the original
4 approval. No work is proposed below the ordinary high water mark of
5 Port Ludlow Bay.
6 2.
The current project would have created seven separate parcels,
7 and a variance proposal to reduce the width of the private access road
8 was included. Following review of the application, the public Works
9 department concluded that the variance for road width was not
10 necessary. On May 9, 2005, the applicant revised the application to
11 eliminate the request for variance and to reduce the number of
12 proposed lots from seven to four. The revised site plan also deleted a
13 proposed trail along the waterfront because the location was found to
14 be infeasible due to the steep bank and muddy shoreline.
15 3.
The four lot proposal reflects a phasing plan for construction of
16 the seven buildings. The first phase will contain only the recreation
17 building (building 7)and four parking spaces. Phase 2 includes
18 buildings 1 and 2 and the associated parking. Phase 3 contains
19 buildings 3 and 4 and associated parking, and phase 4 contains the
20 last two buildings (5 and 6) and their parking.
21 4.
Legal Description: Parcel Number 968 800 102 Ludlow Cove
22 Division 1, Tract E in Section 17, Township 28, Range 01 East, WMi
23 Located on Paradise Bay Road, Port Ludlow, WA 98365.
24 5.
Ludlow Cove Division 2 is located between Paradise Bay Road and
25 Port Ludlow Bay, approximately 1000 feet south of the intersection of
26 Paradise Bay Road and Oak Bay Road. Access to the site is directly
27 across Paradise Bay Road from Breaker Lane, which also provides access
28 to the Village Commercial Center. Tract E comprises the parcels
29 formerly shown as Tracts A and B in the approved preliminary plat of
Port Ludlow Associates
SUBOS-QOO04 & SDP04-00002
LOG ITEM
.. Ludlow Cove ?IF ? 'l.h
Page ...1.: ,?- of
Page 8
Findings, Conclusions
and Decision
e
e
1 Ludlow Cove. The property encompasses 14.66 acres, or approximately
2 638,590 square feet. The site is located on the north shore of Ludlow
3 Cove at the west end of Port Ludlow Bay. This area of Ludlow Cove has
4 commonly been called the "log dump" by Port Ludlow residents.
5 6.
The current project, Ludlow Cove Division 2, is the second phase
6 of the Ludlow Cove project approved August 2, 2002. The original
7 Ludlow Cove project included subdivision approval to create 24 single
8 family lots, variance approvals to reduce the widths of the private
9 access road easements, and a conditional use approval for future
10 multifamily development on parcels then designated as "Tracts A & B."
11 7.
The site is currently zoned for single family residential
12 development according to the MPR Code, ordinance #08-1004-99, but was
13 zoned G-1 for General Use when the original Ludlow Cove proposal was
14 submitted. Multifamily development required Conditional Use approval
15 under G-1 zoning. At the time of project vesting, the site was located
16 within the Port Ludlow Interim UGA and designated in the Comprehensive
17 Plan for multifamily development with a maximum density of 16 dwelling
18 units per acre. The site is designated Urban under the Jefferson
20 8.
19 County Shoreline Master Program.
Chronology Table: The following table lists pertinent events.
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
',..,., ".,.",DATE ,... ,,'... 'DQq~MENTIE\I~~]!1" '..},...." '..,
"',,
1/20/1994 Ordinance #02-0110-94 Interim Urban Growth Area
8/1/1994 Jefferson County Zoning Code Ord. #09-0801-94
1/17/1995 Port Ludlow Interim Urban Growth Areas Ord. #01-0117-95
1/19/1995 The original Ludlow Cove project was submitted and found
as 'substantially complete'
10/2/1995 Ordinance # 17-1002-95 adopted removing Port Ludlow
Interim Growth Area Status and back to "rural" status
8/2/2002 Hearing Examiner decision on "Ludlow Cove" Long
Subdivision, Shoreline Permit and Conditional Use
(including Condition 65 applying to Tracts A and B) .
Port Ludlow Associates
SUBOS-00004 & SDP04-o0002
LOG ITEM
Page 9
"Ludlow Cove 2f:I: 1- U
Page _JtL of
Findings. Conclusions
and Decision
e
e
1 9.
The subject property was zoned G-1 for General Use when the
2 original Ludlow Cove proposal was submitted in 1995. The IUGA
3 ordinance established a 'Multifamily' designation for the site with a
4 '16 unit per acre' density maximum.l
5 10.
The Department and Examiner determined that the property was
6 vested to the land use controls that were in effect on the date that
7 the "Ludlow Cove" applications were submitted in 1995.
8 11.
The project was approved by the Examiner on August 2, 2002 and
9 included Conditional Use approval for a multifamily project. A three
10 year time limit for submittal of plans and commencement of
11 environmental review for the multifamily project was established as
12 contained in Condition 65.2 The current project has met that timeline.
13 12 .
-
A SEPA Mitigated Determination of Non-Significance was issued
14 July 27, 2005, with an appeal deadline of August 9, 2005. No appeal
15 to the SEPA MONS was filed.
16 13.
The record was held open to receive three reports that were
17 prepared to meet mitigating conditions of the 2002 Decision. Such
18 SEPA documents are to accompany subsequent decisions making, including
19 this application. The May 13, 2003 archaeological report is of
20
21
1 Ordinance #01-0117-95 ~ 9.10 and Attachment D thereto.
2 Condition 65 from the 2002 Decision is excerpted here:
The application was initially submitted in 1995 and is vested under the ordinances in
effect at the time of submittal. The Port Ludlow Master Planned Resort Code was
adopted effective October 4, 1999. At the time of application submittal, the
Jefferson County zoning Code was in effect. The Site Development Standards for Multi-
Family Residential of Section 7.40.1(a,b,c,d, and e) would apply under vesting.
The current provisions of the Uniform Development Code [UDC] for determining Maximum
Duration of the Conditional Use Permit for Tracts A & B shall apply as follows:
(1) The applicant shall initiate the SEPA portion of Phased Review for Tracts A & B
within three (3) years of the effective date; and the applicant shall submit a
complete application for a building permit(s) for Tracts A & B within one (1)
additional year.
(2) The Maximum Duration shall not count the time devoted to the SEPA portion of
Phased Review, in accordance with UDC 8.10.5. Initiation of SEPA Review; Limitation
on Actions During Review.
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
Port Ludlow Associates
SUBOS-QO004 & SDP04-00002
LOG ITEM
"Ludlow Cove 2;Jf ? 1.-0
Page ~1-l t{ of
Findings. Conclusions
and Decision
Page 10
e
e
1 particular interest because its findings apply to the subject Tract E
2 shoreline bluff. See in particular the investigator's findings for
3 Sites 45JE207 and 45JE208 and accompanying Figure 4.3
4 14.
The Applicant testified that they were familiar with and
5 concurred with the Staff Recommended Conditions.
6
7
8 REVIEW CRITERIA
9 Applicable Codes.
10 The following Jefferson County codes and regulations apply:
11 a. Jefferson County Subdivision Ordinance #04-0526-92
12 b. Port Ludlow Interim Urban Growth Areas Ordinance #01-0117-95
13 c. Jefferson County Hearing Examiner ordinance #1-0318-91
14 d. Shoreline Management Master Program adopted March 7, 1989
15 e. State Environmental Policy Act Implementing Ordinance
16 f. Jefferson County Critical Areas ordinance #05-0509-94
17 g. Jefferson County Zoning Code #09-0801-94
18
19
20 CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
21 The following Conclusions of Law, which may contain additional
22 Findings of Fact, are organized by general issues:
23 Authority:
24 1.
The Hearing Examiner is duly appointed by the Jefferson County
25 Board of Commissioners to hear applications for Binding Site
26 Plan/Condominium Subdivision and Shoreline Substantial Development
27 Permit.
28
29
3 Log Item 128 at page 18 and 20
Port Ludlow Associates
SUBOS-00004 & SDP04-QOO02
Page 11
"Ludlow coveil'
Page
LOG ITEM
1- 'Lt>
~lk.. of
Findings, Conclusions
and Decision
e
e
1
Matter before the Examiner:
2 2.
This proposal before the Examiner is a request for a Binding Site
3 Plan/Condominium Subdivision and Shoreline Substantial Development
4 Permit to develop a 120-unit time-share multifamily residential
5 project on 14.66 acres situated within the Port Ludlow Master Planned
6 Resort urban growth area in Jefferson County, described in Finding 1.
7 Vesting Issue:
8 3.
State law provides that a project vests to the land use controls
9 that are in effect on the date a complete building permit or
10 preliminary plat application is submitted.4 There is a long line of
11 cases upholding the vesting doctrine in Washington State.5
12 Washington's vested rights doctrine vests rights to a land use
13 proposal under the regulations in effect at the time a completed
14 building permit application is filed, regardless of subsequent
15 changes in zoning or other land use regulations. Erickson &
16 Assocs., Inc. v. McLerran, 123 Wn.2d 864, 867-68, 872 P.2d 1090
17
(1994). In 1987, the doctrine was codified in RCW 19.27.095 and
18
RCW 58.17.033. These provisions require that the application be
completed. They also extended the doctrine to applications for
19
20
land division. Noble Manor Co. v. Pierce County, 133 Wn.2d 269,
21
275, 943 P.2d 1378 (1997).
22
The purpose of vesting is to provide a measure of certainty to
developers, and to protect their expectations against fluctuating
23
24
land use policy. West Main Assocs. v. City of Bellevue, 106 Wn.2d
25
47, 50-51, 720 P.2d 782 (1986).
26
27
28
4 RCW 58.17.033 and RCW 36.70B.070 Both provisions provides that the local
government establishes the required content of applications and the
procedures.
5 Donwood, Inc. v. Spokane County, 90 Wn. App. 389, 957 P.2d 775 (1998).
29
Port Ludlow Associates
SUB05-00004 & SDP04-00002
Page 12
"Ludlow Cove 2"
#
Page
LOG ITEM
1-~6
lJLof
Findings. Conclusions
and Decision
e
e
1
Vesting limits the use of later ordinances (regulations) for many
2 purposes, such as later definitions. For instance, the Port Ludlow
3
Master plan Resort Code and Development Agreement are prospective--not
4
retroactive.
5
NOTE: "2002 Decision" will be used to describe the Examiner's approval of the
original Ludlow Cove application where vesting was established.
6
7 4.
The statute uses the term 'complete application', however; most
8 jurisdictions have adopted the term 'substantially complete
9 application' to overcome a typical argument by applicants when
10 additional information is requested.6
11 5.
The Examiner determined in the 2002 Decision that the property
12 was vested to the land use controls in effect on January 19, 1995 to
13 allow consideration of the applications for two variances (later
14 withdrawn), and (1) a Long Subdivision, (2) a Substantial Development
15 Permit, and (3) a Conditional Use Permit for Tracts A and B. The three
16 remaining applications were approved on August 2, 2002. That approval
17 was not appealed, and now stands.
18 6.
The 2002 Decision noted that the 1995 application is only vested
19 to be considered under the vested ordinances. Once an action is taken
20 (ie, the consideration is accomplished), the vesting status is over.7
21 This becomes an issue for the Conditional Use Permit because if the
22 CUP expires without having been implemented, vesting status expires.
23
24
26
6 For instance, RCW 36.70B.070(2) states: "A project permit application is
complete for purposes of this section when it meets the procedural submission
requirements of the local government and is sufficient for continued
processing even though additional information may be required or project
modifications may be undertaken subsequently. The determination of
completeness shall not preclude the local government from requesting
additional information or studies either at the time of the notice of
completeness or subsequently if new information is required or substantial
changes in the proposed action occur." [emphasis added]
7 Noble Manor v. Pierce County, 133 Wn.2d 269, 278, 943 P.2d 1378 (1997).
25
27
28
29
Port Ludlow Associates
SUB05-OOO04 & SDP04-00002
Page 13 LOG ITEM
"Ludlow cowl/" ~krL ,~
Page ,1...( fb ,~'of
Findings, Conclusions
and Decision
e
e
1 7.
A three year time limit for submittal of plans and commencement
2 of environmental review for the multifamily project was established as
3 contained in the 2002 Decision as Condition 65. The current project
4 to date has met that timeline. The explanation in Conclusion 6 is
5 important because a denial of this application would mean that the
6 vesting expires. Also, if approved and the project is not implemented
7 the vesting would expire.
8 Zoning/Density Issue:
9 8.
As noted in Conclusions 3 and 4 above, the 1995 application was
10 vested to the land use controls in place in 1995. At the time of
11 vesting in 1995, the property was zoned G-1, which allowed multifamily
12 residential at a density of up to 16 dwelling units per acre with the
13 approval of a Conditional Use Permit.8
14 9.
The Port Ludlow Master Plan Resort Code and Development Agreement
15 must be read in their entirety. Both are prospective--whereas vesting
16 is to the time that a complete application is made. The Development
17 Agreement clearly states that it relates to future development.9 Note
18 Conclusion 3 above under vesting. See also Resolution #91-95 and
19 Ordinance #17-1002-95.
20 10.
Similar to Conclusions under Vesting Issue, the vesting and
21 zoning questions were settled under the 2002 Decision with the proviso
22 that such vesting is for the consideration of the 1995 application as
23 ultimately approved in 2002.10 If the CUP expires without having been
24 implemented, the vesting status also expires.
25
26
27
28
8 Ordinance #01-0117-95 ~ 9.10 and Attachment D thereto.
9 Development Agreement at ~ 1.3.7
10 Noble Manor v. Pierce County, 133 Wn.2d 269, 278, 943 P.2d 1378 (1997).
29
Port Ludlow Associotes
SUBOS-QOOO4 & SDP04-00002
"LUd~~~~~~e 2" LOG ITEM
# ~'U7
Page ><.2.-1 'i- of
Findings. Conclusions
and Decision
e
e
1
Time-Share - Ownership versus Use Issue:
2
The time-share issue as raised in this hearing has not been
3 raised in any other cases before this Examiner. The basic question
4 becomes whether a time-share as proposed by Trendwest is permitted as
5 a multifamily residential project or should be considered as a form of
6 hotel (commercial use). Is this time-share proposal a form of
7 ownership only or is it a form of land use?
8 T~e-Share ANALYSIS:
9 The Department properly began by citing definitions from the
10 applicable Zoning Code (Ordinance #09-0801-94). Those and other
11 definitions are excerpted below:
12 Ord. 9-94 ~ 3.10 (69) Multifamily Residential Development
13
"Multifamily Residential Developmentd means 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. [Emphasis added]
14
15
16
17
18
Ord. 9-94 ~ 3.10 (21) Commercial use, general.
General conunercial used means an activity that provides
merchandise or services for the consumption of the conununity at
large through retail and/or wholesale outlets, including but not
limited to retail shopping, business and professional services,
and transient acconunodations. For example: bakeries, banks,
hardware stores, offices, restaurants, theaters, vehicle sales
and repairs, and veterinary hospitals.
19
20
21
22
23
Ord. 9-94 ~ 3.10 (94) Transient Accommodations.
"Transient accommodationsd means a building or group of buildings
in which lodging or lodging and meals are provided for transient
guests for compensation. Transient acconunodations include but are
not limited to cabins, resorts, hotels, motels, hostels, and
campgrounds. For the purposes of this Ordinance, transient shall
be defined as being not more than 30 consecutive days' duration.
24
25
26
27
Ord. 9-94 ~ 3.10 (54) Land Use.
"Land used means a description of how land is used or occupied.
28
29
Port Ludlow Associates
SUB05-00004 & SDP04-00002
LOG ITEM
_'=2. 6
'}....2- Q of
Findings, Conclusions
and Decision
Page 15
"Ludlow covfiM"
Page
e
e
1 RCW 64.36.010. Definitions. [WThe Timeshare ActW]
2
As used in this chapter, the following terms have the meanings
indicated unless the context clearly requires otherwise.
(5) "Interval" means that period of time when a timeshare owner
is entitled to the possession and use of the timeshare unit.
(11) "Timeshare" means a right to occupy a unit or any of several
units during three or more separate time periods over a period of
at least three years, including renewal options, whether or not
coupled with an estate in land.
(14) "Timeshare owner" means a person who is an owner or co-owner
of a timeshare. If title to a timeshare is held in trust,
"timeshare owner" means the beneficiary of the trust.
(16) "Unit" means the real or personal property, or portion
thereof, in which the timeshare exists and which is designated
for separate use.
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
RCW 64.34.020. Definitions. [UCondominium Act"]
12
In the declaration and bylaws, unless specifically provided otherwise
13
or the context requires otherwise, and in this chapter:
(9) "Condominium" means real property, portions of which are
designated for separate ownership and the remainder of which is
designated for corrunon ownership solely by the owners of those
portions. Real property is not a condominium unless the undivided
interests in the corrunon elements are vested in the unit owners,
and unless a declaration and a survey map and plans have been
recorded pursuant to this chapter.
14
15
16
17
18
Black's Law Dictionary, Abridged Fifth Edition, 1983:
"Time-sharing" Sharing ownership in a recreational or resort
condominium according to time, for example one week per year
would be a 1/52 interest. Various plans are available.
19
20
21
22
Time-Share CONCLUSIONS:
23
11.
The first step in this type of analysis is to review the
24
definitions contained in the applicable ordinances.
25
a.
The definition of "multifamily residential development" is
26
important because the structures are designed and intended for
27
residential occupancy. Note that the definition goes on to qualify
28
that such structures are residential regardless of ownership.
29
LOG ITEM
# "L 2h Firrling~ ronclusions
Page...22.t- of
Port Ludlow Associates
SUB05-00004 & SDP04-00002
Page 16
"Ludlow Cove 2"
and Decision
e
e
1
b.
The definition of "commercial use" is clearly in contrast
2 to "multiple residential development".
3
c.
The definition of "transient accommodations" appears to
4 confuse matters; however, there are qualifying features in the
5 definition. The operative terms are "lodging" and "lodging and meals"
6 that are provided. A dictionary definition of lodging is 'sleeping
7 accommodations'.l1
8
d.
The State Department of Ecology submitted a letter relating
9 to the question of residential use and timeshare ownership. It must
10 be noted that the Department of Ecology has no jurisdiction over local
11 code interpretation and that the DOE letter simply states that if the
12 use were to be considered a commercial use, a different permit process
13 would apply for shorelines.
14 12.
Si~ce the applicable Zoning Code did not define "time-share", the
15 next legal resource is the Time Share Act.12 The Time Share Act is
16 significant because it not only defines terms, but it enables and
17 regulates time share operations. Here, it is clear that 'timeshare'
18 refers to a right to occupy as unit, and 'timeshare owner' identifies
19 ownership. Turning next to Black's Law Dictionary, 'time-sharing' is
20 an ownership, and the example is expressed in a fractional interest.
21 13.
The Staff Report contains other analyses that also leads to a
22 conclusion that the Trendwest time-share proposal does not change the
23 project from multifamily residential to hotel or other commercial use.
24 14.
The proposal remains as a multifamily residential development
25 that must be considered under the vested application--and not rejected
26 as a commercial use.
27
28
11 The American Heritage Dictionary
New College Edition, 1979
12 Chapter 64.36 RCW
of the English Language, Houghton Mifflin,
Port Ludlow Associates
SUB05-00004 & SDP04-00002
LOG ITEM
# 116
Page 17
"Ludlow Cove @age_ 2 22.: of
Findings. Conclusions
and Decision
29
e
e
1
Binding Site Plan/Condominium Subdivision Criteria:
2 15. The Staff Report (as contained in the Amended Final Report) 13
3 contains an analysis of the proposal's compliance with applicable code
4 requirements. The Staff Recommended Conclusions #31 (Eldercare), #32-
5 #34 (Critical Area Standards: Ordinance 05-0509-94), #35-#37
6 (Multifamily site development standards: 7.40.1(a) to (e)), #38 (Open
7 space required by section 7.40.1(e)), #39 (shielding security
8 lighting, 7.40.1(c)), and #40 (required parking spaces) are now
9 adopted as Examiner's Conclusions.
10 Sboreline Substantial Development Permit Criteria:
11 16. Multifamily residential use is a primary use in the urban
12 environment for Jefferson County. The policies and performance
13 standards of Sections 4.105 Urban Shoreline Designation, 5.160
14 Residential, 5.190 Transportation, and 5.20 Utilities, apply to the
15 proposal. These sections were also applied to the original shoreline
16 permit for Ludlow Cove and resulted in a set of conditions that were
17 applied to the project. Those conditions related primarily to public
18 access, stormwater management, and compliance with the required
19 development standards under the Jefferson County Shoreline Master
20 Program.
21 17.
The Shoreline Master Program sets out a set of development
22 standards. The standards include but are not limited to requirements
23 for parking, landscaping, setbacks, height, preservation of natural
24 features, locations and limitations on fences and accessory
25 structures. The proposal as submitted meets these standards and they
26 will not be repeated as conditions of this approval. Similarly,
27 standards related to general erosion control and stormwater management
#
Page
LOG ITEM
1-U
12-,?of
28
29
13 See Log Item 124
Port Ludlow Associates
SUBOS-QOO04 & SDP04-00002
Page 18
"Ludlow Cove 2"
Findings, Conclusions
and Decision
e
e
1 will not be repeated. Instead, a condition will require any change in
2 the approved plans to be submitted to the Department for review to
3 ensure continuing compliance with applicable Shoreline and zoning code
4 standards.
5 18.
The Department of Ecology commented that the proposal site was
6 located on a shoreline of statewide significance. All areas of Puget
7 Sound lying waterward from the line of extreme low tide are considered
8 shorelines of statewide significance. No part of this project,
9 however, will be waterward of the line of extreme low tide, below the
10 ordinary high water mark, or even within the shoreline setback, except
11 the shoreline revegetation required as part of the original approval
12 and shoreline permit.
13
14
DBCISION
15
Based upon the testimony presented at the Public Hearing, a site visit
16
by the Examiner, the documents and exhibits admitted into the record,
17
and the above Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby
the decision of the Hearing Examiner that the Shoreline Substantial
Development Permit and Binding Site Plan/Condominium Subdivision by
Port Ludlow Associates each be APPROVED, subject to the following
18
19
20
21
conditions:
22
NOTE: Code requirements are indicated as ICAO, SDP, and SUB,
respectively. SBPA indicates a condition based on authority of
the State Environmental Policy Act as applied through the
Jefferson County implementing ordinance.
23
24
25
Prior to per.mit Issuance or Any Clearing or Site Disturbance:
26
1.
Proposed roadways, access drives, parking areas, and trails shall
be designed to the standards of the Jefferson County Public Works
Department and the American Association of State Highway and
Transportation Officials (AASHTO). All necessary plans and
specifications shall be submitted to the ~~~r~~kS Department
for review and approval. SUB ~
I)...~O
27
28
29
Port Ludlow Associates
SUBOS-00004 & SDP04-00002
#
Page 19 ,i:} ge 2-2.Lt of Findings, ConClu~i?ns
"Ludlow Cove 2". a ~ and DeCISion
1 2.
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18 6.
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
e
e
The plans shall include 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. At the boulevard entrance, the two driving lanes
plus the bike lanes will be supplemented with sufficiently wide
shoulders or a mountable median area of grass-pave, grass-crete
or similar material to achieve a 20 foot section sufficient for
fire and emergency vehicle access. Lane width 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 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. (e).
5.
The applicant shall obtain a Road Approach Permit from the Public
Works Department for access onto Paradise Bay Road. SUB
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 lCAO
(ord. no. 05-0509-94) may be submitted in support of a request
for revisions to the recommendations. The Community Development
Department may approve a revision when equal or better protection
of critical areas will be obtained. ICAO
7.
Clearing limits for roads, water, sewer, and storm water
utilities, erosion control facilities and all site construction
shall be marked in the field and approved by the County. Critical
area buffers shall be marked with signs at intervals of one every
100 feet. The signs shall contain the following language:
"Critical area buffer. Do not remove or alter existing native
vegetation." I CAD
8.
A Stormwater Site Plan that includes a Large Parcel Erosion and
Sediment Control Plan and a Permanent Stormwater Quality Control
Port LudlowAssociates
SUB05-00004 & SDP04-00002
IL~ I~, Findings, Conclusions
'.,~"" and Decision
IJU
^~
2-1-~ of
Page 20
"Ludlow Cove 2"
if/:
Page
^ .
1
2
3
4
9.
5
6
7 10.
8
e
e
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. SEPA
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
All fees for permits to be issued and other work performed
associated with the permits shall be paid. SUB, SEPA
9 During Construction:
10
11.
11
12
13
14
15
16
12.
17
18
13.
19
20
21
14.
22
23
24
25 15.
26
27
28
29
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. ICAO, SEPA
A set of approved plans shall be on site at all times during
construction. SUB
Temporary erosion control Best Management Practices shall be
implemented continuously in conformance with the approved plans.
ICAO
Seasonal construction limitation: Construction activity between
November 1 and April 1 shall require approval of a Temporary
Erosion and Sedimentation Control (TESC) Plan including Best
Management Practices and meeting the requirements of Jefferson
County and the 1994 Stormwater Management Manual for the Puget
Sound Basin. ICAO
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
#
Page
LOG ITEM
6
'2.. 2-(, of
Port Ludlow Associates
SUBOS-GO004 & SDP04-00002
Page 21
"Ludlow Cove 2"
Findings, Conclusions
and Decision
1 16.
2
3
17.
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
e
e
Construction hours of operation shall be limited to 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
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 OARP if further excavation or
disturbance of the site is necessary. SEPA
18
18.
Prior To Occupancy Of Any Building:
19
20
21
22
19.
23
24
25
26
27
20.
28
29
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. ICAO
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
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. ICAO, SDP LOG ITEM
#
P~h .J:'tli2ut s
and Decision
Port Ludlow Associates
SUBOS-00004 & SDP04-00002
Page 22
"Ludlow Cove 2"
1
2
3
4
5
6
e
e
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. ICAO
21.
Prior to Final Binding Site Plan/Pinal Plat Approval:
7
8
9
10
22.
11
23.
12
13
14
15
24.
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
25.
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
The proponent shall comply with all processing timelines and
final binding site plan/final plat requirements as established by
the Public Works Department. SUB
All fees for work performed prior to final approval shall be
paid. SUB
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
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
Ludlow Trails Committee, under the direction of the Port Ludlow
Village Council shall be responsible for maintenance of the
Trail." SDP
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
Page 23
"Ludlow Cove 2"
#
Page
LOG ITEMindings, Conclu~j~ns
and DeCISion
?'UJ
2.1---'0 of
Port Ludlow Associates
SUB05-00004 & SDP04-00002
1
2
3
26.
4
5
6
7 27.
8
9
10 28.
11
12
13
14
29.
15
16
30.
17
18
19
e
e
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.
The project engineer shall certify to Jefferson County that
construction and all land disturbing activities have occurred in
conformance with the recommendations of the March 22, 1995
geotechnical report or an updated report if approved by the
Community Development Departments. SUB, ICAD
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
The applicant shall enter into an agreement with Jefferson County
to reimburse the County for the full cost of designing and
constructing a pedestrian crosswalk, which may include a
pedestrian island, across Paradise Bay Road in the vicinity of
Ebbtide Court. SUB, SEPA
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
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 existing road names. SUB
20
31.
Por the Life of the Project:
21
22
23
24
25
26
32.
27
28
29
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 ground 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.
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
Port Ludlow Associates
SUBOS-00004 & SDP04-00002
Page 24
"Ludlow Cove 2"
Findings. Conclusions
LOG ITEM and Decision
~.2()
).Z.1 of
#
Paoe
1
--
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
e
e
a. Trees shall not be removed unless it is determined by a
professional arborist that a potential safety hazard
exists. In such a case, the tree shall be cut no closer
than three feet to the ground and the root system shall be
kept intact.
b. Maintenance work shall be done by hand or with minimal
mechanical apparatus.
33. Landscaping on the developed portion of the site shall be
maintained in compliance with the approved Landscape Plan. ICAO
34. Roads, utilities, structures, and other improvements shall comply
with the applicable policies and performance standards of the
Jefferson County Shoreline Management Master Program. SDP
35. The project shall be built and maintained in compliance with the
approved plans. SUB, Zoning Ordinance
36. 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.
DATED this 2nd day of September 2005.
Irv~~
Jefferson County Hearing Examiner
ib
Port Ludlow Associates
SUB05-QOOO4 & SDP04-00002
Page 25
"Ludlow Cove 2"
Findings, Conclusions
LOG ITEM and Decision
f).1JJ
2,?10 of
#-
Page
LOG ITEM
# 1- 'L!J
Page 2.31' of
.
e
.
.e,~kt-
/-
IFFERSON COUNTY e
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
621 Sheridan Street, Port Townsend, WA 98368
360-379-4450 www.co.iefferson.wa.uslcommdevelopmentl
,,--.. ".
RECEIVED
RECOMMENDATION TO JUL 2 8 Z005
)EFFERSON COUNTY BElUUNG EXAMQOIV1S & THERRlEN, P.s.
And
MITIGATED DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE
PROPOSAL NAME:
Ludlow Cove Division 2
PROPOSAL DESC1lIPTI0N:
A 120-unit time-share multi-family residential
development situated on 14.66 acres within the Port
Ludlow MPR.
REQUIRED .APPROVALS:
Binding Site PlanICondominiwn Subdivision
Shoreline Substantial Development Pennit
SEPA Threshold Determination
, ------
..
MLA. #:
SUB95-00003 (original subdivision case)
ZON95-OOOO1 (original Conditional Use zoning case)
SUB05-00004
SDPOS-OOOO3
MLA05-00039
PERMrl" C.&sE #'8:
.APPLlC&N'l:
Port Ludlow Associates
REPRESENTATIVE:
Mark Dorsey, Project Manager
SEPA DECISION:
Mitigated. DetermiDation of Non-SignificaDce
RECOMMENDATION
'1'0 1n!-1UNG EXaMINEll:
Approve with CoDditions
SEPA MDNS Notice Date:
January 18, 3005; Revised May 9, 3005
February 3,3005, Revised May II, 2005 and June I,
3005
July 37, 3005
AppUcation Date:
Notice of Application Date:
SEP.I. .APPEAL DEADLINE:
August 9, 2005
#
Page
LOG ITEM
1____Z-b
1... '? 2-.. of
e
e
Jefferson County Department of Community Development
Ludlow Cove Division 2
July 26. 2005
Public Bearing Date:
August 16, 2005 at 1 :3Opm in Jefferson County
Superior Courtroom, Jefferson County Courthouse
H a SEPA appeal is filed, the appeal hearing will be consolidated with the Public Hearing scheduled on the
date noted above.
PROPOSED nNDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
ol'"U.I.' .LIUU,I,UW, yy~ .,0.;)00.
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 reduce the widths of the private access road easements, and a conditional
use approval for future multifamily development on parcels then designated as "Tracts A
and B."
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 found in
Section 7 of the applicable Zoning Code, ordinance 09-0801-94, at section 7.40.l.a, b, c,
d, and e.
5. The original Ludlow Cove project was submitted and substantially co~plete on
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 - ~udlow Cove Division 2, was conditionally approved, subject to
future SEPA review. Certain SEP A and Shoreline pennit 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 1 project has been revised to include only seventeen homes. Seven
homes in the first phase of Division 1 are currently Wlder construction.
Staff report and recommendation/MDNS
Ludlow Cove Division 2
SUB05~OO4.SDPO~2
Page 2 of 24
LOG ITEM
# 2- 2...0
---42age--1.-?? of
-
Jefferson County De&ent of Community Development e
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 Program was reviewed in a 1993 Environmental 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 primazy public access point for the MPR, 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 Permits and Approvals. In addition to the Binding Site
Plan/Condominium Subdivision approval and Shoreline Substantial Development pennit
that constitute the current application, the project will require Building Permits and a
Construction Approval Plan approved by the County Public Works department.
Hydraulic Project Approval (HPA permit) is required for discharge of stormwater from
the drainage and water quality treatment system. The existing NPDES permit (National
Pollutant Discharge Elimination 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 Environmental Policy Act Implementing Ordinance
f. Jefferson County Critical Areas ordinance #05-0509-94
g. Jefferson County Zoning Code #09-0801-94
PART D 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
Development Tract E of the plat of Ludlow Cove Division I, Phase 1. Tract E comprises
the parcels formerly shown as Tracts A and B in the approved preliminary plat of Ludlow
Cove. The property encompasses 14.66 acres, or approximately 638,590 square feet.
The site is located on the north shore of Ludlow Cove at the west end of Port Ludlow Bay.
This area of Ludlow Cove has commonly been called the "log dump" by Port Ludlow
residents.
11. The site is currently 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-l 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/MDNS Page 3 of 24
Ludlow Cove Division 2
SUBO~4.SDP05~2
#
Page
LOG ITEM
1..!Lb
:2..?, 4 of
. ----..--. -- --.---.-.-
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 maximum density of 16 dwelling units per acre. The site is designated Urban
under the Jefferson County Shoreline Master Program.
12. A Class IT 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
betwee~ Type 3 and Type 5 buffers, a system 9U)J.Uf.ef_J.~enClinA.ViM.im.DlJ2Xf\(:1.hx.t,l1A
Type 5 stream, but is subject to the recorded buffer requirements.
13. The upland areas of the site slope from north to south toward the shoreline. The
area of the site proposed for development, the central and south portions, slope gently
(2% to 7% slopes). The area of Wetland 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 I, the stream and the associated buffers, which are preserved in a Native
Growth Protection Easement. Tot~ 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 drainage
system for water quality mitigation will be constructed. A single access road serves the
site off of Paradise Bay Road across from Breaker Lane. Public access to the waterfront
will be provided by a trail across the property 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 was included. Following review of the initial application, the Public
Staff report and recommendation/MDNS
Ludlow Cove Division 2
SUB05-OO004. SDP05-00002
Page 4 of 24
LOG ITEM
# lU
Page 2..11- of
Jefferson County Deptl,ent of Community Development e
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 Io~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 the 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. Browme, 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. Bale, Lewis: asserting use is commercial not residential; asserting MPR code
controls and a major revision to resort plan is required..
e. Bayden, 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 retail in community.
f. Berring, Doug: Noting economic benefits of the proposal.
g. Bupp, 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. Kayslnger, 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, Larry: regarding SEPA processes; public process.
staff report and recommendation/MONS
Ludlow Cove Division 2
SUBO~,SDP05~2
Page 5 of 24
# .-
Page
LOG ITEM
1.2..1>
1-?l.I of
Jefferson County Depa~nt of Community-Development e
Ludlow Cove Division 2
July 26, 2005
k. Loomis, Bert: raising question of conunercial nature of project, vesting, traffic
impacts, compliance with MPR Code.
1. Oemicllen, Brett: questioning conunercial nature of use, noise, design
compatibility.
m. Pabst, Mary-lee W.: supporting the proposal based on benefits to the
conununity 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 conunercial use, not a residential use; raising
estuary and sahnon habitat issues; questioning whether site has been
smveyed 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. Sclunltz, Bruce: seeking amenities associated with Resort Complex
development; questioning the application of state vesting law and asserting
the use must be integrated into and support the on-site recreational nature of
the MPR; asserting the Trendwest use is a conunercial use not a residential
use; questioning traffic analysis.
p. Smlthl Grant and Nancy: supporting project, noting economic benefits.
q. 7'1aoren, 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 COnURent
a. Jefferson County Department of Public Works: stormwater management, use
of recommendations from the geotechnical report prepared by GeoEngineers
dated March 22, 1995, concuning 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
paved, separated pedestrian walkway along southerly side of access road on
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 Sheriff: noting impacts on sheriff's office staffing from
increased population.
c. Jefferson County Assessor1s 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
twning 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
SUB05~4,SDPO~2
Page 6 of 24
#
Page
LOG ITEM
1--U
2..~ 1 of
Jefferson County DepAent of Community D~velopment e
Ludlow Cove Division 2
July 26. 2005
f. Chlmacum School District (per telephone message to Michelle Farfan as
noted in letter to Wayne Hehn dated 12/112004): a school impact fee of 437.10
per lot would be charged.
g. Olympic Water iUJd Sewer, Inc.: confirming that domestic water and sewer
hookups sufficient for the 120 dwelling unit project are available.
h. Port Ludlow DraInage District: regarding stonnwater management;
applicable codes; environmental checklist; required NPDES permit and
Hydraulic Project Approval; geotechnical review; technical plan sheet review.
i. City of Port TOWDSend: 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. CoDBistency 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 includes 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 VU.
21. Vestillg. State law provides that a project vests to the land use controls that are
in effect on the date a complete building permit or preliminary plat application is
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 (JUGA) ordinance that the project vested to was appealed
and later invalidated. (The IUGA ordinance established a Multifamily designation for the
site with a 16 units per acre density maximwn.) 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 preswned valid when they are adopted, (see RCW 36.70A.320) and that
Staff report and recommendation/MDNS
Ludlow Cove Division 2
SUBO~4.SDPO~2
Page 7 of 24
#
Page
LOG ITEM
fL~O
1..1,~ of
Jefferson County DeparAnt of Community'-Oevelopment .-
Ludlow Cove Division 2 -W .
July 26. 2005
determinations of invalidity are prospective onlyRCW 36.10A302). 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 surlace water manuals do not apply. Even the
Development Agreement for the entire Port Ludlow conununity, 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 follows 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. Conunercial 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 Acconunodations 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
campgroWlds. For the purposes of this Ordinance, transient shall be defined as
being not more than 30 consecutive days' duration. .
26. The Jefferson COWlty Shoreline Master Program does not define multifamily use,
but does define Conun~rcial 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,
Wlder the Shoreline code definition, the proposal would not be considered
.. commercial. It
Staff report and recommendation/MDNS
Ludlow Cove Division 2
SUB05-00004. SDP05-00002
Page 8 of 24
LOG ITEM
# 1./1...6
Page . 7--?e1 of
Jefferson County Depaent of Community Development e
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 residential 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 renting 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. Resol1.&meuities 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 reDect 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 community is a
permitted use, but is not a requirement.
32. Critic:al.Krea 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
developed for the original project. Some of those conditions also covered and were
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 liMP 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/MONS
Ludlow Cove Division 2
SUBO~4,SDPO~2
#
Page
Page 9 of 24
LOG ITEM
22.D
1. ~O of
Jefferson County Depaent of Community Development e
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. These 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.I(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 four (4) or more parking spaces designed and
shown in plan form with the following elements: proposed and existing
structures, traffic circulation, adjoining streets, drainage, lighting,
landscaping, fencing, and screening. The plan shall be incoIporated as part
of the project and site plan submittal.
b. ACCESS DESIGN: All ingress and egress to a parking lot containing four (4) or
more parking spaces shall be developed so vehicles entering and leaving the
parking lot are headed in a forward motion.
c. SECURlTY LIGHTING: Lighting fixtures shall be designed 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 conform 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 of the 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 impermeable surfaces except for tennis courts, swimming pools or other
similar uses which require an impenneable surface. Conformance with this
standard shall not be required for conditional uses located withirl a "C"
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, SDP05-00002
Page 10 of 24
LOG ITEM
# 2-2"b
Page -U:1L of
Jefferson County Dep'ment of Community Development e
Ludlow Cove Division 2
July 26, 2005
for each zoning district. Parking standards as provided in section 13 are included below
for zoning code consistency. For the 0-1 zone and multifamily dwellings the following
standards apply, as modified by 7.40. 1 (d) for side and rear setbaclcs. 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 I & 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 minimwns
Developecl' 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 equa150% 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.
40. The last zoning code issue relates to the 180 required parking spaces. This
number asswnes 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 fonna11y revised and all development standards and requirements at
the time of the revision are met.
PART VI SHORELINE SUBST1lNTU.L 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/MONS Page 11 of 24
Ludlow Cove Division 2 LOG ITEM
SUB05-00()()4, SDP05-OOOO2 -# 'L~O
Page 2..l..i1-- of
Jefferson County Depaent 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 and stormwater management will not be
repeated. Instead, a condition will be reconunended 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 similar set of conditions to ensure
the Shoreline Master Program standards are met, no further 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 may be noted
here that the Department of Ecology has no jurisdiction over local code inteIpretation
and that the DOE letter simply states that if the 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 current
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 part of the Division I project. The conditions are reiterated in this 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 conununity 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 of this project,
however, will oc<::ur waterward of the line of extreme low tide, below the ordinary high
Staff report and recommendation/MDNS
Ludlow Cove Division 2
SUB05-00004. SDP05-00002
Page 12 of 24
LOG iTEM
-# ~..?_b
., ----~
Pa~~e _.2-. LOJ- of
Jefferson County Depa~nt of Community Development e
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 pennit.
PART VB BINDING SITE PLAN/SUBDIVISION ANALYSIS
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:
CONDOMINI1JM DIVISIONS
11.10 Applicability. 'ft1is section constitutes a "binding site plan process" for divisions
of land into lots or tracts, as pennitted by RCW 68.17.040(7), when the improvements to be
constructed thereon will be included in one (I) or more condominiums 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. I. The administrative procedure for review of condominiwn divisions
containing four (4) or few~ dwelling units shall be the same procedure as described in Section 5,
Subsection 5.20 of this ordinance.
2. The administrative procedure for review of condominiwn
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
11.30 I General: I. All condominiwn divisions shall conform with the Jefferson
County Comprehensive Plan and/or applicable community development plan, the provisions of
the Jefferson County Development code, No. 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
pattems, 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 condominiwn 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 condominiwn divisions shall be
reviewed to determine whether transit or school bus stops are necessary to promote the public
access to safe and convenient travel.
11.304 Sidewalks. Applications for condominiwn 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: I. Screening and buffering areas shall be
established with a minimwn 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 condominiwn divisions shall comply with the open
space requirements of Section 5, Subsection 5.305 of this ordinance, PROVIDED that the minimwn
area for open space shall be twenty-five percent (25%) of the total gross area of the condominiwn
division consistent with the Open Space Standards in Appendix G of this ordinance.
Staff report and recommendation/MDNS
Ludlow Cove Division 2
SUBO~4.SDP05~2
Page 13 of 24
LOG ITEM
# ~'b
Page ~ of
Jefferson County Deparent of Community Development e
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 ReCV1ired Improvements
11.401 Roads: Roads in Condominium divisions shall comply with Section 5,
Subsection 5.401 of this ordinance.
11.402 Off-Site Traffic Impacts: Condominium divisions shall proceed in
compliance with the off-site traffic impacts provisions of Section 5, Subsection 5.402 of this
ordinance.
11.403 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.
1.405 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
provided with a water supply in accordance with all applicable State statutes, the rules and
regulations of the Washington State Department of Health, the Jefferson County Health
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 inspection by the County Health Department.
11.408 Fire Prote~on: Applicants for condominium divisions shall provide
adequate fire protection in accordance with the Uniform Fire Code and local fire district
recommendations 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)
11.50 Ins.pections. (Technical requirements)
11.60 ~. (Technical Requirements)
49. .A.dministration. 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
SUBO~4,SDPO~002
Page 14 of 24
lOG ITEM
# 120
/)"'f'" II s:
I;J,ge _.t...-<..t of
-
Jefferson County DeAent of Community Development e
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 SI,748.4O, 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 area has
been preserved as open space meeting the requirements of Section 11.306. (Total site
includingNGPE equals approximately 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. SEPA 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 of the 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 pennits, 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
SUBO~4,SDPO~2
Page 15 of 24
LOG ITEM
# It? Q
Page :L ":l(gof
Jefferson County Deparent of Community Development e
Ludlow Cove Division 2
July 26, 2005
Stonnwater 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 ofsection 1 1. 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 tenn
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 sprinldered. A fire
protection impact fee was requested by Fire District #3. The fee will be imposed
pursuant to Subdivision and SEPA 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 total fee of$23,160 willbe 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 of the Public Works Department will be required as a condition on
approval for the project.
PARTVUI SEPAANALYSIS
61. Procedure. According to Section 8.10.9 of the applicable SEPA ordinance, when
the responsible official makes a threshold determination and issues a DNS or MONS, the
responsible official shall use the "optional DNS 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 detennine
whether the DNS or MDNS is still appropriate. A determination of significance (a DS
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 docum.ents. The following
environmental docwnents, 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 (FMMDNS) for Ludlow Cove,
SUB95-00003 and its supporting memorandum.
Staff report and recommendation/MDNS
Ludlow Cove Division 2
SUB05-00004. SDPOS-OOOO2
Page 16 of 24
LOG ITEM
.# 1~6
Page -2:.Ltl of
Jefferson County Depa.ent of Community Development e
Ludlow Cove Division 2
July 26. 2005
63. CoDclitions aDd requiremeDts 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
SEPA review. For clarity, the code requirements are detailed in Part X as conditions of
approval and identified as lCAO, 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. Impacts Not Covered By Prior EDviroDmeDtal 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.
, 65. Traffic aDdoTransportatioD'lmpacts. 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 need
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~md 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. 19).
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.
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
SUBO~4.SDP05~2
Page 17 of 24
LOG ITEM
# ,', ",,'2.0
p~ge ~ of
Jefferson County Depar4tnt of Community Development e
Ludlow Cove Division 2
Ju!y 26, 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 Worles 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 required. 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 SEPA 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 SEP A
authority to mitigate the incremental impact was found. The analysis for the current
project reveals the sa.Il1,e 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
SUBO~4,SDPO~OO2
Page 18 of 24
LOG ITEM
# 2:2.-0
Page 2- .l.11- ot __"
Jefferson County DepAent of Community Development e
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 sahnon habitat. The County
will limit the hours of construction at the site to mitigate noise impacts based on the prior
analysis done for the original Ludlow Cove Project. Sahnon ~itat 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.
Pari IX CONCLUSIONS
78. DNS. Jefferson County has detennined that the above-d.escribed 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 43.2 IC.03O(2) (c). This determination was
made after review of a completed environmental checklist and other information on file
with the Jefferson County Department of CommW'lity 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 aD. appeal is filed, the appeal hearing will be held at
the public hearing on the ovenll project which is already scheduled for August 16,
Staff report and recommendation/MONS
Ludlow Cove Division 2
SUBO~4,SDPO~2
Page 19 of 24
#
Page
LOG ITEM
~2.6
2- C? (> of
Jefferson County Depo.t of Community Development e
Ludlow Cove Division 2
July 26, 2905
Z005 at I :30 pm in the Jefferson County Superior CoUl'troom, Z- 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 Pennit for Ludlow Cove Division 2, subject to
conditions as detailed below in Part X.
Signed: 0\ ,,(~ Date: ,..IAlJ~<ro'
Stacie ~~esponslble Official ~
Jefferson County Director of Community Development
Pari X RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS
Code requirements pursuant to ICAO, the Shoreline Substantial Development
Permit, and Subdivision regulations are indicated as lCAO, SDP, and SUB,
respectively. SEPA indicates a condition based on authority of the State
Environmental Policy Act as applied through the Jefferson County implementing
ordinance.
Prior to Permit Issuance or Any Clearing or Site Disturbance
1. Proposed roadways, access drives, parking areas, and trails shall be designed to
the standards of the Jefferson County Public Works Department and the American
Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO). All necessary plans
and specifications shall be submitted to the Public Works Department 'for review and
approval. SUB
2. The plans shall include 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 lanes will be
supplemented with seven feet wide shoulders of grass-pave or similar material to
achieve a 20 foot section sufficient for fire and emergency vehicle access. Lane width
along the balance of the entry drive may be reduced to 10 feet in each direction,
exclusive of the bicycle lanes. Plans shall be submitted to the Public Works Department
for review and approval. SUB, SEPA
4. The building pennit 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 recommendation/MDNS
Ludlow Cove Division 2
SUBOS-OOOO4, SDP05-00002
Page 20 of 24
#
Page
LOG ITEM
/2f)
251 of
Jefferson County DepAent of Community Development e
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, 1.40.l.(e).
5. The applicant shall obtain a Road Approach Pennit from the Public Works
Department for access onto Paradise Bay Road. SUB
6. Plans and construction activities shall conform to the recommendations in the
geoteclmical report prepared by GeoEngineersdated March 22, 1995, provided that a
revised geotechnical report conforming to the requirements of the ICAO (ord. no. 05-
0509-94) may be submitted in support of a request for reVisions to the recommendations.
The Community Development Department may approve a revision when equal or better
protection of critical areas will be obtained. 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 approved by the
County. Critical area buffers shall be marked with signs at intervals of one every 100'"
feet. The signs shall contain the following language: ..Critical area buffer. Do not remove
or alter existing native vegetation. II lCAD
8. A Stormwater Site Plan that includes a Large Parcel Erosion and Sediment Control
Plan and a Permanent Stormwater Quality Control Plan and that confonns 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. SEPA
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 Construc:tiOD
11. As described in the Habitat Management Plan developed for the Ludlow Cove
project and to limit ongoing site disturbance with the potential for eros-ion 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.ICAD, 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.lCAD
14. Seasonal construction limitation: Construction activity between November 1 and
April 1 shall require approval of a Temporary Erosion and Sedimentation Control (TESC)
Staff report and recommendation/MDNS
Ludlow Cove Division 2
SUB05~.SDPO~2
Page 21 of 24
LOG ITEM
# ~
Page 'LS"1-of
Jefferson County Dep.nt of Community Development It
Ludlow Cove Division 2
Ju.ly 26, 2005
Plan including Best Management Practices and meeting the requirements of Jefferson
County and the 1994 Stonnwater Management Manual for the Puget Sound Basin.lCAO
15. The proponent shall anange 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. ConstIUction 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 pennit from OAHP if further excavation or disturbance of the sit~
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 confonnance with the
recommendations oUhe 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.ICAO, SDP
a. A pennanent 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 fonn approved by the Prosecuting Attorney. ICAO
staff report and recommendation/MDNS
Ludlow Cove Division 2
SUB05~OO4,SDP05~OO2
Page 22 of 24
#
Page
LOG ITEM
')..1-0
2-'13 of __
Jefferson County Deplment of Community Development e
Ludlow Cove Division 2
July 26, 2005
--.....
Prior to Final Binding Site PlanIFinal 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 perfonned 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 Nwnber (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
24. The pedestrian trail along the edge of the Native Growth Protection Easement and
accessing the waterfront at Picnic Point as shown on the approved plans shall include an
easement ten feet wide for public use. The final 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
Ludlow Trails Committee, under the direction of the Port Ludlow Village Council shall 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 fonn
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 confonnance with the recommendations of
the March 22, 1995 geotechnical report or an updated. report if approved. by the
Community Development Departments. SUB, lCAD
27. The proponent shall enter into a Stonnwater 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 applicant 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/MONS
Ludlow Cove Division 2
SUBO~4.SDPO~2
Page 23 of 24
LOG ITEM
# 12.0
Page Z. S''t of __
.,
Jefferson County Dep.nt of Community Development e
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 existing road names. SUB
For the Life of 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 ground 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 PIan./GAO, SDP
a. Trees shall not be removed unless it is determined by a professional
arborist that a potential safety hazard exists. In such a case, the tree shall
be cut no closer than three feet to the ground and the root system shall be
kept intact.
b. Maintenance work shall be done by hand or with minimal mechanical
apparatus
33. Landscaping on the developed portion of the site shall be maintained in
compliance, with the approved Landscape Plan./GAO
34. Roads, utilities, structures, and other improvements shall comply with the
applicable policies and perlonnance standards of the Jefferson County Shoreline
Management Master Program. SDP
35. The project shall be built and maintained in compliance with the approved plans.
SUB, Zoning Ordinance
36. The recreation building, Building 7, shall be operated as an accessory use to the
residential complex. Conunercial 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/MONS
Ludlow Cove Division 2
SUB05~OO4,SDP05~2
Page 24 of 24
LOG ITEM
# 1. 21)
Page ~22. of_
e
e
LOG ITEM
# 1. 1-0
Page 2- '5lRof
./.
~FFERSON COUNTY e
DEPARTMENT OF COM~~NITY DEVELOPMENT
621 Sheridan Street, Port Townsend, WA 98368
360-379-4450 www.co.lefferson.wa.uslcommdevelopmentl
r-.
RECEIVED
RECOMMENDATION TO JUL 2 8 2005
JEFFERSON COUNTY IIE1UUNG EXAMQmES & THERRIEN, P.s.
And
MITIGATED DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE
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 Plan/Condominium Subdivision
Shoreline Substantial Development Permit
SEPA Threshold Detennination
.
MLll #:
SUB95-00003 (original subdivision case)
ZON95-OOOO1 (original Conditional Use zoning case)
SUB05-00004
SDP05-OOOO2
MLA05-00029
PERMIT CASE #'8:
APPLICANT:
Port Ludlow Associates
REPRESENTATIVE:
Mark Dorsey, Project Manager
SEPA DECISION:
Mitigated Determination of Non-Significance
RECOMMENDATION
TO IlEDUNG EXl.MINER:
Approve with Conditions
SEPA MDNS Notice Date:
January 18, 2005; Revised May 9, 2005
February 2, 2005, Revised May II, 2005 and June I,
2005
July 27, 2005
Application Date:
Notice of Application Date:
SEPA APPEAL DEADLINE:
August 9, 2005
.
#
Page
LOG ITEM
7') 0
? .'1'7, of ___
.
.
..
e
e
Jefferson County Department of Community Development
Ludlow Cove Division 2
July 26, 2005
Public Bearing Date:
August 16, 2005 at 1:30pm in Jefferson County
Superior Courtroom, Jefferson County Courthouse
II a SEPA appeal is filed. the appeal hearing will be consolidated with the Public Hearing scheduled on the
date noted above.
PROPOSED FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
&" uJ. L .LIU\.U.uw. yy.n. ;:'0')00.
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 reduce the widths of the private access road easements, and a conditional
use approval for future multifamily development on parcels then designated as "Tracts A
and B."
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 SEP A application was established, with an
additional year granted for submittal of complete building permit 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 found in
Section 7 of the applicable Zoning Code, ordinance 09-0801-94, at section 7.40.l.a, b, c,
d, and e.
.
5. The original Ludlow Cove project was submitted and substantially complete on
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 - ~udlow Cove Division 2, was conditionally approved,'subject to
future SEPA review. Certain SEPA 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 1 project has been revised to include only seventeen homes. Seven
homes in the first phase of Division 1 are currently under construction.
Staff report and recommendation/MONS
Ludlow Cove Division 2
SUBOS-OOOO4. SDP05--00002
Page 2 of 24
LOG ITEM
# 22-6
Page_ 1- '5'~ of
Jefferson County De.ment of Community Development e
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 Program was reviewed in a 1993 Environmental 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 MPR, 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/Condominium Subdivision approval and Shoreline Substantial Development pennit
that constitute the current application, the project will require Building Pencits and a
Construction Approval Plan approved by the County Public Works 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 Elimination 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 Environmental Policy Act Implementing Ordinance
f. Jefferson County Critical Areas ordinance #05-0509-94
g. Jefferson County Zoning Code #09-0801-94
.
PART U 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
Development Tract E of the plat of Ludlow Cove Division I, Phase 1. Tract F: comprises
the parcels formerly shown as Tracts A and B in the approved preliminary plat of Ludlow
Cove. The property encompasses 14.66 acres, or approximately 638,590 square feet.
The site is located on the north shore of Ludlow Cove at the west end of Port Ludlow Bay.
This area of Ludlow Cove has conunonly been called the "log dump" by Port Ludlow
residents.
.
, 11. The site is currently 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-l 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 I the site was located within the Port Ludlow
Staff report and recommendation/MONS Page 3 of 24
Ludlow Cove Division 2
SUB05-OQOO4, SDP05-OOOO2 LOG ITEM
#_-120
Page .-2-~of
~"--' ~- -_.----------~~
~-.- - --. .-... .----- -------- ---- ---
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 maximum density of 16 dwelling units per acre. The site is designated Urban
under the Jefferson County Shoreline Master Program.
12. A Class n 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 I 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
betwee~ Type 3 and Type 5 buffers. a system 9fJ;)JUf.~f_i}.YenQinA..~.D~~hx.t,l1A
Type 5 stream, but is subject to the recorded buffer requirements.
13. The upland areas of the site slope from north to south toward the shoreline. The
area of the site proposed for development, the central and south portions. slope gently
(2% to 7% slopes). The area of Wetland 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 I, 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 l20-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 swinuning 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 drainage
system for water quality mitigation will be constructed. A single access road serves the
site off of Paradise Bay Road across from Breaker Lane. Public access to the waterfront
will be provided by a trail across the property 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 was included. Following review of the initial application, the Public
Staff report and recommendation/MDNS
Ludlow Cove Division 2
SUB05-00004. SDP05-00002
Page 4 of 24
.
LOG ITEM
# '1 2Jj
.
Page 1-lgf) of
Jefferson County DepAent of Community Development e
Ludlow Cove Division 2
July 26, 2005
~.
Works department concluded that the variance for road width was not necessaxy. 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 the 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. Browne, Bill and Beverly: supporting the, proposal and noting positive impacts
on tax base and community businesses and amenities..
b. Cloutier, Hany: 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. Bale, Lewis: asserting use is commercial not residential; asserting MPR code
controls and a major revision to resort plan is required..
e. BaydeD, 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 retail in community.
f. Berring, Doug: Noting economic benefits of the proposal.
g. Bupp, Gregory: preferring standard condominium use and stating that
timeshare use is like a commercial hotel.
h. Jester, Maland 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 I lack of amenities; expressing
general concern about County permit processes.
j. LaWSOD, Larry: regarding SEPA processes; public process.
.
staff report and recommendation/MDNS
Ludlow Cove Division 2
SUB05-00004, SDP05-00002
Page 5 of 24
LOG ITEM
# 1),2>>
Page Liol of
Jefferson County Dep.nt of Community-Development e
Ludlow Cove Division 2
July 26, 2005
.
.
19.
.
k. Loomis, Bert: raising question of commercial nature of project, vesting, traffic
impacts, compliance with MPR Code.
1. Oemic1aen, 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 IUGA 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. Sc1unltz, Bruce: seeking amenities associated with Resort Complex
development; questioning the application of state vesting law and asserting
the use must be integrated into and support the on-site 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 enviromnent, character of
community; questioning legality of time-share use; seeking amenities
associated with Resort Complex development.
Agency Conunent
a. Jefferson County Department of Public Works: stormwater management, use
of recommendations from the geoteclmical report prepared by GeoEngineers
dated March 22,1995, concurring generally with conclusions of traffic
assessment prepared for the project by Geralyn Reinart, PE, reconunending a
pedestrian crosswalk on Paradise Bay Road, recommending a five foot wide
paved, separated pedestrian walkway along southerly side of access road on
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 CO!lIlty Sheriff: noting impacts on sheriffs office staffing from
increased population.
c. Jefferson County Assessor's Office (Sherrie Shold): no comments until or
unless a Condominiwn 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/MONS
Ludlow Cove Division 2
SUBOS-DOOO4, SDPOS-DOOO2
Page 6 of 24
LOG ITEM
#_~1-1J
Page 2.. (,2.Df
Jefferson County Dep&ent of Community D~velopment tit
Ludlow Cove Division 2
July 26. 2005
-. f.
g.
h.
i.
j.
Clalmacum Sc1JooI District (per telephone message to Michelle Farfan as
noted in letter to Wayne Hehn dated 12/1/2(04): a school impact fee of 437.10
per lot would be charged.
Olympic Water and Sewer, Inc.: confirming that domestic water and sewer
hookups sufficient for the 120 dwelling unit project are available.
Port Ludlow Drainage District: regarding stonnwater management;
applicable codes; environmental checklist; required NPDES permit and
Hydraulic Project Approval; geotechnical review; technical plan sheet review.
City of Port TOWDSend: regarding public access and use of native plant
materials in shoreline landscaping.
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 encoWltered, 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 includes 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 VII.
21. Vesting. State law provides that a project vests to the land use controls that are
in effect on the date a complete building pennit or preliminary plat application is
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. (1'he IUGA ordinance established a Multifamily designation for the
site with a 16 units per acre density maximwn.) Even though the ruGA 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/MONS
Ludlow Cove Division 2
SUB05~,SOPO~2
Page 7 of 24
LOG ITEM
226
#
Page 2-u~ of
Jefferson County Departet of Community..oevelopment -
Ludlow Cove Division 2 ·
July 26. 2005
.
detenninations of invalidity are prospective only RCW 36.70A.303). Thus, the project's
vesting was not affected even though the ruGA ordinance was overturned.
33. 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 surlace 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.
33. Time-share Ownership. 'The applicable zoning ordinance (#09-0801-94) does
not specifically address time-share ownership. Multifamily Residential Development is
defined as follows at section 3.10.69:
Developments containing structures housing two (3) 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.
34.
Commercial Use, General, is defined at section 3.10.31 as follows:
An activity that provides merchandise or services for the conswnption 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 repan-s, 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
being not more than 30 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. "
.
staff report and recommendation/MONS
Ludlow Cove Division 2
SUB05-00004, SDP05-00002
Page 8 of 24
LOG ITEM
# 'hVJ
l::>age '2-~J of
Jefferson County Dep.ent of Community Development e
Ludlow Cove Division 2
Ju!y 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 residential 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 renting 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 MPK 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! Commwrity Facilities
zone which includes the marina. Inn at PoIt 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 community 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 tenns and standards of the ICAO were
developed for the original project. Some of those conditions also covered ~d were
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 HMP 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/MONS
Ludlow Cove Division 2
SUBO~4.S0PO~2
#
Page
Page 9 of 24
lOG ITEM
),21>
.2 {,~ of -
Jefferson County Depo.t 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. These 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.I(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 four (4) or more parking spaces designed and
shown in plan form 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 containing 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 IJGHTING: Lighting fixtures shall be designed 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 conform 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 of the 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 impermeable surfaces except for tennis courts, swimming pools or other
similar uses which require an impermeable surface. Conformance with this
standard shall not be required for conditional uses located withiri a "e"
zoning district.
36. The plans subm!tted with the proposal demonstrate compliance with four of the
five design standards, (a), (b), (d), and (e). All parking lots have fOUI or more spaces
with sufficient aisle width to allow vehicles to drive fOlWard 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-QOOO4, SDP05-00002
Page 10 of 24
LOG ITEM
# 1-.2-0
Pa~~e ~ I}J III of
Jefferson County Depa.ent of Community Development e
Ludlow Cove Division 2
July 26, 2005
-.
for each zoning district. Parking standards as provided in section 13 are included below
for zoning code consistency. For the G-l 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' fIn 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 ISO'
25' Bldg 4
30' from shoreline, Bldg 2
Varies from 30 ' to 100' from rear
(shoreline) lot lines
5' Bldg 3, all totals exceed minimwns
Developeci'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 equa150% oftotal 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 pennit
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 pennit plans
~rior to building permit issuance. This will be a recommended condition of approval.
40. The last zoning code issue relates to the 180 required parking space~. This
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 enviromnent 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/MONS Page 11 of 24
Ludlow Cove Division 2
SUB05-00004, SDP05-OOOO2 LOG ITEM
# 1.2-0
Page -2.l.i1 of
.
Jefferson County Deparent of Community Development e
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, stonnwater management, and compliance
with the required development standards under the Jefferson COWlty Shorelin~lv1aster
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 and stormwater management will not be
repeated. Instead, a condition will be reconunended 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 similar set of conditions to ensure
the Shoreline Master Program standards are met, no further review for the new shoreline
permit is required. See Part X for shoreline substantial development pennit
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 may be noted
here that the Department of Ecology has no jurisdiction over local code interpretation
and that the DOE letter simply states that if the 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 current
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 part of the Division I project. The conditions are reiterated in this 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 conununity 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 of this 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
SUB05-00004, SDP05-00002
Page 12 of 24
LOG HEM
#_ 1-~6 ,~
Page ~(Pl of --<-
Jefferson County Depa!ent of Community Development e
Ludlow Cove Division 2
July 26. 2005
r.
water mark, or even within the shoreline setback, except the shoreline revegetation
required as part of the original approval and shoreline permit.
PART VB BINDING SITE PLAN/SUBDIVISION ANALYSIS
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:
CONDOMINI11M DIVISIONS
11.10 Applicability. This section constitutes a "binding site plan process" for divisions
of land into lots or tracts, as pennitted by RCW 58.17.040(7), when the improvements to be
constructed thereon will be included in one (1) or more condominiums 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 (4) or fewer dwelling units 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
11.30 1 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, No. 3-89. the provisions of ROW 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
pattems, 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 schoo1ground 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
access to safe and convenient travel.
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/MONS
Ludlow Cove Division 2
SUBO~4,SDP05~2
Page 13 of 24
LOG ITEM
i:j: ?-u
Pane -.2kt- of
.
.
.
Jefferson County Departet 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 (S) 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 Required Improvements
11.401 Roads: Roads in Condominium divisions shall comply with Section S,
Subsection S.401 of this ordinance.
11.402 Off-Site Traffic Impacts: Condominium divisions shall proceed in
compliance with the off-site traffic impacts provisions of Section S, Subsection S.402 of this
ordinance.
11.403 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.
1.405 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
provided with a water supply in accordance with all applicable State statutes, the rules and
regulations of the Washington State Department of Health, the Jefferson County Health
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 inspection by the County Health Department.
11.408 Fire Prote~on: Applicants for condominium divisions shall provide
adequate fire protection in accordance with the Uniform Fire Code and local fire district
recommendations 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)h
11.50 Inspections. (Techhical requirements)
11.60 ~. (Technical Requirements)
49. AdIninistration. 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.
Stoff report and recommendation/MONS
Ludlow Cove Division 2
SUB05-00004, SDPOS-QOOO2
Page 14 of 24
i 'OG ITr":f\1t
L: ~ ~ .~ koo_I!J~
t.. ~~~_~____~~,.
2, 11L nr
#
Page
Jefferson County DeAent of Community Development e
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 11.30 1 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 area has
been preserved as open space meeting the requirements of Section 11.306. (Total site
including NGPE equals approximatel.y 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 of the 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 concuned 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 stan~ards
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 pennits, 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 11.40 I for Roads, 11.402 for Off-Site Traffic Impacts,
and 11.404 for Signs.
56. The project includes a stonnwater drainage system with water quality treatment
meeting the requirements of the applicable 1994 Stonnwater Management Manual for
the Puget Sound Basin. When construction is complete, the proponent will enter into a
.
Staff report and recommendation/MONS
Ludlow Cove Division 2
SUBO~4,SDP05~2
Page 15 of 24
LOG ITEM
#~ IL~
. -_..".,-,"-"'~""-.,,,"--~<
Page 2 7( of
~"-~
Jefferson County DepartA1t of Community Development e
Ludlow Cove Division 2 .-
July 26, 2005
.
Stonnwater 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 selVed 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 SEPA 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 total fee of$23, 160 will'be required as a
condition of approval. (See Part X, munber 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 of the Public Works Department will be required as a condition on
. approval for the project. .
PARTvnI SEPAANALYSIS
61. Procedure. According to Section 8.10.9 of the applicable SEPA ordinance, when
the responsible official makes a threshold determination and issues a DNS or MDNS, the
responsible official shall use the "optional DNS 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 enviromnental 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 detehnine
whether the DNS or MDNS is still appropriate. A determination of significance (a DS
requiring an Envirorunent 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
enviroxunental 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 Detennination of Non-Significance (FMMDNS) for Ludlow Cove,
SUB95-00003 and its supporting memorandum.
.
Staff report and recommendation/MDNS
Ludlow Cove Division 2
SUB05-00004, SDP05-00002
Page 16 of 24
LOG ITEM
# '2.. 26
Page_ 1- l~f
Jefferson County Dep~ent of Community Development e
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
SEPA review. For clarity, the code requirements are detailed in Part X as conditions of
approval and identified as lCAO, 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. Impacts Not Covered By Prior Environmental Review." "Because the full plans
for development of this site were reselVed 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.
.
, 65. Traffic and' Transportatiolf 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."
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 "F" representing the worst. The additional volumes generated by the project are
within the operational capacities of the intersections and roadways in the area The need
for left turn storage was reviewed and the report concludes that channelization wanants
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. 19).
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.
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
SUBO~4,SDP05~2
Page 17 of 24
LOG ITEM
# ~16 ___
Page 7_1?J of
Jefferson County Departwt of Community Development a
Ludlow Cove Division 2 _
Ju!y 26, 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 accessdrive,zather 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 required. 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' cornment 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 sazn.e 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 SEPA 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/MONS
Ludlow Cove ~ivision 2
SUBOS-OOOO4, SOPOS-OOOO2
Page 18 of24
LOG ITEM
#_- ~~
PaGe ?.......7::lof
.. 'i."J
Jefferson County DepcAent of Community Development ..
Ludlow Cove Division ~ ..
July 26. 2005
.
unpacts. Therefore, the standard fee based on the number of units in the development
will be required.
75. Public Services - School district. The COWlty 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 hours of construction at the site to mitigate noise impacts based on the prior
analysis done for the original Ludlow Cove Project. Salmon l1abitat and other habitat
protection issues have been addressed, to the degree needed, as part of the required
Habitat Management Plan approved by the COWlty 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 43.2 I C.03O(2) (c). This determination was
made after review of a completed environmental checklist and other infonnation 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, W A 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/MONS
Ludlow Cove Division 2
SUBO~4.SDPO~2
Page 19 of 24
LOG ITEM
# J.. 2.. t>
Page /') f 5'of
.
.
.
Jefferson County Deportral[lt of Community Development e
Ludlow Cove Division 2 . '
July 26. 2905
2005 at 1:30 pm in the Jefferson County Superior Co1l1'troom, 2114 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 Pennit for Ludlow Cove Division 2, subject to
conditions as detailed below in Part X.
Signed: C \ ... (!l~ Date: ,,1", I A O\)r-"
staele ~~esponslble Official ~
Jefferson County Director of Community Development
Part X RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS
Code requirements pursuant to ICAO, the Shoreline Sub.stantial Development
Permit, and Subdivision regulations are indicated as lCAO~ SDP~ and SUB~
respectively. SEPA indicates a condition based on authority of the State
Environmental Policy Act as applied through the Jefferson County implementing
ordinance.
Prior to Permit Issuance or Any Clearing or Site Disturbance
1. Proposed roadways, access drives, parking areas, and trails shall be designed to
the standards of the Jefferson County Public Works Department and the American
Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AMHTO). All necessary plans
and specifications shall be submitted to the Public Works Department for review and
approval. SUB
2. The plans shall include 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 lanes will be
supplemented with seven feet wide shoulders of grass-pave or similar material to
achieve a 20 foot section sufficient for fire and emergency vehicle access. Lane width
along the balance of the entry drive may be reduced to 10 feet in each direction,
exclusive of the bicycle lanes. Plans shall be submitted to the Public Works Department
for review and approval. 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 recommendation/MONS
Ludlow Cove Division 2
SUB05-00004. SDP05-00002
Page 20 of 24
LOG ITEM
if 2,'1b
O::~fvr.; .2.7& of
I Ge"'"
e,J
Jefferson County DeP<A1ent of Community Development e
Ludlow Cove Division ~
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 sWTOunding
properties or adjacent rights-of-way. ZOni.n,gCode, 7.40. 1. (c).
5. The applicant shall obtain a Road Approach Pennit from the Public Works
Department for access onto Paradise Bay Road. SUB
6. Plans and construction activities shall conform to the reconunendations in the
geotechnical report prepared by GeoEngineersdated March 22, 1995, provided that a
revised geotechnical report conforming to the requirements of the ICAO (ord. no. OS-
0509-94) may be submitted in support of a request for reVisions to the recommendations.
The Community Development Department may approve a revision when equal or better
protection of critical areas will be obtained. ICAO
7. Clearing limits for roads, water, sewer, and storm water utilities, erosion control
facilities and all site construction shall be marked in the field and approved by the
County. Critical area buffers shall be marked with signs at intervals of one every 100'"
feet. The signs shall contain the following language: "Critical area buffer. Do not remove
or alter existing native vegetation." ICAD
8. A Stonnwater Site Plan that includes a Large Parcel Erosion and Sediment Control
Plan and a Pennanent Stormwater Ouality Control Plan and that confonns 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. SEPA
. 9. A rue 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 perlonned associated with the
permits shall be paid. SUB, SEPA
During CoDstmcDoD
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 ~ter
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 ohe-vegetated areas. ICAD, SEPA
12. A set of approved plans shall be on site at all times during construction. SUB
I
I
I
I
!
i
i.
I
I
I
!
13. Temporary erosion control Best Management Practices shall be implemented
continuously in conformance with the approved plans. ICAO
14. Seasonal construction limitation: Construction activity between November land
Aprill shall require approval of a Temporary Erosion and Sedimentation Control (TESC)
Staff report and recommendation/MONS
Ludlow Cove Division 2
SUB05~4.SDPO~2
Page 21 of 24
#
lOG ITEM
?- Z-a
2TIof__
Jefferson County Deportlnt of Community Development
Ludlow Cove Division 2
J~ly 26. 2005' ,
e
.
Plan including Best Management Practices and meeting the requirements of Jefferson
County and the 1994 Stormwater Management Manual for the Puget Sound Basin.lCAD
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 1:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.'m.
Monday through Friday and 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. on Saturdays. SEPA
11. To ensure archaeological resources are protected, a professional archaeologist
shall monitor any ground disturbing activities within the buffer area for Site 45]E208. 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-
319-4450. 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 pennit from OAHP if further excavation or disturbance of the sit~
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. ICAD
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. ICAO, 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. ICAD
.
staff report and recommendation/MDNS
Ludlow Cove Division 2
SUBOS-OOOO4, SDPOS-00002
Page 22 of 24
LOG ITEM
# 1-W
Pa.g{3 1- 7 ~ of
.....
.
.
.
Jefferson County Depart. of Community Development e
Ludlow Cove Division 2
July 26, 2005
Prior to Final Binding Site P1an/Fina1 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 perfonned 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 Nwnber (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
24. The pedestrian trail along the edge of the Native Growth Protection Easement and
accessing the waterfront at Picnic Point as shown on the approved plans shall include an
easement ten feet wide for public use. The final binding site plan/final plat shall include
the following language: "Trail to be part of the Port Ludlow Trail System. The Port
Ludlow Conununity shall have the right to use the trail for pedestrian purposes. The Port
Ludlow Trails Committee, under the direction of the Port Ludlow Village Council shall be
responsible for maintenance of the Trail." SDP
25. Infrastructure systems including the water and sewer system, power and
conununication 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 fonn
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 confonnance with the reconunendations of
the March 22, 1995 geotechnical report or an updated. report if approved by the
Conununity Development Departments. SUB, lCAO
27. The proponent shall enter into a Stonnwater Management Facility Maintenance
Agreement with the COlU1.ty. The agreement shall be signed and filed with the Jefferson
COlU1.ty Auditor prior to final plat approval. SUB, SEPA
28. The applicant shall enter into an agreement with Jefferson County to reimburse
the COlU1.ty 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 amOlU1.t of $1748.40
($437.10 per lot for to the Chimacum School District. SUB, SEPA
staff report and recommendation/MONS
Ludlow Cove Division 2
SUBO~4,SDPO~2
Page 23 of 24
LOG ITEM
# Z .2,0
Paae 1-'"/1. of
v
e
e
Te-tJ
LOG ITEM
# z..:J...I
Page 1....~O'f
LOG ITEM
# 1-U
Page 1-~~f
e
e
E-LEvElJ
'\... ".
"
e
e
1
2
BEFORE THE BEARING EXAMINER FOR JEFFERSON COONft
Irv Berteig, Hearing Examiner
3
4
RE: Port Ludlow Associates, LLC,
applications for ~Ludlow Cove"
Long Subdivision
Variance
Condi tional Use
'Pr~ry' Shoreline Substantial
Development
) File No. SOB95-0003
)
)
)
) FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS,
)
) AND DECISION
)
)
5
6
7
8
9
10
BACKGROUND
11
These applications are unique because they were filed as
12 nsubstantially complete" on January 19, 1995. The Department has
13 monitored the applications' review progress, and agrees with the
14 Applicant that applications are vested in the adopted plans and
15 regulations in place at the time of complete application. Although
16 there were revisions in 1997, 1999, 2000 and 2001, those revisions did
"
17 not cause the applications to lose their vesting status.
18 PROCEDURAL INFORMATION for this open record hearing:
19 Notices:
Mailed:
June 21, 2002
20
Posted:
June 26, 2002
21
Publication:
June 26, 2002 (Port Townsend-
22
Jefferson County Leader) .
23 Site Visit:
July 16, 2002 (Post hearing)
24 Open Record Hearing Date: July 16, 2002
25 The hearing was opened at 1:15 p.m. in the Courthouse First Floor-
26 Conference Room. After the procedures were explained, testimony was
27 accepted. A verbatim recording of the public hearing was made.
28 tape is maintained in the Jefferson Permit Center file.
29
CZl- 11/2-1/ tf/p
of
Port Ludlow Associates. LLC
SUB9S-QOO3
Page 1
"Ludlow Cove"
1 Participants:
e
'..
. ,
e
2 Jerry Smith, Associate Planner
3 Mark Dorsey, PE,Project Manager for the Applicant
4 70 Breaker Lane, Port Ludlow, WA 98365
5 Greg McCarry, President, Port Ludlow Associates, Applicant
6 70 Breaker" Lane, Port Ludlow, WA 98365
7 David Lumsden, neighbor, 221-3 No. Bay Lane, Port Ludlow, WA 98365
8 Susan Ryan, neighbor, 181-6 No. Bay Lane, Port Ludlow, WA 98365
9 Parties present but not testifying:
10 G10rina Lumsden, 221-3 No. Bay Lane, Port Ludlow, WA 98365
11 Kevin Ryan, 181-6 No. Bay Lane, Port Ludlow, WA 98365
12 Don Cooper, 221-5 No. Bay Lane, Port Ludlow, WA 98365
13 Larry Nobles, 81 Harms Lane, Port Ludlow, WA 98365
14 '!'he Hearing ExaJldner closed the public hearing at 3:00 p.m., and held
15 the record open to close of business July 30, 2002.
17
16 TABLE OF EXHIBITS:
. :~~~~>:. '
'fEXfllBIT Ilt$,;
1
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
378
379
380
381
382
383
2
27
28
1.
Three applications originally filed on or about
FINDINGS OF FACT
# 1-~
Page U7 of
January 19, 1995
29
:~ ;,. .", :ij,~.1;;i>::"'-:;":~
... ,"...
7/10/2002
. UMENiJi.>
Staff Report together with file Log Items:
Subdivision (SUB95-0003): 377 Log Items
CUP (ZON95-0001): 38 Log Items
Shoreline (SDP97-0009): 13 Log Items
Affidavit Notice
Affidavit Notice
Letter agreement between ORM and Fire Dist 3
Letter from Mark Dorsey
Staff Response to Applicant's recommend changes
Public Hearing Sign-up Sheet
Letter from Mark Dorsey in response to open
record item
6/26/2002
6/26/2002
3/30/1998
7/16/2002
7/16/2002
7/16/2002
7/23/2002
are found to be substantially
complete:
LOG T
Page 2 Findings. Conclusions .
"Ludlow t;fpve" and Decision
~ 1: &1
PaqEi' __.~_.tf--
. teL- II /2.-11 ()fp
Port Ludlow Associates. LLC
SUB95-0003
I .
29
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
e.
26
27
28
e
e
a.
SUB95-0003 Subdivision of 27.75 acres
(I) The proposed long subdivision is subject to the
requirements of Section 6 of the County Subdivision
Ordinance (Title 17, Chapter 17.30, Long Subdivisions,
Jefferson County Code) .
(2) The proposed ,long subdivision is subject to the
criteria contained in Sections 1.00, 9.00, 13.00 and
Attachments "0" and "01" of the Port Ludlow Interim Urban
Growth Areas Ordinance (Ordinance No. 01-0117-95).
(3) The proposed long subdivision is subject to the
requirements of Sections 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10 of the
b.
Jefferson County Interim Critical Areas Ordinance.
· Variance to 60-foot right-of-way requirement
The variance request is subject to the requirements of
Section 12 of the County Subdivision Ordinance (Title 17,
Chapter 17.60, Variances, of the Jefferson County Code).
c.
· Variance to front and side yard setbacks for Lots 1-17
d.
ZON95-0001 Conditional Use Permit for Tracts A and B
The future development of Tracts A and B multi-family
element of the proposed long subdivision will be subject to
the Conditional Use Review Criteria of Section 7 of the
Zoning Code (Chapter 18.35.030 and the Site Development
Standards for Multi-family residential of Chapter 18.35.060
of the Jefferson County Code) .
SDP97-0009 Shoreline Substantial Development Permit
The proposed 16ng subdivision is subject to the policies
and performance standards of Sections 4.105(Urban), 5.160
(Residential), 5.190 (Transportation), and 5.20 (Utilities)
LOG I EM
of the Shoreline Management Master Program.
#
Jndi^~Q5f,
and Decision
Port Ludlow Associates, LLC
SUB95-0003
of
Page 3
"Ludlow Cove"
#
Page._ of tq
eel.- 1 \ {1-\ I D(P
e
e
,t
1 2.
Applicable Jefferson County Ordinances:
a. Jefferson County Subdivision Ordinance (I 04-0526-92)
2
3
b.
Port Ludlow Interim Urban Growth Areas Ordinance
5
6
c.
(t01-0117-95) Effective 4:00 p.m. January 17, 1995
Jefferson County Hearing Examiner Ordinance
4
(tl-0318-91)
7
d.
Shoreline Management Master Program
(adopted March 7, 1989)
State Environmental Policy Act Implementing Ordinance
8
9
10
e.
(I 7-84)
11
f.
Jefferson County Critical Areas Ordinance
12
(I 05-0509-94)
13
g.
Jefferson County Zoning Code
14
15 2.
(f 09-0801-94)
The proposal is to subdivide approximately 28 acres into a total
16 of 26 parcels, with approximately 8 acres dedicated as common open
17 space. 24 are proposed as single-family residential lots. Two parcels
18 (Tracts A & B) consisting of 15.65 acres are proposed as future
19 residential development tracts. The total number of residential units
20 proposed at this time is 24. Phasing or divisions are contemplated.
21 The lot sizes range from 4,353 square feet to 10,972 square feet.
22 Gross density is approximately 1.98 units per acre (exclusive of
23 tracts A and B) .
Storm water will be treated on-site and discharged
24 into Port Ludlow Bay. Sanitary sewer will serve all lots. Olympic
25 Water and"Sewer will provide water.
26 3.
The Staff Report contains a detailed analysis of the proposal's
27 compliance with the applicable and vested regulations. The Examiner
28 has reviewed the 'Staff Comments' and raised various questions during
29 the open record hearing. The Applicant also testified that they had
Port Ludlow Associates. LlC
SU895-0003
" Page 4
"Ll'dlow Cove':U
t\'"
e
e
1 reviewed the Staff Report and concurred with the recommended
2 conditions with the exception of staff Recommended Conditions '4, '6,
3 #14, #28, 134, 144 and *65.1 The Staff Report findings are adopted.
4 4.
The Department responded to the Applicant's recommended changes
5 to the conditions.2
6 5.
The subject of the Conditional Use Permit for Tracts A and B was
7 discussed because once an approval is granted the Applicant must
8 implement that CUP within one year of approval. Only one time
9 extension for one year may be subsequently granted. Since this is a
10 fairly complex project that will require sequential activities, and
11 since several major construction steps must be taken before Tracts A
12 and B can be started, the one-year time limit could easily expire.
13 The Examiner held the record open for 10 working days to allow the
14 Applicant to consider possible approaches to the problem. The
15 Applicant suggests that the current regulations should be applied,
16 which allow a 3-year minimum with extensions.3
17 6.
Neighbors testifying at the open record heard reside in the
18 adjoining condominium development and expressed concern with the
19, relative setbacks of residences and the effectiveness of mitigations.
20 One concern was the location of the requested setback variances. The
21 neighbors were concerned that the variances were requested for the
22 adjoining lots, but appeared relieved to find the variances were
23 requested for Lots 1-17 near the center of the project.
24 7.
Phased SEPA review is being conducted under WAC 197-11-060(5).
25
26
27
28
The Department of Community Development issued a final threshold _
determination on June 26, 2002 for the single-family
portion.
LOG ITEM
'},o
PaGe ?PlD of
,,-,I
#
29
1 Log Item 381, Letter from Mark Dorsey dated July 16, 2002
J Log Item 382,
3 Exhibi t 2
Port Ludlow Associates. LLC
SUB95-00Q3
Page 5
"Ludlow Cove"
LOG ITEMings. Conclu~i~ns
~ ond Dec.,on
:If:
Page ~ of~
CA5L-- 11/1--1 IOIR
e
e
1 8.
A detailed environmental review on the future development of
2 Tracts A and B will be conducted when that phase of the proposal is
3 ready.
4 REVIEW CRITERIA
5 Because these applications are vested under previously adopted
6 ordinances, the Examiner follows the appropriate criteria under each.
7 CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
8 1.
The Department determined that the applications are vested under
9 the adopted regulations listed in Finding 2 above. The Department's
10 finding on vesting is accepted; however, it must be pointed out that
11 those applications are only vested to be considered under the listed
12 ordinances. Once an action is taken (consideration accomplished), the
13 vesting status is over.4 This becomes an issue for the Conditional Use
14 Permit because if the CUP expires without having been implemented, the
15 vesting status also expires.
16 The following Conclusions are organized by application type:
17 S0895-0003 Subdivision of 27.75 acres:
18 2. . In accordance with Staff recommended Findings 10 through 31 and
19 33 through 47, the criteria for a long subdivision have been met or
20 will be met with the imposition of recommended conditions. The
21 proposed subdivision should be approved with conditions.
22 Variance to 60-foot right-of-way requirement:
23 3.
In accordance with Staff recommended Findings 31, 32, 48, 49, 50,
24 and 52, the criteria for a variance to the right-of-way has been met.
25 Special attention was given in the hearing to the Fire Protection_
26 District #3 initial objection. Testimony and documents revealed that
27 the District later concurred for substantive reasons.'
28
29
4 Noble Manor v. Pierce County, 133 Wn.2d 269, 278, 943 P.2d 1378 (1997).
$ See Log Item 380
Port Ludlow Associqtes. UC -
SUB9~ '
Page 6 r> TEM"
"Ludlow CoveLOI...'l b ;1
=IF_. ~1J___
q ~
Paoe..~ ,Lt.- Q'l
~.;
Findings. Conclusions
and Decision
e
e
1 Variance to front and side yard setbacks for Lots 1-17:
2 4.
Based on Staff recommended Findings 49, 51, and 52; and noting
3 that the topographic conditions identified in Staff Finding 48 applies
4 to variance criterion (1), and no showing of detrimental impact meets
5 variance criterion (3); therefore, the setback variances can be
6 granted.
7 ZON95-0001 Conditional Use Permit for Tracts A and B:
8 5.
The vesting issue related to the conditional use permit, and
9 discussed in the public hearing, was the reason to hold the record
10 open to allow the Applicant to investigate procedural and legal
11 options. Staff and Examiner were concerned that the conditional use
12 permit code provision that required an approved conditional use permit
13 to be completed in one year could be impossible to meet given the size
14 of the project and logical sequence of development. The one-year
15 maximum extension probably would not be adequate.
16 6.
The Applicant requests that the more liberal provisions regarding
17 "maximum duration" contained in the current Jefferson County Unified
18 Development Code [UDC] be applied, which allows a "3-year Maximum
19 Duration" with a possible I-year extension. The Applicant makes the
20
21
following arguments:6
· Our development schedule anticipates construction of Ludlow
Cove 1 (Lots 1-7) to commence in the fall of 2002 and
construction of Ludlow 2 (Lots 8-24) to commence in the
summer of 2003. Tracts A & B are to follow.
The phased SEPA review, planning and per.mitting process
required for the future development of Tracts A & B will
necessitate an approximate l-year period of time.
22
23
.
24
25
26
.
Current Jefferson County regulations provides that a C.U.P.
shall be valid for 3-years from the effective date.
The Growth Management Act provides that public interests
are better served when the maximum efficient use of
planning resources are made at the least economic cost to
the public.
.
27
28
29
8 See Exhibit 2, Letter from Mark Dorsey dated
July 23, 2002. 11/2.-' /610
(;€:I.- . s. Conclusions
L ()(;J I and Decision
Port Ludlow Associates. LLC
5UB95-0003
Page 7
LOG ITEM"Ludlow Cove"
# 1-?-b
',;,::":""0':' I) Q1-of
I '~'~,01 V --k--,-._-" '- ~-
+t
n
P~n~
I r.;;.~.."'_
. ' .
e
e
" .
1
2
· The normally "more restrictive" County land-use policies
are typically the most recently adopted, but in this case,
the converse is true.
3 7.
The Applicant's arguments for applying the current UDC Maximum
4 Duration time limit of 3-years plus a possible I-year extension are
5 valid. The UDe Maximum Duration provision only will be applied to
6 Tracts A & B.
7 8.
In accordance with Staff recommended Findings 67 and 68, all the
8 criteria of Section 7.30 and development standards of Section 7.40 are
9 or will be met with conditions.
10 SDP97-0009 Shoreline Substantial Development Permit:
11 9.
In accordance with Staff recommended Findings 61 through 65, the
12 provisions and requirements of the Shoreline Management Master Program
13 are or will be met with conditions.
14 Disputed Recommended Conditions:
15 10.
Regarding Staff'Recommended Condition 14: This condition relates
16 to the SEPA Phased Review and Plat Note d. The Applicant argues that
17 the amount of work completed and accepted would support are-wording
18 of the condition. Staff acknowledges the issues, and recommends a
19 tighter version using the operative parts of the Applicant's version.
20 The Examiner agrees with the Staff revised version--noting that the
21 excluded portions are reasons rather than conditions. Condition 4
22 will be modified accordingly.
23 11.
Regarding Staff Recommended Condition 16: The Applicant proposes
24 a more explicit condition without a change in meaning. Staff concurs.
25 Condition 4 will be modified accordingly.
26 12.
Regarding Staff Recommended Condition 114: The Applicant argues
27 that their recommended change would improve the timing of the plat
28 process without compromising the condition. Staff concurs and
29 Condition 14 will be modified accordingly. ~l,..-- (1/UI ell,
Port Ludlow Associates. LL",C,. L, OG ,I,TEM Page 8, LO~5s1-, r'-",-;~,:,Vi Findings. Conclu~:>ns
SU..5-<J003 H ___l~__.LudIOW~ovl#:....-.-~ ,~I 000 OOCK"'O
~~?Z___ ,-.--.,..------ .---.1-,.--
.
e
1 13. Regarding Staff Recommended Condition #28: This condition
2 relates to an earlier objection by the Fire Protection District #3.
3 The Applicant argues that the issues have been resolved (see also
4 Conclusion 3 above), and the condition should be deleted. Staff
5 concurs. Condition 28 will be deleted.
6 14. Regarding Staff Recommended Conditions 134 and #44: These
7 conditions are duplicative--yet lacking specificity. The Applicant's
8 suggested consolidation would improve; however, the Staff recommended
9 consolidation be further clarified. Conditions 34 and 44 will be
10 consolidated into a new Condition 34.
11 15. Regarding Staff Recommended Condition 165: This condition
12 relates to vesting for Tracts A & B, as well as Phased Review.
13 Conclusion 1 and 5 through 8, above, are relevant. Those Conclusions
14 require a further modification of Applicant and Staff recommended
15 revisions. The objective is to articulate the rules for implementing
16 the vested rights that apply to Tracts A & B.
17 DECISION
18 Based Upon the testimony presented at the Open Record Hearing, a
19 site visit by the Examiner, the documents and exhibits admitted into
20 the record, and the above Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it
21 is hereby the decision of the Hearing Examiner that the following
22 applications:
23
a. SUB95-0003 Subdivision of 27.75 acres
b. Variance to 60-foot right-of-way requirement
c. Variance to front and side yard setbacks for Lots 1-17
c. Variance to front and side yard setbacks for Lots 1-17-
d. ZON95-0001 Conditional Use Permit for Tracts A and B
e. SDP97-0009 Shoreline Substantial Development Permit
24
25
26
27
28 by Port Ludlow Associates for "Ludlow Cove", be APPROVED subject to
29
the following conditions:
[.&t..-- 1I/1..116Io
LO ,:: rt M
Findings, Conclusions
-L!. . and Decision
"R-
--
M "'"
ra~e_
Port Ludlow ASsociates. llC Page 9
SUB95-0003 lOG'lTEM "Ludlow Cove"
# '111>
"'_~"""'I>_r~~__'" -'-..~
2Ji1.
18
19
20
21
22
23
24 5.
~ WS)25
26
27
~~:9~; AssociatesttsG ITEM
#-~~f .
l), ~,__
1 1.
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
12
13
14
15
16
17
28
29
e
e
',!.
Prior to final plat approval the applicant shall document that
the lot width to length ratio of the proposed lots is in
conformance with the requirements of the subdivision ordinance.
2.
All easements of record shall be graphically portrayed on the
final plat with the Auditor's File Number (AFN) of the easement's
also referenced on the face of the plat. Required easements for
utility installation and maintenance shall conform to the
standards of SUbsection 6.303 of the Subdivision Ordinance. All
utility easements shall be made by a separate recorded easement,
declaration of easements, or dedication of easements, and by
graphic portrayal on the final long plat Mylar. The proposed and
relocated pedestrian/bike trail should be depicted on the plat.
3.
Design and construction of the vehicle turnaround within the cul-
de-sacs shall accommodate school buses. Prior to final plat
approval, the applicant shall obtain written certification from
the Chimacum School District regarding adequacy of provisions for
a school bus stop.
4.
Duetepaasea ~El?A rc',rie\l, Nate "d." of the Prelimiaary ana Final
Platlletes pcrtaining to "De7clepmcnt af Tracts A aae B ~c
reviaeate more cempletcly reflect tae aced of a detailed
ca7irsnmcatal re.ie\l aa tae future ae7elapfficntof Tracts A aaa B,
uRea taat }3h.::I.IJC of tae ae":cleplReat ia ready.
Replace with: Wetland, stream and shoreline buffer areas and/or
building setback lines have been established and vested pursuant
to Jefferson County Interim Critical Area Ordinance provisions
and the Shoreline Management Master Program and other County
ordinances in consultation with the Washington State Department
of Fish and Wildlife and the Washington Department of Ecology for
the Ludlow Cove project site. Tracts A and B are proposed as
future mUlti-family development tracts within the Ludlow Cove
project site. When specific development plans for Tracts A and B
are ready, a supplemental SEPA evaluation shall be completed
based on the impacts of the then proposed development.
The applicant shall dedicate a right-of-way 30 feet in width from
the as-built centerline of Paradise Bay and Oak Bay Roads.
Research by Public Works indicates that there are discrepancies
between the legal descriptions for the Paradise Bay Road right-
of-way as conveyed by quitclaim deed to Jefferson County and as
depicted on the Plats of Ludlow Point Village Division 2 and
Inner Harbor Village Condominiums. The Oak Bay County Road right-
of-way is hot accurately depicted on Tract C. Prior to final plat
~ I' !'),.llOlp
L() :.~.~ IT~.J\j' RndingS~~~~:~~
,-,.._"._,,_.-~ . ~!;~ p~"
._._._. _._~.-J-~-_.
PogalO
"Ludlow Cove"
'.' .
1
2
3
6.
4
5
e
e
approval, any discrepancies in the right-of-way legal description
between the quit claim deed and p1atare to be resolved.
rZ6visiORG fez effiez~eRey ~eaiclc tura~round (e~l ae 3ac) Gaall bc
pze~iaca at tae eRa ef the reaas in accordancc \lith tae standards
cota191isaea 19y tac Jcfferaol9. C01:1nty DCf,lartmcat sf ['1:1191ic Works.
6
~
8
9
Replace with: Provisions for emergency vehicle turnaround (cul-de-
sac, hammerhead or emergency access easement with bollards) shall
r'\ be provided a t the ends of roads in accordance wi th the standards
~ established by Jefferson County Department of Public Works, as
depicted on the proposed Preliminary Plat dated October 31, 2001
ahd the March 30, 1998 letter from OPG to Fire District 13.
7.
10
~~
13
14
The proposed roadways shall be designed and constructed to the
standards of the Jefferson County Department of Public Works and
the American Association of State Highway and Transportation
Officials (AASHTO). All necessary plans and specifications shall
be submitted to, reviewed and approved by the Department of
Public Works prior to construction. A set of approved plans shall
be on site at all times during construction.
8. The Geotechnical Report prepared for the project by GeoEngineers
(March 1995) reconunends that the access roads be constructed with
a minimum 3 inches of Class B asphalt over 6 inches crushed
surfacing base course. The typical ~ections depicted on the
preliminary plat show 6-inch gravel base, 2 inch crushed
surfacing top course, and 2 inch Class B asphalt. Either of these
sections is acceptable to the Department of Public Works.
23
24
Road Approach Permits shall be obtained from the Jefferson Count
Department of Public Works for access on to Oak Bay Road and
Paradise Bay Roads. The approaches shall be constructed to the
standards set forth in the permit.
An agreement for the continued maintenance of the private roads
shall be established either by recording of a separate instrument
and referencing the instrument on the plat or by establishment of
an agreement by declaration on the plat.
The roads serving the subdivision shall be named, and the name of
the roads shall be shown on the final plat. The proponent shall
select road names in consultation with the Department of Public
Works to avoid duplication of existing road names.
~;lIn accordance with Chapter 486, Washington Laws of 1993 [amending
() ~ 58.17.280], addresses may either be assigned to all lots and
27
28
29
L
Port Ludlow Associates. LLC LOG ITC::M ,Page 11
SUB95-0003 :) 1:-.. "Ludlow Cove"
# ' . 1-VJ_
Pa~.Je..1t1lt. of.__
, Conclusions
and Decision
4ot.
h"
P', t.~
'~(,.\Al r I
..,.~"""
~L 1I1~q6lP
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24 17.
25
26
27
28 18.
29
e
e
clearly shown on the final plat or there shall be a notice on the
plat that addresses shall be obtained when applying for building
permits.
13.
Address plates for the lots shall be located in accordance with
Jefferson County 911 Emergency Locator System Ordinance
provisions.
14.
All rOads shall be signed and traffic safely devices installed in
accordance with adopted Department of Public Works standards
prior to final plat approval.
15.
The proposal includes the construction of more than 5,000 square
feet of i~pervious surface and more than one acre of land
disturbing activity. The Washington Department of Ecology's Storm
Water Management ManuaJ. for the Puget Sound Basin requires
proponents for developments, which meet these criteria to
implement a Storm Water Site Plan that includes a Large Parcel
Erosion Control Plan and Permanent Storm water Quality Control
Plan. The Storm water Site Plan shall apply Minimum Requirements
11-11 from the Washington Department of Ecology Stor.m Water
Management ManuaJ. for the Puget Sound Basin. A Storm Water Site
Plan that meets these requirements shall be submitted to the
Jefferson County Department of Public Works for review and
approval prior to commencing land disturbing activity.
16.
In order to meet the requirements of the Washington State
Department of Ecology Storm water Management Manual for the Puget
Sound Basin and to ensure that the approved storm water
management facilities are appropriately maintained for the life
of the project, Jefferson County requires the proponent to enter
into a Storm water Management Facility Maintenance Agreement with
the County. After construction has been completed, the Department
will send the proponent a copy of the Agreement that has been
signed by the Public Works Director. The Department cannot give
final approval for the project until the Agreement has been
signed and filed with the Jefferson County Auditor.
After construction is complete, the proponent shall submit a
letter from the project engineer certifying that the storm w9ter
management facilities have been constructed as per the approved
plans. The Department cannot give final approval for the project
until this certification has been received.
If no development of the lots is proposed at this time, the
applicant shall state under Notice to Potential Purchasers:
"Cf. ~ "/1.-\ tJl.c,
LC 'o~ ITFlv! Findings. Conclusions
. and Decision
Port Ludlow Associates. LLC, 'QC; I,TEM'
SUB9~3 ~ ,~
# _..!k~~
; ,.~~ ot,_._
Page 12
"Ludlow CovE1',l~
lr"Y
~.~.~
~~;E:1:!;J ;~1J
,,-e
'" .
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
1
2
3
4
5
6
22.
e
e
"Prior to the commencement of any land disturbing activities and prior
to issuance of a building permit, a Small Parcel Erosion and Sediment
Control Plan shall be developed to the standards of the Washington State
Department of Ecology Storm Water Ma1UU!ement Manual (current edition)
and be submitted to the Department of Community Development for review
an.d approval. Temporary erosion control Best Management Practices shall be
approved by the Department and implemented at all times during land
disturbing activities.
19.
Construction of roads, storm water facilities, and/or land
disturbing activities requires that the applicant submit plans
for review by the Department of Public Works.
20.
All easements of record shall be graphically portrayed on the
final plat with the Auditor's File Number (AFN) of the
easement(s) also referenced on the face of the plat.
21.
In accordance with the Jefferson County Fee Schedule Ordinance,
the Public Works Department charges an hourly fee for application
and plan reviews, project inspections, meetings, hearings, and
final review. The applicant shall pay all fees incidental to the
subdivision prior to final plat approval. In the event that
approval of the proposal is denied by Jefferson County or the
applicant does not complete the proposal, the applicant shall
still be responsible for paying the Department's fees. The
Department's fee is currently $50.00 per hour.
.
The applicant shall request inspections by the Department of
Public Works during various phases of construction. Typically the
following inspections are required:
Installation of temporary erosion and sediment control measures;
.
Clearing and road subgrade preparation;
.
Application of gravel base;
.
Application of compacted crushed surfacing top course;
.
Construction of storm water management facilities;
.
Final plat review.
· Additional inspections may be necessary based on site-specific
conditions or the nature of the project.
23. Final Plat Approval I.Lot Closures: Prior to final approval by
the Department, the applicant shall submit lot closures of the
29
tv)indings. Conclusions
and Decision
Port Ludlow Associates. LLC
SUB95-Q003 LOG lTEM
1.-- ~_c
"'~
~1!Jfl' o1_~~,-
Page 13
"Ludlow Cove" +1'
-- jy
Ck:!l('H:::.\ f I ~
I o~ ""_ ----1-/-
~L- I' 11-' J Olg
#.
1
2
3
4
24.
5
6
7
8
9
10
11 25.
12
13
14
15
16
17
26.
18
19
20
21
22
27.
23
24
25
26
27
28
29 28.
e
e
:."
survey one week in advance of approval. If lot closures are
incomplete or inaccurate, the applicant shall re-submit them one
week in advance of approval. After lot closures are approved by
the Department, fees will be calculated and submitted to the
applicant for payment.
Based on the requirements of Chapter 17.30.300, water main
extensions and water system improvements that may be required to
service the development shall be installed prior to final plat
approval. Extensions and improvements shall be in conformance
with the Ludlow Water System Plan, The Jefferson County
Coordinated Water System Plan and shall include acknowledgment
fro~ the Department of Health that water main extension have been
certified in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 246-290-
110 (2) WAC.
Based on the requirements of Chapter 17.30.300, prior to final
plat approval, documentation shall be obtained from the
Washington State Department of Health, Southwest Regional
Drinking Water Operations, certifying a determination of final
plat water system adequacy for the proposal. Extensions and
improvements shall be in conformance with the Ludlow Water System
Plan, The Jefferson County Coordinated Water System Plan and
shall include acknowledgment from the Department of Health that
water main extension have been certified in accordance with the
provisions of Chapter 246-290-110(2) WAC.
Based on the requirements of Chapter 17.30.310, prior to sewer
system construction, if required by the appropriate state agency,
the applicant shall submit engineered construction design plans
for review and approval. Construction of the sewer system
expansion shall be either completed prior to final plat approval,
or as an option, the applicant may post a County approved surety
to guarantee construction of system expansion.
The applicant may enter into a surety agreement with the
Department of Public Works as an alternative to complete
installation of required improvements prior to final plat
approval. The surety may not exceed one (1) year, and must be in
a form acceptable to the County Prosecutor. Acceptable examples
of sureties are available from the Department of Public Works.
All sureties must be accompanied by an estimate of the cost of
all improvements, and the estimate must be approved by the
Department of Public Works prior to acceptance of surety.
Prierte . fiI"la1l'llat a~!3re':al, the a~~lico.nt sA-all flro'.rieic \fritteI"l
cvideI"lce from Fire ProtectioI"l District It 3 that the fiI"lal eiC!3iEJfl
Findings. Conclusions
and Decision
Port Ludlow Associates. LLC
SUB95-0003 LOG ITEM
# __ '2-1../) ~~
p, 1-PlPl 01""_0"._
Replace '34 and '44 with: The applicant shall provide for a Beacn
Point Picnic Area along the shoreline and an internal trail
connection from the existing trail system to the shoreline as
depicted in the proposed preliminary plat map submitted
November 8, 2001. Improvements related to the trail system and
picnic pbint area shall be dedicated to an appropriate homeowner
association for ownership and maintenance.
Port Ludlow Associates.LLC La
SUB95-00Q3 . G ITEM
# -~~..,".!LU>
3()6 0".;"'" .'-
-- ~
__<rl>-_",....
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10 3l.
11
12
13
14
15 33.
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
e
e
<lad. e:roa$tE~etiafl aftRe ISI"lEj !3lat Hill 1ge iR eS!RflliaRse .:ita tRe
a~~lieablc I3EovisisI"ls af Ute UBi:fe:aa FlEe CeEie, and tae
rccofflfRcI"leatiefls af taeFiEe District .:hiea are eaI"lsistcflt \lith
State lall.
29.
The applicant shall arrange for the inspection of all required
improvements with the Department of Public Works, the Planning
Department, or Health Department, whichever is responsible. The
applicant shall request inspections at such stages as indicated
by the appropriate department.
30.
In accordance with Ordinance 12-1214-92, effective January 1,
1993, the applicant shall pay all costs of work incidental to
approval of the subdivision before final approval is granted.
Upon all conditions being met, the applicant shall submit a final
Mylar of the plat to the Department of Public Works three days in
advance of approval by the Director of Public Works.
32.
Prior to final plat approval, the applicant shall document that
the proposal meets the requirements of Appendix D, Final Long
Plat Checklist.
The applicant shall comply with all mitigation measures of the
Final Mitigated Determination of Non-Significance as issued by
the designated Jefferson County Responsible and/or the Jefferson
County Board of Commissioners for the proposed plat of Ludlow
Cove.
34.
ie eaRaaae taepuB1ia'e use aRa eajeymcnt ef taE: sasrcliaes aaa \latera
af tae state, a pttlalie aecess oasemeat sRal1 ee estaBlisaea aeress aaa
te tae saereliae.Tkepttla1ie aesess sRalll al Be af a permaaeat Batura
aRasaallBe aeaieatea er staerwise llreteeteel, iaeluaial} ressraeel uita
the JcffersoFl CeuRty }'.1:1el.iterl e) Ceasiaer, ia eeaiga aae availaeility,
measures te preteet prh'atc prellerty fram treapass, 7aaaalism,
lit1:sria~ aRa the lilto] ol Be s1:litaBl:y' marltea as ta iafaBR tae ptlslio
as 1:s tae snteat, lseatiea, aRa a...ailaeilit~l sf the aesess] ell Be
a6mlllotee aaa a':ai1ae10 fer lltlelie use at taE: tillle sf eeeupaaey af tae
Ele,-'elspmeRt.
Page 15
"Ludlow Cove" -+to
11'
I\riindings. Conclusions
and Decision
fi~..."", "I~
r- C' ("',::'
''';''~f''''.
. ~f I"
~L... 11 f 1-t I flp
1 . 35.
2
3
36.
4
5
6
37.
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18 41.
19
20
21
22
42.
23
24 43.
25
26
e
e
~ .~
Unique natural features in the urban shoreline area, such as
bluffs, dunes, and wetland areas, shall be preserved and
protected.
Motor vehicle parking between a new structure and the water is
prohibited. Parking shall be located no closer than fifteen (15)
feet from the ordinary high water mark or unique natural areas
such as bluffs, dunes, or wetland areas.
All new parking areas shall provide landscaping. Landscaping shall
be provided between streets and the project site and between
public access areas and parking areas, except at exists or when a
building does not setback from a street.
38. No fence, wall, hedge, or barrier greater than forty-two inches in
height shall be placed or enlarged nearer to the water than the
building setback line. No fence, wall, or similar structure shall
be placed water ward of the ordinary high water mark.
39.
No develop~ent shall be approved for any new or expanded building
or structure or ~ore than thirty-five feet above average grade
level tha-t will obstruct the view of a substantialnurnber of
residences adjoining the shoreline area.
40.
Run-off created by new impervious surfaces shall not increase the
rate of flow or decrease the quality of storm water from pre-
project conditions.
Urban development should provide for public views to the water.
Wherever possible, the waterside of shoreline buildings should
include windows, doors, and public areas that enhance enjoyment
of the shoreline and present an interesting, attractive view of
the development from the water.
Developments shal~ be designed so as not to block, adversely
interfere with, or reduce the public's visual and physical access
to the water and shorelines of the state.
Appurtenant structures such as decks, sheds, and stairways shall
be located behind the ordinary high water mark as far as
practical and shall meet applicable setbacks.
11. P1::1slie assess te ~1:M9licly cuneo shoIElliRCS sRall be maiataiI"leEi.
27
45. Development shall assure that surface water runoff does not
pollute adjacent waters or cause soil or beach erosion, either
durin9 or after the construction phase. "'"".~-' 1".1" :~.-,.};,
L' >~ I ~ l"i1
I\."/~' '",.,
Port Ludlow Associates. LLC Page 16 f,';: ~ f, ~ ~. Conclusions
SUB95-0003 lOG ITEM "Ludlow Cove" P~~;~::i,e-:---~~.___,_\:/t_L,\-.::~d Decision
# ~ 1;6 ~ '~~ r\ /'1.-1 I ill
Page~of !
28
29
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13 50.
14
15
16
17
18 52.
19
20
21
53.
22
23
24
25
54.
55.
26
27 56.
28
29
e
e
46. Roads, utilities, and other improvements shall comply with the
applicable policies and performance standards of the Jefferson
County Shoreline Management Master Program.
47.
The standard setback for residential structures, including common
appurtenant strUctures such as garages and workshops, shall be
thirty (30) feet or one (1) foot for each foot of bank height,
whichever is greater. This setback shall be measured from the
bank's edge when the bank's height exceeds 10 feet. When the
bank's height is less than 10 feet, the setback shall be measured
from the ordinary high water mark.
48.
Alteration of topography for building sites, access roads, and
utilities shall be conducted in compliance with the applicable
policies and performance standards of the Jefferson County
Shoreline Management Master Program.
49.
Residential structures shall not exceed thirty-five feet in
height.
Rqad drainage shall be designed to control the dispersal of
surface runoff from roads and exposed soils in order to minimize
turbid water from draining into waterways.
51.
Earthworks shall be designed to provide waste and borrow areas
that will produce a minimum of erosion, water turbidity, and
aesthetic damage.
Cut and fill slopes shall be designed at the normal angle of
repose or less. Cut and fill slopes shall be protected from
erosion by mulching, seeding, use of headwalls, or other suitable
means.
Roads and waterway crossings shall be designed so the integrity
of the naturally occurring geohydraulic process is maintained.
Waterway crossings shall be designed to provide minimal
disturbance to banks.
Bridges and similar devices shall be designed with regard to 100-
year frequencies. Roads, bridges, culverts and similar dev.ices
shall afford maximum protection for fisheries resources.
Excess material shall be deposited in stable locations and not
into stream corridors where such materials degrade water quality,
impede floodwaters, or alter naturally occurring geohydraulic
processes.
Port Ludlow AssociateS. LLC LOG ITEM
SUB95-0003 . # _ ~'W
Page ~o ~f
Page 17
"Ludlow Cove"
.f.!
t~y
Findings. Conclusions
and Decision
Pag':;~ ,
eeL- tl/~ J~
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
e
e
_. t.,
.
:-..
1 57.
No machinery shall operate within a streambed except in
cbmpliance with a hydraulics permit issued by the Washington
State Department of Fisheries and Wildlife.
2
3
58.
All material associated with road construction that is
potentially unstable or erodible shall be stabilized by
compacting, seeding, mulching, or other suitable means.
4
5
6
59.
All roads and drainage systems shall be maintained to prevent
erosion and/or water quality degradation.
7
60.
Mechani~al apparatus, rather than chemicals, shall be used for
brush clearing ~aintenance wherever practicable.
8
9
61.
Herbicides used fbr maintenance along roads and drainage systems
shall follow the performance standard outlined under "Chemical
Application" of the "Forest Management" section of the Jefferson
County Shoreline Management Master Program.
10
11
12
13
62.
Installation of utilities shall assure the prevention of
siltation or beach erosion.
14
63.
Upon completion of installation or maintenance projects, banks
shall be restored to a suitable configuration and stability,
replanted with native species, and provided with maintenance care
until the newly planted vegetation is established.
15
16
17
64.
Utility discharges and outfalls shall be located, designed,
constructed, and operated so degradation to water quality, marine
life, and general shoreline ecosystems is kept to an absolute
minimum.
18
19
20
65.
Tke ftit1:u:e aevelapmeat af TFaets A and 13 \iill ae BtHilj act ta 'Eke
eSAeitieRal ase site acvclepmcRt staReazes fer mtilti family
resieeatial af Seetiea 7.19.1 (a, a, e, a, aRe e) af the ZeRiR~ Cede.
21
22
Replacewi.th: The application was ini tiaIly submi tted in 1995 and is
vested under the ordinances in effect at the time of submittal.
The Port Ludlow Master Planned Resort Code was adopted effective
Octbber 4, 1999. At the time of application submittal, the
Jefferson County Zoning Code was in effect. The Site Development
Standards for Multi-Family Residential of Section 7.40.1(a,b,c,d,
and e) would apply under vesting.
The current provisions of the Uniform Development Code [UDC] for
determining Maximum Duration of the Condition Use Permit for
Tracts A & B shall apply as follows:
Port Ludlow Associates.LLc.Or" iTEM poge 18
SUB95-0003 L: \..'1 "Ludlow Cove"
#_ ~1fi
Page ~ 0/1.; of
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
e
e
1
(1) The applicant shall initiate the SEPA portion of
Phased Review for Tracts A & B within three (3) years of
the effective date; and the applicant shall submit a
complete application for a building permit(s) for Tracts A
& B within one (1) additional year.
2
3
4
5
6
(2) The Maximum Duration shall not count the time devoted
to the SEPA portion of Phased Review, in accordance with
UDe 8.10.5. Initiation of SEPA Review; Limitation on
Actions During Review.
7
8
9
The applicable section of the UBC is excerpted here:
VBC S,. 8 CoJ2CtitiOJ1a:l llses. 58. Effective Re-r1.od -
1fzpJ.ra tiOJ1.
a. A conditional use permit automatically expires and
becomes null and void- if the applicant fails to file for
a building permit li'itJUn three (3) years of the
effective date (the date of the decision granting the
permi t) of the permit unless the permit approval
pro.vides for a greater period or time.
b. Extensions to the durati.on of ,the original permit
approval are prohibited.
c. The Department of Community Oevelopment shall not
be responsible for notifying the app~icant of an-
impending expiration. '
DATED this 2114 clay of August 2002.
-:L~
Irv Berteig
Jefferson County Bearittg EXaminer
ib
Port Ludlow Associates. LLl; OG ITr-M
5U895-oo03 L ::l 1::1
# _,__ ~ 1-0.
~of
Page 19
;'Ludlow Cov~,
Findings. Conclusions
and Decision
e JEFFERSON C<lNTY
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT-
621 Sheridan Street
Port Townsend, WA 98368
AI Scalf, Director
NOTICE OF
JEFFERSON COUNTY HEARINGS EXAMINER
TYPE B DECISION
Date: August 6, 2002
The Jefferson County Rearing Examiner has submitted his written Findings,
Conclusions, and DECISION regarding the following application: SUB95-00003.
Applicant:
PORT LUDLOW ASSOCIATES
70 BREAKER LANE
PORT LUDLOW WA 98365
Project Description: Ludldw Cove Residential Development, an application for
subdivision, conditional use, variance and shoreline substantial development permit
applications for preliminary subdiviSion to develop 24 single-family residential lots,
two future development tracts (Tracts A & B - consisting of 15.65 acres), and three
(3) open space tracts. The open space areas will provide for project buffering and
critical area enhancement, passive and active recreation areas. Within the area
proposed for 24-single family lots, about 7.8 acres will be set aside as open space.
Included will be a beach picnic area, new and existing trails. All roads and access
ways are proposed to be private. All lots are to be served by sanitary sewer.
Stormwater runoff will be treated on site and discharged into Port Ludlow Bay. Olymp
Parcel Identification Number: 821171011
Project Location: In Port Ludlow, southerly of the Port Ludlow Commercial Village
and westerly of the North Bay Lane Condominiums; within the South Half of the
Northeast Quarter and a portion of the Northwest Quarter of the Southeast Quarter of
Section 17, Township 28 North, Range 1 East, W.M.
Forthe above project, the Hearing Examiner has:
Preliminary Plat Approval, Subject to conditions
A copy of the Examiner's report and decision is attached for information. Appeals of
this decision must be made in writing as outlined in the attached ir.t)r~f'"r~~eet.
I.J ~ # 2..1-0 -
. ... ., . ~~JU /0\, Pace ~6 of ~ .
BUilding Perm' Development Review Division ..> Long Range Planning
(360) 379-4450
FAX: (360) 379-4451
e
e
INSTRUCTIONS FOR FILING APPEALS OF
HEARING EXAMINER TYPE B DECISIONS:
REFERENCE FILE NO. SUB95-00003
Final decisions of the examiner may be appealed to the Appellate Examiner by an
aggrieved party of record or agency who participated in the open record hearing.
Appeals of this decision must be made by 4:30 p.m. August 16, 2002 in the
following manner:
Form and Content of the Appeal:
1) An appeal shall be filed with the Clerk of the Board of County Commissioners
within fourteen (14) calendar days after the date of the decision.
2) All appeals shall be filed in writing with the Clerk of the Board of County
Commissioners, shall identify the decision appealed and the date of the decision, and
shall contain a summary of the grounds for the appeal.
3) The appropriate fee as set by the Board of County Commissioners in Ordinance
No. 12-1209-96 as amended shall be paid upon filing of the notice of appeal. No
appeal will be processed without receipt of the appropriate fee before expiration of
the periOd for filing the appeal. A file copy should accompany fees payable at the
Jefferson County Department of Community Development.
4) Following receipt of a notice of appeal and payment of the appropriate fee, the
Appellate Examiner shall conduct a closed record appeal.
5) The issues considered in the closed record appeal shall be limited to those
specified in the written appeal.
Instructions and requirements for processing an appeal of a Hearing Examiner Type
B decision are explained in the Land Use Procedures Ordinance (Ordinance No.
04-0828-98). A copy is available at the Jefferson County Department of Community
Development, 621 Sheridan Street, Port Townsend, WA, 98368. (360) 379-4450,
Project Planner: J SMITH
\\ VA'"
~
\t5\p
\\ \V \
~
LOG ITEM
# ,2-~
Par~e ~ of --
~
tii~
\
'.-"-._~
e JEFF='ERSON C~NTY
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
621 Sheridan Street
Port Townsend, WA 98368
AI Scalf, Director
NOTICE OF
JEFFERSON COUNTY HEARINGS EXAMINER
TYPE B DECISION
Date: August 6, 2002
The Jefferson County Hearing Examiner has submitted his written Findings,
Conclusions, and DECISION regarding the following application: ZON95-00001.
Applicant:
POPE RESOURCES
PO BOX 1780
POULSBO WA 98370
Project Description: conditional use, subdivision, and shoreline development permit
applications to develop the property with a variety of residential housing products on
a 30 acre site. Includes 26 single family detached homes on fee simple lots. Tracts A
and Bare condominimum tracts. Tract A will contain 32 attached units. Tract B will
contain 30 detached single family units. Approximately 13.1 acres of the site will be in
common open space. Included will be a beach font picnic area, new, and existing
trails, and an edge water park. All roads and access ways are proposed to be private.
All lots will be served by sanitary sewer. Stormwater runoff will be treated on site and
discharged into Port Ludlow Bay. Ludlow Water Company and Pope Resources are t
Parcelldenttfication Number: 821171011
Project Location: within the community of Port Ludlow, south of the intersection of
Oak Bay Road and Paradise Bay Road, South of the Port Ludlow Commercial
Village, and west of the North Bay Lane Condominiums. Section 17, Township 28
North, Range 1 East.
For the above project, the Hearing Examiner has:
LOG iTEM
# 7--- ~()
Page ,?;o,' of
Granted Approval Subject to Conditions
A copy of the Examiner's report and decision is attached for information. Appeals of
this deci . n must be made in writing as outlined in the attached instruction sheet
Development Review Division
Long Range Planning
FAX: (360) 379-4451
e
e
INSTRUCTIONS FOR FILING APPEALS OF
HEARING EXAMINER TYPE B DECISIONS:
REFERENCE FILE NO. ZON95-00001
Final decisions of the examiner may be appealed to the Appellate Examiner by an
afjgrieved party of record or agency who participated in the open record hearing.
Appeals of this decision must be made by 4:30 p.m. August 16, 2002 in the
fOllowing manner:
Form and Content of the Appeal:
1) An appeal shall be filed with the Clerk of the Board of County Commissioners
within fourteen (14) calendar days after the date of the decision.
2) All appeals shall be filed in writing with the Clerk of the Board of County
Commissioners, shall identify the decision appealed and the date of the decision, and
shall contain a summary of the grounds for the appeal.
3) The appropriate fee as set by the Board of County Commissioners in Ordinance
No. 12-1209-96 as amended shall be paid upon filing of the notice of appeal. No
appeal will be processed without receipt of the appropriate fee before expiration of
the period for filing the appeal. A file copy should accompany fees payable at the
Jefferson County Department of Community Development.
4) FOllowing receipt of a notice of appeal and payment of the appropriate fee, the
Appellate Examiner shall conduct a closed record appeal.
5) The issues considered in the closed record appeal shall be limited to those
specified in the written appeal.
Instructions and requirements for processing an appeal of a Hearing Examiner Type
B decision are explained in the Land Use Procedures Ordinance (Ordinance No.
04-0828-98). A copy is available at the Jefferson County Department of Community
Development, 621 Sheridan Street, Port Townsend, WA, 98368. (360) 379-4450,
Project Planner: J SMITH
t/~,
~\ \6V
\\ \
LOG ITEM
# _ 1-1>>
Dp;op '201J of
1I "'~-"o'5 v :;J.~-
e
e
T ~\)~
LOG ITEM
# 1.?-- '0
Page ~oP') of
e
--
e
~\lt.-lLll\
LOG ITEM
# l:zO
Page -$ of
S'?2-
~.UI/l
e
e
LOG ITEM
# 1,2.6
P&>~Je ~ of
~ <'f"d
BG/17/2ees 14:19
3&03794451.e . J~~~ CO DCD A: LAP C'OPY
, JEFFERSON COUN-rv-" ~ . . ' ,v4
DEPARTMENT' OF GOMMUNllY DEVELOPMENT
'621 Sheridan Street
Port Townsend, WA 98368
Al ScaJt DireCtor
1'0:
F.u~SMlTTAL
h ;:kZ:O~
.' -
DATE:
PHONE.: ( )
FAX: () :.q 0 ~ -' L-f~ 3 - O'J l.f~-
NUMBRR OF PAGES inc1udiog~ 3
PROM kl
. JRfPRRSON cOUN'l.YCQMMtJNTIY pH'VRl.DPIl.Q3NT
PHONE:: ()6Q) 379-4450
FAX:
CO'NMPNIS:
(~ 3~-4451
~~ ~\r&,~
~r ~nUX-
{)C~~~ ':.H~~
(Q. ~\}~<;.+
SUB.J'PCT;
Uls:1ing Pennitsllnsoections Development Review Division
l) 379--4450
LOq IT,r:::~,~
J'l,.;..;c ,._,ili
if "ii
_ _ ., - I' m' --..
F'ii(H)~ of__.___~
Lono flangePianniog
FAX: (360) 379-4451
06/17/2005 14:19
36133:9445.
JEFF CO DCD
iECTJON 16, TWN. 28 N.., RGE. 1 E., W.M.
ROVEQ,
SlWJAN.. "
..
POR-
, . T J U
I/O FlE:cORn DLoW
1..J.JA.I- DF 8.- "\
.VIl:. D sURv c_ C'-j
J.?F:cD~F SlJRV.€Y FI'.:~ CLu8.
!II\t; t.b .€"Y s -<.0 JIy
, . a~" .P .46....
l:. 8-
8 0,
"'7
'2"3.3'2
"rW
<66
.2J'
<78., ~.
e
\c ~
~S6
::iXUO
VI --
<<::iZw
wcoot:vt
~<ltI 1LI
~"'Q:o!.(
~ltI"'"'Z_
1.o.IIt..-<Q
X lL. 0
c,:)tlULI - en
:C<-'CPtI'I
O"-C>><
CO'lO-
~:;ZoD~
~lt)o_e:
a _cn...r
<<O~W
001 rn~.
- ~
-;...~a...~o
()a::a~~
wcr;-' ~
~....>-ZO
__Q.IOO~
1H33
APPROXIWAT[ LATERAl.
......" LIUITS Of' TIDELANDS
I.LI
.
OJ
- N
N-
~:;;
QJf...
.0
:z
3: .,' S,
~ - · ~ 0'
,9;;; P <( --1
10 .
It) ~ ..... a. 0
8 U <( :J'
Z ~ 'I
\- t- --.J
?: · 2
~~_. /
-d') "
.... .0 , l-
~ '0::::
o
a
N 12"12'26" W
14.29' '
TRAC -r .C.
JO.OO
8'"
!']
100
-
..- 1O
;"'<'1
""co
it),,-
o
z
-
---------
w
.
-
~
,m
~N
..,
~. ,
10
~ ~ .0',..... l"T'j C'f',fi
~" )'1,';' ~ ' l"I<~"i
-r. . 6
I
PAGE 03
f::0: jr-\ ~- . - ,.-
: 'l! .1'1' . ,)
r....:< ' . · .. ._~
OUI SEP 7 IDOZ ,
, 0 I
Jt1",-r.~ .~~;'l:(-
1)~f'1'. r ':~~"4 HI l:'~~~
/
(I) (!j
~ 01
...J
~ m
0 WI
0
en CJ
~ <(~
.....ll 0..
;: d~
0 11I.
-' . (I)
a >.
3 <&::
?- m
a: 3::
0
0.. 0
...JI
0
:::l
_I
/
t',
!
?0-
ft
-I
li
..
'...
I:C
,~
1 i
IE
E' fi" e E
o ""_ il 5
u :'~
:i :n
...
E
..
..
~ ... i
~ I: .
~ ~ i
~ :~ J..
-10 Ie:
c"
..... d t
's' :It {
vi ~ 1
e
e
, ~~AU1
".-
-,<-I
LOG ITErv'!
# 1.,,6 . ~~
~ot __~_
,~
\S
September 13, 2006
Via Hand Delivery
RECEIVED
SEP 2 1 2006
POWERS & THERRIEN, P.s.
Al Scalf
Barbara Nightingale
Jefferson County Department of Community Development
621 Sheridan Street
Port Townsend, W A 98368
Re: Port Ludlow Associates LLC
Major Resort Plan Revision (File No. ZON03-00044)
Shoreline Substantial Development Permit (File No. SDP05-00019, consolidating former
File Nos. SDPOO-OOI4 and SDP04-0028)
Boundary Line Adjustment (File No. SUB05-00030)
Administrative Code Interpretation (File No. ZON05-00035)
Plat of Ludlow Bay Village and Unplatted Admiralty III
Dear Mr. Scalf and Ms. Nightingale:
Over the past several months, Port Ludlow Associates has held several meetings with Port
Ludlow community organizations and individuals regarding the Ludlow Bay Village and
Admiralty III resort completion project. As a result ofthose meetings, PLA has offered not to
build some of the improvements described in its applications and to enhance some additional
amenities. I am writing to describe the details ofPLA's proposal and to suggest that the Hearing
Examiner add conditions to his approval ofPLA's applications to ensure that the proposed
modifications are made a part of the decision.
This is PLA's proposal to Jefferson County. Except for Item 1 (withdrawal of application), this
proposal is subject both to the approval of the other applications described above and to future
land use decisions based on new applications. This proposal relates to PLA's pending
applications only, but PLA does not presently intend to submit new applications in the future that
would be inconsistent with this proposal:
1. No Over-Water Construction. PLA hereby withdraws its application for an
administrative code interpretation relating to residential over-water construction on the artificial
lagoon or pond (File No. ZON05-00035).
2. Less Density in Ludlow Bay Village. PLA will build no more than 42 new residential
units in the Plat of Ludlow Bay Village. The locations of the new residential units are shown on
the attached drawings. This reduction will eliminate 20 proposed units from Ludlow Bay
Village.
70 BREAKER LANE
PORT LUDLOW. WA 98365
(360)437.210 l' FAX(360)437.2522
WWW.PORTLUDLOWA550C:IATFS r.nM
#
Lor-
, ""l'~"...'i
2. 2.. ()
~ -0''''..'-.. -__c
- "
3f>~ .
3. Less Density in Admiralty III. PLA will build no more than 38 new residential units in
the area commonly known as Admiralty III. This reduction will eliminate one proposed unit
from Admiralty III. The attached drawings show the locations.
4. Fewer Marina Slips. PLA will build no more than 64 new moorage slips within Port
Ludlow Marina. The attached drawings show the location of the new slips in red. It should be
noted that some of the slips were removed to improve the setback and scenic views from the
Scott Dock.
5. Elimination of Certain Nonresidential Improvements. PLA will not build the
following nonresidential improvements, whether or not they are approved by the Hearing
Examiner, unless they are required by the Hearing Examiner:
Parking lot elevator
EMS helipad 1
Private recreational facility
The elimination of these amenities requires a revised amenity-phasing schedule. PLA's
proposed revised amenity phasing schedule is attached to this letter.
6. Gull Drive Setbacks. PLA will provide a setback from Gull Drive that is greater than
the three feet required under Jefferson County Ordinances. In most areas, the setback \vill
exceed 20 feet.
7. Amenities. PLA will pr'ovide or enhance the following amenities, which are illustrated
on the attached plan:
Yacht club gathering areas (two to be provided)
Walking paths (to be extended as shown in yellow on the attached drawings)
Admiralty III park/play area (to be provided as shown in green on the attached drawings)
After the resolution of all land use approvals and appeals relating to the project, PLA intends to
offer the Admiralty III park/play area to the PL VC as a community amenity. If the PL VC does
not accept it and agree to maintain it, then PLA intends to offer it to the LMC under the same
conditions. Ifthe LMC also declines, then it will be part of the common area or common
element for Admiralty III and will be maintained by an owners association.
1 This alters PLA's proposed phasing plan, as described in the letter dated June 23, 2005, from Mark Dorsey to Al
Scalf.
LO ""'" ''T'r'" "/1'
.H", !' .''''{i'
.J'f~<fi, '~_~. ~
2~b
~
3)6"
#
8. Marina-only Parking Restrictions: PLA will restrict 70 stalls to Marina use only
during the hours of5:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.
9. Inn/Town Home Parking: PLA is willing to enhance fun and town home parking areas
as shown on the attached drawings. The proposed bollards will be eliminated to increase the
circulation area. In addition, the town home parking spaces will be improved, and parallel
parking will be added along Heron Road to improve guest parking in this area. We are also
prepared to provide an easement for the benefit of the existing 25 town home owners to assure
them that a minimum of 1.5 parking spaces will be available for their use. In addition we want
to incorporate design elements to improve traffic safety by slowing down cars in this area and to
screen the parking area from our Inn guests and town home residents.
PLA is not proposing to revise its applications, and PLA is not requesting environmental review
of any additional alternatives. This proposal is simply a proposal not to build certain
improvements and to enhance certain amenities, subject both to the approval of the applications
described above (except the over-water administrative code interpretation) and to future land use
decisions based on new applications. Tfyou have any comments or questions, please do not
hesitate,to contact me. Thank you very much for your consideration.
Sincerely yours,
Port Ludlow Associates LLC
Ju ~~
,.. i .
, I, / /
.' 4-L.d..J .
Diana Smeland'- ,
cc: Mike Bergstrom
David Alvarez
John Fischbach
Elizabeth Van Zonneveld,'PLVC
Les Powers
Rick Rozzell
Mark Dorsey
Randy Verrue
Troy Crosby
Gregg J ordshaugen
Peter Joseph
Lewis Hale
Bruce Schmitz
Marco de Sa e Silva
In(~
~"",""I '."..,,'C
~Zb_.__~._,.~~..
~ Ol_.c
~s~
e
e
Port Ludlow Associates LLC
Ludlow Bay Village and Admiralty III
Resort Completion Project
Proposed Amenity Phasing Schedule
Revised September 13, 2006
Development Maximum Amenities to Be \Vhen Amenities Must Be
Phase Permitted Provided or Provided or Bonded
Residential Bonded
Units
1 26 units 1. New Marina Prior to issuance of building
(for example, Retail/Office permits for Phase 2
Buildings R-1, R- building
2, 3, R-4, R-5, 2. Boardwalk (that
and 2 units above portion landward of
Restaurant) Ordinary High
Water)
3. New
Harbormaster
Restaurant
4. New parking for
Marina and
Restaurant
2 16 units Admiralty III Prior to issuance of building
(for example, Park/Playground permits for Phase 3
Admiralty III
portion)
3 14 units 1. Inn parking lot Prior to issuance of building
(for example, and fire lane permits for Phase 4
Buildings R-6, R- improvements
7, R-8) 2. Gull Drive
reconstruction
(expand to two .
lanes)
3. Lagoon
Landscaping and
Restoration, south
and west sides
4 22 units Signs (community Prior to issuance of final
(for example, parking lot, trail, complete certificate of
Admiralty III educational) occupancy for any buildings
remainder) within Phase 4
1-"-,,,1-'"
:- .-1t "y
;>P...\"" "~,",,,'1,
~
E
o c:
~~
If)e..
Q)
0>
~
c:
CO
a:
"0
al
If)
o
0.
o
....
e..
CO
o
o
N
c:
CO
a:
"0
Q)
If)
o
0.
o
....
e..
C"?
o
o
N
c:
CO
a:
"0
al
>
o
....
0.
0.
<{
-.;to
Ol
Ol
T"""
'~N
T"""
........
-
- ,-
10 0
- N
-
LnCON COlOr-
NN CO
Lno'
N-.;to
"0
al
CO
u
o
a;
....
al
.0
o
I-
-.;to lOr-
T""" 10
"0
al
CO
U
o
a;
....
al
.0
o
I-
LnIO I I LnIO
NN Ln
"0
al
,~
CO
E
al
~
Vl
al
OJ E
$~~ ~
Vl :J c:
'X :J c:
W LL ~ ::>
VlVl~Cro
Q)Q)+-,CO~
E E c: :J ~
OO~(1J:g:g
.c:.c::J(;iVlE
~~~&~O
OOal........J:>
1-1-0:::22.?:-0)
ru ru ru ~ ~,'E :::
0)0)0)~~~2
~~~OO~~
"6 "6 "0 -e -e g>.o
:J :J :J t1l CO ,_ :J
-I-I-IIJ:(1)(1)
---.;to
T"""CO.....
"'"-"'e"-I
1O-.;toT"""
C')CON
-.;to
OlOr-
C') 0 10
..-C"?
"0"0"0
al al al
"0"0"0
:J :J :J
13130
c: c: c:
000
ZZZ
Vl
0.
~~
liicoC.
.... c:: c:
E 'i: :g
"0 t1l CO
<{~e..
e
al
>
'C
Cl
'0 "0 "0 "0
Q) al Q) Q)
...... ~..........
CO CO CO CO
c: c: c: c:
:~:~:~ :~
wwww
OJ
c:
:J "0:52
C)Q)"o'OQ)....
> Q) Q) +-' CO
E '00 If) If) U e..
ec:ooEro
-2 o.o.Vl c:
oxee~o
NWe..e..c::~
::>:0
"0
<{
"0"0"0
al al al
Vl Vl t)
o 0 ,-
0... a.. l::;
o 0 Vl
.... .... Q)
e..e..~
x
e
0-
0-
<(
"0 "0 "0 '0 "0 "OQ)
alalQ)Q)al+-,
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
0. 0. Q. 0. Q. ,-
000 0 0 E
0: 0:0: 0:0: t1j
"0
Q)
al "0
> "0 'S:
"0 'i: Q) "0 '0 0
~O:g~~"2n:
'l:: s i; :J :J t5 -
+-' (!) 0: Oc: 0 E ~
:g .S Vl 0
....EQ):;:;+-'Q)~
c: 0 E 0 0 0::: ,-
::>Li:oZZ :g
",CI) <{
o
Z
- -
,q al "2
.0 ~ .S
ro Q. ro 0-
LLCI)al al
6 C:.o~ 0:::
~ .Q :J OJ -
~ 2 -g ~ ~ .~ .~ ~ ~ g>
~ ~ .... .9- ~ U .c: ~ TI ~ :g
I- o~~o:::~co~~~ ru ~
L5 () > ;>.> ~ (!) ;>.- - a: ~ OJ al
u.. (u ~ u 0:] 0 .0 C ~ &. roo c:: E
ro w c: ~"O :J 0 .Vl e.. :!2 0
0::: ~ ro ~ro:JO ro g>g>ai Q) ro.c:
W .... c: .... c: -I - c:: .- .- .... OJ Cl.. c:
J: al 'i: Q) 'i: +-' .c:u .... "0 :!: :Q.... :> l "..... I""""r ~'- Ii
I- > (1J E CO 0 (1J CO :J ro :c ::: c:: 15 . J...l0 . I C:l'\l~
o 0 ~ W ~ Cl.. >- ~ C!l ~ () > ;. I- 1..20
~ of __M
3S'!
e
e
PORT LUDLOW
MASTER PLAN
PRESENTED BY
II
.......-.--
I.
I'UIfN~f:
PO,^,,"~K~
,
h":~::~fW_;~~5~~:~,
.. A';'~::"~t~~t(
."-. ._.-, - _._.._.__......~~ .
e
e
------
";~1if~j ~ ~
""".. ""~ 111
'..,:; ;'>,,,'~ II
. '." .." ~ =
.'i::,:<:: ;;;ji ~ ~
' , ...:i
~ 5~
...:it/)
~
i)2
~
\[
\
'~
~
O:z
~<
Qa:
B~
'.' ~<
i<~:;j ,.J ~
t'fjIJ,,:: ~
':'0
. ~ !
." ~ lilt
. ,.: !
. 1 .,.! ~"'_.
.:....~. ". .,1.'
~~j'''I;-iT'C:::r'.1
...----.... L',,_,'<,:71! I '_..,'I
-1:.2-6 _ ___
#_-
' -~O-r
3~()
e
e
t.,., '
, . . .. !.N~-TQNAJ:
IIPORT LUDLOW
MASTER PLAN
ADMIRALTY III AREA
SITE SCALE: ]"=50'-0"
it 2?6
-""__''''_,____",.k~ .~-, ''''~ - - -
__~lQ ......
~ t..1
e
~
~
~
~
o~
~t-J
o~
g~
CI)
,~~
o
~
II
e
."'~'~~-~: ," -,~~>~~~::-,>
',~c~~
'~~~
I
L-
'-...,
-:----
~---
"-:-";' ".
.......
~
...~.
-::,.
~'--~.'",
-->-<.-.-
, c,.r~
L ,,-,
.Ji~~<
../.1- 1.-U .___
7~t"" __~=-'--'"-""""--'''.'''''''---- .
.-mof
3"'3>
iF'\-
~ '
I
e
i.
: r: i
I I' I
"
I
I ~ i .I
j' I
,
I I
I. I
I
I
I
I
l
Z
~7?-of__..
~~1
\ ,1
(in 'Tr-I\ R
........! ciV,
e
e
r-
.-. ITr:u
L()~, "'i Lj\li
.,.'.... -.........,
1-2-C>
I --- ~f
LOG ITEM
# 2..Zb
Page ~ of
~6,1
e
e
~'.x.\-~
PoIIUli()fl Omlro! Hearings Board
Shorelines Hearings Board
Foresl Pra~;liccs Appeals BOMd
Hydraulic Appeals B(l;lrd
Env,ronmenlo1l a od Land VIe Hearings Board
e
e
llQ
Telephone: (360) 459-6327
FAX: 13601438-7699
Ema;l: cho@eho,wa.gov
Websile:wv'''''_cho. wa,gov
STATE OF WASHINGTON
ENVIRONMENTAL HEARINGS OFFICE
MailinlJ Address: PO Box 40903, Olympia, WA 98504-0903
Phvskal Address: 4224 - 6th Ave. Sf, Bldg. 2, RoweSix, La('ey, WA 985Q4-0903
July ] 8, 2006
Rick RozzeH
4 I Windrose Drive
Port Ludlow W A 98365
David W. Alvarez
Chief Civil Deputy Prosecuting Attorney
Jefferson County
PO Box 1220
Port. Townsend W A 98368
Leslie A. Powers
3502 Tieton Drive
Yakima W A 98902
Marco De Sa E Silva
DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE LLP
2600 Century Square
1501 Fourth Avenue
Seattle WA 98101-1688
(For Port Ludlow Associates LLC)
Donald E. Marcy
CAIRNCROSS & HEMPLEMANN
524 Second Avenue Suite 500
Seattle W A 98104-2323
(for Trendwest Resorts Inc.)
RE:
SHB NO. 05-029
LESLIE A POWERS & RICK ROZZELL v. .JEFFERSON COUNTY,
TRENDWEST RESORTS, INC. & PORT LUDLOW ASSOCIATES LLC
RECEIVED
JUL 2 0 2006
POWERS & THERRIEN, P.s.
Dear Parties:
Enclosed please find an Order on Reconsideration.
This is a FINAL ORDER for purposes of appeal to Superior Court within 30 days,
pursuant to WAC 461-08-570 and 575, and RCW 34.05.542(2) and (4).
Sincerely yours,
U~y,~
William H. Lynch, Presiding
WHL/jglS 05-029
Cc: Don Bales - Shorelands, Ecology
Jefferson County Dept of Community Development
Ene.
CERTJFICA TION
DOlhis day. I forwarded a true and accurate copy of
the documents to which Ihis certificate is affixed via
United States Postal Service poS'age prepaid to the attorneys
of record herein,
I certify under penalty of perjury under liIe laws of lhe
..., MJ!'< I "'..... "'" ... "'-
DATED ,"~J __,atLacey, WA.
#
LOG ITEM
12b
771 of
'~(p '2>
o
.~~
e
e
1
BEFORE THE SHORELINES HEARINGS BOARD
81' A TE OF WASHINGTON
2
LESLIE A. POWERS and
3 RICK ROZZELL,
4
,Petiti oners,
SHB 05-029
5
ORDER ON RECONSIDERATION
v.
6
JEFFERSON COUNTY; TRENDWEST
7 RESORTS. INC.; and PORT LUDLOW
ASSOCIATES, LLC,
8
Respondents.
9
10
On May. 17, 2006, the Shorelines Hearings Board (Board) issued an Order on Motions.
11
which denied swnmary judgment on all motions and remanded the case back to Jefferson
12
County. The decision was based upon the conclusion that Jefferson County failed to follow its
13
own procedures for h~ng the appeal) and that the County h,ad not issued a final decision with
14
respect to the shoreline substantial development permit at issue. Tbe Board was comprised of
15
William H. Lynch. presiding, Kathleen D. Mix. Judy Wilson; Kevin Ranker, and Judy Barbour.
16
18
oppose reconsideration. The Board I reviewed the following material in considering the Petition
19
for Reconsideration:
20
21
I Mr. Ranker was unable to take part in the reconsideration of this decision due to scheduling conflicts.
SHB 05~029
ORDER ON RECONSIDERATION
Ltf'"'>r" I""'~-p, ~
U '-':1 i CJ\t1
# 220
--.
~O'~
! -
'3~,
e
e
1
1.
Respondents' joint Petition for Reconsideration;
2
2.
Petitioners' Brief in Opposition to Motion for Reconsideration;
3
3.
Declaration of Leslie A. Powers and attached exhibit;
4
4.
Declaration of Rick Rozzell; and
5
5. ' Petitioners' Reply Brief.
6
Based on the record in this case, and the materials submitted in the Motion for
7
Reconsideration~ the Board makes the following ruling:
8
9
Respondents have requested the Board to reconsider its decision and advance three main
10
arguments in support of their request. The first issue raised by Respondents is that the Board's
11
Order issued on May 17th is inconsistent with the letter sent to the parties on April 5, 2006. The
second issue raised by the Respondents is that they have relied to their detriment on the April 5th
12
13
Jetter by entering into a stipulated order based upon this letter. Finally; the Respondents believe
14
that the Board should proceed with a de novo hearing in order to promote administrative
15
efficiency.
16
The AprilS, 2006, letter from the Board states:
17
The Board has denied all the motions and the case will proceed to hearing. The Board
18 believes the initial hearing examiner for Jefferson County erred by separating the
substantial development permit from the rest of the appeal and sending this permit to the
19 Department of Ecology. By doing so, the County failed to follow its own procedures that
dictate further review by the appellate hearing examiner. Jefferson County therefore did
20 not make a final decision on the pennit at issue. The Board believes, nevertheless, that it
is appropriate for the de novo hearing to continue before the Board rather than a remand
21 to the County.
SHB 05~029
ORDER ON RECONSIDERATION
2
LOG ITEM
Z2-t>
--,-.'-=
::: ~of
'37l>
~
e
e
Board's letter to the parties, April 5,2006.
2 The Board's Order, dated May 17,2006, followed the same reasoning for reac~ing its
3 conclusion, except that the Board remanded the case rather than proceeding with a de novo
4 hearing before the Board. Prior to the issuance of the Order, the Board held another discussion
5 and conclude~ it only has jurisdiction over appeals of final 4ecisions and that a remand was the
6 appropriate action. Nothihg else in the Board's analysis changed. Respondents contend they
7 had negotiated a settlement with the Petitioners based upon the April 5th letter, but the Petitioners
8 are no longer willing to abide by the settlement because bfthe remand language contained in the
9 Board's May 17th order. Respondents request that the Board modify the May 17th Order to
10 reflect the language contained in the April 5th letter. Petitioners object to the language circulated
11. in the proposed Order of Dismissal by a mediator but indicate they are willing to perform their
12 stipulation to sign an order of dismissal with language that they believe reflects the stipulation.
13 Respondents contend that because the Petitioners refuse to approve the particular J,anguage
14 circulated by the mediator, they have relied to their detriment on the Board's April 5lh letter.
15 Respondents' detrimental reliance argwnent is not well-taken. The April 5th letter clearly states:
16 "The opinion by the Board will follow shortly. This letter dO,es 'not constitute the formal- opinion
17 by the Board and is not subject to appeal." The letter confers no rights and provides no basis for
18 detrimental reliance, especially siIlce it is consistent with the subsequent Order by the Board
19 except for the remand action. It appears that the failure to sign an order of dismissal is based
20 upon the language contained in that proposed order rather than upon any actions by this body.
21
SHB 05-029
ORDER ON RECONSIDERATION
3
LOG iTEM
::hI: Z2b
1.1-- .
~of
'~71
e
e
1 The Respondents believe that administrative efficiency may be better served if the Board
2 would proceed to a de novo hearing. The Respondents may weB be correct, because this was the
3 reason why the Board initially decided to proceed with the de novo proceeding. However.
4 administrative efficiency cannot confer jurisdiction on the Board. As discussed in the Board's
5 Order, RCW 90.58.180, WAC 173-27-130, and prior Board decisiol).s limit the Board's
6, jurisdiction to review affinal decisions by the local government. Because the Board determined
7, that Jefferson COWlty did not render a final decision on the permit in question, the Board has no
8 jurisdiction to hear this appeal and a remand is appropriate.
9
10
The Board believes that two points raised by the Respondents should be addressed in this
9rder of Reconsideration. The Board agrees with the Respondents in that the Board's May 17th
11
12
Order on Motions that the Board should have granted the Petitioners' Summary Judgment
13
Motion rather than denying' all motions. The Respondents ,express concern over which appeal
14
process must be followed on remand. Although the Board believes that the LUPO process is
probably the appropriate process because the permit was filed pursuant to that process, it is up to
Jefferson County to make that procedural determination.
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
SHB 05-029
ORDER ON RECONSIDERATION
4
Ln~ ITE. _r,Ji
...,."". ....~ .'fI'i
~26
-
~of__
372-
e
.
. OIIDER
2
3
The Petition for Reconsideration is DENlED, except the Petitioners' Motion for
DOnethiS~Of~~ 2006.. .
SHORELINES HEARINGS BOARD
tJ~L~
.-'-
WILLIAM H. LYNCH, P esiding
~u~b, ~
KA HLEEN D. MIX, ember
-~~~
JUDY~ber .
., $.~
JUDY BARBOUR, Member --' '
LOr:;z 'TCI\Ji
,,-P \,....1- i ~' LIVi
if: ---.1:-W
~of
173
Summary Judgment seeking a remand is GRANTED.
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
SHB 05-029
ORDER ON RECONSIDERATION 5
~
e
.
'5~ve \J n;e:lJ
LOG \TEM
# 1.'2.b
P,,'cr;e ~A? f
c~8 - 0
37~
!
I
e
e
11
MICHAEl D. BRASFIELD
JEFFERSON COUITY SHERIFF
79 Elkins Road. Port Hadlock, Washington 98339. (360) 385-3831
February 9, 2005
-',-', "..,
r,
I I "'.--
i;
I
! FEB 1 1 2005
.-. -."-.--
Ms. Michelle Farfan
Jefferson County Project Planner
Department of Community Development
621 Sheridan Street
Port Townsend, WA 98368
Dear Ms. Farfan,
We have received the documents related to MLA05-00029. the Ludlow Cove Division 2-
120 Wlit condominium within Port Ludlow MPR.
The proposed development will have a significant impact on the resources of the
Sheritrs Office. Based 011 existing staffing and calls for service within the county, the
establislunent of this project will add workload to the Sheriff's Office beyond that which
it is able to handle now. There will be a degradation of response time and preventive
patrol in other parts of the county.
Given the steady incremental increase in population and residences within unincorporated
Jefferson County that have not been addressed through additional resources being
provided to the Sheriff's Office, mitigation should be required that would add those
resources to the Sheriffs Office.
The general rule of thumb for jlllisdictions in our general population range is to have 1
uniformeu patrol ofiic~icieputy for each i ,000 r~sidE:;nts. Thi~ equates to appruximately
$100,000 in salary, benefits and equipment.
There has not been an increase in uniformed patrol staffing for several years. Your own
records will reflect the increase in coUnty population.
Sincerely,
--: ,-~....."')
1"7"/ )) 1~;,~~.~~1f}
/ /~ & /Yif't??" ~. \ i __) ~'-"'I'.r"
Michael D. Brasfield "--,
Jefferson County Shedff
.f/:
LOG ITEM
~v:> ,
~.
"?7!> .......
#
{Jage__J__.ot-1-_
e
e
........i.........
'::1
~~~~-uuA
LOG ITEM
# 1,..2.t>
P ~
'-;r"!
c[be of
17t,
'i' '. ,.; : ,-'
.i. ~ i..i.;".;/ ...:.....;......i -~'-""";' ~ "",,',- "" -' /. -' .
r1nt(-u~-~uun Wi:O Uij:!)fj AM OOW REGIONAL OFFICE
FAX NO. 360. 6305
P. 01/04
IR
r .:' -:"" .t " .-:, ..- ,~--,- i-'--~' 1
I~ . ',;,; r~' '-' ,_...
Aft -2 3m
PO BOI( 4177') · Olympia, W,a.hirtg,o:n 9fJ$04-'l77J .. (360J 407.6300
STAn Of WASH'NG10N
DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY
March 2. 2005
Ms. Michelle Farfan
J effeJ'6on County
Department ofCornmunit')' Development
Development Review Division
621 Sheridan Street
Port Townsend, W A 98368
Dear Ms. Farfan:
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the prethreshold c:on8ultation for tbe Lu
II project (Cue: Nos, SUB05-OOO04; SDPOS..QOOO2: ZON05-0000.s) located on Paradi
Ludlow as proposed by Port Ludlow Associates. LLC. We reviewed the environment
have the follow,ng comments:
SHORELANDS: Jeffr. Stewut (360) 407.6511
I.... I ~ '!o t
r: ::1
I,' .
I
.
,
:vi Cove Divi.ion
Bay Roed in Pm
hecklist and
Tbe propoaal has been classified as "residential", which appears accurate but ioeompl in definins the
project. The proponl is for lime~8hare condominiums, :a form of trans lent aceommoda . n. which differs
from fuJl time: residential usc. The project also appears to include commercI.l activiti Ithougb the.'lt
are miniJnllly described, so more exact definition of associated aO"lC11ities for guests sb d be described
and will need to be: reviewed for applicable policjes and regulations in the shoreline. progrun.
Non-water-dependent commercial development in shoreline jurisdiction requires shor e conditional
use approval. -"
Whether or not co.mmcrcial as- well as residential ac:tivttie9 are in fact proposed, we be
access manda~ OfIhe Shoreline Management Act cJtarly applies to this de'VCloptnent.
tendered would provide insufficient opportunity for public enjoyment of these Shoreli
Significance.
We nok in the materials provided, applicants written ullOltion to hnut the use ofpsth
shoreline to residents of the proposed development. The application statea that li1'Oitin
to a single. private access rOld ", , ,will not be injuriou.'lIO the neighborhood or public
a~sertion. focused on the aace.ss road, also ha5 n:lcvancc to shorelme issu" because
pJanned wa.tafront traH in~ended Jor public use is now proposed beIng limited to, res;
statement appears in that context unsupported ~nd incorrect
We believe approval of this proposal as tendered would be inconsistent with the pobci
County Shoreline Master Program. and not in keeping with the leglshltive mtent in the
Management Act (90.58.020). Policies in the Jdfc:rson County Shoreline Master Pro
Ur~an Deaignaled Shoreline areas. "Public ac.cess to and alone the water's edge shoul
a walkway system and linked to adjacent existi rd-rr; 6." Urban deveio
provide for public vicw~ to tbe wareT ,\;J
..{.!..
7'f;"""
Vt the public
he propoul as
of Statewide
ys along the
Ccc&s to the Sltt
Uare," This
eviowly
only, .the
of the Jefferson
hGTcljne
m state, for
cootdlnated in
t should
LOG ITEr\!1
, ~
" J'blR of
1;77
o
11/18/~~~~ tl~:~~ jb~j/~q4~l J~rr ~U u~u
7', nAN-UC:.,UUb Wt,t) 08=56 AM DW REGIONAL OFFICE FAX NO. 360_1 6305,
t-'~t:. ~j/l::l~
p, 02/04
l':
II
!'
I
,
'."-:-':-'" r- :..-. :,- ~~'~~:;,i
.,,-. ---, ,I
l'~ i ;;
- 2 2005 .',
MITCh 2, 2005
Page 2
r'--
. M
The master prog,.am starts, "Provi6ion6 to enhance the public: 's use and enjoyment of r
W8leJ'$ of the stale shall be included wich new substantial developments or any change
~rty use to a nC1ll conditional use cccUJring along the shoreline" and "Develo
de.igned so as. not to block, adversely interfere with, or reduce the public'", visual and
the water anti shorelines oftbt: State:.
The proposed waterbont nil need. to open to the public and must be linked with trail
adjoining lands, enabbns l'aidentl of other Port Ludlow subdivision!! and the publiG a
opponuniry to enjoy pedestrian U!b of rhe shoreline areal on waters of the: Stlte.
Provision for adequate public parking MId propel' signage need to be added to the p~
traU should be: designed with appropriate ycgetative buffeta planted with weU-chosen
and wee plantinp. These .hould be designed to allow a sense of privacy/separation fr
residential struCture" and to counce the nat\nJ chaTBCtcr and habitat value of the sho
term.
TOXles CLEANUP: Clallek CHu (360) .co7-6267
If contamination is currently known or observed during constrUCtion, sampling of the
contaminated media must be conducted. If contamination of soil or ground\atatt:r ls r
revealed. by sampling. the Department of EcoloBY mw;t be notified. Contact the Envir
Tracking System Coordinator at the Southwest Regional Office at (360) 407~6300. F:
inJcrmation about subsequent cleanup and to identify the type of teSbng that win be r
Chuck Cline It (360) 407--6267.
W ATEa QUALITY: Betsy lMcka (~) """194
Any discharge of sediment.laden runoff or other pol1utanls to wilen oflhe state is in
90.48. Water Pollution Conlrol, and WAC 173-20tA, Water Quality Standards fOf Su
State ofWashinaton. and is subject to enforcement action. Waters of tbe ..te htdu
Ibllked to. water. in roadside ditc.... atot1ll'll dralllS, wetland.. Lu.dlow Creek. tla
aM Port L.dlow Bay.
Erosion control measures must be In place prior to my clearing, gradtngl or construct'
measures must he effcc:tiv~ to prevent stormwatq runoff from CDrrylOg soil and other
surface water 0( stonn drains that lead to waters of the &lJtc, Sand. silt, clay particles
damage aquatic habltat and are considered ~ he poUUlants.
If thi. project mGVCS fOl"WM'd. . Natto..) 'ollutlo. DlsebargtEUmillatloD Syste
would be required_ The owmr of a consauction site which disturb, five acres or m
and which has or wHl have a discharsc of stonnwater to a surface water or to a $tortn
for coverage under the NPDES and State Waste Oischargt: ("Jettera) Pennit for Storm
Asscxiak:d with CoJl,ttrUCtion Acflvities.
Owners of sites where less than five acres of total land area will be disturbed m\.1st al
c.onstruGtion activity 13 part of a largtr (;ontig"ous plan of development or Site in ""hi
. eventllally be di6turbed. Discharge of siQrmwattt from such sites without
~
\\ 11-1,\ DV
#
shorelines and
the principle
shall be
ysicaJ access to
1. The shoreline
tive species shrub
adjoining
hnc over the long
temitlly
ily visible, or is
lmll:tal.Report
assistance and
ired contact Mr.
alation of Chapter
ace Waters of the '
, b_t are .el
ype S stJ"eam,
!
. Theae control
llutslntl into
nd sod will
(NPDES) ptr..1t
of total land area,
wtr. mu..st apply
tier Dixh....ges
,.
apply if the
more $I.:n fiye
~it is a
, LOG ITEM
1-2:6
~ 01._.___
'37'0
11/18/2005 08:29 3&03794451 ~~~~
nA~-U~-~UUb WiD 08:57 AM OO~ REGIONAL OFFICE
l...U lJl...lJ
FAX NO. 360~ 6305
Mareh 2. 2005
Page 3
r~ {,I...,U..J
j
violation of federal and stale law and the owner will be subject to enforcement action by f.e Department
of Ecology or tbrough thll'd party lawsuits. I
I
foe construl;tion of ilubdiviaions. the five acre threshold. WhlCh trigcen the NPOESt reql1irement
applies to land that is, distUtbed by the land owner. land owner' & agent, or by an entity ich hae obtained
8 U6( agreement (e.g.. lcue. eaac:ment) from the land owner. Include ecreage which is d bed (e.g.,
graded) prior to its sale to independent eootractor(s).
A lltormwalcr permit application form. termed to as a Notice of Intt.nt, can be obtained ; caUlOg
&ology'. Stormwater ~equest Line (360) 407-11 S6 or Linda Matlock at (360) 407--643 i The NOI
application form is also acccs:siblc: in electronio form on Department of Ecology' 8 webs at:
htto:l!www .~y. wa.g.ovJprolD'aim!"q/stonnwaterlconBtnlCtionJ#Aoolicatioo
Applicant! are encouraged to submit completed forms and pubhsh public: notices more n 38 days prior
to the planned start of construction to avoid delays to the project.
If you have any questions or would hke to respond to these C(lmrnents please contact tb
reviewing stafflist.ed above.
DeplJ1Tnent of Ecology
Southwest Regional Office
(AW: 05.0805)
cc: Chuck. Cline. TCP
Betsy Dlckes. WQ
Linda Madock. WQIHQ
Jeffi<< Stewwt. SEA
Mark Doney. 'ort Ludlow AS6Ol;ia1c:S (Applicant)
Lyn Keenan. Reid Middleton, Inc. (Agent)
f, ,
/' ,
, ,
:: r
, I
P. 03/04
...... "......... , .-.--.-,.. J
, ' I
'" !. ,'I
--"--l' ,:
, I
,
,
R-2m
LOG ITEM
# 20
r> ,~ o'f.
1/'1
11/18/20135 138: 213 3&133794451 e JEFF CO DCD e
MAR-02-2005 WED 08:57 AM DOE SW REGIONAL OFFICE FAX NO. 380 407 6305
PAGE 135/05
P. 04/04
ce.L.--
, \ ( I ~"t-I tJlp
"" --- -\ --, 't
f' ....- ..'_.~'. #' .,..... l
'I ~#' .,,_ ,~ '___~ ,~ :' \
r ~ : . : ~
\
MAR - 2 2On~) , , 1
LOG ITEM
# U>
P,;;" ~ ~ of
"3 f>O
e
e
lJ',~~
LOG ITEM
# 1-U
Page--*"of
'3lbl
e
e
I 4- t 4~
,
JEFFERSON COUNTY /
SHOREUNE SUBSTANTIAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT iQ
WASHINGTON STATE SHOREUNE MANAGEMENT ACT (RCW 90.68) ~, J
PERMlttE~ : Pope Resources
DATE ISSOEO: May 1.1", 1993
TYPE OF ACTION: General
TYPE OF U~E: Primary I Seeondary, ~onditiona1.
CASE NUMBER: SDP91-017
APPLICATION DATE: August, 7, 1991
.PROPOSAL:
A residential, cOlIl1'Qercial, and recreational developm.ent consistinq
of the following';
* A 36-roo. hotel;
* 5 detached single family residences atld 53 attache.d single family
reside~ces in 14 aulti-unit structures; , .
~ · Road~ys and 367 parking spaces;
* Uti1it.ies, including water, electrical. power.. and sanitary sawer;
* 500 ~ic yards of rip rap shore defense works;
~ ,* Marina modifications including a new lUana-gar's buildin9'1 new
:r:estrooms and laundry, new f~el and pr9pane tanks loca.ted. between
tha marina. and the pond, and removal .of an existing bQat l.a~ch;
n\l* Landscaping and recreational ueni:-ties inclu.ding construction of
. vegetated, artif icial dunes on t;he' souther'lY -portion - of .the. -spit I ___
tra.ils and 'a pedestrian bridge, ou~door sport courts t and expansion
of the existinq' pond; .' .
'!t Approximately 45,000 cubic yards of ~cavation, grading and
fi1.lin9' includinq 25,000 cubic yards for pond expansion; .
* TemporarY and permanent. soil erosion control 'and storm water
management system;
~ Directional and informational ,signs;
* Outdoor 'lighting; and .
~* 10.5 a~res of undeveloped open space.
The Inn would ,be a. three-story I 'WQod frame structure that would
include a manager's...r"esidence. Its maxiUlUll1 heiqht would be 52. te.et.
It would have a foot print of 11,3'45 square feet and. total sqUare
footage of 34';~71. square feet. Its design would .include. the
following fire and life safety features: quick-response sprink1er
headsj automatic alarm notice to Fire. District #3; taJDper
protection for the a'Qt.om.atio sprinkler systemi hose cabinets at
each floor; die.sel qenerator baok-U.p power s01ll:cef an indicator
panel. :tor all building' safety syst.ems; smoke detection on BVAC
system.s1 a stairvell to the roof; and a wet-sprinkler in the
covered drive-through. The. propo.nent also reposes plann
~-t:aff training in order Dna e rapl.d r~spon p encies.
LOG I1=EM
# 1-U
-~
382--
f!f '\/)f'()
'J ~) l. ~ ) ,,'
. SfX1Y
r
e
e
Shoreline Substantial Developaent Permit
SDP9J.-017
Pope Resources
The exist.ing .an-made pond covering 1.4 ac:;-es would be enlarged to
2..2 acres. A pUlllp would supply with vater from LUdlow Bay in order
to aalntain a constant sali~ity.
A n6" 800 square. foot .arinil manager's office would be eonstructed
.id'!ay between the exist.ing arfice and the Inn site _, The existi~-
offl.ce would be Q.eJIlo11$hed and re'plilce4 with new restroOl1ls and .
laundry facilities on the same site.
The ~ist.in9' underground fuel and propane tanks - would ,- ,be re=oved.
and new tanks would be located adjacent to the manager's office in '
a containment bunker. '
Exterior lightinq fiXtures 'Would employ hoods, shades, or o'ther
techniques to direct. ill\Dlination onto the immed.iat.e area where. it
is needed. Light standards in parking areas WQu16 not exceed 10~
fe.et in height.. Li.ght fixtures alonq pedestrian walkways would not,
exceed 4 feet in height.. No colored lights would be use.d except for
boliday oocasions~ - ."
utilities llou1d be installed underground..
LEGAL DESCIUPTION: .
The proposal si~e comprises 17..5 acres. adj~cent to the existing
ma~ina and resort at Port,Ludlow and is de~cribed as pqrtions of
Government Lots 1 and 2 in Section 1'6, Township 28 North, Range 1
East, W..H...
WATER.80DY AND lOP. ASSOCIATED WETLANDS: Port Ludlow Bay
it SHORELINE OF STA'I'E-WI:DE SIGNIFICANCE: No
SHORELINE DESIGNATION: urban
CONDITIONS: Development pursuant to this per.;ait shall be
undertaken subjeot to the applicable policies and performance
$-tandards .of the. Jeffe.rson....Port Townsend shoreline Kanagel1ent:
Kaster Program and the followiD9 conditions% .
1.. A detai1ed erosion and sedimentation control plan u~inq the
best management practices set forth in the Washington
DeparbGent: af Ecology's Storm Water Hanuat for the Puqet:. sound
Basin sha~l. be prepared in conjunction wi.th :final site desi.gn
and a c'oIlS'truction phasing schedu.le.. Grading on tl;le project
site aha~l not beqin until the erosion control. plan has been
approved by the Director of the Jefferson county Depart::aent
of pubJ.ie itorks or bis designee. The objectives of said P1ian
are to (a) control <lust and mud and sta.J)iJ.izE!! the const:.ruct on
area. including entrances and roadways; (b) prevent flurface
.2
LOI~ iT I f,:1',Ji
,"_.' I 1-1V'1
# 1-kfJ
F;nt>.~('lf
",.A.;:;;!'J '"3'0'3' ~
nr -lr)r'A
_f t: t. _ \..E _._
e
e
Shoreline substantial Oevelopment Permit
SDP91-017
. POpe Resources
water runoff fro., eroding areas t:o be cleared and 'graded; (c;:)
prevent sedimentation from entering ~e waters of Port Ludlow
Bay. Erosion control techniques laay include, but are not
limited to, piped' slope drains, subsurtace drains,
hydro seeding ,. sur:tace rougheninq, . interceptor dikes and bet1lls,
check. dams,' swales,. qradient terraces, rip-rapJ., gra.vel. filter
berms, storm drain inlet and outlet protection, and tilter
(silt) fences. A lIaintenance program shall be imp~em.ented
during the course of construction ~o insure the 'proper and
effective functioning of erosion and sedilnentation control
features. Inspection of erosion control features shall be.
conducted daily. .
2. soil disturbance associa:ted with ~ajor grading activities
sha11 conform to the guidelines and ~i.inq restrictions set
forth in the Washington state Oeparbnent of Ecology, Stoi:'1n
Wat~ Management Manual (current edition). Prior to final plat
approval and prior 'to any ~learin9 and gradinq on the site,'
the proponent shall. submit a construction phasing plan to the
.1efferson County Public Works Department' for review and
approval. The plan shall $pecify how'the proponent proposes
to achieve the goals of this mitigation measure.
~. ,During construction, to the. extent prac,ticable,. existing
vegetation shall 'be maintained on those portions of the site ~.
j'. planned as per:m.anent open space. Only during the. e.o~se of ~
- -. _1_ utility -- .,installat~on . - or. _< .revegetation! ~andsca:ping ._sba11___.
distQrbance occurw
4..
5.
~V)
, ..P~
,~r',
6.
vf!)
Grading stockpiles shall "be located on the uphi11 side of
excavation areas to act as runoff di ve.rsions. Any larg-e
stockpiles shall be shaped and covered or seeded.
Soi1., sediment, wat;er, or debris generated durinq pond
enlargement sha11 be confined to specific areas on the site
as identified on the erosion control plan_.. Dredged pond
JIlaterial and other site material unsuitab1e for project fi11
shall. be disposed of at a location approved by the Director
of the Jefferson County Depa~ent of Public Works.
FQllowing construction, a11 cleared and graded areas shall be
pe:nnanentiy reveqetated accordi.riq to' an overall landscape. ~
plan. Revegetation shall be completed as soon as practicable
after qrading and construction is complete.
Dunes proposed for the Inn are.a shall he stabilized \, tbrouqh Lm
the use of ve.get:a.tion and underlying foundations so-..---&S tOe:;:::-
.inimize sand and soil redistribution during stQ~ events.
#
3
. nG I---'~'. il
LJ ';1 . It: ;\"
2~1z____
~
? BL-f
!., r 1 ~ ~ ~
\. ...... -.~
f- ,
; ,
.... ....
r~,
i'
e
e
Sbore11ne Substantial Develop.ent Permit
SDP91-017
'pope Resources
8.
9.
.@
11..
@
@
14..
@
The proponent sha.ll designate a qualified, trained, and
experienced 1ndividual. or firm. who shall ensure that (a)
erosion control. devices are correctly installed; . (b)
inspection and aaintenance sched.ule.s are reqularly kept; (e) ~
corrective actions are employed in t:.he e.vent erosion control ~
lIeasures fail to perfora ef~ectively and (d) reports and
inspections are coordinated with the Jeffers9n county
Department. ot Public Works.
A comp~e.te geotechnical .investiqation shall he undertak~. on '
slopes steeper than 15% where buildings or infrastructure are
proposed.. Particular attention will. be PFlid to PQssi,bilities
of earthquake-induced subsidence or liquefaction. Structures
sha11 be designedt en9ineerad,."and constructad in confor:uaance
with -the Uniform BUilding, Code, other adopted standards
pertaininq to landslide and seis~ic ha2ard protection, and
specific construction practices recommended by the
geotechnical consultant'. The consultant shall be a qualifi'ed
professional se1ected and paid by the project proponent. No
construction of 'buildings, or insta~lation of infrastructure .
on ~lopes steeper than l.!?% shall take place .prior to
co~pletion of'tha geotechnical investigation.
A permanen't.' st:.OD1water drainage system shall be installed, the
des;ign and OO1'lstruct.ion of which shall be to the ,satisfaction
Of the Depart:ntent. of Public. Works ~ SystelO compon~nts. .sha1-1
include grass-lined'swales, oil/water'separators, ,and a
Aeten~iqIl. p.ond_to m.anage both water quantity and quality..
ThQ project's storm\Water management . syst.em shall be
incorporated into the. ongoing Port Ludlow Ba.y "water Quality
Moni taring l?rogram - Nonpoint Sources".
A maintenance proqrall1 shall be developed for oil/water
separators and .biofilters and approved by the Jefferson county
De.pa.rt::Jnent' of Public Works.. .
Eelgrass (zostra marina) shall be planted in the eastern .-L.
sector of the pond to prevent the qro;rth of sea lettuce '-.
(Uiva). .
During construction, \later levels in the on-site pond shall
be 10wered and sediment removed therefrom. prior to t:he
disoharqe of water into the say..
Two pumps shall be installed in the pond for redundanCY in
case of failure and. to improve flexibility for periodic
4
L0f-:3.:
,..+-'"."..,.....
(~(. .- i (') (\ r~
- ,l_ '" .) ....:
.Jj..
':tt'
1-'Z.:P~_---
~ot_
-%
f....~i
I
e
e
Shoreline SUbstantial Development Permit
SDP91-01.7
Pope Resources
lIlaintenance.' A standbY mobile pow~r generator sba.ll be ""-
provided in the event of power outages. """
<i6J
~
17.
18..
The l\aintenance .schedule for the pond shall avoid pump
shutclown d~ing warmer weather, '. thereby lesseni~9' 'stagnation
of water and related" wa.ter qua11t.y problems. .
Final infra.structure design sha.ll minim,ize ilApervious cover
and s~ormvater runoff through the use of gravel ,surfaces as
pet11\i tted by the Deparbaent of Public Works".
Drainage line.s shall be installed behind. retaining and/or -.,
basement walls, and around ];mildi1l9 tootings to prevent build- .{
up of hydrost~tic pressure and to intercept ground and surface
water. .
Groundwater seepage encount.ered. during construction in . upland .
areas shall be directed by sloping excavations to shallow S'\llD.p
pits. Any collected water shall be discharqed to 'the
cons~ruction-phase stormwater control sys.tem.
20. Portions of structures subject to periodic tidal inundation
shall be sited and constructed in'compliance with Jefferson
County's "Flood Plain Management Ordinance' No. J..-89. t~
~ Landscape design and p lanting lllat~ia15 for the permeter of
"- (7 .~" the. "pond "shall Jlinill1ize the need for"'herbicide __ applica.tion. .Un._
Native plant. aaterial,.s shall be utilized to 'the. maxi1ll.u:m extant .d--
"-.. throughout the ~ntire" project site to reduce the use of ........
,____"u~ fertilizers, pesticides, and herbicid.es. When the application
of such chemicals is necessary f they. sball only be applied by
state-~icensed personnel~ '
'..19.
~
e
'>
@
.~
Buffers of grasses, low growing plants I shrubs, and trees
shall be planted along the. shoreline ana around the pond,
proviQ.ing habitat.. wa"ter quality enhancement f and protection
fro~ human disturbance.
Primary landscape lltaterials planted on the site shall be those
native trees, shrubs, grasses t a~d herbaceous cover, which
p~ovide food and cover foX' wildlife,' for exaJ:Uple, Douq~a$
firs I We~tern red cedars, vine ,map 1 e.s , wax myrtles, and w1J.d
strawberries.
'~ Enlargement of the existing pond shall make provisions tor
improved aeration and circulation to discourage alqae growth, c!:--
_ ............. maint.ain consistent:. watel:." quality, and improve its 'Value as
----:::;:J fish babitat.
s
. f'J: ,...;., /) I"' I.
-" "-, C _! J '",~
~.:'
LOG ITEM
# ",...7-2.0 .,.,._
~C2l'T of _._.~
38~
. .
j
e
e
Shoreline SUbstantial Development Permit
SDP91-017
Pope Resources
@
26.
27.;
:Interpretive signs shall be installed at pertinent ,points
throughout the site to .describe haportant habitat :features and
wildlife. pophlets and brochures shall be distributed 1:0 ~
residents and guests t.o increase awareness and respect for
wildli~e wbich inhabit the project site.
Filtration shall be provided at the p~p wa~er-intake pipes
to reduce the incidental capture of fish.
The weir outlet to the pond shall be designed to prevent: fish'
entrapment. in the pond.
The pond shall be designed to provide some $hal'low e.rea along- ../
the south shoreline, suitable for wading birdS, iSQlated from. ~
public access. .
. ~ Pond shoreline length equivalent to at least SOl' of th~ .
C7 existing' shoreline length shall be provided for bird loafing --f::- --
............. area. This sP2Fe}.ip_e.,_.~.ll_., JJlust J1e buffered by lanciscape
~Ve9e.tation to d~scourage pUblic di$turbance.
28.
30.
-'31.:
32..
33.
34..
f)
potential for
from' previous
Excavation shall. be b:!-inimi~ed to. reduce
encounterinq cont~nated soil materials
"developlXlent of thQ site..
Lead concentrations from previous testing in the vicinity of
Te.st pit 3..0. (~-10) shall be reported to the Washington
Oepart:lllent of Ecology if encountered in quantities in excess
of 10 cubic yards.
Excavated $oils at locations other than TP-l0 shall be
Monitored for presence of potentially hazardous "materials.
In accordance with DOE Policy #101 (Site Discovery and Release
Reporting), a qualified hazardous waste specialist shall be
contac'ted if more than 1.0 cubic yardS of char-coal-l.ike
material is encountered in order ' t.o properly, assess
implications for disposal.
Prior to initiating excavation, a qualified hazardous waste
specialist shall: orient tlie construction contractors imd crew
regarding field identification Qf potentially contaminated
soil and ~ateria1s.
The proponent shall establish legally enforceab1e
architectural design guidelines which address sueh matters .~
roof materials, siding, exterio~ colors, ap~urtenancesl an
6
LOG ITEM
# 11-0
Paoe~of.
~! 351
(1 [ ""'" r.:;
~, . L ,) ~" '
.... ,.
e
e
~reline Substantial Development p~it
SDP91-01.7
Pope. Resources
o'\::her :factors that affect the. overall aesthetic character ot ./ :--
the project site. ~_
36. The proponent, shall comply with.all r~gulations of the state
Shoreline Hanagement Act (RCW 90.58), RCW 217..44.040, RCW
27.53a060 a.n4 WAC 25-489 regarding archaeological sites..
These regulations prohibi~. intentional disturbance o~
arc:hae.olO9'ical or buria1 sites without prior approval and
provide protocols for actions followin9 discovery of auch
sites.
37. PriQr to excavation, a qualified archaeologist shall orient
the construction contractors and crews in identification of
potential archaeological re.sources that might be 'uncovered,
and how to prOceed in the. event of an un~ected d.iscovery..
38.. It cultural resources are disco'Vered du:t'ing construction, a.'
qualified archaeologist shall be iJnmediately dilf!!;patched to
systeJllatically analyze the find~gs . Al~ construc'tion or
excavation on that portion of, the project site sha11
immedia.tely cea.se and measures shall be taken to prevent
further disturbance prior to analysis by. a qualified
arcbaeologist.
39. The tolloving above-code fire and li~e safety feat~es shall
be provided in the Inn structure: quick-response sprink1er
-heads; automatic alarm. notice to Fire District 13; tamper
protection fOJ; the automatic sprinkler syst.elQj hose eab,in'ets
at each' floor; diesel ge.nerat:ol;" back-up power source; ~n
indicator pane). for all "building' safet.y systems; SlD.oke
detection on WAC systems; interior stairway to the roof; ana.
a wet-sprinkleX' in the covered drive-throuqh4
.. o. The proponent shall develop a. plan for the Inn which
identifies applicable emergency_ actions to.be taken during /
such unlikely events as fires or earthquakes.. The staff sha11 ~
be trained in tire behavior, built-in fire and life safety
systems in the :Irm structure, ana proper responses, to '
emergencies and safety needs of all quests.
41.' A maintenance schedule :for fil:e and life safety equip11lent
shall be developed. All such equipment and related systems '7
shall be tested at least annually in cooperation with ~
Jefferson County Fire District No.3. Records of a1.l.
maintena.nce and syste.1n tests shall be retained at the :Inn and
copies trans1!li.tted to Jef:terson County Fire District No.3.
42. Exit lllaps and instJ:uctions on emergency procedures shall be
7
LOG lTEM
# __2--'2-D
P-:-;''''t,J":J 1.~of _--
c",c,~
f!r .-.(}!:.~
~' \.' t. ' I, :
.
.... --
e
e
Shoreline. Substantial Development per:mit
.SDP91-011
Pope Resouroes
installe.d on the. inside of all guest: room doors.
44.
A public relations videotape which
eJIlphasizing building sa.fety featUl:'es,
guest resp~nsibilities for safet.y in
shall be available in all gues~ roO.s.
The Inn's resident manager and all other on~site staff, as a
condition of employment, should be trained in basic first aid
and CPR. .'
inc1uclesa. pro1oque
exit locations, and
emergency s1t~ations
(
43.
45.
Fundamental e=erqency aid equipment shall 'be provided at the
~nn for staff Use.
46. In Ql:der to assess cumulative impacts from this project, the
proponent ,shall: .
"7
.
'<
(a) continue the existing Water Oualitv Monitorinq proaram
which dOCUDlents nonpoint source 'e.ffects, on the. Class A
II Extraordinary" desi<J11ation of Port Lud~()W' Bay and it's
tributaries. sampling shall in,elude the water column,
seclj.llle.nts I and shellfish as appropriat.e, If lIonitoring
indicates that activities of the' proponent. are causing
redu~ion in the'water quality pf Port LUdlow ~~Y below the
Class AA "Extraordinary" des:;:ignation, 'the p;r:oP9nent $hal~
ilnmdiat.ely 5,0 advise Jefferson County. The IISCOpe of wo;.-kM
. for ea~ year's proqreun shall-be condu.ct~d where ne.cessary to
obtain the most .e~ni.ngful scientit'ic data. The ensuing year's
scope of work aha!-l be approved by Jefferson CO'unty each
autumn. Each year's monitoring results shall be reported to
Jefferson County by March 15 of the fOllowing- ye.ar. The
proponent shall be responsible for employing a qua:;tified water
quality research firm. at proponent's sole expense.. '
(h) Conduct a Wat.er Resource Honitorincr Proara1l1 which
dOCUlllents the condition of several aquifers utilized as a
domestic source by the proponent. Attent.ion shQu1.d be focused'
on static fJro1.U1dwaterlevels and sal.twater intrusion.. Should
groundwater lIlonitoring- indicate an inadeq\\ate yielq. to support
developlllent of the proponent's proj.e.cts in the context of
water rights and 'projected water use, the proponent shal~
immediately inform the County and take necessary action to
insure an adequate supply of potable water. This action could
include, but is not limited. to, development of additiona.l.
sources, suppleJllentation, ot existing sources, anc./or
implementation of additional conservation measures.
It mutually aqreeableJ the propon~t sh~~l .include Ol~us
, . .
8
#
P, :C:,'f,-,' e
" ~~:.j
LOG ITEM
1.2...1>
~of
'eft
( r -- ') -."
__ ~ t, .' t. p' I., !.~ . r
,,'. ,.. -....
e
e
\\
'\
Shoreline Substantia~ Development perait
SDP91-017
Pope Resources
Beach Tracts' vells in ongoing groundwater .ani toring efforts..
Tbe proponent shall be responsible for employing a qualified
geohydroloqist to.design. direct, and condud said monitoring
proqram.. The expense of said geobyclrolog ist shall be the
proponent's. Results of the .onitaX'ing proqraJll shall be
reported to Jefferson' County ~nd the Washington Depart:ment or
Ecology by Karch 15 of each year.
ee) Conduct a Sew~-9:~ 1Xei\uent.Plant Honit.o~~na Proen-am which
documents effects of the proponent's projects on capacity of -
the se.condary was~ewat.er treatment plant. Attention shall be
focused on the number of connections; effluent flov volume;
and e.ffluent quality. It is acknowledged that the sole
authority to' 1I1onitor and regulate operation of the sewage
treabent plant rests with the Washington Departm.ent of
Ecology.. Nothing in th~s condition is int.ended to supersede
or conflict with requirements of the proponent's National
Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit No.. WA-
002120-2 issued pursuant to the Federal Clean Wa~er Act and
cQ1l1panion st.atut.es. If any function or value lnonitored by the
NPDES permit- is exceeded, notice shall be provided' to
Jefferson County ~oncur.rently with notice to 'the Washington
DeparbD.ent of Ecology" Results of the monitoring contained in
this condition shall b~ transmitted to Jefferson County and
the Washing'Uon Department of Ecology by_March 15 of each year.
.7.
-.
./
The riprap shore defense 'Work shall be constructed in "-
sUbstantial alignment with ~e ordinary high water mar~..
48. Oesign of the fuel and propane tanks shall be approved by the:
Chief of Fire District No.3.
@ The deed to the homeo'W'Ilers association from pope ~esources of
. Tracts A-t C, and K-l shall be subject to an easement in favor
of the general public for access, use, and enjoyment for the L-
life of the project. The association will retain the right ~o .~
reaeonably regulate those common areas by establisbing rules
and regulations, such as those tQ protect lanscapinq / regulate
noise, prevent nuisancesa
InforiDational and directional signs shall clearly indicate the
location of public: access areas. ..:::---
50..
51.
The proponent shall provide near the marina loading area an
aCOess area and stairway to facilitate. launching of small.
watercraft such as dinghies, canoes, and kayaks.
9
"
(\ ~ . ~ ! i l;- 0-
,_ ~ ! .4~. ." 1 r.
I", r,:: !\Ii
! j i-..iin
# _1.1-0 .-
~f
~PJD
.,p..t :t"
...... .:
e
e
Shoreline Substantial Developaent Permit
SOP91-017
Pope Resources
lfOTICE: .
1. This perait lllaY be. 'res';inded, by..:the Jefferson 'County Soard of
commissioners or the Washington Sta.te Shorelines Bearings
Board upon i:he tindinq the perJli.~tee has not complied vi~" the
conditions her.ein, puX'suant t;o RCW 90.58.140(8).
2. The permit:t:.ee is liable for all damages 'to public ~d private .
property arising from. ..,.iol~tion of any pr:ovisions of the
pet1Zlit hereby granted,. including the cost -of restoring the
affect:.ed area to its con4ition ~rior to violation and possible'
~ cou;rt costs tha't .ay ensure from violation, pursuant. to RCW
90.58..230..
3. Const.ruction pursuant to this permit will not begin nor is, to
authorized unti~ thirty (30) days fro. the date of. filinq as
defined in RCW 90.58. 140(6) "and WAC 173-14-090, or until a11
review proceedinqs initiated within thirt:y days from the dat.e.
gf such ~~1in9 have ter.ainated, except ,as provided in R~
90.58.140(5..a-c).. 'Construction or sub.stantial prog"ress t:.owat'd
construction of the permitteddevelopllent shall begin within
two (2) years from the'date. of this permit ,~nd com.pl~tion of fJ
the permitted development shall be accomplished within fivel
(S) years from the.date of this permit.. .
4. Nothing in this pet1llit shall eXcuse the permittee, frOld
QOlD,pl inq with any oth~ federal, s~te, or local ~tatutes,
l..nan s,. or ,regulat1.ons applicable to this proJect, bUt
consisten itb R 9.
n ( "\ f) I" r\
_' .J (i'" ., ~ t
.'
,
10
LOr- IT~-I\ Jj
"~ ,~1 " "::1\11.
# 1-74) -
-<fW of
311f
TJ{.(S SEC'l'I:Olf XS FOR DEPAllTKENT OF ECOLOGY USE ONLY IN REGARD TO A
CONDITIONAL USE PERKIT OR A VARIANCE. ' .
A/J n V 2.{,) \q)-
Date receivea by the Department: / ' '...i _ /~
I
Denied
. I .
~.4 r-.
e
Shoreline Substantial Development: Permi1:
SDP91.-017
POpe Resources
Approved:
'J.-
..
e
-
This conditional use permit/"'. l j"lI!Illi':.:"Q- is approved/dvRl.ad by the .
Department pursuant to Chaptex' 90.. 58 RCW. De.velopment shal1 be
undert.aken -pursuant to, ~e following additional tenas and
conditions: <<=5~. ~,..,..Ae HS;D l..eT'11::.COl:.... ~
C:\SDP\SDP91017.Per
.'
11
"
~
~ I
r, (j {-".. n ..., ()
\, ~ .J : ....:
5&VeJVry
, LOG iTEM
# ~ 1.,U
~of
-'30]2.-
e
e
LOG ITEM
# 2:2.t>
Page ~of
,'13
e
e
III 008/00~
\ O&~19/200'( T1tU 12:27 FAX
..' SOG IB (Gsrl. ON" D'/I'.t]
9C:t' aBL toOZ,.t/90
-."
.. I. ...... ,
2,0
. .JEPFliRSON COUNTY
DEP.AR"nIIENT OF COlIIlI1UNI'TY DEVELOPMeNT
UNFlED D&VI!!LOPUENT COPe
TYP.ILAHDUSSPSRgy
. AP'Pl.JCANT:
PORT LUDLOW ASSOCIATES u..c
70 BftEAKER LN
PORT LUDLOW WA 98365-9786
CJot'o!.-e ~ z.~ 2;.c;O'Z.-
DAD Ia$UI!D:
QATa exPlMS:
MLA tfUUBl;Aa Ul..AQ2-004SB
PROJeC1" PL.ANhfi'R; J SMITH
PROJECT DESCRIPJ1ON:
5 TOWN HOMES
PRo..nwT L.OCAnoN!
Patcet tIW'I'Iber 968 600 039.ludow Bay Village. Lot 'J'H..28. h ~QO 16. T~ 28. ~ 01 ~ WM, localed
at38 Hfmm Ad. Pc:lrt kdow. WA 98385
FIHDIHG$:
1J The. AdmIni:str:::atorfiftds t;hat 1hia ~tiorI Q1I~ wm:..pplc:able ptDYlIk:ns offltl uni&Kt c.__..,t
COde. allotbel' ~~~nces and~..end 1$ CQnsl$Ulntwib the~ Ccunl;y
~=~~ 'f:.=son Count)' OIIpsrtrnemol CotmunftJ ~t S1aIfcn
September 2$. 2002 for ht pata6d ~ of Q1IIl::;aI Atea (CA$) undeI'tbe prcvJ$f(lM of"'_ JefIillIlItllIl
eoc..nty rm.im c:rtIIcIlII AnIaS 0rdfr18nce (JeIOAO)_ /II.w., in"" G60QtOlphlc 'i'J'bIllIJalton $)'$IemlI ~
nwlew md WI inv8BUgative.'t$ fnspeCtiion, ltIe fl:lIbwing eM Wllft ~ .. be JlftHI'1I on .. subfeal
property: ~fe AquIfer Rcdfargs Area; Flood 2'IX\e /Ii. SeIsmic tIualnf; o.prey Nc=5ti and l)pa 1 ~....
Shoreline W8Ier.L .
3.). Suscepttie Aquifer Recharge...... lftlhose will ~ and hydl'doa(e tandIicns thst prQnOte rapid
Infltralfon of ~waters ~ ~aquIl'erL
AQuifer ~ga ~ h..Joffetaon County __lilhaructdtad by pot1:lUa geok:lg(Cal fcnnaticns that~
~ of the stafac.r:l WIder" Into Ih& sdIs and.... J.D:.fedyfn,g zone of seuatJDn. ~ ere gooqic
fOlll1donS that eonlBJn sut'ficIent saU'aII8d ~ maIeIfa1 to)tdd ~quantiIJe$ ot.....tD .MIA
end sprfngt. AQtMsIS:lIefVa eslhe $CIUJC8 of drWcfng W&l;Wv.4lNn UKI5t 01 the nnI pcnIons Of Jeffenton
Count,y.
A Flnef ~ ImpSd: Sf.tthment wu isttJed by Jetr8r.son Cowtty in t.Iarah 1993 b' the Lur.IIow &y
VIIage~t (fctmsrty known as THE INN AT POfU LUOLOW) A'.~ ~ Wth PElS
requhs "1bo Ioweat 1I00r of all bUildings WCUId be elW8Ced one foot abuve .. baS6 tIoOd "'~L f\d18f
requhmera. for ~ and me\hods or ccnstrucdon tram the County"$ Aaocf PfMI MarntgemeqtOl'diRlII1Ce
would 8Isr.1 be followed.-
A FNf !rNifoI~ lmpe.Q" Statement was l$$1led by Jelferson Courrly" u.m:h 1993 far lhal.uCloW Bey
Village ~nt (fQfmedy known 0$ nilE INN AT POFn" LUDl.OW). Po mllgatIon rnealUf8ln 1I1e FEJS
$1ates. ~ nuc(ures waUd bitt designed.. engbeered and c;onatruded In ~ lfoa ,nenca wfth IoQ1IIbuidin
codes and CU'l'<<dufaty ....derds fer ~ 800 ~ hazatd protec:;On. FUf1t\et slrbclunJI $U'ppOJ\ ()I'
(jI'l"Ollnd modllicaUott woukt be ftMPJoyed if 111. fIngI gootechnfc81 uaBUmeOlIdenUfteS ~ I1mdSfide
atdIor seillmtcrcard.-
A Fi'lef ~ Impact Sratemeol was .!$SUed by.Jeffer.lon Counf;r rn Man:b 1$93 for1hel..t.Jdkwt Ba,
VIDi:lge DevWopment (bmMIy knollYD 8$ ute INN AT PORT WOLOW).. A. mlgrdJon rneasuro In the faS
states "Dnrinage JInes WOUld be lns!8lted behlr1d l'Df8),inglbasement walls ... eround bUIlding footings 10
prevenI buildup othydN2staticproauresandio Interceptgroundwat8r... LOG ITEM
'L'l-t;
_~of
11 ^ .. ~ _ ..Io-:a.n:::J8S0.,A"" 0:1""" r '3 ~"1 e /.8 = Ii .0
eatS-SSE DSB ~v ~ ~
R4~.~ pue Rpue~ g9.:90 ~O
OOSS-l.E. (OSEl
2.)
4.)
5.)
4.)
1.)
:If:
'i
81 :In;"
TO ^OW
S.d
9T-o
e
e
~8;191%004 THU 12:21 FAX
;.'~~C 19 04 11:37a ~.~~Co Pros.ou~or - Civil 3S0 38S-S18S
Iil 0 07/00~
p.?
-..... .
..
."
B..} A FInal ErwitanmenI8lImpacl Statement... ~ ~ Jeft'et:SCt. County'" U.-ch 1GQ$~" Port LudloW'
Say VIIlIge DeveJopment (bmerl'f knoWn as mE INN AT PORI'LUDLOW).. A II'1idgaIion measu:e in Ihe PElS
sI::It-. '"Int~ 8lgne Y40UId be iMtaIed to~ ~1"'A:hebIat ratwes and wIdlIfv. chanllderi:d::$
on IM~.. Pamphlots enc:I ~ woufd be disrdbuted'tl:J raJderds'" guosI$ to ~ awareM$$ and
teep8~ fi:W' wldfl'e.. ..
9.) This ~MWlI Is for 5 townhoUses. only. Any fUIl.n petmltisl 0I"I1hilIl sIG _subjecllo J'C'lIfOW'for~
With t'pplblbkt ~ and ordinanc:e$ 8I1d .. not prec*ll:l& reyiNr and COI'IdIlloM Yfhk:h moy be placEd on
fuan pemdI:s.
11'.) TJ;p~.were""~~d:~~lMy~~=-~bN
312517.
1:l.) Ac.":ceM II ~ via Heron Road a prIVate road (P405)..
13.) 'The plat wu feYI8wed fer maxImUm st.ormwalet buIdaut b 1994.
COtIm1ON$;
It 1.> The tlK.ikIi1g height. shall not elCCeeId 35 feel.
2.) Mrrlin1urn _Ibadc: from Hel\'ltI Road ~ &td be 20 feel Minintlm seebeck fn:m OHWM shell be 30
fIlIOt.. ~ en thefaco of tho fin!le!!L " '
a} The ~ j .zidherei 10 I1e Best ManagemenlPradJce$ (BMPs) to control sIorInwatar. erosion and
sedimmtdudng c:an:dIudian. fJM'fl'a 8haII ~ peq1BIIIIt IMIiltRnlS to .sIabWt& eaI exposed dlIq
~JC.uon.. and in &h. daaigh and opcreUon of ~1Pld dn1lInege ~ ay,s--.
tIO"I"JC& l1Ib JMnnit Uoe&tt<< e~ the ....~t from corNlIYina' Wftft otIMt'local. aWb..nd: ~ oaifnances..
resaUldoft, QrstamM.~ 'b" pmpclMd ~f. - - ,
OIWe.fOpment ~t w .. penna .... be Wf'IlIerflIIIbq 8UtljOc.ttD the .pp1lOlble cl~ and ~
tIillftdaid. fill w.,J8ftler.Ion eounror U~ ~ment Qocfe..
If ddrin8 .-:aWtion 01' dln,.pm..., or _ ... .. .... of potl'Jnd:eI aroha~ .~..~ .. uncc:weft:d. ,.
~ In the ImmediI;Ile anta ~aII bO heIted. ... Adrnil*Ir.' shall ba notJIiIrd .t once,
~
1be Federal SndlmgllAld Spedc:s Acl rules to pro1uettbteldonect Chinook .,d SumMer....., Chum.-JmClfl ~
oI'Gelive Oft .Ja.OUIriIIY 8, 2Q01. BuIItro........,. De9n ItRld .. thnAllenad .nca -..rty aooo. Undor1ll. ~ .,.,
r::::' mIl\Y biN IIiwSuft' _oalrlst any lnclYidwd<<~ that "'IaICDI"" IIaIrJd $Peele_ (defined _ C8~ hatm,.
~. or ~IIISITnlil"llilBt ti:H' dl. JIeled ~IIS la~,1hGI NIlIID" ~ Fieber_ ~Ql&ft teVlf
1MO...a. All _In ...1JeDon COW!lY .. inClu .. -o.tdceI hiabIal'" fbr . listed ....... ~.... or
propodValaag ~ m:uIn.~.. trit&:tr.MIt8r~ or !IJoOdpWl"W could --.m ~t II~~ ~
.. not talCRn. To n*t1rnlZe lb. pClC8rlU:el to 4ama.ge........ aU ~ cwnelS ilI-.1opin; lId,pclllnt 10 ......
~ (res"lW1ilCM'MoIe.... or flood_IRa:;po SICM_d..... cIOthO~:
- Set br;ack b~~ utiIJI:Iestll'ld ~... far_po.... fIIom .,.weeWlielS Cs1reiIma. dwrs. 1flIflllI;.. marina
wefat:a" ot lit INIlit '50.... from 1M oclQll d U. wa....
-NJ d~..tlI ~"'lEIUld.voiG m.IaN.~. ~ and i:Jfe$Wd 8l'4l1lRl ~r$u.r-.........
- RGmI:IW riM mar ~fol' IIita d'llNlllIIcomer<<. esp~ ~ tJV9G
- Now fIraIIIs tcllltlMMi ...."kIIo.ur6tce ~ eo NIriMM 1h....
-IAk" sIo~f.orq building_ ahd drhwnll~ on.&f.e 1tJrough r.lr)'Welts rmner ...... discharslna direclIy tr40
~ waters w roadllIde df6=hu ' ,
AnYindMclUllf. gtQt>>. ar8vonoJC*n briM aUIl1bra IstIIcIWedes, *taktng....ven~.._Wflh
~~ C~1lY~IoDrien& aodlul. The ri$kof _ ....uttaaaiMt)Oll can be bycon wJ1h.
........__~aI _:bades I'iaItIbt biaIDgIst. -.d 1CJIaWIngb MCGmmendatJoM for .... dl:wtlIOPftWJl'lt _ .....
bIc*larst. rot Jnore InIbmlaUOft. 0SnIaCt Ute N.aoftillilame ~ ServIclIt in s.U:Ie:at SlG-6G13~ or 11'1_
U.S:. F"JSh and 'MldDre S.Mce at (503) 231..&12t.
APPIiAUll;
Pur.luanl F<< 1oe, tbellpg&icant or fII'tY aggdtllMld P1!IrtY M~ appeal this tinal dec:fcsiah to JiIIffet'&Ca Ccunly
Q.lpedor W 1WIeobly.o_I21) caklIrlaar depo'''' ... at' ~ of'" fend uae dliIeJslcCL Fot mole
ilttHrnlllltio., tad CI1.......io8I .."..e1lS .-e UDC $~ &5~. .
_'.~~C-~' loh~~ LOG ITEM
u O1Inl1ii~ ~ 1~1- # t2D
~of
3t1D
01/1'/2004 TIU 1~:3S (~\ND 7569] ~001
Ll'd OOSS-LE. [ose) R~~e~ pUR ~pUR~ dSp:SO.O 10 ^O~
e
e
-r ~~ b~
LOG ITEM
# t1-6
Page tHJe.f~{Jf
"3'1('
e e
EOWAFlO STEVENS & ASSOCIATES
ENGINEERS, INC.
eoe COLUMelAST. r-tN., surrs 214
OI..YMPlA, WASHINGTON ea;;o1
C!1BC1357-sel51
FAX: t:36O}3l52-01OB
2/
Job 3637
June 7, 2004
Mr. Les Powers
3502 Tieton Drive
Yakima, WA 98902
Re: Review of EIS. f~r the, 2003 revision tQ the Port Ludlow'Resort
Dear Mr. Powers:
Introduction:
~,:
'.~ .
You have retained the services of Edward:$tevens and Associates to.review the
SEPA action being con~idered relative to the 2003 revision to the Port Ludlow
Resort Plan Revision. .The $cope of this study is to review the Draft EJS for
adequacy related to impact on roadways that are to serve the vicinity of Ludlow
Bay Village. Specific attention is being placed on Heron Drive and access to the
37 seat restaurant which seems to be called both Heron Beach Inn and Inn at
Port Ludlow in the Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement.
Qualifications:
I am a registered professional engineer and land surveyor in the State of
Washington. I have worked for twenty five yea~s with .the Washington
Department of Transportation 'in a variety of-areas encompassing the broad field
of transportation engineering. I have work~d for five years as a land surveyor
and engineer completing a wide variety of transportation engineering projects
and subdivision design and platting projects.' I have been at Edward Stevens
and Associates for more than 7 years. Edward Stevens and Associates is a civil
consulting firm specializing in engineering studies related to safety of
transportation facilities.
A current cuniculum vitae is attached for more detailed background.
Materials reviewed for this study:
1. Jefferson County Road Standards sheets for:
iTEM
22:6. ~
.~"--
3Vl7
e
EDWARD STEVENS & AsSOCIATES
ENGINEERS, INC.
e
Mr. Les Powers June 7, 2004
1. Single Lane Two Way Traffic, AASHTO "Local Service Road", June
18, 1995
2. Typical Road Section 18' Roadway, November 13, 1996? (Date
difficult to read on our copy)
2. "Guide for Development of Bicycle Facilities", American Association of
State Highway and Transportation Officials, (AASHTO) 1991 and 1999
editions
3. "A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets", 2001, American
Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, (AASHTO).
4. "Design Manuaf, Washington State Department of Transportation,
current edition.
5. II The Traffic Safety Toolbox' - A Primer on Traffic Safety, Institute of
Transportation Engineers, 1993
6. "Local Agency Guidelines Manuaf, City and County Design Standards,
Washington State Department of Transportation, current edition.
7. "Roadside Design Guide" American Association of State Highway and
Transportation Officials, 2002
This review is limited to analysis of the transportation element of the Draft EIS,
with a focus on roadways within the plat of Ludlow Bay Village.
Section 1.7 of the Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement contains
the following at page 1-13 and 1-14:
1.7 Significant Issues for Consideration:
Major issues identified during the scoping process for the 2003
Resort Plan relate to:
(3) Parking and Vehicular Traffic
The proposed 2003 Resort Plan, including the expansion of the
marina, will create demand for additional parking, especially in the
vicinity of the shoreline. Will sufficient parking be available during
the peak summer months? Existing traffic circulation in the vicinity
of the Inn at Port Ludlow and the adjacent town homes is difficult for
townhome residents. Will the proposed development exacerbate
the problem?
This section recognizes existing difficulty of traffic circulation along Heron Drive.
The potential for making matters worse for abutting townhome owners is
acknowledged. I agree with this assessment. The question is asked rhetorically,
however there is no information that could be found within the Draft EIS to
provide an assessment of impacts and mitigation.
LOG ITEM
:f;f 120
,~ot
3l/\fJ
2
EDWARD STeVENS & AsSDCIATI
ENGINEERS, INC.
e
Mr. Les Powers
June 7, 2004
Transportation impacts are summarized On Page 1-22 of the Draft EIS. Under
the heading of "Mitigating Measures" the entry "None Required" is found.
(Exhibit 2) I do not agree with this assessment relative to at least Heron Drive.
In the absence of an answer by the developer to his own identified "significant
issue for consideration", I will provide my analysis of existing conditions and
possible impacts along Heron Drive, and the likely mitigation that would be
required to correct the situation. My concerns are summarized below:
Altered and increased traffic patterns:
The preferred alternative includes shoreline attractions at the south end of Heron
Drive in the form of an esplanade for pedestrians to view the marina, shoreline,
and park at Burner Point. Parking is being created at the north end of Heron
Drive to serve visitors to the shoreline attractions and overflow from the
townhouse area. This new construction will make a pedestrian and bicycle route
out of Heron Drive to a far greater extent than exists today.
Sight distance, inter-visibility between users and modes
Sight distance along Heron Drive is limited in all directions by the narrow
roadway and inadequate setbacks for buildings. Garages were measured to
have a 4.4 foot setback from the edge of asphalt lane on Heron Drive. Vehicles
backing out of the garages cannot see pedestrians, bicyclists or other motor
vehicles approaching them until they occupy nearly the full lane. Pedestrians,
bicyclists, and other vehicles are in very real danger of conflict during the back-
out maneuver.
The degree of setback is analogous to head-in parking that used to be seen
along city streets. Most cities have eliminated 90 degree head-in parking along
streets because of the known hazards of this arrangement. The hazards are
related to two main factors:
1. Inadequate visibility when backing out onto the street. The visibility in the
head-in 90 degree parking that is less severe than what exists when
Heron Drive townhouse owners back out of their garages. A driver cannot
see out of the garages on Heron Drive at all, but there is usually some
visibility for 90 degree head-in parking through the windows of adjacent
vehicles.
2. A dart-out problem is created by sight blockages along the street. This
problem is especially dangerous for young children, who may not stop and
look both ways before they enter the street. It is virtually impossible for a
LOG iTEM
# _ 't-'Lb
~of
'3Cf~
3
e
EDWARD STEVENS & ASSOCIATES
ENGINEERS, INC.
e
Mr. Les Powers
June 7, 2004
motorist or bicyclist to stop for them when they are visible for only the last
few feet of their travel path before being struck.
Use of Heron Drive by multiple modes of travel:
Heron Drive will become a pedestrian and bicycle route to an even greater extent
than it is under present development. There are recognized safe standards for
width related to multiple use facilities for motor vehicles, pedestrians and
bicycles. Heron Drive does not meet standards for safe multiple use even if sight
distances were clear and unobstructed. Heron Drive is inadequate for the uses
that will be placed upon it by the new development.
Miscellaneous considerations:
I have been told that there will be a hammerhead design cul-de-sac at the south
end of Heron Drive for vehicles to turn around. Access to the Inn from Heron
Drive will be closed off by bollards, thus eliminating Inn traffic from Heron Drive.
The preferred alternative includes a fire lane connecting Heron Drive to the Inn at
Port Ludlow parking lot for emergency vehicle access. Unless it is effectively
blocked to all but emergency vehicles, this access will reconnect Heron Drive
with the Inn parking lot, further exacerbating traffic problems on Heron Drive.
The Draft EIS indicates that the Inn will not be accessed through Heron Drive for
the preferred alternative.
Emergency vehicle access is an important part of safe street design. More
investigation needs to be done concerning this critical safety aspect. How will
safe access be assured with the narrow, blocked off roadways characteristic of
the Heron and Gull Road connection? Fire and police officials should approve of
plans in this area.
County Road Standards:
A Jefferson County Road Standard that appears to be applicable to Heron Drive
has been reviewed. This standard sheet is titled TYPICAL ROAD SECTION 18
FOOT ROADWAY (35 MPH - UNDER 400 ADT. (Exhibit 1) This sheet
represents a rural roadway section and shows a 22 foot total roadway width.
There is a note on this roadway section stating that:
Roads in designated urban areas may require pedestrian
improvements, including wider shoulders or sidewalks.
The Ludlow Bay Village is an urban-in-character plat located within a rural area.
Resort planning calls for walking paths, a shore-front esplanade for pedestrian
LO~ ITC~)1
.. \,.';1 . iCh'l
ZU;
~of
~oO
.fJ.
1r
4
e
EDWARD STEVENS & ASSOCIATES
ENGINEERS, INC.
e
Mr. Les Powers
June 7, 2004
traffic, and emphasizes the outdoor amenities and natural beauty of the area. By
design and intent, Heron Drive will operate as a multiple use roadway, serving
motor vehicle, bicycle, and pedestrian traffic. In my opinion, wider roadways and
sidewalks are required to handle the mixed uses that will be evident on Heron
Drive.
Requirements for multiple use:
The American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials
(AASHTO) is an association of all 50 member states. Literature and design
guidance emanating from AASHTO concerning geometric design truly represents
the consensus of civil engineering science regarding streets and highways. This
guidance is used by all states in setting the basic standards for geometric design.
The Local Agency Guidelines for City and County use references Washington
Department of Transportation and AASHTO publications for guidance in
geometric design of county roads.
Bicycle safety and use:
II A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets", 2001, by the American
Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, (AASHTO), contains
the following guidance relative to bicycle facilities. (Page 100)
BICYCLE FACILITIES
The bicycle has become an important element for consideration in
the highway design process. Fortunately, the existing street and
highway system provides most of the mileage needed for bicycle
travel.
....... . Improvements such as the following, which are generally of
low capital intensity, can enhance considerably a route's safety and
capacity for bicycle traffic:
. paved shoulders.
. wide outside traffic lane (4.2 M,114-ft) minimum) if no
shoulders exist.
. bicycle-safe drainage grates.
. adjusting manhole covers to the grade.
. maintaining a smooth, clean riding surface.
(Emphasis supplied)
LOG iTEM
# ';rV6
.*fi1) of 5
~D(
e
EDWARD STEVENS & AsSOCIATES
ENGINEERS, INC.
e
Mr. Les Powers June 7, 2004
The "Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities" (AASHTO) 1991, defines
the bicycle status of the roads in the Ludlow Bay Village as "Shared Roadways".
SHARED ROADWA Y - Any roadway upon which a bicycle lane is
not designated and which may be legally used by bicycles
regardless of whether such facility is specifically designated as a
bikeway.
In Chapter 2, on design, the Guide discusses roadway improvements:
Roadway Improvements
To varying extents, bicycles will be ridden on all highways
where they are permitted. All new highways, except those where
bicyclists will be legally prohibited, should be designed and
constructed under the assumption that they will be used by
bicyclists. Bicycle-safe design practices, as described in this guide,
should be followed to avoid the necessity for costly subsequent
improvements. Because most highways have not been designed
with bicycle travel in mind, there are often many ways in which
roadways should be improved to more safely accommodate bicycle
traffic. Roadway conditions should be examined and, where
necessary, safe drainage grates and railroad crossings, smooth
pavements, and signals responsive to bicycles should be provided.
The RCW's on bicycle accommodation:
RCW 47.26.300 Bicycle routes-Legislative declaration.
The state of Washington is confronted with emergency shortages of
energy sources utilized for the transportation of its citizens and must seek
alternative methods of providing public mobility.
Bicycles are suitable for many transportation purposes, and are
pollution-free in addition to using a minimal amount of resources and
energy. However, the increased use of bicycles for both transportation and
recreation has led to an increase in both fatal and nonfatal injuries to
bicyclists.
The legislature therefore finds that the establishment,
improvement, and upgrading of bicycle routes is necessary to promote
public mobility, conserve energy, and provide for the safety of the
bicycling and motoring public.
[1974 ex.s. c 141 9 1.J
#.
I
LOG ITEM
1.-UJ
.~
~o2-
6
e
EDWARD STEVENS & AsSOCIATES
ENGINEERS. INC.
e
Mr. Les Powers
June 7,2004
The Port Ludlow development complex is a destination resort and conference
center featuring extraordinary beauty and outdoor amenities. Hiking, recreational
walking, and bicycling are ordinary activities in this setting, and must be provided
for in a safe and responsible manner.
Recognized Standards for safety and multiple use:
Clear zone standards:
A minimum clear zone of 7 to 10 feet is recommended by AASHTO in the
publication "Roadside Design Guide", 2002 edition. This is for urban construction
where there is no barrier curb in place. Barrier curb is defined as a curb at least
6 inches high with a vertical or nearly vertical face. There is no curbing on Heron
Drive.
The term "clear zone" refers to a width outside of the traveled lane edge that is
kept free of fixed obstacles. During a field trip to the area, I measured 4.4 feet
from the edge of traveled lane to the face of garage buildings. This is in violation
of clear zone standards.
Clear zone standards are promulgated by the AASHTO, and Washington State
Department of Transportation. The purpose is to build safety into the roadside
environment. In the case of Heron Drive, safety would be enhanced by not only
removing fixed objects, but by increasing sight distance. In my opinion, a
minimum of 10 feet should be employed to create some degree of inter-visibility
between vehicles backing out of garages, pedestrians entering the street, and
traffic on Heron Drive itself.
It is my opinion that the lack of adequate clear zone along Heron Drive creates
unsafe operating characteristics. The more traffic increases, the greater the
probability of serious accidents will become. This deficient aspect of construction
along Heron Drive needs to be considered for mitigation before increased mixed
use is invited to the street.
Sidewalks:
Sidewalks are the standard application for accommodating pedestrian travel on a
street in the urban setting. Sidewalks separate pedestrians from vehicles for
very obvious safety reasons. The absolute minimum width for a two way
sidewalk is 4 feet where travel is very light, and 5 feet to accommodate
appreciable two way foot traffic. Where narrow sidewalks are used, they should
be separated from the curb by a planting strip. This generally results in an urban
section with a raised curb.
.df:
~ i'
LOG ITEM
')...2.0
.1~r'..f.
-!:II:.t:: ~.,,,(" i
40?J
7
e
EDWARD STEVENS & ASSOCIATES
ENGINEERS. INC.
e
Mr. Les Powers
June 7, 2004
There is a two foot wide concrete strip along one side of Heron Drive. This is not
a sidewalk, and will not accommodate pedestrian travel. Pedestrian travel is
therefore forced into the traveled lanes of Heron Drive.
Pedestrian travel is a recognized necessity to appreciate the amenities of the
Ludlow Bay Village area. The danger of forcing mixed travel modes in the
narrow and deficient geometric width of Heron Drive, as well as the liability that
may accrue to the designers and owners of these facilities if an accident should
happen, should be carefully assessed and mitigated in the environmental
documentation for the Port Ludlow Resort Plan Revision. I could not find where
this issue was mentioned, except possibly in Section 1.7 "Significant Issues for
Consideration." In that section, possible impacts were posed only as a rhetorical
question.
Bicycle accommodation:
The standard for one way bicycle travel is a five foot width lane, separate and
apart from the travel lane for motor vehides. As noted above, AASHTO
recommends a minimum of a 14 foot paved lane on low volume roads. This
results in 9 or 10 feet for vehicular passage, and 4 to 5 feet for bicycle passage.
This is considered acceptable for light bicycle use in rural areas.
The minimum standard for two way bicycle travel is an 8 foot wide path. Ten feet
in width is desirable for moderate to heavy use.
Nothing like the above minimums exist along Heron Drive. Instead, all modes of
travel are forced into two paved lanes that measured 21.6 feet across both lanes
when I made my field trip to the site.
Handicap accommodation:
Handicap accommodation is a very important consideration where pedestrian
routes are created in public places. The final design for Heron Drive should be
reviewed for conformance to the Americans With Disabilities Act and its
implementing regulations. It is a very poor idea to do nothing, and therefore
expect the handicapped to mix with all other traffic modes on this narrow,
substandard street. The liability implications of this for the owners and designers
should be obvious.
A few thoughts on Highway Standards:
Standards and codes are developed to provide public safety, convenience of
use, and to enable enjoyment of life. Most of the codes and standards are based
upon experience from human loss and suffering. For instance, fire escapes are
L.CJt3
8
EDWARD STEVENS & ASSOCIATI
ENGINEERS, INC.
e
Mr. Les Powers
June 7, 2004
required in multi-story buildings for safety. Many lives had been lost in multi-
story building fires before uniform escape route codes were enacted.
Then it was realized that a fire can spread so fast that fire escapes can be
rendered useless, due to heat and smoke. Sprinkler systems are therefore
required in multi-story buildings, to suppress fire until occupants can escape.
This is all based upon unfortunate human experience.
The same is true of highway and street standards. Experience has taught that
certain widths, radius criteria, clear zones, and other geometric features
contribute to and promote safe, efficient transportation. These criteria are
generally codified as standards for design.
Such standards must not be Iiahtlv dismissed. They are adopted as law and/or
recognized operating procedures by the various government agencies in charge
of highway and street construction and permitting. Variances should be granted
only when it can be shown that there is a compelling reason, and safety will not
be compromised. The geometric design of Heron Drive falls short of both state-
wide and nationally recognized criteria. There does not appear to be any
compelling reason for lack of adherence to standard.
The argument may be proposed that Heron Drive is not a publicly owned road, .
therefore not subject to the aforementioned standards. There are, however, no
separate standards of good practice available except AASHTO, Washington
Department of Transportation, Americans With Disabilities Act, and Jefferson
County adopted standards, and other industry-recognized standards. There is a
duty on the part of the developer to create a safe environment, and a duty on the
part of Jefferson County to see that a safe environment is designed and
constructed. The safety of the final plan can only be judged by adopted industry
standards and applicable laws.
Analysis that I have not done:
1. Daily traffic volumes for interior roads that will be impacted have not been
calculated. These volumes should be shown in the traffic impact analysis,
both for the base, or do nothing condition, and for each proposed
alternate. Traffic impacts due to implementing revisions cannot be
assessed or estimated without this information. It is the responsibility of
the proponent to provide this as part of the impact assessment.
2. I have not attempted to estimate pedestrian use or bicycle use for Heron
Drive, or any other interior road. This too is the responsibility of the
developer, and necessary to identify impacts to the built environment.
3. The Draft EIS does not appear to clearly identify the location of new
planned versus existing housing units. I have not attempted to make that
LOG ITEM
.2.~t> _
,-~
~t6'
9
e
EDWARD STEVENS & AsSOCIATES
ENGINEERS, INC.
e
Mr. Les Powers
June 7, 2004
determination, believing that it is the proponent's responsibility to make
the distinction clear.
4. I have not studied why setbacks were allowed to be only 4 feet from the
edge of travel way to the face of garages. The documentation offered
cites only "USC" as the setback distance. USC setbacks may change
from time to time, I have not researched them, and do not know what
revision may be referred to. I believe that the proponent needs to specify
what the setback distance is in feet, so that disclosure is complete and
easily understood. If the setback to building face is less than the clear
zone distances mentioned above, it should be justified in the face of
obvious safety problems created by backing maneuvers and dart-out
problems discussed above.
5. I have not evaluated the adequacy of a cul-de-sac that is proposed to be
placed at the new end of Heron Drive. I could not find geometric details of
this feature, so it is not possible to evaluate it.
Possible solutions:
In my opinion, Heron Drive most likely needs to be re-engineered to
accommodate changes in travel mode and volume associated with the 2003
revision. Studies need to be conducted to accurately identify and mitigate
impacts. Steps in this process may include:
1. Identify traffic volumes by each travel mode for the interior roads. This
needs to be done for the base condition and for each proposed
alternative.
2. Review standards for construction to accommodate each mode and traffic
volume.
3. Identify impacts. Impacts will be an assessment of change brought about
by the difference between the base condition and the alternative condition
being considered.
4. Produce a listing of improvements to mitigate the impacts identified above.
5. Provide a review opportunity for affected parties, per SEPA requirements.
A possible outcome of this study might be 10 foot minimum setbacks to garage
faces from the edge of lane, 5 foot sidewalks on both sides of the road with
handicap access features, and a 28 foot wide minimum paved width to
accommodate light mixed bicycle use along the roadway. On-street parking
would need to be prohibited under this scenario.
Conclusion:
In conclusion, I find that Heron Drive is constructed to an inadequate standard to
safely accommodate mixed use travel. In my opinion, there is considerable
r -. '--1I~
L' i 'l':' I I Co"," .
-"'TR'~ ~ S ,~""",,t\.~
:# ~2.()
f;\-~--
^1D1
10
EDWARD STEVENS & ASSDCIA-I
ENGINEERS, INC.
e
Mr. Les Powers
June 7, 2004
impact to the neighboring built environment as a result of increased residential
density and imposed travel patterns created by parking arrangements.
As a reviewer, it is not my responsibility to complete the Draft EIS. My review
indicates, however, that the adequacy of disclosure for impacts and mitigating
measures concerning roads interior to the Ludlow Bay Village Plat is lacking in
the Draft. This subject needs to be considered by the proponent and made
available for review as part of the SEPA process prior to adoption by Jefferson
County.
The existing owners abutting Heron Drive and future owners and visitors to the
area deserve the orotection of infrastructure that meets adooted standards in
accordance with existing laws and regulations. SEPA approval should be
withheld until impacts can be fully assessed and mitigation can be agreed to by
the interested parties.
Sincerely:
EDWARD STEVENS AND ASSOCIATES, ENGINEERS, INC.
F'
2 ,on I'T}::M
~ 51~",>iIi , ~
'L'bO-
~o'f
~Dl
11
#
Name:
Address:
Home
Office
Education:
High School
Junior College
College
Professional:
Technical Experience:
February 6, 1997 to
present
e
e
CURRICULUM VITAE
Heruy 1. Borden, P.E., P.L.S.
Hemy l(Hank) Borden
2207 Allen Road S,B.
Olympia, Washington 98501
606 Columbia Street N.W., Suite 214
Olympia, Washington 98501
Wishkah Valley High School
1958 - ]961
Grays Harbor College, 1962 - 1964
Graduated in Pre-Engineering
Washington State University, Bachelor of Science
Degree in Civil Engineering, May ]967
eMember, Land Sprveyors Association of Washington,
Southwest Chapter
.Professional Engineer in Washington, Certificate
#13676
.Professional Land Surveyor in Washington, Certificate
#13676
Edward Stevens & Associates, Engineers, IDe.
Transportation Engineering Specialist
Work at Edward Stevens and Associates involved preparation of
traffic impact studies, topographic surveying of streets and
highways, preparation of topographic drawings, analysis of
roadways for safety related issues, engineering report writing,
writing declarations, client interface, supervision of drafting and
technical staff I have provided expert testimony and given
depositions in court cases involving safety issues related to streets
and highways.
lof8
#.
, -
r
LOG ITEM
1_1-.:6
~(1t
~.,...r
~Ofb
e
e
8/92 - 2/97
Skillings-Connolly, Inc., Project Manager and Surveyor of
Record for a consulting engineering and land surveying firm of
approximately 34 personnel.
During my 54 months at Skillings-Connolly, I was in charge of all
surveying for the firm. This responsibility included organizing,
directing, reviewing, and stamping of all land surveying projects,
including legal boundary surveys, plats, subdivisions, boundary line
adjustments, construction surveys, topographic surveys, writing
legal descriptions, section subdivisions, General Land Office
retracements, and other work.
Typical projects included:
Surveyor and Engineer of record for the Plat ofLoma Vista, a 59
lot rural subdivision in south Thurston County, the D.B. Story
Subdivision, a 53 lot subdivision in the City ofLongview and the
Plat of Noble Firs, a 28 lot subdivision in the City of Lacey,
Washington.
Surveyor of record for the Plats of Redwood Estates and King's
Court in the City of Olympia, and the Plat of Haussler Heights in
the City of Kelso, Washington.
Complete survey of Section 21, Township 30N, Range 3 West of
the W.M. and establishment of a wetland mitigation site for the
Washington State Department of Transportation. This project
involved section subdivision and General Land Office comer
retracement for the WSDOT Sequim Bypass Project.
Many topographic surveys for the purpose of street design, plat
design, site development, and miscellaneous design purposes.
Many boundary and lot surveys were completed during this time
period. Boundary line adjustments, short plats, large lot
subdivisions and planned unit developments were typical small
survey projects routinely completed.
20f8
i n,r> 'T"'-~!!
l~~)~",~, I , t:~g"i
_ 22 tJ
; -~;~ot
~O'i
e
e
Construction surveys were calculated by myself or survey
technicians, field surveyed by field crews under my supervision,
and reviewed in the field by me. Typical construction surveys
included water and sewer line staking, road and street staking,
building foundation staking, lot boundary staking, as-built plan
surveys, surveys for easement preparation, and more. There were
no claims for inaccurate staking work in my 54 months with this
firm.
I also completed design of civil projects and performed project
management for a variety of private and public clients, including:
Washington Department of Transportation, Port of Tacoma, City
of Lynn wood, Washington Department of General Administration,
developers of private subdivisions, Lower Columbia Community
Action Council, miscellaneous site development projects.
Typical civil design projects that I personally completed as a
"hands on" project manager are:
Design of Work Zone Traffic Control (WZTC) plans for the
Washington State Department of Transportation's Olympic
Interchange project. I was certified by WSDOT as a Work Zone
Traffic Control Supervisor prior to completing plans for this
project. The certification was given by Sverdrup Civil, Inc., after
attending WSDOT's WZTC supervisor training seminar in the
spring of 1994. Sverdrup Civil prepared and taught the course for
the WSDOT.
Design and civil plans for a walking path at the Washington
Department of Labor and Industries Headquarters Building in
Tumwater, Washington.
Design and civil plans for three pavement rehabilitation projects,
including railroad track reconstruction at the Port of Tacoma's
North Intermodal Yard. Included field surveys, cost estimating,
and plan preparation.
I was involved in promotional work for the firm, including
preparation of proposals for civil projects, project scoping and
estimating, attendance at job interviews.
I also completed grant applications for public funding of
transportation projects for client agencies.
30f8
ITEM
1-2:11
-~of
'lID
e
e
6/67 - 8/92
Twenty-five years and three months with the Washington
Department of Transportation with general duties as outlined
below:
7/84 - 8/92
System Evaluation Supervisor
I supervised a headquarters section involved with the following
work program:
.Highway Performance Monitoring System.
Modeling the state's highway system in terms of performance and cost.
.Conducting legislative and other types of special studies.
.Monitoring and updating the system of statewide highway functional
classification.
I worked on the State Legislature's Route Jurisdiction Study, a
study to refine the definition of State Highway, and to recommend
route changes between State and Local Agency jurisdiction to be
consistent with the refined definition of State Highway. This study
resulted in the transfer of hundreds of miles of roads between state
and local jurisdictions.
I worked on the Federal Highway Administration's Highways of
National Significance Study. This study was conducted for the
Federal Highway Administration by the States for the purpose of
conforming to the revised Highway Program mandated by the
Surface Transportation Act of 1991.
I learned state-of-the-art computer techniques for modeling
highway systems for performance characteristics while working
with the Highway Performance Monitoring System. This is a
modeling effort done by all 50 states for the purpose of producing
the Federal Highway Administration's annual report to the
Congress entitled "The Nation's Highways--Conditions and
Performance". I wrote and distributed two publications for local
agency use during this time period, entitled:
"Short Count Factoring Guide", a guide book of recommended
practice for local agency traffic counting programs,
"The Highway Performance Monitoring System--Facts and
Figures", an informational publication of highway statistics and
cost analysis for the State of Washington.
Training taken through WSDOT included management and
personnel relations courses, and the following WSDOT technical
courses:
40f8
-._:k?;1:;
~--'~.=
4/(
e
e
eLegal Aspects of Highway Engineering, a WSDOT contract
course led by Michael Duggan of the King County Prosecutor's
Office.
eBeginning and advanced Highway Capacity Manual courses.
-Quick Response Travel Estimating Techniques, utilizing QRS
software for producing traffic estimates for spot developments.
10/78 - 6/84
Assistant District Materials and Project Engineer
I was responsible for the day-to-day operations of a District
Section doing soils drilling, foundation analysis, materials
quality control, minor plan production, design surveying,
and construction inspection.
The duties consisted of production of strip maps for minor
design projects, including curve realignments, intersection
upgrade projects, and paving projects. These projects were
field surveyed, mapped, and designed under my direct
supervision.
I designed a system of estimating project costs for the
District Three pavement rehabilitation program. This
involved scoping all paving projects for the district's
biennial program, including evaluation of deficiencies,
identification of safety hazards, and costs to cure. The end
product was a scope of work for contract plan production
purposes, and an associated cost estimate to complete the
work. I did this work for three years while I was in the
District (now Olympic Region) Office.
I evaluated pavement defects and produced resurfacing
reports for pavement rehabilitation contract production for
the district design program.
Conducted soils slope stability investigations, and
recommended solutions to our Headquarters Soils
Engineering Group.
8/77-9/78
Assistant District State Aid Engineer
Duties as Assistant District Three (now Olympic Region)
State Aid Engineer included administration of Federal Aid
pass-through programs to the Cities and Counties of the
seven northwest counties and cities within those counties.
50f8
.__U&....
~or
"-1,1--
e
e
Federal Aid programs I worked with were Bridge
Replacement, Federal Aid Secondary, and the various
sections of the Federal Aid Safety Program, including
Railroad Crossing Upgrade Program, Safer Off System
Program, Hazardous Intersection Program and the
Pavement Marking Demonstration Program. I issued calls
for prospectuses, evaluated and graded prospectuses
according to criteria fonnulated by headquarters offices, set
up reimbursable accounts for the projects, administered
payments oflocal agencies, and assisted the Federal
Highway Administration with inspections and
documentation requirements.
6/76-7/77
I worked as Assistant to the Project Engineer in a major
location and design office. This office specialized in large
projects requiring Environmental Impact Statements:
.Port Townsend Feny Terminal Site Study - I scheduled,
directed, and managed day-to.,.day operations for this multi-
disciplinary study leading to the recommended location for the
present Ferry Tenninal in Port Townsend. This study
developed alternative designs and cost estimates for feny
terminal sites, and also conducted an intensive public attitude
survey in the area to assess public desires and community
visions for the project. Public hearings were held, and
questionnaires were written, circulated, and evaluated.
-Trident Base Access Study, Kitsap County - I scheduled,
coordinated and managed day-to-day operations for a multi-
disciplinary study of design alternatives and environmental
impact studies leading to a recommended design and EIS for
the new State Route 3 access to the Naval Submarine Base,
Bangor. I organized and managed this study from its inception
to a point where the design and limited access hearings were
ready to be held. This study included a citizen attitude survey
conducted by questionnaire.
.Tacoma Spur Study - I finalized the citizen participation
aspect of this environmental impact statement, including
evaluation of alternative designs. The study resulted in what is
now Interstate 705 in Tacoma.
.SR 167 Environmental and Location Study - I supervised the
final environmental impact statement and contract plans for
the section of SR 167 from Puyallup to the King County line.
60f8
__.~f2
~of
~(J
e
e
6/67 - 5/76
I worked in the Aberdeen field office of Washington Department of
Highways under John Hart, Project Engineer. I was promoted from
Highway Engineer 1 to Highway Engineer 4 in this office.
I gained a solid background in Highway Engineering in this nine
year period, including surveying for right-of-way mapping,
surveying for construction projects, including bridge and roadway
layout and staking, slope staking, river channel realignment staking,
surveying in tidal zones and topographic surveys for highway
development projects. I estimate that I spent three years solid in the
field in personal charge offield survey work. The remainder of this
period always included scheduling and designing a wide variety of
surveys, doing office computations for survey work, and turning
out finished survey projects. Field sUIVeys and office computations
for contractor pay quantities were a routine part of work in this
office, for the entire period that I was there.
I qualified to sit for the Land SUIVeyor's Examination based upon
work done in this office in right-of-way mapping, boundary sUIVeys
for highway construction projects, construction pay quantities, and
became a Licensed Land Surveyor in 1979.
Significant projects included:
eProject inspector for the Shelton Bypass. I was the Department's
lead inspector and sUIVeyor in the field for this new five-mile section
ofSR 101 bypassing the Town of Shelton in Mason County. This
project included four bridges, three channel changes, three
interchanges, and several miles of frontage road construction. I was
responsible for all field staking, right-of-way staking, inspection,
contractor relations, and pay quantity calculation for this project.
eProject inspector for the Aberdeen-Hoquiam one-way couplet, a
major realignment and construction of a one-way street system in
the Cities of Aberdeen and Hoquiam. I was responsible for all field
staking, inspection, contractor relations, and pay quantity calculation
for this project. I was the survey party chief and surveyor for
construction staking on the twin SR 107 overcrossing bridges on SR
12 near Montesano, and the lift span structure across the Hoquiam
River at 6th Street in the City ofHoquiam
70f8
t!: 1.~ ~
" - ~--_._._,
~ot
Lfl~
e
e
I served as Office Engineer for this office for a period of
approximately three years. Duties included organization of office,
supervision of design projects, calculation of pay quantities for
contract work and production of contract plans for general highway
work.
As a staff Engineer for the Aberdeen Hoquiam Expressway Study, I
evaluated alternative designs, prepared presentations for the
citizens' advisory committee, and the interdisciplinary team assigned
to the study. I supervised field operations for a citizens' attitude
survey by questionnaire, and organized day-to-day office operations
for the study. This was a preliminary study for the anticipated
construction of a new expressway through the Cities of Aberdeen
and Hoquiam. This study is still underway, in one form or another.
There were many minor to medium projects worked on during this
time period. They are too numerous to mention, but project types
included bridge site mapping for replacement, surveys for pavement
rehabilitation, safety item installation, contract plans for the Elwha
River Bridge and approaches, river erosion control projects, paving
projects, safety design and construction projects, slide correction
projects, and more. These projects typically involved work in both
design and construction phases.
L("',c''''
'1 .,~.
t.".."
#
~---
~'
'1,-'",",
. .....d..
~f~
80f8
I,.
e
e
lWO
,1
LOG ITEM
# 22..D
~of
"4 ( (p
~ .
"
".
e
e
22-
1
BEFORE THE HEARING EXAMINER FOR JEFFERSON COON'tY
2
Irv Berteig, Hearing Examiner
3
4
5
RE: Port Ludlow Associates, LLC,
applications for "Ludlow Cove"
Long Subdivision
Variance
Condi tional Use
'PriIDary' Shoreline Substantial.
Development
) File No. SUB95-0003
}
)
)
) F!NDINGS, CONCLUSIONS,
}
} AND DECISION
)
)
6
7
8
9
10
BACKGROUND
11
These applications are unique because they were filed as
12 "substantially complete" on January 19, 1995. The Department has
13 monitored the applications' revie~ progress, and agrees with the
14 Applicant that applicatibns are vested in the adopted plans and
15 regulations in place at the time of c:omplete application. Although
16 there were revisions in 1997, 1999, 2000 and 2001, those revisions did
17 not cause the applications to lose their vesting status.
18 PROCEDURAL INFORMATION for this open record hearing:
19 Notices:
Mailed:
June 21, 2002
20
21
Posted:
June 26, 2002
Publication:
June 26, 2002 (Port Townsend-
22
Jefferson County Leader).
23 Site Visit:
July 16, 2002 (Post hearing)
24 Open Record Hearing Date: July 16, 2002
25 The hearing was opened at 1:15 p.m. in the Courthouse First Floor-
26 Conference Room. After the procedures were explained, testimony was
27 accepted. A verbatim recording of the public hearing was made. The
28 tape is maintained in the Jefferson Permit Center file.
29
Port Ludlow Associates. LLC
SUB9S-0003
Page 1
"Ludlow Cove"
dings. Conclusions
and Decisi<lr::C:
j.J.
7~~'
^-In
1 Participants:
e
'..
e
2 Jerry Smith, Associate Planner
3 Mark Dorsey, PE,Project Manager for the Applicant
4 70 Breaker Lane, Port Ludlow, WA 98365
5 Greg McCarry, President, Port Ludlow Associates, Applicant
6 70 Breaker' Lane, Port Ludlow, WA 98365
7 David Lumsden, neighbor, 221-3 No. Bay Lane, Port Ludlow, WA 98365
8 Susan Ryan, neighbor, 181-6 No. Bay Lane, Port Ludlow, WA 98365
9 Parties present but not testifying:
10 Glorina Lumsden, 221-3 No. Bay Lane, Port Ludlow, WA 98365
11 Kevin Ryan, 181-6 No. Bay Lane, Port Ludlow, WA 98365
12 Don Cooper, 221-5 No. Bay Lane, Port Ludlow, WA 98365
13 Larry Nobles, 81 Harms Lane, Port LUdlow, WA 98365
14 The Bearing Examiner closed the public hearing at 3:00 p.m., and held
15 the record open to close of business July 30, 2002.
16
17
TABLE OFEXBIBITS:
'1EXf/IBlT/lQW;,i
1
:~ :,,'--:-. '~:::.~,,:,,:.;'.~.-
.. .' .
- . .
7/10/2002
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28 1.
29 are
378
379
380
381
382
383
2
" . -<''<".:> " M~.>' : :;;t:;,i<.':
Staff Report together with file Log Items:
Subdivision (5UB95-0003): 377 Log Items
CUP (ZON95-0001): 38 Log Items
Shoreline (5DP97-0009): 13 Log Items
Affidavit Notice
6/26/2002
6/26/2002
3/30/1998
7/16/2002
7/16/2002
7/16/2002
7/23/2002
Affidavit Notice
Letter agreement between ORM and Fire Dist 3
Letter from Mark Dorsey
Staff Response to Applicant's recommend changes
Public Hearing Sign-up Sheet
Letter from Mark Dorsey in response to open
record item
Three applications originally filed on or about
FINDINGS OF FACT
found to be substantially complete:
LO " iT iv1
Page 2 ~
"Ludlow #>ve" O_~__,
~ t,' t;,
ve- \...- Pa9E~__~~_'"1~ _t+--
HI ~~ ( 6{,
Port Ludlow Associates. LLC
SUB95-0003
Findings. Conclusions .
and Decision
! '
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
e.
26
27
28
29
e
e
a.
SUB95-0003 Subdivision of 27.75 acres
(1) The proposed long subdivision is subject to the
requirements of Section 6 of the County Subdivision
Ordinance (Title 17, Chapter 17.30, Long Subdivisions,
Jefferson County Code) .
(2) The proposed.long subdivision is subject to the
criteria contained in Sections 1.00, 9.00, 13.00 and
Attachments "0" and "01" of the Port Ludlow Interim Urban
Growth Areas Ordinance (Ordinance No. 01-0117-95).
(3) The proposed long subdivision is subject to the
requirements of Sections 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10 of the
b.
Jefferson County Interim Critical Areas Ordinance.
· Variance to 60-foot right-of-way requirement
The variance request is subject to the requirements of
c.
Section 12 of the County Subdivision Ordinance (Title 17,
Chapter 17.60, Variances, of the Jefferson County Code).
· Variance to front and side yard setbacks for Lots 1-17
ZON95-0001 Conditional Use Permit for Tracts A and B
d.
The future development of Tracts A and B multi-family
element of the proposed long subdivision will be subject to
the Conditional Use Review Criteria of Section 7 of the
Zoning Code (Chapter 18.35.030 and the Site Development
Standards for Multi-family residential of Chapter 18.35.060
of the Jefferson County Code) .
SDP97-0009 Shoreline Substantial Development Permit
The proposed 16ng subdivision is subject to the policies
and performance standards of Sections 4.105(Urban), 5.160
(Residential), 5.190 (Transportation), and 5.20 (Utilities)
of the Shoreline Management Master Program.
Port Ludlow Associates. LLC
SUB95-0003
Page 3
"Ludlow Cove"
#
} . '
e
e
"
1 2.
2
3
Applicable Jefferson County Ordinances:
a. Jefferson County Subdivision Ordinance (I 04-0526-92)
b.
Port Ludlow Interim Urban Growth Areas Ordinance
5
c.
(tOl-0117-95) Effective 4:00 p.m. January 17, 1995
Jefferson County Hearing Examiner Ordinance
4
6
UH-0318-91)
7
d.
Shoreline Management Master Program
8
9
10
11
12
e.
(adopted March 7, 1989)
State Environmental Policy Act Implementing Ordinance
(I 7-84)
f.
Jefferson County Critical Areas Ordinance
(t 05-0509-94)
13
g.
Jefferson County Zoning Code
14
15 2.
(t 09-0801-94)
The proposal is to subdivide approximately 28 acres into a total
16 of 26 parcels, with approximately 8 acres dedicated as common open
17 space. 24 are proposed as single-family residential lots. Two parcels
18 (Tracts A & B) consisting of 15.65 acres are proposed as future
19 residential development tracts. The total number of residential units
20 proposed at this time is 24. Phasing or divisions are contemplated.
21 The lot sizes range from 4,353 square feet to 10,972 square feet.
22 Gross density is approximately 1.98 units per acre (exclusive of
23 tracts A and B) .
Storm water will be treated on-site and discharged
24 into Port Ludlow Bay. Sanitary sewer will serve all lots. Olympic
25 Water and"Sewer will provide water.
26 3.
The Staff Report contains a detailed analysis of the proposal's
27 compliance with the applicable and vested regulations. The Examiner
28 has reviewed the 'Staff Comments' and raised various questions during
29 the open record hearing. The Applicant also testified that they had
Page 4 LO
LOG lTEM"-pdIoW Cove':U
2UJ ~)'~
(jaae
~of ~_.
4'lb
- 1 Findings. Conclusions
and Decision
Port Ludlow Associates. LLC
SUB95-0003
:/I
. -. eel-
4 fllz--~ 6lP
e
e
1 reviewed the Staff Report and concurred with the recommended
2 conditions with the exception of staff Recommended Conditions #4, 16,
3 #14, #28, 134, #44 and #65.1 The Staff Report findings are adopted.
4 4.
The Department responded to the Applicant's recommended changes
5 to the conditions.2
6 5.
The subject of the Conditional Use Permit for Tracts A and B was
7 discussed because once an approval is granted the Applicant must
8 ~plement that CUP within one year of approval. Only one time
9 extension for one year may be subsequently granted. Since this is a
10 fairly complex project that will require sequential activities, and
11 since several major construction steps must be taken before Tracts A
12 and B can be started, the one-year time limit could easily expire.
13 The Examiner held the record open for 10 working days to allow the
14 Applicant to consider possible approaches to the problem. The
15 Applicant suggests that the current regulations should be applied,
16 which allow a 3-year minimum with extensions.3
17 6.
Neighbors testifying at the open record heard reside in the
18 adjoining condominium development and expressed concern with the
19, relative setbacks of residences and the effectiveness of mitigations.
20 One concern was the location of the requested setback variances. The
21 neighbors were concerned that the variances were requested for the
22 adjoining lots, but appeared relieved to find the variances were
23 requested for Lots 1-17 near the center of the project.
24 7.
Phased SEPA review is being conducted under WAC 197-11-060(5).
25 The Department of Community Development issued a final threshold _
26 determination on June 26, 2002 for the single-family portion.
27
28
29
1 Log Item 381, Letter from Mark Dorsey dated July 16, 2002
2 Log Item 382,
3 Exhibi t 2
Port Ludlow Associates. LLC LOG 'TEM Page 5
SUB9S-Q003 "Ludlow Cove"
# .:' 1-11> #
Page ~ of Page
~
ings. Conclusions
and Decision
teL.-
t11 z.. 2-/
e
e
1 8.
A detailed environmental review on the future development of
2 Tracts A and B will be conducted when that phase of the proposal is
3 ready.
4 REVIEW CRITERIA
5 Because these applications are vested under previously adopted
6 ordinances, the Examiner follows the appropriate criteria under each.
7 CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
8 1.
The Department determined that the applications are vested under
9 the adopted regulations listed in Finding 2 above. The Department's
10 finding on vesting is accepted; however, it must be pointed out that
11 those applications are only vested to be considered under the listed
12 ordinances. Once an action is taken (consideration accomplished), the
13 vesting status is over.. This becomes an issue for the Conditional Use
14 Permit because if the CUP expires without having been implemented, the
15 vesting status also expires.
16 The following Conclusions are organized by application type:
17 SUB95-0003 Subdivision of 27.75 acres:
18 2.
In accordance with Staff recommended Findings 10 through 31 and
19 33 through 47, the criteria for a long subdivision have been met or
20 will be met with the imposition of recommended conditions. The
21 proposed subdivision should be approved with conditions.
22 Variance to 60-foot right-of-way requirement:
23 3.
In accordance with Staff recommended Findings 31, 32, 48, 49, 50,
24 and 52, the criteria for a variance to the right-of-way has been met.
25 Special attention was given in the hearing to the Fire Protection_
26 District #3 initial objection. Testimony and documents revealed that
27 the District later concurred for substantive reasons.s
28
29
4 Noble Manor v. Pierce County, 133 Wn.2d 269, 278, 943 P.2d 1378 (1997).
5 See Log Item 380
Port lUdIOW... As". ..S..OC.'. iq:tes,u....c~.................................. .'
SUB95-0003.. .
~:.. lJ \~
tl (~~f OV
...EiodiQgs. Conclusions
LOG II eM and Decision
t:Z-6
~o'f
4~1/
Page 6
"Ludlow Cove"
#
e
e
1 Variance to front and side yard setbacks for Lots 1-17:
2 4.
Based on Staff recommended Findings 49, 51, and 52; and noting
3 that the topographic conditions identified in Staff Finding 48 applies
4 to variance criterion (1), and no showing of detrimental impact meets
5 variance criterion (3); therefore, the setback variances can be
6 granted.
7 ZON95-0001 Conditional Use Permit for Tracts A and B:
8 5.
The vesting issue related to the conditional use permit, and
9 discussed in the public hearing, was the reason to hold the record
10 open to allow the Applicant to investigate procedural and legal
11 options. Staff and Examiner were concerned that the conditional use
12 permit code provision that required an approved conditional use permit
13 to be completed in one year could be impossible to meet given the size
14 of the project and logical sequence of development. The one-year
15 maximum extension probably would not be adequate.
16 6.
The Applicant requests that the more liberal provisions regarding
17 "maximum duration" contained in the current Jefferson County Unified
18 Development Code [UDC] be applied, which allows a "3-year Maximum
19 Duration" with a possible I-year extension. The Applicant makes the
20
following
.
arguments:6
Our development schedule anticipates construction of Ludlow
Cove 1 (Lots 1-7) to commence in the fall of 2002 and
construction of Ludlow 2 (Lots 8-24) to commence in the
summer of 2003. Tracts A & B are to follow.
The phased SEPA review, planning and per.mitting process
required for the future development of Tracts A & B will
necessitate an approximate l-year period of time.
Current Jefferson County regulations provides that a C.U.P.
shall be valid for 3-years from the effective date.
The Growth Management Act provides that public interests
are better served when the maximum efficient use of
planning resources are made at the least economic cost to
the public.
21
22
23
.
24
25
.
26
.
27
28
29
6 See Exhibit 2, Letter from Mark Dorsey dated July 23, 2002.
1).1-6~,_~_-
~i~\ _"
' ,.".;~',...".,-,,-
"
4'L?
..u.
ii~
pqr'd~
. (),;;;.i""_
s. Conclusions
and Decision
Port Ludlow Associates. LLC Tt-"~, Ii Page 7
SUB95-0003 LOG I ! t:J\1! "Ludlow Cove"
#
. ' .
e
e
1
.
The normally "more restrictive" County land-use policies
are typically the most recently adopted, but in this case,
the converse is true.
2
3 7.
The Applicant's arguments for applying the current UDC Maximum
4 Duration time limit of 3-years plus a possible I-year exteniion are
5 valid. The UDC Maximum Duration provision only will be applied to
6 Tracts A & B.
7 8.
In accordance with Staff recommended Findings 67 and 68, all the
8 criteria of Section 7.30 and development standards of Section 7.40 are
9 or will be met with conditions.
10 SDP97-0009 Shore1ine Substantia1 Deve10pment Permit:
11 9.
In accordance with Staff recommended Findings 61 through 65, the
12 provisions and requirements of the Shoreline Management Master Program
13 are or will be met with conditions.
14 Disputed Recommended Conditions:
15 10.
Regarding Staff'Recommended Condition 14: This condition relates
16 to the SEPA Phased Review and Plat Note d. The Applicant argues that
17 the amount of work completed and accepted would support are-wording
18 of the condition. Staff acknowledges the issues, and recommends a
19 tighter version using the operative parts of the Applicant's version.
20 The Examiner agrees with the Staff revised version--noting that the
21 excluded portions are reasons rather than conditions. Condition 4
22 will be modified accordingly.
23 11.
Regarding Staff Recommended Condition #6: The Applicant proposes
24 a more explicit condition without a change in meaning. Staff concurs.
25 Condition 4 will be modified accordingly.
26 12.
Regarding Staff Recommended Condition 114: The Applicant argues
27 that their recommended change would improve the timing of the plat
28 process without compromising the condition. Staff concurs and
1-2-6
~
4t.~
Rndings. Conclusions
and Decision
29 Condition 14 will be modified accordingly.
Port Ludlow Associates, Lt1~ I'Tr.:~ M
SUB95-0003 L,;"",' \.;.I .. I b. j ;. .
#
e
e
1 13. Regarding Staff Recommended Condition 128: This condition
2 relates to an earlier objection by the Fire Protection District #3.
3 The Applicant argues that the issues have been resolved (see also
4 Conclusion 3 above), and the condition should be deleted. Staff
5 concurs. Condition 28 will be deleted.
6 14. Regarding Staff Recommended Conditions 134 and 144: These
7 conditions are duplicative--yet lacking specificity. The Applicant's
8 suggested consolidation would improve; however, the Staff recommended
9 consolidation be further clarified. Conditions 34 and 44 will be
10 consolidated into a new Condition 34.
11 15. Reqarding Staff Recommended Condition 165: This condition
12 relates to vesting for Tracts A & B, as well as Phased Review.
13 Conclusion 1 and 5 through 8, above, are relevant. Those Conclusions
14 require a further modification of Applicant and Staff recommended
15 revisions. The objective is to articulate the rules for implementing
16 the vested rights that apply to Tracts A & B.
17 DECISION
18 Based upon the testimony presented at the Open Record Hearing, a
19 site visit by the Examiner, the documents and exhibits admitted into
20 the record, and the above Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it
21 is hereby the decision of the Hearing Examiner that the following
22 applications:
23
a. SUB95-0003 Subdivision of 27.75 acres
b. Variance to 60-foot right-of-way requirement
c. Variance to front and side yard setbacks for Lots 1-17
c. Variance to front and side yard setbacks for Lots 1-17-
d. ZON95-0001 Conditional Use Permit for Tracts A and B
e. SDP97-0009 Shoreline Substantial Development Permit
24
25
26
27
28 by Port Ludlow Associates for ~Ludlow Cove", be APPROVED subject to
29 the following conditions:
#
LOG ITEMu;~~~~ve"
'}.:20
~of
"1 ~S"'
LO
,S.t. .
li"
--
Page_
Port Ludlow Associates. llC
SUB95-0003
19
20
21
22
23
24
~wD25
26
27
28
29
e
" t.
e
1 1.
Prior to final plat approval the applicant shall document that
the lot width to length ratio of the proposed lots is in
conformance with the requirements of the subdivision ordinance.
2
3
2.
All easements of record shall be graphically portrayed on the
final plat with the Auditor's File Number (AFN) of the easement's
also referenced on the face of the plat. Required easements for
utility installation and maintenance shall conform to the
standards of Subsection 6.303 of the Subdivision Ordinance. All
utility easements shall be made by a separate recorded easement,
declaration of easements, or dedication of easements, and by
graphic portrayal on the final long plat Mylar. The proposed and
relocated pedestrian/bike trail should be depicted on the plat.
4
5
6
7
8
9
3.
Design and construction of the vehicle turnaround within the cul-
de-sacs shall accommodate school buses. Prior to final plat
approval, the applicant shall obtain written certification from
the Chimacum School District regarding adequacy of provisions for
a school bus stop.
12
13
4.
Due ta pRasad SEPl\ re~:iell, Nate "d." of the PreliRliaary aaei Fiaal
Plat Nates pertaiaia~ to "Dc~clopRlcat of Tracts 1\ aaei B ~e
rcviseei ta morc completely reflect the acoei af a eietaileei
ca~iranmcatal re7ic\l oa lRO futHrc eie~elopRlcat af Tracts A aad B,
\lflea tRat phase af the dc.;claf:lRlcat is rcady.
14
15
16
17
Replace with: Wetland, stream and shoreline buffer areas and/or
building setback lines have been established and vested pursuant
to Jefferson County Interim Critical Area Ordinance provisions
and the Shoreline Management Master Program and other County
ordinances in consultation with the Washington State Department
of Fish and Wildlife and the Washington Department of Ecology for
the Ludlow Cove project site. Tracts A and B are proposed as
future mUlti-family development tracts within the Ludlow Cove
project site. When specific development plans for Tracts A and B
are ready, a supplemental SEPA evaluation shall be completed
based on the impacts of the then proposed development.
18
5.
The applicant shall dedicate a right-of-way 30 feet in width from
the as-built centerline of Paradise Bay and Oak Bay Roads.
Research by Public Works indicates that there are discrepancies
between the legal descriptions for the Paradise Bay Road right-
of-way as conveyed by quitclaim deed to Jefferson County and as
depicted on the Plats of Ludlow Point Village Division 2 and
Inner Harbor Village Condominiums. The Oak Bay County Road right-
of-way is not accurately depicted on Tract C. Prior to final plat
Port Ludlow Associates. LLC
SUB95-0003
#
LOG iTE~~~~~~ve" LeG;
UQ.,.,. __.__
""'€'~
~'"<"'(' #,-.
'.
~2-v
~?'I:.
t~
1
2
3
6.
4
5
e
e
approval, any discrepancies in the right-of-way legal description
between the quit claim deed and plat are to be resolved.
I?re....isiORG fer emergency .:chiole turRaroufld (cuI de 3ae) Gliall l:lc
~re7idca at the eRa of the reaas iR aeeeraaRee \;itli the staaaardo
cDtablisheaay tlie Jeffersea COl:laty DC19artmeRt af I?l:lslie Nerks.
6
~
8
Replace with: Provisions for emergency vehicle turnaround (cul-de-
sac, hammerhead or emergency access easement with bollards) shall
{"\ be provided a t the ends of roads in accordance wi th the standards
~ established by Jefferson County Department of Public Works, as
depicted on the proposed Preliminary Plat dated October 31, 2001
and the March 30, 1998 letter from OPG to Fire District #3.
9
10
~~
7.
13
14
The proposed roadways shall be designed and constructed to the
standards of the Jefferson County Department of Public Works and
the American Association of State Highway and Transportation
Officials (AASHTO). All necessary plans and specifications shall
be submitted to, reviewed and approved by the Department of
Public Works prior to construction. A set of approved plans shall
be on site at all times during construction.
8. The Geotechnical Report prepared for the project by GeoEngineers
(March 1995) recommends that the access roads be constructed with
a minimum 3 inches of Class B asphalt over 6 inches crushed
surfacing base course. The typical ~ections depicted on the
preliminary plat show 6-inch gravel base, 2 inch crushed
surfacing top course, and 2 inch Class B asphalt. Either of these
sections is acceptable to the Department of Public Works.
The roads serving the subdivision shall be named, and the name of
the roads shall be shown on the final plat. The proponent shall
select road names in consultation with the Department of Public
Works to avoid duplication of existing road names.
~;fln accordance with Chapter 486, Washington Laws of 1993 [amending
~ ~ 58.17.280], addresses may either be assigned to allots and
Port Ludlow Associates. LLC , Page II ~ r:- . Conclusions
SUB95-0003 LOG ITEMLudlow Cove" # and Decision
# 1-fJh
;"1"~.""'<e"" \' % of
""w ....'_, t
; "-,,,.O"'-j
'-. .Lt 1..- 1
27
28
29
Road Approach Permits shall be obtained from the Jefferson Count
Department of Public Works for access on to Oak Bay Road and
Paradise Bay Roads. The approaches shall be constructed to the
standards set forth in the permit.
:3>-
<9t30
An agreement for the continued maintenance of the private roads
shall be established either by recording of a separate instrument
and referencing the instrument on the plat or by establishment of
an agreement by declaration on the plat.
~
'P' ~(':iP
..', ~ """--
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
16.
e
, ,
."
18
19
20
21
17.
18.
e
clearly shown on the final plat or there shall be a notice on the
plat that addresses shall be obtained when applying for building
permits.
13.
Address plates for the lots shall be located in accordance with
Jefferson County 911 Emergency Locator System Ordinance
provisions.
14.
All roads shall be signed and traffic safely devices installed in
accordance with adopted Department of Public Works standards
prior to final plat approval.
15.
The proposal includes the construction of more than 5,000 square
feet of impervious surface and more than one acre of land
disturbing activity. The Washington Department of Ecology's Sto~
Water Management Manua~ for the Puget Sound Basin requires
proponents for developments, which meet these criteria to
implement a Storm Water Site Plan that includes a Large Parcel
Erosion Control Plan and Permanent Storm water Quality Control
Plan. The Storm water Site Plan shall apply Minimum Requirements
'1-11 from the Washington Department of Ecology Stor.m Water
Management Manual for the Puget Sound Basin. A Storm Water Site
Plan that meets these requirements shall be submitted to the
Jefferson County Department of Public Works for review and
approval prior to commencing land disturbing activity.
In order to meet the requirements of the washin9ton State
Department of Ecology Storm water Management Manual for the Puget
Sound Basin and to ensure that the approved storm water
management facilities are appropriately maintained for the life
of the project, Jefferson County requires the proponent to enter
into a Storm water Management Facility Maintenance Agreement with
the County. After construction has been completed, the Department
will send the proponent a copy of the Agreement that has been
signed by the Public Works Director. The Department cannot give
final approval for the project until the Agreement has been
signed and filed with the Jefferson County Auditor.
After construction is complete, the proponent shall submit a
letter from the project engineer certifying that the storm w9ter
management facilities have been constructed as per the approved
plans. The Department cannot give final approval for the project
until this certification has been received.
If no development of the lots is proposed at this time, the
applicant shall state under Notice to Potential Purchasers:
Port Ludlow Associates. LlC
SUB9S-oOD3
#
'" :
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
21.
e
e
12
13
14
15
16
17
22.
18
19
"Prior to the commencement of any land disturbing activities and prior
to issuance of a building permit, a Small Parcel Erosion and Sediment
Control Plan shall be developed to the standards of the Washington State
Department of Ecology Storm Water Manaeement Manual (current edition)
and be submitted to the Department of Community Development for review
and approval. Temporary erosion control Best Management Practices shall be
approved by the Department and implemented at all times during land
disturbing activities.
19.
Construction of roads, storm water facilities, and/or land
disturbing activities requires that the applicant submit plans
for review by the Department of Public Works.
20.
All easements of record shall be graphically portrayed on the
final plat with the Auditor's File Number (AFN) of the
easement(s) also referenced on the face of the plat.
In accordance with the Jefferson County Fee Schedule Ordinance,
the Public Works Department charges an hourly fee for application
and plan reviews, project inspections, meetings, hearings, and
final review. The applicant shall pay all fees incidental to the
subdivision prior to final plat approval. In the event that
approval of the proposal is denied by Jefferson County or the
applicant does not complete the proposal, the applicant shall
still be responsible for paying the Department's fees. The
Department's fee is currently $50.00 per hour.
.
The applicant shall request inspections by the Department of
Public Works during various phases of construction. Typically the
following inspections are required:
Installation of temporary erosion and sediment control measures:
.
Clearing and road subgrade preparation:
.
Application of gravel base:
.
Application of compacted crushed surfacing top course;
.
Construction of storm water management facilities:
.
Final plat review.
· Additional inspections may be necessary based on site-specific
conditions or the nature of the project.
23. Final Plat Approval 1.Lot Closures: Prior to final approval by
the Department, the applicant shall submit lot clos es of the
29
Port Ludlow Associates. LlC
SUB95-0003
#
LOG Page 13
. -, ITEM ;'LudlowCove" +(.
.. 7Y
. '2 '2...tJ _
'~of
~1.-~
indings. Conclusions
and Decision
Page_
of~ t;eL
It /12{67o
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
27.
24
25
26
27
28
29
28.
e
e
:."
survey one week in advance of approval. If lot closures are
incomplete or inaccurate, the applicant shall re-submit them one
week in advance of approval. After lot closures are approved by
the Department, fees will be calculated and submitted to the
applicant for payment.
24.
Based on the requirements of Chapter 17.30.300, water main
extensions and water system improvements that may be required to
service the development shall be installed prior to final plat
approval. Extensions and improvements shall be in conformance
with the Ludlow Water System Plan, The Jefferson County
Coordinated Water System Plan and shall include acknowledgment
from the Department of Health that water main extension have been
certified in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 246-290-
11 0 (2) WAC.
25.
Based on the requirements of Chapter 17.30.300, prior to final
plat approval, documentation shall be obtained from the
Washington State Department of Health, Southwest Regional
Drinking Water Operations, certifying a determination of final
plat water system adequacy for the proposal. Extensions and
improvements shall be in conformance with the Ludlow Water System
Plan, The Jefferson County Coordinated Water System Plan and
shall include acknowledgment from the Department of Health that
water main extension have been certified in accordance with the
provisions of Chapter 246-290-110(2) WAC.
26.
Based on the requirements of Chapter 17.30.310, prior to sewer
system construction, if required by the appropriate state agency,
the applicant shall submit engineered construction design plans
for review and approval. Construction of the sewer system
expansion shall be either completed prior to final plat approval,
or as an option, the applicant may post a County approved surety
to guarantee construction of system expansion.
The applicant may enter into a surety agreement with the
Department of Public Works as an alternative to complete
installation of required improvements prior to final plat
approval. The surety may not exceed one (1) year, and must be in
a form acceptable to the County Prosecutor. Acceptable examples
of sureties are available from the Department of Public Works.
All sureties must be accompanied by an estimate of the cost of
all improvements, and the estimate must be approved by the
Department of Public Works prior to acceptance of surety.
Prier to final plat appEeval, the applicant shall pro7idc urittcfl
cviaencc from Fire Protection Dictrict t 3 that the final acci~n
#.
Page 14 t ,r~ r'f'!:'"'o "vj Findings. Conclusions
LOG ITE1!AIOW Cove" L'v ,>. '~ i < , and Decision
1-1-6 ..".".,,--~,...-'"--_....._. tel--.
.J.J2'1Jf f P'(F:,f:V:~ _~~::L._.r)i~.1'"L. ~'/'7/~/ tJ1.o
-42-f. 0 > ,.
.Lf?~
Port LudlOW Associates. LLC
SUB95-0003
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
e
e
1
aRa eeRotructiaR af tac lanEJ plat \lill be in caHll'lliaace 'ilits tho
apl'llicaale pravisiaas af the UBizeEB FiEe Cede, ana the
recoffifflcndatiaas af the Fire District '"sicA arc eaRGistent ',lith
St.:ltc l3.il.
2
3
4 29.
The applicant shall arrange for the inspection of all required
improvements with the Department of Public Works, the Planning
Department, or Health Department, whichever is responsible. The
applicant shall request inspections at such stages as indicated
by the appropriate department.
5
6
7
8
9
30.
In accordance with Ordinance 12-1214-92, effective January 1,
1993, the applicant shall pay all costs of work incidental to
approval of the subdivision before final approval is granted.
10 31.
11
Upon all conditions being met, the applicant shall submit a final
Mylar of the plat to the Department of Public Works three days in
advance of approval by the Director of Public Works.
12
32.
Prior to final plat approval, the applicant shall document that
the proposal meets the requirements of Appendix D, Final Long
Plat Checklist.
13
14
15 33.
The applicant shall comply with all mitigation measures of the
Final Mitigated Determination of Non-Significance as issued by
the designated Jefferson County Responsible and/or the Jefferson
County Board of Commissioners for the proposed plat of Ludlow
Cove.
16
17
18
34.
Is enhance tae pealic's \:lee ana enjeymcnt af the saerelines ana Haters
af the eta~e; a puBlic aeeese easement shall se estaslishea aeress ana
ta thc ehereline.Thep~lie acsess shall: al Be af a permanent natere
ana shall se elee!.ieatea sr etaeruiee prateetea, ineleaiR~ reeeEeleel uith
the JcffeEsen Ceunty Aeelitars hI Cansiaer, in aesi~R aRa a~ailaei1ity,
measeres ts prstcct private preperty frem trespass, vaasalism,
litteriR~ afle!. tHe likes 01 Be suita:Bly marltee!. as ~s iRfsrm the p\;lslie
as to taB entent, IseatiSR, aRe!. ao:ailaeility sf tHe aeeesss ell Be
cempletea aRa a~allaele fer peelle ese at tae time ef eeeupaRey af tHO
elc'..e1 epflleRt .
Replace #34 and #44 with: The applicant shall provide for a Beacn
Point Picnic Area along the shoreline and an internal trail
connection from the existing trail system to the shoreline as
depicted in the proposed preliminary plat map submitted
November 8, 2001. Improvements related to the trail system and
picnic point area shall be dedicated to an appropriate homeowner
association for ownership and maintenance.
Port Ludlow Associates. llC
SUB95-00Q3
L
Page J 5
LOG ITEfVrLudlOw Cove" "#
2/1-6
h~ "
..;::;r-J II 0 T
'1?1
"ndings, Conclusions
and Decision
#:
-
D.........,.}
I CleF:?
"'" .
teL
,,, Il/~'1jtft.p
27
28
29
e
e
: .~
1 35.
Unique natural features in the urban shoreline area, such as
bluffs, dunes, and wetland areas, shall be preserved and
protected.
2
3
4
36. Motor vehicle parking between a new structure and the water is
prohibited. Parking shall be located no closer than fifteen (15)
feet from the ordinary high water mark or unique natural areas
such as bluffs, dunes, or wetland areas.
5
6
7
37. All new parking areas shall provide landscaping. Landscaping shall
be provided between streets and the project site and between
public access areas and parking areas, except at exists or when a
building does not setback from a street.
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
38. No fence, wall, hedge, or barrier greater than forty-two inches in
height shall be placed or enlarged nearer to the water than the
building setback line. No fence, wall, or similar structure shall
be placed water ward of the ordinary high water mark.
39.
No development shall be approved for any new or expanded building
or structure or more than thirty-five feet above average grade
level that will obstruct the view of a substantial number of
residences adjoining the shoreline area.
15
40.
Run-off created by new impervious surfaces shall not increase the
rate of flow or decrease the quality of storm water from pre-
project conditions.
16
17
18 41.
Urban development should provide for public views to the water.
Wherever possible, the waterside of shoreline buildings should
include windows, doors, and public areas that enhance enjoyment
of the shoreline and present an interesting, attractive view of
the development from the water.
19
20
21
22
23
42.
Developments shal~ be designed so as not to block, adversely
interfere with, or reduce the public's visual and physical access
to the water and shorelines of the state.
24 43.
25
26
Appurtenant structures such as decks, sheds, and stairways shall
be located behind the ordinary high water mark as far as
practical and shall meet applicable setbacks.
11. rul3lie acceao te !91:i:Blicly ounce saorelines saall be maintained.
45.
Development shall assure that surface water runoff does
pollute adjacent waters or cause soil or beach erosion,
during or after the construction phase. n,. I'''\l''==:~:
L\j\,.-' !, \ C
4,', ~ fJ
T" __---
....,......--
not
either
Port LudlOw Associates. LLC
SUB95-0003
Poge16
ITC'M.&ldIOW Cove"
, f J...IVf
LOG
1./U>
~,
~?1-
r' t3,~;~<~.._
~
11/'ZZ/6L,-
:#
23
24
25
26
27 56.
28
29
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13 50.
14
15
16
17
18 52.
19
20
21
53.
e
e
22
54.
55.
46. Roads, utilities, and other improvements shall comply with the
applicable policies and performance standards of the Jefferson
County Shoreline Management Master Program.
47.
The standard setback for residential structures, including common
appurtenant structures such as garages and workshops, shall be
thirty (30) feet or one (1) foot for each foot of bank height,
whichever is greater. This setback shall be measured from the
bank's edge when the bank's height exceeds 10 feet. When the
bank's height is less than 10 feet, the setback shall be measured
from the ordinary high water mark.
48.
Alteration of topography for building sites, access roads, and
utilities shall be conducted in compliance with the applicable
policies and performance standards of the Jefferson County
Shoreline Management Master Program.
49.
Residential structures shall not exceed thirty-five feet in
height.
Rqad drainage shall be designed to control the dispersal of
surface runoff from roads and exposed soils in order to minimize
turbid water from draining into waterways.
51.
Earthworks shall be designed to provide waste and borrow areas
that will produce a minimum of erosion, water turbidity, and
aesthetic damage.
Cut and fill slopes shall be designed at the normal angle of
repose or less. Cut and fill slopes shall be protected from
erosion by mulching, seeding, use of headwalls, or other suitable
means.
Roads and waterway crossings shall be designed so the integrity
of the naturally occurring geohydraulic process is maintained.
Waterway crossings shall be designed to provide minimal
disturbance to banks.
Bridges and similar devices shall be designed with regard to 100-
year frequencies. Roads, bridges, culverts and similar dev~ces
shall afford maximum protection for fisheries resources.
Excess material shall be deposited in stable locations and not
into stream corridors where such materials degrade water quality,
impede floodwaters, or alter naturally occurring geohydraulic
processes.
Port Ludlow AssQciates. LLC
SUB95-0003
#
U1-
I (I 'tz./ Dl,
LOG ITEM Page 17
"Ludlow Cove"
1- '2-6 -J{
"
~f Page
-It,,
Findit'lgs. Conciusions
and Decision
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
e
-. ....
.
:.,1
e
1 57.
No machinery shall operate within a streambed except in
compliance with a hydraulics permit issued by the Washington
State Department of Fisheries and Wildlife.
2
3
58.
All material associated with road construction that is
potentially unstable or erodible shall be stabilized by
compacting, seeding, mulching, or other suitable means.
4
5
6
59.
All roads and drainage systems shall be maintained to prevent
erosion and/or water quality degradation.
7
60.
Mechanical apparatus, rather than chemicals, shall be used for
brush clearing maintenance wherever practicable.
8
9
10
61.
Herbicides used for maintenance along roads and drainage systems
shall follow the performance standard outlined under "Chemical
Application" of the "Forest Management" section of the Jefferson
County Shoreline Management Master Program.
11
12
13
62.
Installation of utilities shall assure the prevention of
siltation or beach erosion.
14
63.
Upon completion of installation or maintenance projects, banks
shall be restored to a suitable configuration and stability,
replanted with native species, and provided with maintenance care
until the newly planted vegetation is established.
15
16
17
18
64.
Utility discharges and outfalls shall be located, designed,
constructed, and operated so degradation to water quality, marine
life, and general shoreline ecosystems is kept to an absolute
minimum.
19
65.
Tae f~t~Ee se7elspmeRt sf TEas's A afta B \iill Be saejee' ta ~ae
eSRsitiaftal ~se site se7elepffiea~ staasazes fer melti family
resieeatial af ~eetiaft 7.19.1 (a, S, s, a, afte e) af the Zeaia~ Cese.
Replace with: The application was initially submitted in 1995 and is
vested under the ordinances in effect at the time of submittal.
The Port Ludlow Master Planned Resort Code was adopted effective
October 4, 1999. At the time of application submittal, the
Jefferson County Zoning Code was in effect. The Site Deve,1.opment
Standards for Multi-Family Residential of Section 7.40.1(a,b,c,d,
and e) would apply under vesting.
The current provisions of the Uniform Development Code fUDC] for
determining Maximum Duration of the Condition Use Permit for
Tracts A & B shall apply as follows:
Port Ludlow Associotes. LLC
SUB95-00Q3
#
LO~ IT'::I\JjPage 18 LO .j IT .-
...'..;) !:::;~'UdlowCove"'. and Decision
~. -----
n? 4 '1'r___ -- ," ~.
1- __!.} __
h~ rr-'.t"~1t~10 -
~ O't r c1br""', -- eel--
Li~~ tl(-z.z./~
e
e
1
2
(1) The applicant shall initiate the SEPA portion of
Phased Review for Tracts A & B within three (3) years of
the effective date; and the applicant shall submit a
complete application for a building permit(s) for Tracts A
& B within one (1) additional year.
3
4
5
(2) The Maximum Duration shall not count the time devoted
to the SEPA portion of Phased Review, in accordance with
UDe 8.10.5. Initiation of SEPA Review; Limitation on
Actions During Review.
6
7
8
9
The applicable section of the UBe is excerpted here:
UBC 8.. 8 Concti tiOJ1al llses. SB. Bfiec:ti/ve .Padod -
Ezp.ira tiOD.
a. A conditional use permi t automatically expires and
becomes null and void if the applicaiJt rails to file for
a building permit witJUn thre~ (3) years of the
effective date (the date or the decision granting the
permi t) of the permit unless the permit approval
provides for a greater period or time.
b. Extens:ions to the duration of .the original permit
approval are prohibited.
c. The Department of Community l)evelopment shall not
be responsible for notifying the applicant of an'
impending expiration. .
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
DA'l'ED this 2114 day of August 2002.
~~
22
23
Irv Berteig
Jefferson County Hearing Examiner
24
25
26
ib
27
28
29
Port Ludlow Associates. LLC
SUB9S-QOO3
i on IT~'\Jt Page 19 LOI..J IT
~-)'~.,.... .....^lll(udlowCov~,
1-1-() , if
t... . Lt-l::f'. F p. ~r'J(,:;;
.....:.a::::l~ or '..'" t)l4d
~ ,')"'
Findings. Conclusions
and Decision
:,~!::
e
e
\~
LOG ITEM
# 2,1-0'
("'I."'['je ~of
i ~ cl~ --=z::r:> c
~3('
e
e
23
July 14, 2006
Mr. Phil Johnson, Chair and
Jefferson County Commissioners
Mr. John Fischbach, Administrator
1820 Jefferson Street
PO Box 1220
Port Townsend, W A 98368
Re: Proposed Amendment to Development Agreement for Ludlow Cove II by Port
Ludlow Associates, Inc. for Trendwest, Inc.
Dear Mr. Fischbach and Commissioners:
At the last General Meeting of the Council, held July 6, 2006, the Council voted to communicate
formally to you that we question the use of a contractual document such as the Development
Agreement as a means to change zoning designations.
The Port Ludlow Village Council responded to the original Hearings on the use of this parcel for
timeshare use by Trendwest without supporting or opposing the project. (The Council did not
endorse the project because the proposed owners refused to adopt CC&R's that were similar to
those of the other communities in Port Ludlow when requested by the Village Council to do so.)
The Council's concern over this current issue is not whether the Trendwest project is appropriate
on the subject parcel. The Village Council questions the legality of the proposal by PLA and
Trendwest seeking to amend the Development Agreement between PLA and the County to
change land use definitions to allow time-share use. Allowing this means of re-zoning may have
serious property value implications not only in Port Ludlow under this Development Agreement
but county-wide as well.
The Village Council represents the interests of the community to the public and to government
entities. As the representative body of Port Ludlow speaking to our government we are
requesting that the Jefferson County Commission carefully consider our concern in this matter.
LOG ITEM
# '2-2.6
.~,
it. ,- ,~, "',:'> '
i' ~,c.
"'~o..J:
;:t:;.~- - - .!.
~f37
e
e
We believe that the Commission should consider that this decision might have great impact on
Jefferson County's ability to plan for and manage its land use and growth in the future.
Sincerely,
Elizabeth Van Zonneveld
President, Port Ludlow Village Council
Cc: Board of County Commissioners,
Al Scalf, Barbara Nightingale
I ;O.~ ITt=pv1
L. )!V- \ ~I
#~O
~f
.Lf3~
e
e
LOG ITEM
# 220
""'~
i',::CJ e
';'"
"""-"""---
~~'l
e
e
2LJ
SUPPLEMENTAL DECLARATION OF'
COVENANTS, CONDITIONS, RESTRXCTIONS, ASSESSMENTS,
CHARGES, SERVITUDES, LIENS, RESERVATIONSUD EASEMENTS
FOR LUDLOW COVE
THIS SUPPLEKENTAL DECLARATION of Covenants,
Restrictions, Assessments,. Charges, Servitudes, Liens,
and Easements (hereafter referred to as "the
Declaration") is made this day of
POPB RESOURCES, A DELAWARB LIMITED PUTNERSHIP
to as "Declarant"). . .
Conditions"
Reservations
Supplemental
,1995, by
(hereafter referred
WITNESSETH:
WHEREAS, Declarant is the Developer and OWner of certain real
property located in Jefferson County, Washington, commonly known as
the Subdivision of "Ludlow Cove", which is legally described ill
Exhibit A (hereafter referred to as "Ludlow Cove"); and
WHEREAS, Declarant desires to develop the aforesaid property
into a planned residential community of approximately 145
townhomes; and
WHEREAS, Declarant desires to form a non-prOfit corporation
for the management, maintenance, social, physical, aesthetic and
recreational purposes of benefiting Ludlow Cove Owners, Residents
and Occupants; which non-profit corporation shall be known as the
"Ludlow COve Town Home Association, " and which may (1) acquire,
operate, manage and maintain Ludlow Cove Limited Common Areas
declared to be maintained by the Ludlow Cove Town Home Association
in this DeClaration; (2) establish, levy, collect and disburse any
assessments and other charges imposed hereunder; and (3) as the
agent and representative of the Members, administer and enforce all
provisions hereof; and
WHEREAS, Declarant therefor wishes to subject Ludlow Cove to
the covenants, conditions, restrictions, assessments, charges,
servitudes~ liens, reservations and easements (collectively
referred to as "Covenants") hereinafter set forth; and
LOG ITEM
# ~
WHBREAS, in order to cause the Covenants to run with the
Ludlow Cove property, and to be binding upon the Owners, Residents
and Occupants thereof from and after the date of recordation of
this Supplemental DeClaration, Declarant hereby makes all
conveyances of Ludlow Cove property described in Exhibit A, whether
or not so provided therein, subject to the Covenants herein set
forth; and by accepting deeds, easements or other grants or
conveyances to any portion of LudlowCove,the Owners, Residents
and other transferees for themselves and theirheirs~executors and
LOD IT ,~,~, JI
". "~';<i ~tVI
# '2-2-0
~of
.y.i;D
-
e
e
administrators, trustees, personal representatives, successors and
assigns, agree that they shall be personally bound by all of the
Covenants (including but not limited to the obligation to pay
assessments) hereinafter set forth.
NOW, 'l'JIBRBJ'ORB, DBCLAR.AN'I hereby declares, covenants and
agrees as follows:
ARTICLE 1 .
PEFINITIQijS
The following words, phrases or terms used in this Declaration
shall have the following meanings:
Section 1. ~. "Annual Assessmen~n shall mean the charge levied
and assessed each year against each Lot pursuant to Article 7
hereof.
Section 1.2.n~rticlesn shall mean the Articles of
Incorporation of the Ludlow Cove Town Home Association as the same
may from time-to-time be amended or supplemented~
Section 1. 3 . "Assess~ble ProDer~.Ytt shall mean any Lot , except
such part or parts thereof as may from time-to-time constitute
Exempt Property.
Section 1.4. "Assessl1\ent" shall mean an Annual Assessment or
Special Assessment as provided in Article 7.
Section 1~5. "Asses~ment Lien" shall mean the lien created
and imposed by Article 7.
Section 1.6. "Board" shall mean the Board of Directors of the
Ludlow cove Town Home . Association.'
Section 1.7. "Bylaws" shall mean the Bylaws of the Ludlow
Cove Town Home Association as the same may from time-to-time be
amended or supplemented.
Section 1.8. "C<;>mmon ~rea(s}n shall mean all Common Area as
defined in the South Bay Master Declaration of Covenants,
Conditions, Restrictions, Assessments, Charges, Servitudes, Liens,
Reservations and Easements.
Section 1.9. "Covenants" shall mean the covenants,
conditions, restrictions; assessments, charges, servitudes, liens,
reservations and easements set forth herein.
Section 1. 10. nDeclar~nt.. shall mean Pope Resources, A
~laware Limited Partnership, organized under the laws of the State
of" Delaware , its successors and assigns, but only if such
successors or assigns should acquire all or substantially all of
- 2 -
;' n:1VI
tf
I
~2.6
,'~oi:
"yLi/
e
e
the then-developed portions of Ludlow Cove from Declarant for the
purpose of development . For purposes of this Supplemental
Declaration, and except where all or substantially all of the then-
developed portions of Ludlow Cove are involved, no individual,
corporation, trust, partnership or other entity who or which has
purchased a Lot or Lots within Ludlow Cove from Declarant, or whose
title to such Lot is derived from a person who has purchased such
property from Declarant, shall be deemed a successor or assign of
Declarant. .
section 1.11. "Developer" shall mean and refer to Pope
Resources, A Delaware Limited Partnership, and its successors and
assigns.
Section 1.12. "DeveloDment Period". shall mean that period
commencing' with the recordinq of this Supplemental Declaration and
terminating upon the first to occur of (i) three (3) years from
such commencement date: (ii) the termination of Class B Membership:
or (iii) written notice from Declarant to the Ludlow Cove Town Home
Association of termination of the Development Period.
Section 1.13. "Dwellina Unit" shall mean any building or
portion of a buildingsi tuated upon a. Lot designed and intended for
use and occupancy as a residence by a single family.
Section 1. 14 . HExe~t proDertv" shall mean the following
portions of Ludlow Cove: '. .
(a) All land and improvements owned by or dedicated to
and accepted by the United States, the state of
Washington or Jefferson County, or any political
subdivision thereof, for as long as any such governmental
entity is the owner thereof or for so long as said
dedication remains effective; and
(b) All Ludlow Cove Limited Common Areas.
Section 1.15. "First Mortgage" shall mean and refer to any
unpaid and outstanding mortgage, . deed of trust, or other security
instrument on Lots in Ludlow Cove recorded in the office of the
Auditor of Jefferson County, WaShington, having priority of record
over all other recorded liens except those governmental liens made
superior by statute. "First Mortgaaee" shall mean and refer to any
person or entity named as a Mortgagee or Beneficiary under any
First Mortgage or any successor to the interest of any such First
Mortgagee.
Section 1.16.. tlGovernina Documents" shall mean the Articles
and Bylaws of the Ludlow Cove Town Home Association: the Master
Declaration; this Supplemental Declaration: and any applicable
Master Association or Ludlow Cove Rules and Regulation~, as from
time-to-time amended.
- 3 -
L r\r"- 'T~"-~v'/
' ,.. -, I i--!'
_"Io.,#~~ J '_f
1 <\G \lEM
,:;'j -'. r
."c:.:-
./.J.
1l"
226
-h5L of
L-f<12--
-
e
e
Section 1. 17. "Government Mortqage Agencv" shall mean the
Federal Housing Administration, the v~terans Administration, the
Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation, the Government National
Mortgage Association or the Federal National Mortgage Association
or any similar entity, public or private, authorized, approved or
sponsored by any governmental agency to insure, guarantee, make or
purchase mortgage loans.
Section 1.18. "Limited Common Area" shall mean.that portion
of the subdivision of Ludlow Cove designated on a recorded
subdivision plat as Tracts A, B, C, D or as a Limited Common Area
or Open Space. All private roadways within Ludlow Cove shall be
limited common areas.
Section 1.19. "1Qt" shall mean any area of real property
within Ludlow Cove designated as a residential Lot,. specifically
excluding the Ludlow Cove Limited Common Areas, but together with
all appurtenancesi improvements and Dwelling Units now or hereafter
built or placed on any Lot. .
Section 1. 20. "Ludlow Cove" shall mean the subdivision known
as Ludlow Cove, legally described in Exhibit A.
Section 1.21. "Ludlow Cove Rules" shall mean the rules for'
Ludlow Cove adopted by the Board of the Ludlow Cove Town Home
Association.
Section 1.22. "Ludlow Cove" Town' Home Association" shall mean
the Ludlow Cove Town Home Association, a Washington non-profit
corporation organized, or to be organized, by Declarant to
administer and enforce this Supplemental Declaration and to
exercise all rights, powers and duties set forth in this
Supplemental Declaration, its successors and assigns.
Section 1.23. "Master Association" shall mean the South Bay
Community Association, a Washington non-profit corporation
organized by Declarant to administer and enforce the covenants and
to exercise all rights, powers and duties set forth in the Master
Declaration, its successors and assigns.
Section 1.24. "Master Declaration" shall mean the South Bay
Master Declaration of Covenants, Conditions, Restrictions,
Assessments, Charges, Servitudes, Liens, Reservations and
Easements, as may be amended from time-to-time.
Section 1.25. "Member" shall mean any person holding a
Membership in the Ludlow Cove Town Home Association pursuant to
this Declaration and without exception shall mean and refer to each
Owner, including the Declarant, of a Lot in Ludlow Cove that is
subject to assessment. Membership in the Ludlow Cove Town Home
Association shall be appurtenant to, and may not be separated from,
ownership of a Lot within Ludlow Cove.
"
- .. -
Lnr:. ITr.::M
. ~,_~ .~.A 1 ~
#_2'!-0
"_~of
4~~
e
e
Section, 1.26. "Mel\lbe;!:'sh~p" shall mean a Membershipin1:.he
Ludlow Cove Town Home Association and the rights grant~d' to the
Owners and Declarant pursuant hereto to participat~ in the .'.I,udlOW
Cove Town Home Association.
Section 1. 27. "9qcuoant"shallmean any person, other 1:banan
Owner, in rightful possession of a Lot within Ludlow Cove.
Section 1.28.. ' "ODen Spaces" . shall mean and refer t()those
areas, if any, designatedona recorded LudlowCov~ sQbdivision
plat as Open Spaces and, when so designated, shall be deemed to .'be
Limited Common Areas as defined herein. .'
. ..
. .'
section 1. 29 ~ "Owner" shall mean the record" owner ofa fee....
simple interest in any Lot, but excluding others who hold suell
title merely as security. Purchasers and their assignees under
recorded real estate contracts shall be deemed Owners.as.against
their respective sellers orassiqnors~An Owner shal+ include any
person who holds record title toa Lot in joint ownership with any
other person or holds an undivided fee interest. in any Lot.
Section 1. 30. "~esident" shall mean:
(a) An Owner actually .residing ()n~;LQt:
(b) Each PurchaE;er~ndera real. estate contract
covering any Lot actually residing on the Lot:.
(c) Members ()f the immediate family Of each Owner and
of each Purchaser aetually living in the same
household in Ludlow'cove. withsucbOwner or
Purchaser; and
(d). Tenants/Renters..
Section 1.31. "SinaleFamilv" shall mean aqroup pfpne or
more persons each related to the other by ,t(~opd, marriage or leqal
adoption, or a group of not more than four (4) persons not all so
related, who maintain a common household inaDwelling Unit.
Section 1.32. "Scecial Assessment"shallmean any ass.ssment
levied and assessed pursuant to the Special Assessment provisions
of Article 7.
Section J. .33. "Subdivision Plat". shall mean a recorded
of LUdlow Cove.
Section 1.34. "SucclementalDeclaration" shall mean
recorded Supplemental Declaration. .
. .
Section 1.35. uVisibleFromNeighborinapro~ertvnshallJllean,
with respect to any given object,' that such object is or would pe
visible to a person six feet tall, standing at ground level ()nany
~5 _.'
LOG ITEM
# f
LOG ITEM
_--.1--2-:D. .
"~of
- 4Lf~ ..
.
.
e
part of a Lot, Common Area or Limited Common Area neighboring that
on which such object exists.
ARTICLE 2
PROPERTY SUBJECT TO ~UDLOW COVE
SUPPLEMENTAL DECLARATION
Section 2. 1. General. Declaration Creating Ludlow Cove.
Declarant intends to develop LUdlow Cove into various Lots. All
Lots within Ludlow Cove are hereby declared to be expressly subject
to the Master Declaration, as amended, recorded by Declarant, which
Master Declaration is incorporated herein by this reference and
made a part hereof as though fully set forth herein. Declarant
hereby declares that all of the real property within Ludlow Cove is
and shall be held, conveyed, encumbered, occupied, built upon or
otherwise used, improved or transferred, in whole or in part,
subj ect to the Master Declaration and this Supplemental
DeClaration, as either are amended from time-to-time; provided,
however, exempt properties shall only be subject to those portions
of the Master Declaration and this Supplemental Declaration
relating to easements and restrictions imposed concerning placement
of utilities and the use and maintenance of such properties.
The Master Declaration and this Supplemental Declaration are
declared to be in furtherance of a general plan for the overall
improvement of the various development components of..5outh Bay and
are established for the purpose of enhancing and protecting the
value, desirability and attractiveness of South Bay and every
portion thereof. The Master Declar.ation and this Supplemental
DeClaration, as either may be hereafter modified or amended, shall
run with the Ludlow Cove property described in Exhibit A, and shall
be binding upon and inure to the benefit of Declarant, the Ludlow
Cove Town Home ASSOCiation, and all Owners, Residents and
Occupants, their successors and assigns, in Ludlow Cove. Nothing
in this Declaration shall be construed to prevent Declarant from
dedicating or conveying portions of Ludlow Cove including, but not
limited to, Common Areas, Limited Common Areas, streets, roadways
and easements to any governmental entity or third party or for uses
other than as a Lot, Common Area or Limited Common Area.
Section 2.2. Ludlow Cove Town Home Association Bound. Upon
issuance of a Certificate of Incorporation by the State of
Washington, the Covenants contained in the Master Declaration and
Supplemental DeClaration, as may be hereafter modified or amended,
shall be binding upon and shall benefit the Ludlow Cove Town Home
Association.
Section 2.3. SUDersededDeclaration. with the exception of
the Master Declaration, this Supplemental Declaration supersedes
and is made in full substitution for any prior covenants which may
have been imposed on the real property set forth in Exhibit A by
Declarant or any of its predecessors in interest, but shall not
- 6 -
LOG ITEM
#_ 1-2-0
~of
~"1S-
e
e
supersede any shoreline permit conditions or other governmentally
imposed restrictions on the use of the prope~ty comprising Ludlow
Cove.
ARTICLE 3
EASEMENTS AND RIGHTS OF ENJOYMENT IN .
LUDLOW COVE TOWN.HOMEASSOCIATION.LIMITED.COMMON AREAS
Section 3 .1. Easemetlts of En; ovment. Every OWner, Resident,
Occupant and Member of the Ludlow Cove Town Home Association shall
have a non-exclusive right and easement of enjoyment in and to the
Ludlow Cove Limited Common Area, which easement shall be
appurtenant to and shall pass with the title to every Lot subject
to the fOllowing provisions:
3 . 1. 1 The right of the Ludlow Cove Town Home A~sociation
to suspend the votinq rights and right to' use of the Ludlow Cove
Limited Common Areas by any Member (i) for any period during which
any Assessment against such Owner's Lot remains delinquent; (ii)
for a period not to exceed sixty (60) days for any infraction of
this Supplemental Declaration or Ludlow Cove Rules; and (iii) for
successive sixty (60) day periods if any such infraction is not
corrected during any prior sixty (60) day suspension period;
3.1.2 The right of the Ludlow Cove Townijome Association
to dedicate, grant or transfer such permits, licenses and easements
for utilities, roads and/or other purposes consistent with the
intended uses of the LUdlow Cove Limited Common Areas or as
otherwise provided in thisSupplemEmtalDeclaration, and reasonably
necessary or desirable for the proper use ,maintenance' or-operation
of any portion of LUdlow Cove, and which do not have any
substantial adverse effect on the enj oyment of the Ludlow Cove
Limited Common Areas by the Members; '.
3.1.3 The right of the Ludlow Cove Town Home Association
to regulate the use of the Ludlow Cove Limited Common Areas through
the Ludlow Cove Rules and to prohibit access to those areas, such
as drainage areas, not intended for use by Members. The Ludlow
Cove Rules are intended to enhance the preservation of the Ludlow
Cove Limited Common Areas for the safety and convenience of the
users thereof and shall serve to promote the best interests of the
OWners, Residents and Occupants of Ludlow Cove;
3. 1. 4 The right of the Ludlow Cove Town Home Association
to prescribe which Members are permitted to use the Ludlow Cove
Limited Common Areas and to determine who may be classified as
guests and to close~r limit the use of the Ludlow Cove Limited
Common Areas, or portions thereof, while maintaining and repairing
the same;
3.1.5 The right of the Declarant, reserved hereby, to
non-exclusive use of all Ludlow Cove Limited Common Areas for
- 7 -
L'1r" 'Tr-
. ",-,'<;i ! eM
"~.24D
----..,..
,(~. . r.*'
~j""l-
-
e
e
display, sales, promotional, and other purposes deemed useful by
Declarant and its agents and representatives in advertising or
promoting Ludlow. Cove or South Bay. This right shall permit
Declarant to allow unlimited use by quests and prospective
customers of all Ludlow Cove Limited Common Areas and shall
terminate when the last Lot in Ludlow Cove has been sold by
Declarant, or successor, to an owner of a Dwelling unit.
3.1.6 The right of the Ludlow Cove Town Home
Association, in accordance with its Articles and Bylaws, to borrow
money for the purpose of improving the Ludlow Cove Limited Common
Areas, and with written consent of two-thirds (2/3) of the votes of
each class of Membership in the Ludlow Cove Town Home Association,
to mortgage the LUdlow Cove Limited Common Areas as security for
any such loan.
Section 3.2. Ludlow.Cove Limited Common Areas. The Ludlow
Cove Limited Common Areas , with the exception of any trail or
pathway system running through these areas otherwise intended for
use by the South Bay Community Association members, are hereby
declared to be tor the exclusive use and enjoyment of the OWners,
Residents and Occupants of Ludlow Cove; subject to the Governing
Documents and the rights of the Ludlow Cove Town Home Association
as set forth in Paragraph 3.1 hereof.
Section' 3 . 3 . Deleqation of. Use' Bv Owners. Any owner may
delegate, in accordance with the Governing Documents, his right of
enjoyment to the Ludlow Cove Limited Common Areas to members of his
family and his tenants, provided, however, that it any owner
delegates such right of enjoyment to tenants, neither the Owner nor
his family shall be entitled to use such areas by reason of
ownership of that Lot during the period of delegation. Guests of
an Owner may use such facilities only in accordance with the
Governing Documents, which may limit the number of quests who may
use such areas. The Board may also promulgate rules and
regulations limiting the use of the Ludlow Cove Limited Common
Areas by co-owners with respect to any Lot in co-ownership.
ARTICLE 4
SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL USE AND
MISCELLANEOUS USE RESTRICTIONS IN LUDLOW COVE
Section 4.1. Sinqle Family Residences. LUdlow Cove is hereby
declared to be Single Family Land Use. All Lots within Ludlow Cove
shall be used only for the construction and occupancy of single
family dwellings and typical residential activities incidental
thereto. No professional, commercial or industrial operations, of
any kind, shall be conducted in or upon any Lot except (1) as
permitted by the Board and Jefferson County: or (2) such temporary
uses as shall be permitted by Declarant while the development is
being constructed and Lots are being sold by Declarant. Use of all
Lots shall be in accordance with, and subject to, the limitations
- 8 -
L r..iI"'" ITI"""M
... ,'-:''''''~ r'-
",\""",f.\'"",,-, _~!
2.2-0
~
4~7
-
e
and rules as established by the Board directly, or through the
Managing Agent, if any.
Section 4.2. Tenants. The entire Dwelling Unit ona Lot may
be let to a single family tenant from time-to-time by the owner,
providing such tenancy shall not be less than six (6) consecutive
months to the samet.enant. All leases and rental agreements for
individual Dwelling Units shall be in writing and specifically
shall be subject to each and every requirement, covenant, condition
and restriction of the Master DeClaration, supplemental Declaration
and Governing Documents.
Section 4.3. Master Declaration Land Use' Covenants.
Notwithstanding anything to the contrary herein, all Lots are
subject to all provisions of the Master Declaration, including
those provisions relating to Land Use set forth in Article 4
thereof.
Section 4.4. Right of Entry. During reasonable hours and
upon reasonable notice to the Owner, Resident or Occupant of a Lot,
any Member of the Board of the Ludlow Cove Town Home Association or
Declarant, or any authorized representative of either of them,
shall have the right to enter upon and inspect any Lot, and> the
improvements thereon, except for the interior portions of any
Dwelling Unit, for the purpose of ascertaining compliance with the
Master. Declaration or this Supplemental Declaration. '
Section 4.5. Prefabricated Buildings. No prefabricated,
modular or manufactured building or structure of any nature
whatsoever, permanent or temporary, shall be moved or placed or
assembled or otherwise maintained on any Lot.
Section 4.6. Removal of Weeds and Debris. Each Lot Owner
irrevocably grants to Declarant, the Ludlow Cove Town HOme
Association, and their successors and assigns, the right at the
option of said entities to remove any weeds or debris from Lots in
the SUbdivision.
Section 4.7. Unnatural Drainaae. Under no circumstances
shall any owner, Resident or occupant of any Lot be permitted to
deliberately alter the topographic conditions of the Lot in any way
that would adversely affect the approved and constructed storm
drainage system.
Section 4 .8. Animals. In addi tion to the provisions
contained within Paragraph 4.2.2 of the Master DeClaration, no pets
(as defined in Paragraph 4.2.2) shall be housed or confined
outdoors. No structure for the care, housing or confinement of any
Pet shall be erected or maintained on any Lot within Ludlow Cove.
Section 4.9. Sewer Connection. Each Lot shall be connected
to sewer. There shall be no on-site septic systems within Ludlow
Cove.
- 9 -
L0n l'r;:::",Ji
.......", I ! ,_,1 VI
'2-U;~
~of
"iLif?
#
e
e
Section 4.10. Coveuants contained On Plat. . . All'prope'z1:Y
within Ludlow Cove shall besubj ectto all Declarations, covenants,
Easements and Restrictions set forth on the Plat of laudlaw Cove....
Section. 4.11. Pesticides' and ." Herbicides. Pesticide$ and
herbicides will only . be applied by applicators" li.censedby _the ...
washington state Department of Agriculture consistent with the
requirements of RCW 17.21andRCW lS.58.Herbicides, pesticides,
and fungicides witt). the shortest hydrolysis half-life wtll be used.. '.
A two week half-life is desirable. . Pestici.desappearing on the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's "priority List of LeaChinc;J
pesticides" will not be used. Herbicides, . pesticides, and
fertilizers will be applied during the dry, summer season rather
than winter runoff periods.
Section 4.12. LandsQaping.Whenever possible, native shrubs
and plants will be utilized for landscaping and planting on thoile
portions of the development not used for residentialuse~
. .
Section 4.13. Declaraut' s Exemption 0:' Nothing contained in
this Supplemental Declaration . shall be construed toprevent.the
erection or maintenance by Declarant, or its duly' authoriZed
agents, of any buildings, utilities, structures, improvements or
signs necessary or convenient to the . development or saleaf.
property within Ludlow Cove.
. Section. 4. 14. ..Difmutes. . ,..TheL\1dl-ow, Cove -TOwn llome
Association shall hav~ juriSdiction over activities permitted' on
Ludlow Cove Limited Common Areas. All disputes, complaints or
matters of change in existing or future use restriction shall" be
submitted to the Board for determinatian,unlessotherwise provided
in the Master Declaration to be within the authority of the
Architectural Review Committee. The decision of the Board" or
ArChitectural Review Committee shall be final.
ARTICLE 5
ORGANIZATION. OF . THE WDLOW COVE TO~. HOM$ ASSOCIATION
Section 5.1. Formation of the Ludlow. Cove . Town . tlo~e'
Association. The Ludlow Cove Town Home Association shall be
charged with the duties and vested with the powers prescribed bY
law and set forth in the Governing Documents. Neither the Articles
nor Bylaws of the Ludlow Cove Town Home Association shall, for any
reason, be amended or otherwise changed or interpreted so as to be.
inconsistent with the Master Declaration or this Supplemental
Declaration.
Section 5.2. Board QfDirectorsandRfficers. The affairs of
the Ludlow Cove Town Home Association shall be conducted by the
Board and such Qfficers as the ~ard . may elect or appoint in
accordance with the Ludlow Cove TOwn Home Association's Articles of
Incorporation and Bylaws as the same maYbe" amended from time-to-
... 10 -
LOG ITEM
# _-ZW .
._~Qf
'1 L.t ~
e
e
time. The Board shall be composed of at least three (3) and no
more than nine ( 9) members. The ini tialBoard shall be composed of
four (4) members. The Ludlow Cove Town Home Association, through
the Board, unless specifically provided otherwise, shall have the
right and duty to enforce this Supplemental Declaration, and shall
have the right and be responsible for the proper and efficient
management, maintenance and- operation of the Ludlow Cove Limited
Common Areas and maintenance and repair of the monument signs as
provided herein, including;
5.2.1 Maintaining and landscaping, if applicable, the
Ludlow Cove Limited Common Areas and any other properties
controlled by the Ludlow Cove Town Home Association;
5.2. 2 Maintaining all entry areas and monument signs
within Ludlow Cove;
5.2.3 Maintaining the storm water and drainage control
systems, inClUding, but not limited to, catch basins, piping,
conveyance facilities, retainage and detainage ponds, if any, and
oil separators, on Ludlow Cove Limited Common Areas;
5.2.4 Operating, maintaining. (including insuring, at the
discretion of the Board) and rebuilding, if necessary , signs,
monuments, walls, fences, and other improvements originally
constructed by Declarant or the LUdlow Cove Town Home Association
on Ludlow Cove Limited Common Areas and/or easements granted to the
Ludlow Cove Town Home Association, if any;
5.2.5 Paying any real estate taxes, assessments or other
charges on Ludlow Cove Land and Limited Common Areas;
5.2.6 Insuring all improvements which the Ludlow Cove
Town Home Association is obligated to maintain against damage by
casualty as the Board deems appropriate;
5.2.7 Hiring, firing, supervising and paying employees
and independent contractors to carry out the obligations of the
Ludlow Cove Town Home Association as set forth herein;
5.2.8 - Maintaining liability insurance to protect the
Ludlow Cove Town Home Association and the Board from any liability
caused by occurrences or happenings on or about the Ludlow Cove
Limited Common Areas;
. 5.2.9 Maintaining workmen's compensation insurance for
any employees of the Ludlow Cove Town Home Association;
5.2.10 Purchasing all goods,
services reasonably necessary for the
obligations set forth herein;
supplies, labor and
performance of the
- 11 -
Lt.......t"' ITr"f\J~
'I.:J i 1;:IVI
# 11;6 ~_
~of
~1b
e
e
5.2.11 Establishing and maintaining such cash reserves,
if any, as the Ludlow Cove Town Home Association may, in its sole
and absolute discretion, deem reasonably necessary for the
maintenance and repair of the Ludlow Cove Limited Common Areas.
5.2.12 Payment for all utility services , including
street lights, if applicable, of the Ludlow Cove. Town Home
Association:
5.2.13 Entering into such agreements and taking such
actions as are reasonably necessary and convenient for the
accomplishment of the obligations set forth in this Supplemental
Declaration and the Articles of Incorporation and Bylaws of the
Ludlow Cove Town Home Association, including, but not limited to,
maintenance of landscaping and the Ludlow' Cove Limi ted Common
Areas: and
5.2 . 14 Such other matters and powers as are provided
under (1) the Articles of Incorporation and Bylaws: and (2)
Washington State law, as may be amended from time-to-time, for a
non-profit corporation.
Section 5.3. The. Ludlow Cov~. Rules. . The Board shall be
empowered to 'adopt, amend,or repeal such Ludlow Cove Rules as it
deems reasonable and appropriate, which sball be binding upon all
persons and entities subject to this Supplemental Declaration,
whether Members of the Ludlow Cove Town Home Association or not:
provided, . however, that the Ludlow Cove Rules shall not
discriminate among Members and shall not be inconsistent with the
other Governing Documents. The Ludlow Cove Rules may also include
the establishment of a system of fines and penalties for
enforcement of such Rules. The 'Ludlow Cove Rules may be
established, modified or amended at any special or regular meeting
of the Board.
The Ludlow Cove Rules are deemed incorporated herein by this
reference and shall have the same force and effect as if they were
set forth in and were part of this Supplemental Declaration and
shall be binding on all persons or entities having any interest in,
or making any use of, any part of the Ludlow Cove Limited Common
Areas, whether or not Members of the Ludlow Cove Town Home
Association and whether or not copies of the Ludlow Cove Rules are
actuallyrecei ved by such persons or entities. The Ludlow Cove
Rules, as adopted, amended, modified or repealed shall be available
for review at the principal office of the Ludlow Cove Town Home
Association,or such other location within South Bay as designated
by the Board, to each person or entity reasonably entitled thereto.
In the event of a conflict between any provisions of the LUdlow
Cove Rules and any provisions of the Master Declaration or this
Supplemental Declaration, the provisions of the Ludlow Cove Rules
shall be deemed to be superseded by the provisions of the Master
Declaration and this Supplemental Declaration to the extent of any
such conflict. Any monetary penalties or fines imposed by the
· 12 -
#
LO"':: IT!=~"
~ ._J "....." _~~Vl
7-1.-D
~of
~5'(
e
e
Ludlow Cove Rules shall be treated as an assessment which may
become a lien against the Members' Lot and enforceable by a sale
thereof.
Section 5.4. Non-Liability 9fOfficials and Indemnification.
To the fullest extent permitted by Washington State law, Declarant,
and every Director, Officer, Committee Member, Manager(s), or other
employee of the Ludlow Cove Town Home Association and of the
Declarant, shall not be personally liable hereunder to any Member,
or to any other person or entity, including the Ludlow Cove Town
Home Association, for any damage, loss or prejudice suffered or
claimed on account of any act,omission, error, or negligence;
provided, however, the provisions set forth in this Section 5.4
shall not apply to any person who has failed to act in good faith
or has engaged in willful or intentional misconduct.
Section 5.5. Manaainq Agent. The Ludlow Cove Town Home
Association, through the Board, is authorized to employ a managing
agent or other persons and to contract with independent contractors
or managing agents to perform all or any part of the duties and
responsibilities of the Ludlow Cove Town Home Association. The
Ludlow Cove Town Home Association, through its Board, is also
expressly authorized to enter into one or more management
agreements with third parties in order to facilitate efficient
operations and to carry out its obligations. It shall be the
primary purpose of such management agreement(s) to provide for the
administration, management, repair and maintenance of the Ludlow
Cove Limited Common Areas and Lots to the extent provided herein,
and to assess, collect and apply the Assessments, and to enforce
this Supplemental Declaration.
The terms of the management agreement shall be as determined
by the Board to be in the best interest of the Ludlow Cove Town
Home Association, and shall be subject to the Governing Documents.
Any management agreement shall not exceed a term of one (1) year
unless the terms thereof have been approved by a majority vote of
the Ludlow Cove Town Home Association, but. may be renewed by
agreement of the parties. for successive one (1) year periods and
shall provide for termination by either party wit~ or without cause
and without payment of a termination fee~pon ninety (90) days'
written notice; provided, however, that the LUdlow Cove Town Home
Association may terminate the agreement for cause immediately upon
thirty (30) days' written notice, and provided further, that in the
event of misconduct, the Ludlow Cove Town Home Association may
terminate the agreement immediately with no notice whatsoever.
The Ludlow Cove Town Home Association is expressly authorized
to contract with Declarant, or an affiliate, representative or
company involving some or all of the same individuals as Declarant,
in order to provide management and/or maintenance services or to
perform any othe~ duties of the Ludlow Cove Town Home Association
or the Board. Each Owner, Resident and Occupant shall be bound by
the terms and conditions of all management agreements entered into.
- 13 -
LOG ITEM
i-UJ
~ot
~L;1-
::/:I:
,f
e
e
A copy of all management agreements shall be available to each
Owner upon request at the Ludlow Cove Town Home Association Office,
or such other location withinS:outhBay as designated by the Board.
Section 5.6. Recordsanq.Accounting.TheLudlowCove Town
Home Association shall keep, or cause to be kept ,true and correct .
books and' records in accordance with generally accepted accounting
principles. Financial statements for the Ludlow Cove Town Home
Association shall be regularly prepared and available at the Ludlow
Cove Town Home A$sociation Office, or such other location within
South Bay as designated by the Board, to all members as follows:
5.6.1 A pro forma operating statement (budgetfot' each
fiscal year shall be available for distribution not less that
thirty (30) days before the beginning of the fiscal year};
5.6.2 An annual report shall be available for
distribution within one hundred twenty (120) days after the close
of the fiscal year consisting of a balance sheet as of the end of
the fiscal year, an operating (income) statement for the fisc~l
year, and a statement' of changes in" financial posi tionfor the
fiscal year; .'
5.6.3 The annual report need not <be preparedby.an
independent accountant, but it' shall be accompanied by the
certificate of an authorized Officer of the Ludlow Cove Town Home
Association that the statements were'prepared without audit from
the books and records of the Ludlow COve Town Home Association..
Section 5. 7 . Inspection of Books and Records.'. The Membership
register, books of account and minutes of meetings of the Members,
of the Board, and of Committees of the' Board, shall be made
available for inspection and copying.. by any Member at. any
reasonable time, at the office of the Ludlow cove" Town HOl11e
Association, or at such other place within South Bay as the Board
shall prescribe . The Board may establish reasonable rule's witp
respect to: (1) Notice to be given to the custodian of the records
by the Member desiring to make the inspection; (2) hours .and days
of the week when such an inspection may be made; and (3) payment of
the cost of reproducing copies of documents requested by a Member.
Every Director shall have the absolute right at any reasonabJ.e time
to inspect all books, records and documents of the Ludlow Cove Town
Home Association and the physical properties owned or controlled by
the Ludlow Cove Town Home Association.
ARTICLE 6
MEMBERSHIPS AND VOTING
Section 6.1. Lot OWners.... EveryOW]1er ofa Lot, including
Declarant, shall be a Member of the Ludlow Cove Town Home
Association. Membership shall be appurtenant to and may not be
separated from ownership of the Lot to which the Membership is
-14-
J O. ,f:; .,' TJ:::1\1i
1... d< ''''~.ot _ ;_.IV'
-~:k.'f::P
~
~t)b
-
e
e
attributable. There shall be only one Membership for each Lot,
which Membership shall be shared by all OWners . of an' interest
therein.
Section 6.2. Declaraut. Declarant, or its successor, shall
be a Member of the Ludlow Cove Town Home Association for so long as
it holds a Class B Membership pursuant hereto or owns any property
in Ludlow Cove.
Section 6.3. Voting. The Ludlow Cove Town Home Association
shall have two (2) classes of voting memberships:
Class A. class A Memberships shall be all Memberships,
except the Class B Membership held by Declarant, and each Owner
shall be entitled to one vote for each Lot owned, subject to the
authority of the Board to suspend the voting rights of the Owner
for violations of this Supplemental Declaration in accordance with
the provisions hereof.
Clas~ B. Class B Memberships shall be held. by the
Declarant and the Class B Membership shall be entitled to three (3)
votes for each Lot owned by Declarant. The Class B Membership
shall cease and be converted to Class A Memberships on the
happening of the first of the following events:
(a) When the total votes outstanding in Class A
Membership equal the total votes outstanding in the Class B
Membership;
(b) When the Declarant voluntarily terminates the Class
B Membership by wri tten notice to the Ludlow Cove Town Home
Association, at which time Declarant will receive Class A
Membership for each Lot owned within Ludlow Cove; or
(c) At the end of the Development Period.
Section 6. 4 . Right to Vote. The right to vote in Ludlow Cove .
Town Home Association matters shall be subject to the following
. conditions:
6.4.1 No change in a Membership shall be effective for
voting purposes unless and until th~ Board is given actual written
notice of such change. The vote for each Membership must be cast
as a unit; fractional votes shall not be allowed. If a Membership
is owned by more than one person or entity and such Owners are
unable to agree among themselves . as to how their vote or votes
shall be cast, they shall lose their right to vote on the matter in
question. If any Member casts a vote representing a certain
Membership, it will thereafter be conclusively presumed for all
purposes that he was acting with the authority and consent of all
OWners of the Membership unless objection thereto is made at the
time the vote is cast.
- 15 -
!Tr:!l..R
. j i._JVI
e
e
6.4.2 Any mortgagee who acquires title to a Lot pursuant
to a judgment or foreclosure or a trustee sale shall automatically
become entitled to exercise all voting rights which the owner of
said Lot would otherwise have had. .
6.4.3 If any'lender to whom Declarant has assigned, or
hereafter assigns, as security, all or substantially all of its
rights under this Supplemental Declaration succeeds to the
interests of the Declarant by virtue of said assignment, the
absolute voting rights of the Declarant as provideq herein shall
not be terminated thereby~ and such lender shall hold the
Declarant's Memberships and voting rights on the same terms as they
were held by Declarant. .
section 6. 5 . Transfer of Membershi'D. The rights and
obligations of Membership in the Ludlow Cove Town Home Association
shall not be assigned, transferred, pledgeq, conveyed or alienated
in any way except upon conveyance of an Owner's Lot by deed,
intestate succession, testamentary disposition, foreclosur~ of a
Mortgage or Deed of Trust, or other legal process pursuant to the
laws of the State of Washington or the United States.
ARTICLE 7
COVENANT FOR ASSESSMENTS AND CREATION.OF LIEN
Section 7.1. Creation of Lien . and personalObliqationc;>f
~ssessments. The Declarant, for each Lot hereinafter established
within Ludlow Cove, hereby covenants and agrees, and each Owner by
acceptance of a deed therefor (whether or not it shall be so
expressed in such deed) is deemed to covenant and agree to pay to
the Ludlow Cove Town Home Association the following Assessments
established hereunder: (i) Annual Assessments: and (ii) special
Assessments for capi tal improvements" or other extraordinary
expenses or costs. The Annual and Special Assessments, together
with interest, costs and reasonable attorneys' fees, shall be a
charge on the Lot and shall constitute a continuing servitude and
lien with power of sale upon the Lot against which such Assessment
is made. The lien may be enforced by foreclosure of the lien on
the defaulting Owner's Lot by the Ludlow Cove Town HODle Association
in like manner as a mortgage or Deed of Trust on real property.
The lien for each unpaid Assessment attaches to each Lot at the
beginning of each Assessment Period and shall continue to be a lien
against such .Lot until paid. The costs and expenses for filing any
notice of lien shall be added to the Assessment for the Lot against
which it is filed and collected as part and parcel thereof. Each
such Annual and Special Assessment, together. with interest, costs
and reasonable attorneys' fees, shall also be the personal
obligation of the Owner of' the Lot at the time when the Assessment
fell due. The personal obligation for delinquent Assessments shall
not pass to the succeSsors in title of the Owner unless expressly
asswned by them.
- l' -
I'T'-'-.ij
1,,1::;:1\11
# ._. '),.1-0
~O'f
Li 5'5"
e
e
Section 7.2. Annual A,ssessments. In order to provide for the
uses and purposes specified in Article 9 hereof, the Board in each
year, commencing in the year of the first sale from Declarant to a
third party, shall assess an Annual Assessment against each Lot
commencing the earlier of (1) 180 days after the sale from
Declarant to a third party; or (2) the date a residence on any such
Lot is occupied. Each Lot shall be responsible for paying the
Annual Assess~ent, or a pro rata share thereof, from said'date.
The amount of the Annual Assessment shall be established by the
Board but shall be determined with the objective of fulfilling the
Ludlow Cove Town Home Association's obligations under this
Supplemental Declaration.
Section 7.3. Uniform Rate of Assessment. The amount of any
Annual or Special Assessment shall be fixed at a uniform rate per
Lot within Ludlow Cove. Annual Assessments shall be collected in
advance on a monthly, quarterly or annual basis and Special
Assessments may be collected as specified by the Board unless
otherwiSe determined by the resolution of the Members of the Ludlow
Cove Town Home Association approving the Special Assessment.
Section 7.4. SUDeriort tv of Assessment Lien. The Ludlow Cove
Town Home Association's lien on each Lot for Assessments shall be
superior to any homestead exemption now or hereafter provided by
the laws of the State of Washington or any exemption now or
hereafter provided by the laws of the United states. Sincethe
Owner will receive a copy of this Supplemental Declaration prior to
Closing and/or the Supplemental Declaration is recorded of public
record, the acceptance of a deed subject to this Supplemental
Declaration shall constit~te a voluntary and informed waiver of the
homestead right by the Owner and an acknowledgment that the lien
should be paid prior to any homestead claim. The Assessment Liens
of the Ludlow Cove Town Home Association shall be subordinate in
all cases to any Assessment Liens of. the Master Association
established by the Master Declaration.
Section 7.5. Maximum Annual Assessment. The initial Annual
Assessment period shall commence as designated by the Board, and
each subsequent Annual Assessment period shall correspond with the
fiscal year of the Ludlow Cove Town Home Association. TheAnnual
Assessment to be established by the Boar.d may not exceed a certain
amount (the "Maximum Annual Assessment") determined in accordance
with the following provisions:
7.5.1 During the initial Annual Assessment period, the
Maximum Annual Assessment against each Owner shall be$
per year ($ Imonth) for each Lot subject to Assessment.
7.5.2 Effective with cOmlnencetnent of the first full
fiscal year (the second Annual Assessment PeriOd) and continuing
through the fifth (5th) full fiscal year, the Maximum Annual
Assessment may be increased by the Board without a vote of the
Membership by a maximum of twenty percent (20%) over the previous
- 17 -
e
e
year's Annual Assessment. Any such increase shall be effective at
the beginning of each fiscal year. Beginning with the sixth (6th)
full fiscal y~ar, and each subsequent fiscal year thereafter, the
Maximum Annual Assessment may be increased by the Board without a
vote of the Membership by a maximum amount equal to the greater of
either (1) five percent (5%) over the previous year's Annual
Assessment, or (2) the percentage increase in the Consumer Price
Index, Seattle/Everett Metropolitan Area (or such other closest
geographic area available), published by the Department of Labor,
Washington, D.C., or success9r governmental agency, between the
first day of the previous full fiscal year and the first day of the
current full fiscal year. Any such increase shall be effective at
the beginning of each fiscal year.
7.5.3 The Maximum Annual Assessment may be increased
above the amount set forth in Subsection 7.5.2 above, provided that
any such increase shall have the assent of a majority of the votes
of the Class A Membership and a majority of the votes of the Class
B Membership who are voting in person or by proxy at a meeting duly
called for this purpose, as provided in section 7.7 below.
Section 7. 6. SDecial Assessments for CaDi tal ImDrovements and
Extraordinarv Expenses. The Ludlow Cove Town Home Association may,
in any Assessment PeriOd, levy a Special Assessment applicable to
that periOd only, for the purpose of defraying, in whole or in
part, the cost of any acquisition, construction, reconstruction,
repair or replacement of a capital improvement upon Ludlow Cove
Limited Common Areas, inClUding buildings, structures, fixtures and
personal property related'thereto, or for the purpose of defraying
other extraordinary expenses; provided, that in any fiscal year,
the Board may not, without the vote or written assent of a majori~y
of each class of Membership, levy Special Assessments which in the
aggregate exceed five percent (5%) of the budgeted gross expenses
of the Ludlow Cove Town Home Association for that fiscal year. The
provisions of this Section are not intended to preclude or limit
the assessment, collection or use of Annual Assessments for the
aforestated purposes.
Section 7.7. Notice and Ol:)orum. written notice of any
meeting called for the purpose of taking any action under sections
7.5 or 7.6 of this Article shall be sent to all Members not less
than thirty (30) days, nor more than sixty (60) days, in advance of
the meeting. At any such meeting called, the presence of.Members
or of proxies entitled to cast forty percent (40%) of all the votes
(exclusive of suspended voting rights) of each class of Membership
shall constitute a quorum. .
Section 7.8 . Establishment of Anl1ual Assessment Period. The
Annual Assessment Period for collection of Assessments shall be
designated by the Board and shall be billed and collected on an
annual, quarterly or monthly basis.
- 18 -
l C,(:': ITf:M,
_ )! -"",;<1' _ <. ~-
12.D
'.... ~rd:
;:":-~Vl
~'J7
e.
e
Section 7.9. Billinaan4 C9l1ectionProc;:edures. The Board
shall have the right to adopt procedures consistent herewith for
the purpose of levying and collecting Annual and Special
Assessments. The failure of the Ludlow Cove Town Ho~e Association
to send a bill to a Member shall not relieve any Member of his ....
liability for any Assessmentundertbis Declaration, but tl1e
Assessment Lielltherefor shall not be foreclosed or otherwise
enforced until the Member has been given not lessthanthirty(30)
days' written notice at the address of the Member on the records of
the Ludlow Cove Town Home AssociatIon . Such notice may be given at
anytime prior to orafterd~linquency of such payment. The Ludlow
Cove Town Home Association shall be under no. duty to refund. any
payments received by it even though a Lot' is sold during an
Assessment Period; successor.Ownersshallbegiven credit for
prepayments, on a prorated basis, made by prior Owners. TheLudlow
Cove Town Home Association rnay charge new Members who become such
during an Assessment ,Period an administration fee related to the
issuance or reissuance of new Membership cards, if applicable, and
updating Membership record~. .
Section 7 .10. . Collectj.on . Costs. andlnt~reston Delinquent..
Assessments. Any delinquent installJl1entof Annual or Special
Assessment shall bear interest from thirty (30) days after the due
date until paid at a uniform rate established by theBo~rd which
rate shall not exceed the maximum interest rate legally allowed by
Washington state. The Member shall be liable for all collection.
costs, including attorneys' feesi Inc\lrred by the Ludlow Cove Town
Home Association. The Board may also record a Noti.ce of Delinquent
Assessment against any Lot as' to which an Annual or Special
Assessment is delinquent and constitutes a lien, and may further
establish a fixed fee to reimburse the Ludlow Cove Town Home
Association for its costs associated with recording such Notice of
Lien, processing the delinquency and recording a Notice of Payment,
which fixed fee shall be treatedasa collection cost of the Ludlow
Cove Town Home Association secured by the Assessment Lien.
Section 7.1L Evidence .of pavment . of Annual and. Special
Assessments. Upon receipt ofa written request by a Member or any
other person, the Ludlow Cove ToWn Home Association within ten (10)
days Shall issue a written certificate stating (a).' that all Annual
and Special Assessments' (inclUding interest., : costs and attorneys'
fees) have been paid with respect to any specified Lot, as of the
date of such certificate ,or (b) if all Annual and Special
Assessments have not been paid, ><the.. amount of . such Annual and
Special Assessments (inCluding interest, costs clOd attorneys' fees,
if any) due and payable as of such date. The Ludlow Cove Town HOI!'le
Association may make a reasonable charge for the issuance of such
certificates. Any such certificate., when duly issued as herein
provided, shall be conclusive and binding with respect to any
matter therein stated as against any bona fide purchaser Ofior
lender on, the Lot in qUestion.
Lr"> ,-. ,.....,..,..!l\f1
..'v'.:-" "-".
'''""' 1,-,
. '1-412
~.'of.
-45'8
e
e'
Section 7.12. ProDertv Exempted' From the Annual and Spec:;:l~l
Assessments. Exempt Property shall be excluded from the Assessment
of Annual and Special Assessments: provided, however, that in the
event any change of ownership of Exempt Property results in all or
any part thereof becoming Assessable Property in any year, the same
thereupon shall be subject to the Assessment of the Annual and
Special Assessments (prorated as of the date it become Assessable
Property) and the Assessment Lien.
ARTICLE 8
ENFORCEMENT OF P~YMENTOF', ANNUAL AND
SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS AND OF ASSESSMENT LIEN
Section' 8.1. Ludlow Cove Town Home Association As Enforcina
Bodv. The Ludlow Cove Town Home Association shall have the right
to enforce the prOVl.Sl.ons of this .' Supplemental Declaration.
However, if the Ludlow Cove Town Home Association shall fail or
refuse to enforce this Supplemental Declaration or any provision
hereof for any unreasonable period of tIme, after written request
to do so,.then any member may enforce them on behalf of the Ludlow
Cove Town Home Association, but not at the expense of the Ludlow
Cove Town Home Association; by any appropriate actions, whether in
law or in equity.
Section 8.2. Ludlow Cove Town Home Association's Remedies tq
Enforce Pavmentof Annual and SDecial Assessments. The Ludlow Cove
Town Home Association may enforce payment of any delinquent Annual
or Special \ Assessments, together with all collection costs and
attorneys 'fees, by taking either or both of the following actions,.
concurrently or separately:
8.2.1 Bring an action at law and recover judgment
against the Member personally obligated to pay the Annual or
Special Assessmentsiand
8.2.2 Foreclose the Assessment Lien against the Lot in
accordance with the then prevailing Washington law relating to the
foreclosure of real estate mortgages or deeds of trust (including
the right to recover,any deficiency if pursuit is jUdicial).
Secti,on 8.3. Subordination of Assessment Lien to First
Mortaaqe: Priority Lien. The Assessment Lien provided for herein
shall be subordinate to any First Mortgage lien and any liens for
taxes and other public charges which by applicable law .are
expressly made superior. Except as above provided, the Assessment
Lien shall be superior to any and all charges, liens or
encumbrances which hereafter in any manner may arise or be imposed
upon each Lot , except for any lien arising from the Master
Declaration in favor of the Master Association. Sale or transfer
of any Lot shall not affect the Assessment Lien: provided, however,
that if the sale or transfer is pursuant to foreclosure ofa First
Mortgage or deed of trust or pursuant to any judicial sale or
- 20 -
LO"~. ITr.;p.1i
..l'~",~ , ~~VJ
2-2-0
'"~o,r
~.....: ,. I
',~ ""
~5'1
e
e
proceedings, the purchaser at the sale shall take the Lot free of
the Assessment Lien. However, such purchaser shall take subj ect to
all Annual and Special Assessments, and the Assessment Lien
thereof, accruing subsequent to the date of issuance of the
sheriff's or trustee's deed.
Section ~.4. SusDensionof Membershic. In addition to the
remedies set forth hereIn, and not to the exclusion or prejudice
thereof, the Board may also suspend a Member from the Ludlow Cove
Town Home Association and the privileges of Membership, including
use of Ludlow Cove Limited Common Areas for non-payment of Annual
and/or Special Assessments.
ARTICLE 9
. USE OF FUNOS: BORROWING POWER
Section 9. 1. PUI'Doses. for. Wl)lch Ludlow Cove Town Home
Association's .FundsMav be. Used. The Ludlow Cove Town Home
Association shall apply all funds collected and received by it for
the common good and benefit of the Members by devoting said funds,
among other things, to the maintenance, provision and operation of
Ludlow Cove Limited Common Areas, which may be necessary, desirable
or beneficial. The following are some, but not all, of the areas
in which the Ludlow Cove Town Home Association may seek to provide
for such common benefit: Social interaction among Members,
maintenance, operation, repair and improvement of~ Ludlow Cove
Limited Common Areas and monument signs, liability insurance,
communications, transportation, health, utilities (including street
lights), public services, safety and security.
Section 9 ~ 2. Borrowing Power. The LUdlow Cove Town Home
Association may borrow money in such amounts, at such rates, upon
such terms and securi ty ,and for such period of time as it
determines is necessary or appropriate.
Section 9.3. Ludlow Cove Town Home A~sociation I s ~ights' in
Scending Funds From Year-to-Year.The Ludlow Cove Town Home
Association shall not be obligated to spend in any year all the
sums received by it in such year (whether by way of Annual or
Special Assessments, fees or otherwise), and may carry forward as
surplus any balances remaining. . The Ludlow Cove Town.. Home
Association shall not be obligated to reduce the amount of the
Annual Assessment in the'succeeding year if a surplus exists from
a prior year and the Ludlow Cove Town Home Association may carry
forward from year to year SUch surplus, as. the Board in its
discretion may determine to be desirable.
- 21 ...
in;:, ITf:\ j
_'\.-~.f -'w"'; ,_ 1 i".,,,,&W.r,
_____,1..2.6
~or.
olj u t>
e
e
ARTICLE 10
!?aINTENANCE
Section 10.1. Lug.low Cove Limited Common, Areas and. Monument
Sians. The Ludlow Cove Town Home Association shall maintainor
provide for the maintenance of the Ludlow Cove Limited Common
Areas, entry ways and monument sign(s) ,including, but not limited
to, the following:.
A. All storm water conveyance systems and management
facilities. The following shall govern all
maintenance of said systems and facilities: (A)
Material collected during maintenance of oil/water
separators. shall be disposed of by a licensed
contractor and in accordance with the standards of
the Jefferson County Haza:rdous Waste Management
Plan at a site approved by appropriate state and
local agencies; (B) All on-going maintenance
procedures utilized by the Ludlow Cove Town Home
Association relating to storm water conveyance
systems and management facilities shall first be
approved by Jefferson County Public Works
Department, who shall have the right to oversee all
aspects of saidon-qoingmaintenance;
B. All street lighting within Ludlow Cove;
C. All entry ways and monument signs; and
D. All private roadways.
Section 10.3. Assessment. Of Certain Costs Of. ReDairOf Ludlow
Cove Limited Common Areas. In the event that the need for
maintenance or repair is caused through the willful or negligent
act or omission of an Owner, Resident or Occupant, their quest or
invitee, the cost of such maintenance or repair may, in the
discretion of the Board, be charged directly to the Owner of the
Lot and . shall be payable in accordance 'with the time period
established by 'the Board. A lien shall secure repayment and be
enforceable in the same manner as other Assessments provided
herein.
Section 10.4. ImDroDer Maintenance ArtdUse of Lots. In the
event any portion of any Lot is used or maintained so as to. present
a public or private nuisance, oJ:' as to substantially detract from
the appearance or quality of the surrounding Lots or residences, or
in the event any portion of a Lot is being used in a manner which
violates the Master Declaration or this Supplemental Declaration
applicable thereto, or in the event the Owner of any Lot is failing
to perform any of its obligations under the Master Declaration or
this Supplemental Declaration, the Board may by resolution make a
finding to such effect, specifying the particular conditions which
- 22 -
2.2...D
~'~'~~~-;--
.~ L" _~__~_
e
e
exist, and g1v1ng notice to the offending Owner that unless
corrective action is taken wi thin fourteen (14) days, the. Board may
take 'such action at said Owner's cost, which costs and expenses
shall be immediately charged to the owner and shall be payable in
accordance with the time period set by the Board. A lien shall
secure repayment and be enforceable in the same manner as other
Assessments provided for herein. Alternatively, the Board may seek
any legal recourse, including litigation against the owner, to
remedy the situation. Any expense incurred by the Ludlow Cove Town
Home Association, including attorneys' fees and costs, shall be
paid by the non-prevailing, party and entered as part of any
judgment.
ARTICLE 11
RIGHTS '. ANt> . POWE~ OF
LUDLOW COVE TOWN HOME ASSOCIATION
Section 11.1. Ludlow Cove Town Home Association's Rights and
Powers as Set Forth in'Articles and Bylaws. In addition to the
rights and powers of the Ludlow Cove Town Home Association set
forth in this Supplemental DeClaration, i:t shall have such rights
and powers as are set forth in its Articles of Incorporation and
Bylaws and, in addition, all rights and powers granted by
Washington law for a non-profit corporation. Upon incorporation of
the Ludlow COve Town Home Association, a copy of the Articles and
Bylaws shall be available for inspection and copying at the office
of the Ludlow Cove Town Home Association, or such other location as
designated by the Board within south Bay, during reasonable
business hours.
Section 11.2. Contracts with Others for Performance of Ludlow
Cove Town Home Association's Duties. Subject to the restrictions
and limitations contained herein, the Ludlow Cove Town Home
Association may enter into contracts and transactions with others,
inClUding Declarant and its affiliated companies, and such
contracts or transactions shall not be invalidated or in any way
affected by the fact that one or more Directors or Officers of the
LUdlow Cove Town Home Association or Members of any Committee is
employed by Or otherwise connected with Declarant or its
affiliates, provided that the fact of such interest shall be
disclosed or known to the other Directors acting upon such contract
or transaction, and provided further that the transaction or
contract is fair and reasonable.
ARTICLE 12
INSURANCE
Section 12.1. Insurance on Ludlow Cove Limited Common Areas.
The Ludlow Cove Town Home Association shall maintain insurance
covering all insurable improvements, if any, located or constructed
upon Ludlow Cove Limited Common Areas. The Ludlow Cove Town Home
- 23 -
L~ t7;; I-I r:: i" 11
'~l ",,-,+ f _ ~~_" 'if
../.1..
;t;,~
t21>
~Ol(
.Lt(,v
e
e
Association shall maintain the following types of insurance, to the.
extent that such insurance lsreasonably available, considering the
cost and risk coverage pro"ided~Y such insurance: '
12.1.1 Property .Ins~rance.. A policy of property
insurance coverinq all insurable imp~ovements, if any, excluding
roadways, located on Ludlow Cove Limited Common Areas with a
"Replacement Cost Endorsement." Such insurance shall afford
protection against loss or. damage by fire and other perils nonnally
covered by the standard extended coverage endorsement and such.
other risks customarily covered with respect toprojec.ts similar in .
construction, location, and use, including all perils normally
covered by the standard all risk endorsement,. where such is
available. .
. .
12.1.2 Liabilitv tnsurance. A comprehensive policy of.
public liability insurance covering all of the Ludlow Cove Limited
Common Areas in an. amount . not .less . than FIVE HUNDRED THOUSAND'
DOLLARS ($500,000) covering bodily injury, including ,death' of
persons, personal injury, and property damage liabilityarislngol,lt
of a single occurrence, and such other risks as shall customarily
be covered with respect to projects sImilar in construction,
location and use. .
Section 12.2. Damaqeto Ludlow Cove LimitedCo1t\mon Areas. In
the event of damage to or destruction of all ora portion of the
Ludlow Cove Limited Common Areas due to fire or other adversity or
disaster, the insurance proceeds, if sufficient to reconstruct or
repair the damage, shall be paid by the; Ludlow Cove Town Home
Association for such reconstruction and repair. If the insurance
proceeds wi th resp~ct to such damage or destruction '. are
insufficient to repair and reconstruct the damage or destruction,
the Ludlow Cove Town Home Association shall present to the Members
a notice of special Assessment for approval by the Membership.. in
accordance with the Special ASsessment provisions herein. Ifsuch
Special Assessment. is not approved, the insurance proceeds "Jllay,
after first being used to clean and landscape, damaged areas, be
applied in accordance with the wishes of the Member:ship upon the
approval of Members and First Mortgagees, except that the
proceeds shall not be distributed to ..theOwners, unless made
jointly payable to Owners and the First Mortgagees, if any, of
their respective Lots.
Section 12.3. Other Insurancet6be Maintained bv owners.
Insurance coverage on furnishings and other items of' personal
property belonging to an owner, 'public liability insurance coverage
upon each Lot, 'and homeowners and hazard insurance coverage' on the
residence and other improvemellts constructed on Lots shall be the
responsibility of the Owner.. thereof.
section. 12.4. Annual Review Qf Insurance policies. All
insurance policies carried by th.eLudlowCove Town Home Association
shall be reviewedatleastannu~llY;bythe Board to ascertain that
~./+
LOG ITEM
t-2o
_~Jf
~(p,
_24'_
e
e
the coverage provided by such policies is reasonably adequate in
view of expected and likely risks insured by the Ludlow Cove T~wn
Home Association.
ARTICLE 13'
EASEtmNT~
Section .13.1. Maifltel'lance Ease1l!~nt. An easement is reserved
and granted to the Ludlow Cove Town Home Association, its Officers,
Directors, agents, employees, and assigns, upon, across, over, in,
and under Ludlow Cove Limited Common Areas and Lots to enable the
Ludlow Cove Town Home Association to perform the duties and
functions which it is obligated or permitted to perform pursuant to
this Supplemental Declaration.
Section 13.2. Future utility Easeme~ts. Declarant and the
Ludlow Cove Town Home Association shall have the right to grant
easements, licenses and permits upon, across, over and under the
Ludlow Cove Limited Common Areas for drainage and for the
installation, replacement, repair and maintenance of utilities,
including, but not limited to, water, sewer, gas, telephone,
electricity and cable television systems: providing said easements,
licenses and permits shall be (1) consistent with the intended use
of said properties: (2) reasonably necessary or desirable for the
proper use, maintenance and operation of said properties: and (3)
substantially without adverse . effect on the enjoyment of said
properties by the Members.
Section 13.3. Rights of Declarant Incident to DeveloDment and
Construction. An easement is reserved by' and granted to Declarant ,
its successors and assigns, and others to be designated by
Declarant, for access, ingress, and egress over, in, upon, under
and across the Ludlow Cove Limited Common Areas , including, but not
limited to, the right to store materials thereon and to make such
other use thereof as may be reasonably necessary or incidental to
construction activities in Ludlow cove: provided, however, that no
such rights or easements shall be exercised by Declarant in such a
manner as to unreasonably interfere wi th the occupancy, use,
enjoyment; or access by any Owner to that Owner I s Lot. The
easement created pursuant to this Section shall automatically cease
upon the sale of the last Lot in' Ludlow Cove by Declarant.
Section 13.4. Maintenance of Walls. Improvements And
Easements. An . easement is reserved and granted in favor of
Declarant and the Ludlow Cove Town Home Association, their
successors, assigns, employees anq agents, upon, over and across
each Lot adjacent to any boundaries of the Ludlow Cove Limited
Common Areas for reasonable ingress, egress, installation,..
replacement, maintenance,. and repair of any improvement which
Declarant may construct or cause to be constructed on or near any
such property.
- 25 -
r. f'" Il.;-~ j
LlJ:v . Clvt
If:
2?-6
_~of
4(/1
e
e
Section 13.5. storm WaterCqnveyanceEasement. An easement
is hereby granted and reserved in favor of. Declarant, its
successors and assigns, overall areas shown on the plat of Ludlow
Cove as utility and/or drainage e~Sement to provide for storm water
conveyance and maintenance ....
Section 13. 6. Easements' . peemed Created.. All conveyances of
Lots hereafter made, whether by the Declarant or otherwise, shall
be construed to grant and reserve the easements contained in this
Article 13, even though no specific reference to such easements or
to this Article 13 appears in the instrument of such conveyance.
ARTICLE 14
CONQEMNATION
Section 14.1. Actions and Awards. In the event proceedings
are initiated by any governmental entity seeking to take eminent
domain of the Ludlow Cove Limi ted Common Areas, or any part
thereof, or any interest therein, with a value as reasonably
determined by the Ludlow Cove Town Home Association in excess of
Ten Thousand and NO/100 Dollars ($10,000.00), the Ludlow Cove Town
Home Association shall give prompt notice thereof to all Members.
The Ludlow Cove Town Home Association shall have full power and
authority to defend in said proceedings , and to represent the
Owners in any negotiations, settlements and agreements with a
condemning authority for acquisition of the Ludlow.' Cove Limited
Common Areas, or any part thereof, but the Ludlow Cove Town Home
Association shall not enter into any such proceedings, settlements
or agreements pursuant to which all or any portion or interest in
said properties, or improvements located thereon, arerelinquished~
without giving all Members at least fifteen (15) days prior written
notice thereof. In the event following such proceedings, there is
such a taking in condemnation or by eminent domain of a part or all
of said properties, the award made' for such taking shall be applied
by the Ludlow Cove Town Home Association to such repair and
restoration of the Ludlow Cove Limited Common Areas remaining, or
improvements thereon, as the Board, in its discretion, shall
determine. If the full amount of such ~ward is not so expended,
the Ludlow Cove Town Home Association shall disburse the net
proceeds of such award to the Lot Owners. Each Lot will receive
one (1) equal share, provided that the Ludlow Cove Town Home
Association shall first payout of the share of each OWner the
amount of any unpaid assessment liens or charges on his Lot. No
provision of this Supplemental Declaration shall be deemed to give
an Owner or any other party priority over the rights of a First
Mortgagee in the case of a distribution to an Owner of insurance
proceeds or condemnation awards for losses to or taking of Lots or
Ludlow Cove Limited Common Areas~ or any combination thereof.
Lnr::, ITcM.
',,",:,.:;'~,,;., ,I ~,. -
t 2,,0
~of~
~ c,5
-26 -
e
e
ARTICLE 15
TERM: AMEND~NTS: 'J'ERMINATION
section 15. 1. Term :M<<!thod of TerminatIon. This Supplemental
Declaration shall be effective upon the date of recordation hereof
and, as amended from time-to-time; shall continue in full force and
effect fora term of twenty-five (25) years from the date this
Supplemental Declaration is recorded. From and after said date,
this Supplemental Declaration, as amendedishall be automatically
extended for successive periods of ten (10) years each, unless
there is an affirmative vote to terminate this Supplemental
Declaration by the then Members casting ninety percent (90%) of the
total votes at an election held for such purpose. No vote to
terminate this Supplemental Declaration shall be effective unless
and until the written consent to such termination has been
obtained , within a period from six (6) months prior to such vote to
six (6) months after such vote, from all First Mortgagees. If the
necessary votes and consents are obtained, the Board shall record
a Certificate of Termination in the Jefferson County records.
Thereupon this Declaration shall have no further force and effect.
Section 15.2. Amendments.
15.2. 1 Declara)'lt reserves the right to amend this
Supplemental Declaration for a period of. seven (7) years from the
date of recording said document without the signature of any
additional Lot OWners;
15.2.2 Except as provided in Paragraph 15.2.1, as long
as there is a Class B Membership, this Declaration may be amended
by obtaining approval of fifty-one percent (51%) or more of each
class of Membership, provided that there shall also be full
compliance with all other provisions herein;
15.2.3 Except as provided in paragraph 15.2.1, when
there is no longer a Class B Membership ,thissupplemental
Declaration may be amended by obtaining approval of sixty-seven
percent (67%) of the total voting power of the.Ludlow Cove Town
Home Association, provided that there shall also be full compliance
with all other provisions hereof; and
15.2 . 4 !my amendment to this Supplemental Declaration
shall be recorded. with the Jefferson County Auditor as a
Certificate of Amendment,duly signed and acknowledged by the
President of the LUdlow Cove Town Home Association. The
Certificate of Amendment shall set forth in full the amendment
adopted, and except as provided in Sections 15.2.1 above and 15.3
below, shall certify that at an election duly called and held
pursuant to the provisions of the Article and Bylaws, the Members
casting the required percentages of the total voting power of the
Ludlow Cove Town Home Association voted affirmatively for the
adoption of the amendment. Notwithstanding the foregoing
- 27 -
Lr.t:~ r'n~:' 0,!I
~J- "',..,"C ~ 1 ~. ~ is
1-1-6
"'..'~. C'.!:I
^;~;. --=::I-U- _If
~v(p
, '
e
e
provisions, the percentage of the voting power necessary to amend
a specific clause or provision shall' not. be less than the
percentage of affirmative votes prescribed for action to be taken
under that clause. .
Section 15.3. Right to Amendment If Reauested by Governpental
Mortaaae Aaency or.. FederallY' Chartere9 Lendinq Institutions.
Anything in this Article to the contrary notwithstanding, Declarant
reserves the right to amend all or any part of this Supplemental
Declaration to such an extent and with such language as may be
requested by Governmental Mortgage Agencies and to further amend to
the extent requested by any other federal, state or local
governmental agency which requests suchan amendment as a condition
precedent to such agency's approval of this supplemental
Declaration, or by any federally chartered lending institution as
a condition precedent to lending funds on the security of any
Lot(s). Any such amendment shall be effected by the recordation,
by Declarant, of a Certificate of Amendment duly signed by the
authorized agents or officers of Declarant, as applicable, with
their signatures acknowledged, specifyi,ng the Governmental Mortgage
Agency, the federal, state or local governmental agency or the
federally chartered lending institution requesting the amendment
and setting forth the amendatory language requested by such agency
or institution.
ARTICLE 16
MISCELLANEOUS
Section 16.1.. Interoretationofthe Covenants. Except. for
judicial construction, the Ludlow Cove Town Home Association,
through its Board, shall have the exclusive right to construe and
interpret the provisions of this supplemental Declaration. Inthe
absence of any adjudication to the contrary, the Ludlow Cove Town
Home Association I sconstruction or interpretation of the provisions
hereof shall be final, conclusive and binding as to all persons and
property benefitted or bound by the covenants and provisions
hereof.
Section 16.2. Severability. Any determination by any court
of competent jurisdiction that any provision of this Supplemental
Declaration is invalid or unenforceable shall not affect the
validity or enforceability of any of the other provisions hereof.
Section 16.3. Rule Aaainst Pf)!rDetuities. If any interest
purported to be created by this Supplemental Declaration is
challenged under the Rule Against Perpetuities or any related rule,
the interest shall be construed as becoming void and of no effect
as of the end of the applicable period of perpetuities computed
from the date when the periOd of perpetuities starts to run on the
challenged interest.
- 28 ...
1""'.("::; ITrl\.\I
L..\..../. '...J. I t ~",,,l ~I
?-l-O . .
~r..f
.-~(;! ----
~&1
e
e
Section 16.4. References to the qovenants in Deeds. Deeds to
and instruments affecting any Lot in Ludlow Cove may contain the
covenants herein set forth by reference to this Supplemental
Declaration; but regardless of whether any such reference is made
in any deed or instrument, each and all of the covenants shall be
binding upon the grantee-owner or other person claiming through any
instrument and his heirs, executors, administrators, successors and
assigns.
Section 16. 5. Successors and ~ssians. Qf " Declarant. Any
reference in this supplemental Declaration to Declarant shall
include any successors or assigns.. of Declarant I s rights and powers
hereunder.
Section 16.6. Gender and Numb,r. Wherever the context of
this Supplemental Declaration so requires, words used in the
masculine gender shall include the feminine and neuter genders;
words used in the neuter gender shall include the masculine and
feminine genders; words in the singular shall include the plural;
and words in the plural shall include the singular.
Section 16.7. caDtions anq Titles. All captions, titles or
headings of the Articles and Sections in this supplemental
Declaration are for the purpose of reference and convenience only
and are not to be deemed to limit, modify or otherwise affect any
of the provisions hereof or to be used in determining the intent or
context thereof. .
Section 16.8. Notices. Unless otherwise required by the
Governing- Documents ,notice of any meeting, action or proposed
action by the Ludlow Cove Town Home Association, Board or any
Committee to be given to any Owner shall be deemed satisfied if
notice of such action or meeting is given in person or by regular
mail, postage paid, not less that three (3) days prior to the date
such notice is effective. Each Owner shall register his mail~ng
address with the LUdlow Cove Town Home Association for the purposes
of such notice. All notices, demands, or other notices intended to
be served upon the Board or the LUdlow Cove TOwn Home Association
shall be sent by certified mail, postage prepaid, to the business
office of the Ludlow Cove Town Home Association. This Section
shall not be construed to require that any:notice be given if not
otherwise required and shall not prohibit satisfaction of any
notice required in any other manner.
L,-,!"." rr~U
\.-::.i'\.,.,:,,- r:; ! \,,,'$<'5'W1
- 29 -
.:L2.Q.-",~-",-
~ ,-~~'~,~
J; &9>
e
e
IN WITHESS WHBREOP,POPB RBSOURCBS, ADBLAlfARB LIMITED
PAR'l'HBRSHIP, has hereunto caused its authorized officials to
execute this Declaration as of the day and year first above-
written:
POPE RESOURCES, A DELAWARE
LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, Declarant,
by Pope MGP, Inc., a Delaware
corporation, its General Partner
By:
George H. Folquet
President
STATE OF WASHINGTON )
) SSe
County of Kitsap )
On this _ day of, 1995, before me, the
undersigned, a Notary Public in and for the State of Washington,
duly commissioned and sworn, personally appeared George H. Folquet,
to me known to be the President of Pope MGP, Inc., a Delaware
Corporation, which is known to me to be the General Partner of Pope
Resources, A Delaware Limi tedPartnership ,the partnership that
executed the foregoing instrument, and acknowledged the said
instrument to be the free and voluntary act and deed of said
partnership, for the uses and purposes therein mentioned, and on
oath stated that he was authorized to execute the said instrument.
WITNESS MY HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL hereto affixed the day and
year first above written.
NOTARY PUBLICina.nd
State of Washington,
at
My'. commiss ion expires
for the
residing
- 30 -
''''''''P'^,,--?; I
IILtvl
ftc....~ '
~ ~ flf~tij~'
.~.'..~ ,'.
1ZlJ
2tJ!.
Lt 11~
-
l~
e
~\I.4
LOG ITEM
# ?.-u
~of
~7t>
Pope Resources
CREEKSIDE II
......
r
LUDLOW COVE
ACRES
LOTS
60
(;eL-
l( I~'Z-f~
,
PER
UNIT PER.
ACRE
4
~__t26
.~ol
~71
25
- .1
-~
e
\~
e
~)l
LOG ITEM
# 2-'UJ
~of
~72--
F A
C 0
S H
x
V E
E E
s-p I 0 _
('J)\lJJLjOi~
. iJ '. . . I'
" \, ~ -~::; ~ f: l
o 'f" '0,', ,'..
L\,'1 ~ 111~'l:~ ~',C ill e Ii t
~.
'2Le
'.
e
.-EffERSON COUNTY
PERMI R
A Pope Resourees Company
Jerry Smith, JCDCD~ 3794451
To: Terri Milliken, Madrona Planning Services, 379--0131
Company:
Fax No.:
Subject:
Ludlow Cove: Revised Conditional Use Permit and Variance Table
Date:
September 10, 1997
Time:
Pages -6-, including this cover sheet.
COMMENTS
Jerry and Tem:
Enclosed are the above materials that should help infonn next week's meeting. I will
wait to submit any other materials until after the meeting.
Please let me know if you need any other information before we meet.
Sincerely,
""-,
LO~ IE,
# J--_.._..
-.-
v~~\ 61P
~~
__._.2c~
~f
~."
From the desk of.. .
Jon Rose, P.E.
Project Manager
OLYMPIC RESOURCE
MANAGEMENT
(a Pope Resources Company)
P.O. Box 1780
Powsbo,W ^ 98370
(360)-697-6626. ext 527
Fax:(360)~97-11S6
Jon
c:
eU, ESM
lTs:;:'/\!i
): ~ ;,~",~ ~ 'It'1
: '....,.)
:,' "
I."
,.-.
'J':
.,......
a'
.,.:
',\
:,;. ~." '.. 1::"
, "
'. ....:.....
~ ..
e
':~~' .'. f~~;',_~,r::f.y::'l'!.
'(nD
~~-f
';..
..,,'.,.---.....''''.:.....
,:~ Lt
;.,., ,;'
; '" ~J i
,~._"-~,u
.
,
'...,
: ~
L;Cl~S~.
.1::~_
~q
,:;.,.E'~' ~
L-t71
e
e
Application ft
Application Found Substantially
Complete 00:__.. .,.
FOR OmCJAL USB ONLY
Fee Paid:_
Receipt ,,:
DiW:
Case/#
CONDmONAL USE PERMIT APPUCATlON
(Revised 9/10191)
Awlicant. Pope Resources
Maili112 AddrP.mz: P~O. Box 1780, Poulsbo, W A 98370
Ebmu:: 206-697-6626
Authnri~.ed Rc:presen.tative: Jon Rose. Project Manager
.Name of PrQposed DevelQpment: "Ludlow Cove"
Sit~ Addl'f'~/;i_'.: Nt A
LqpllDr.xaiption: "lhe South Half of the Northeast Quarter and a portion of the Northwest
Quarter of the Southeast Quarter.
Section' 17 Towmmip: 28 North B.angc: I East. WM
Tax Parcel Num~~inc di..~): 821171011
Dc~ptinn of PrQposcd Prqjcct: The proposal is to develop lots for 32 townhomes (attached
single. family units, fee simple lots) and S4 single-family homes (detached) on approximately 30
acres. The proposed gross density is 2.87 dwelling units per acre. Lot sizes average 11,040
square feet. Approximately 57010 or 17.2 acres, of the site will be in common open space for
passive recreational use. In addition, a beach picnic area and an edge water park arc proposed
for active reorcational use.
c.u~t 7.nnina: Urban Growth Area
Property Dimf!ll~ions: Approximately 30 acres
Current l Jge of the Site: UndevclopedILogging Dump .
Use of Acljaeent Sites: Residential condominiWl1$ to the east; residential subdivision to the
north; commercial to the northwest; Ludlow Bay lies to the south.
Flnnr Spau ofRllildin8~ (J 1M ~tt:ty for P.:IIt!h U~):
Existing: None
PrQpo~~' EstimatinJ up to 3,000 square feet per unit. ~luding garages; proponent may not be
builder.
~1 Pmyi~ for t~ p^nnwi~ Services:
S~ee: Olympic Resource Management
~: Pu.aet Power
YiiW:r. Ludlow Water Company
DilSpn&al~ Olympic Disposal C.ompany
How MAny P~le Wi1lR~llide or Work at the PrQposed Project? Approximately 112 residents.
Houn of Qpcration: Nt A .
,
0(5~ l1-1-l ~
~.
./
"7'/li'? f4:J~/Tl(}/fI#t:- (/;13
/'ftdftiOl-77&> If.) eeJI'<; ~
~~ /~ /?C'r7
::r<?f~ /.1J"IF'-'
-*""'~ /
e
e
PrQpoced Parklft; Plan' The townhouse lot8 will provide an average of 1.5 garage parking spaces
(minimum of 1) per unit. Each of the other 54 lots will provide a minimum of 2 parkins spaces
per lot. In addition, there will be at least 76 off-street parking SpaCes for a minimum total of 232
parking spaces. including 60 guest parking spaces beyond the minimwnnumbcr (86 x 2) of 172
will be provided at locations COnvenient to units.
F.xi~ Off-Street P8.rlrinr Space;; None
Would Any R][i~a Parki1lIlSpAr.e!lIJ~P.Hm;lUIted1 IfV~ How Marty'? No
Other Parlrinr Provision", if AW= Additional auest parking may be provided at location..
convenient to units.
~ri~ Any Existi'll anqtor PrQposed Am-Mil. to the Site: Existing access to the log dump
portion is located opposite: the commerc;ia1 area on Paradise Bay Road. An access i.ls possible
from NOrth Bay Condominiums (their CCRs permit this) however. the project proposal only
depicts tbis route as a "POtential cmageucy access casemenL" The proposed project would he
accessed from two new roads to be constructed from Paradise Bay Road. a local arterial; and il
third access from Oak Bay Road
Will ~ ~ect RecpJirP. An:r Work Within 200 F~ DE 8. Fl'P.Sh or Salt....ter Sborelinc?lfYca.
EJQ)lain~ The site is adjacent to Ludlow Bay, Development within 200 feet will include,
utilities, roads. pedestrian trails. park facilities, residcntialhousing and utilities.
Will the prqpnml ~d:anV!l' the puh~ic health, u~ or r~1 welfare; or pn~~ unaccq)taQ.1c
impaebl ~nd the pt'(Vliy hounm.ri_? If no. pl~-- ~be 'Wily No. the proposed
residential project will not endanger the public health, safety or general' Welfare, and will have
only minimal, acceptable, imp&ct5 heycmd the property boundaries. The Conditional Use Permit
is requested due to the j~lusion oftownhomes on just a portion oftbesite. See SEPA checklist
for additional details.
De..~." impactJ: on the ..............hle IW'! md ~q;yment Dr AurmUftd",lC ~U:s. 'Jhe proposed
project should have no significant impacts OIl the reasonable use or cmjoymcnt of the SWTUunding
properties. The proposal includes significant natul'al and Jandseaping areas aJongmajor roads
and the water ftont. Future residential will be compatible with existina single family and
multifamily units on surrounding properties. The signmificant expansion of the community trail
system will help increase the reasonable use and enjoyment of surrounding properties~
How is the prqpru;a.1 conR~t with the I~_I pol1cicsand pis ofth~Comp~~liIivc Plan
and other applicable ~npity plan~? The proposal to include muJtifam.i1yproduct will help
to bring this proposal into compliance with the Comprehensive Plan in'existence at the time of
veslinJ. (The Port Ludlow Interim Urban Growth Area desipated this site IS multifamily with a
maximum <lensity of 16 units per acre). The proposal is consis_t with the polkies and goals of
the C~vc Plan in 50 far as Port Ludlow is one oftheircas to which, · . . . the major
share of future arowtb should be directed toward . . .11 and that it provides fI A broad range of
housing types and densities. . ."
How will the r.:haJ'IICW nf t~ wrf! be in ha.nnmvwith the surroundi"l area? The combined uses
of lingle-family and multi-family within the proposed development is compatible witb the
Iwroundin8 neighborhood whi~h coasiats of a commercial zone, multi-family development. and
sinale-family development. Further, architectural styles win be compatible with SUITOunciiDg
residential uses. The proposal win much DlO1'e in harmony than the log dump operation formerly
conducted on the site.
~11--l,[oh
~
LOG
,
-~
..~~
^17lP
. .
e
e
Degcrihe Any off-sib! ift'J'8.cL~ created by the prqpoul Are t~ i~ ~ than. otheru..~
which are pennittPd within the 7.oninr district? The impacts fiomthis proposal arc equal to or
less than other permitted uses. The allowable deneity for thi" site is 16 writs per gross acre,
while this proposal is for only 2.87 dwelling units per acre. See SEP A ~k1ist for additional
details.
Describe how the prQpOsM ~'VelqpmP.l'lt m~ets all ltppli~le noi~ odo(, li,hlin, and buffer
lItandards for th~_ZODfl in which it i~pR)pn.i"g to locate. The exceeds all buffer and open space
standard for the 0-1 zone. The proje(:t meets applicable noise, odor. and lighting standards by
proposing uses and densities that are consistent with the zoning code and Interim Urban Growth
Boundary, The many natural buffers and landscaped areas that will mitigate impacts on other
properties. The propOsed UIIe creates far fewer impacts to DOise,' and odor compared to the
fOJ'1Der log dump operation. See SEP ^ checklist for additional details.
~~~
Ap .lie 1'$ Signature
f:\uIicn;\jan\ludcovo'condu&c .wpd
ct\; l ~
" l1-l,
Page
fJ Iii) In
Date
"J.
1-1-0
~of
~17
. .
e
e
Varian~e Table For Ludlow Cove Preltmlaary Plat
Prepared By: ESM, Inc
Date: September 9. 1997
For: Olympic Resource Management
Site OevelQPD1~ Standard Variances Requested:
A. Road rights-of way to be less than 60 feet fOT private roads; [Subdivision Code-
Section 6.309(4)]
B. Lots with width less than 100 feet; length to width ratio to be greater than 3: 1.
{Subdivision Code-Section 6.301]
C. Rear yard setback to be less than 20 feet. [Zoning Codo-Scction 7.4O(d))
D. Side yard Ketbac:k to bcless than S feet, and/or less than 15 feet combined for adjacent
lots. [Zoning Code-Section 7,4O(d)]
E. Lot size to be less thanS,OOO square feet. [Zoning :Code-Section 12, Table 1]
F. Lot width to be less than 70 feet. [Zoning Code-Section 12, Table 1]
G. Setback from access road to be less than 20 fect. [Zoning Code-Section 12. Table 1]
H. Side yard setback to be less than S feet. [Zoning Codc-Section 12, Table 1 J
I. Rear yard setback to be less than 10 feet. [Zoning Codo-Section 12, Table I]
J. Lot coverage to be greater than 45%. [Zoning Code-Section 12, Table I]
Townhome Lots (#1 throt4P #32)
1. AtcCS5road rights-of.way to be 55 feet and 2S feet wide, with 2 foot utility easements
on both sides. [A]
2~ Rear yard setback to be 2 feet. [C. 1]
3. Side yard setback to be 0 feet for interior units,S feet for exterior units. [D, H1
4. Lot size to be as low as 1,500 square feet. [E]
S. Lot width to be as low as 25 feet. [Fj
6. Setback. from access road to be 2 feet. fO]
7. Lot coverage to be as high as 75%. [J]
Cottage Home Lots (#33 throq~ #62)
1. Access road rights-of-way to be 55 feet and 25 feet wide, with 2 foot utility easements
on botb sides. [A]
2. Rear yard setback to be 2 feet. Ie, IJ
3. Side yard setback to be S feet, 10 feet combined. [0. H]
4. Lot size to be as low as 3,000 square feet. [El
S. Lot width to be as low as 40 feet. [F]
6. Setback from access TOad to be 8 feet. (0)
Hillside Home Lots (#63 thro~h f7~)(
1. Access road riahts-of-way to be 20 feet wide. with 8 (oot utility casements on both.
sides. [A]
2. Side yard setback to be 5 feet, 10 feet combined. [0, H]
3. Lot width to be as low as S2 feet. [F) I
4. Setback from access road to be 10 feet. [0]
U:;;~~l ~
page~
:jf
'-
7-~Q
~t..'."I;
,{ ,~
~7f()
t .- . ...
e
e
Hi~de Lots (#79 through #8~
1. Access road rights-of-way to be 20 fcetwide, with 8 foot utiljty easements on both
sides. [A]
2. Lot length to depth ratio to be as biill as 3.6: 1. [B]
~~?'I6jp
P9~~
:z:z,o
--- 4~r:cf
...,Jl
411
e
t;
e
LOG ITEril1
#' ~ 2.-6
~of
~50
e
e
bl
October 13, 1997
Jon Rose, P.E.
Project Manager
Olympic Resource Management
P.O. Box 1780
Poulsbo, W A 98370
RE: Proposed Condominium revisions to Ludlow Cove
Dear Jon,
I have received the proposed changes to Ludlow Cove whereby the southwesterly portion of
the proposal, referred to as Phases 3 and 4, are to be condominiumized so as to avoid the need
for multiple variances. As mentioned in your transmittal, and illustrated on the site plan, you
state that Phases 3 and 4 would be considered one lot each, within which smaller lots and units
would be established. .
As I understand, to condominiumize is a matter of ownership rather than land use.
Condominiums are individuaHyowned units located on a parcel of land held in common. As
Phases 3 and 4 are the lots, smaller lots within the larger lots are not permitted. Furthennore,
creation of any lot, whether it is to contain a condominium or single family residence, is
required to meet the applicable subdivision standards. The proposed smaller lots you refer to
do not meet the lot size/dimension requirements of the subdivision ordinance.
Jefferson County staff is generally supportive of the concept of condominiumizing this portion
of the proposed development It is suggested, however, that the "lots" be designated as
"buildable areas" or "footprints, and revised accordingly. These revisions would appear to
resolve the need for multiple variances.
If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to give me a call.
Sincerely,
----tvv\~\.l
Tern Valiant Milliken
Associate Planner
cc: Jerry Smith, Associate Planner
_--1~__",__~_c,_~
~ --,"
It 'h(
Building
Building Permits
Inspections
Environmental Health
Septic Permits
o--.?~~ter Review
~ \.:c r:;.~~ :..;:,-.~ '~
Develooment Review
Subdivision, Zoning
& Shoreline Permits
Public Works
Road Approach
Permits & Addresses
(360) 379-445o;;;<~c=, .. .
FAX: (360) 379-4451
e
e
~\~-I-
Lr>J'''. rrr ~ ~
l' ~'. . . ,'He"
...~ ,_", , , ,-,.I '"
# '2,1,0
, ~of
~~z.,
--/
t
,.
e
',e'"
...'j <::;::v
. L.....:..o.
,...
A Pope Reiourtts. Co)"pII-ny..
.. .
December 17, 1997
Jerry Smith, Planner
Dep",rt!TIeIit.ofComrmmity:Development
621 Sheridan Street '
'Port Townsend, W A98368
Re' . Ludlow Cove Resllbmittal
, Dear Jerry,
. P~pe Resources is pleasedtQ submit'a revised proposal for the Ludlqw Cove p~oj~C( . The pilrpose
of this, letter is to provide background oIithe project, the proposed revisions, and. sODlj;:new project
information. . . , , '.. .., .' .
:'1
'.0 ,
J.
. . .
. .Background/Hist9ry' . . . .... . .
Asyou,rnay .recan,projec~application wa.sfirst made, in 1995.'A,lthat tim~, the proposal
induded' 145' multifamily uruts. Amongotlier ma.terials, the application':'.jrtcludedan
enviromnel}t~,ch.eck1ist varianceieqiiest,ami,con.?itionalu~e applic~tion. . '
The site wasirlspected at the time of ~pplicati~n by' thejeffe;sonCounty wetlandsspe.cialist
and Pope ResourCes Land Planner(Lirtda J\{ueUer). Theydete~ned that w~tlands. were not .' .
a concernforthisproject. " .
. ,
.. . . .
. Subseqtientto the application,' a numberrifconcemswere raised by neighbors in the area. '
Therefore, Pope.' Resources ,made. the"decisi'on to, halt processing and,begin"a series of .
neighb6rhood meetings, . C9ncerns expressecl included such issues 'a.s' density,. aesthetics, '. ..,.
trails; waterfront access. ' At least four meetings wete held in.which various versions of the .
.' site plan were modified' and .critiqued.,. Thisprocesswas.yery productivearui resulted:inan .'. "
improved site,plah.'and.positive fe~dbackfroi)1the.neighbors.., .
The site piarJ. was ~ssentially finaJized and beingprepar~d-fol" submission when IDlet you aQd
Ten Millikenm rnid~i996. .Bowever, asub~equel1tdiscovery ofwedandsrequi~e4 a iotalre~ . ..
'. working of the site plan and additionalmeetingswith.the'rie(ghhors~' ,
,> '"
" '@"lll~'tII{p
...........~.......-<,:'......~.........'.'.
e....;,.. . //
'r~ - . ....:
. . .
. .' . . .
'. .. . ',. '. ~
, '.",
:'. ..- \ ..'
. 19H5 TenthAvenueN"orthcast: P.o.)ox 1780,Poulsbo;W~shjng1:on 98370~0~39'
. '.. (360) 697.~626,Seattle: (206) 292'0517:, Fh: (360) 697.n.56 .
.-
.........
-.'
.. . ll. . Revised PrQject
. The reVised site plan reduces the nu~berofproposed dwelling units fromJ 45 to 88. Ihere
are se\leral housingproducts proposedforthe project.' Tract A will be a~c,ondominiutri that
includes townhonui style attached units. Tract B is ;also' a 'condominium that currently .
. proposes,' one and two ,story' 'detached. cottage stYle units. ,26 fee sirnpledetached s~gle. .
family, fee simple lots afe , proposed &s welr,- . .
. . ....
. Altroads are_proposed to be private. Tl1yptopo~ resultsin,a,fraction .of, the allOwable' gross
density for the project of 480 'units pet theCompreh€msive:Plan 'and over 229 units perthe
~oningcode. .'. -." . - . .'. ..,
" -)'"..' "'
Thenew plan proposes a number of community recreation and open spaceameIiities 'inclllding
and expanded trail network; beach point piqu<?area; andedg, e'waterpark. - ,.
. .
.' -..". "
'. . . ~ , .' .
We have updated all the pertinent applieationIilaterials t6reflect thcne0sions to the site plan.
o .' - " " -.' _". ~ '. " . \.' :," :.' . '. _ . . . ,",._ - . . "
\ -' , ~
ID. E~vironmental ~leanup...
. This property was the,sii~of a fo~erlogdump faci~ityatPnetimeoWnedand operated by
. Pope and Talbot. AfterPbpe and Talbotabandone~ thesite,.Pop'e Resources :initiateqa series
orsite investigations that revealed the presence . gfhazardous 'mate~als..' These :Were remov~d
iri a voluntarycleanup'etfort.Theeffort removed materials'from withinJhe tqlditional.. .~"
boundaries ofthe log d1,lmpoperation.
'" ....." . ,
The work was conducted .under'close supei"VisiQu.of.the.Departmerit'.ofEcology (see.
questions 34 and 36 in the environmental ~hecklist and previously stibmitt~d letterfrorn DOE)
and included notioe.tathe] effer~oIi County Heaith .District; . Thetnajoriti ofthe workwas
conducted on A,ugust-8and 9, 1996. '
" . -, "-", , ."
- -. '~
IV. Wetlands . . '. . ' .
. As discussed above; the site 'Was initially inspected for w~tlarids duriri.g, a Jo'ij1t visit with the. .
Pope Resources plahnerandiheJdferson .countywetlanasspecialist. Wetlands ~ereI1ot
thought to be a concern at thattime.> . . " . .
LOG 1M .'
#.1
During a sitt;lvisit;-l noticed, wetlandplantspeiieshea; Paradise Bay.Ro~d. 'Raedeke . '''.'
Associates' was. commissioned to inspect the'site for. the..existenceofwetlands...,.....They.
conducted a field investigation on Augusf15,,20, and' October 3~;1996, . Their: report is -
i~cluded in t~is package. They discoveredo~e latg~'wett~d ~dJacent to;thetraditionalJog" .
dump operation:andtwo smaller; weila~ds in'a ~avine. -. ,
Theproj eet utilizes the buffer averaging provisions .()fthe J effersol). C()~nty Inte~ Critical
. Areas Ordinance. A bufferaveniging exhibit is. inchJqedin' theproject~aterials.
:Wu'/~~I"tlp.
~dij~
"
.~I'J A .
_.{,-.~ -,
.~ ~~:;~;;~:".~:;~:._.
,~ I1ltlf"
~
, .
.
..
,:e
,.tt:
..> ,~"' ,-'
. .
l.... .
v~
. Enclosed])ocuments
. ,. - . ".
. (.
'c'
A.Revised Documents ','
',.'"
. The following revi~ddocuments~esitbn1itted. Please dispose OfQr '\r<?id"ohsolete
".. '. "." " ,: . " " ':.", ' > ,) :.
versioils. . .
., ,.... -",
.
.. . 8:copies oft~e~/fevis~dpreliminaryplatartd.~ !e~uced 11"~17.,t ~opy~dt4:l2/~7/97'" .
1 copy of. R~quesiforSite l)evel()pmentStandaf(~Va:riance:dtd;I2/17(9T .: ,n.'
. (NQte;~his document is a request for .~ varianc~ fro{ll road sta,fdojlh). '.' . ' .,
'..1 copySEPA Cbecklist,dtd 12/17,/97.,.:., '. .... , ". ...... . ,c
1 copyCoriditional'(Jse.PerplltApplicatioi1;dtd12/17/97' . . ,",.
I, copy V ariance. Application 'for C'onditi,onal'U~e, :DeVelop~~nt . Standards, dtd,c'
12/17/97 '." ,...... .....". ,. . '.' , " . 'c' ... . . .... .....
, (Note, tQis document is acrequesffota:Varianeerr9m 'lotdeV.elopint!ntstandards) '....
,'1 'copy Varial1ceTable for Ludlow.Cpv:e Pre1iri1iua,rY l?lat,':dtd.12f:17/97' . ....
1 copy.of J ARPA ApplicatioIl rorShorelines' Subst~tial Development P~rmit, . dtd'
12/17/97' . .' .. . . . . ....
.
..
..
.
. ..
..
B.
8 Copies ofConcep~alLandscape Plin, dtd 12/17 ;f!
I copybf<:ritical AreilsChecklist, dtd.9/9/97. .... . .
'1 cop{()f Prelimirtary praillag~RepbrCdtd917/97 .
Thankyou.for your' coP.!inti~aSsistance..cPJeas~;cdnt~C1: .me'.ify~i.l' h.a~eany~ties{ionsot'cQmrnerits .
. on thesemateria1$. . . ;~. . . .. .
Sincerely, ,
'......."'.........~............'...................................................
')1M ",
. ~RQ$e,P,E. ". ."
Project MaI)ager
'Encl.
," ,-.
. ,....,.,..
'-;. ,".,'
.\ .
oe~/~~ {J1p', '
..ji3
Pag8~
"\. .
'i;!:....
e
e
~.\~
LOG ITEM
# 7-1-fJ
F ~of
4~
e
,e
, !
29
Application # .
Application Found Substantially
Complete on:
'l,:';'"
~-..lLl.)
~1AL~11)q;;_""" '
Fee Paid: Date:
I "7 /997
Receipt #:
Case # 2.cll/'cI5- 0001
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT APPLICATION
Applicant: Olympic Resource Management (aka Pope Resources)
Mailing Address: P.O. Box 1780, Poulsbo, WA 98370
Phone: 206-697-6626
Authorized Representative: Jon Rose, Project Manager
Name of Proposed Development: "Ludlow Cove"
Site Address: N/ A
Legal Description: The South Half of the Northeast Quarter and a portion of the Northwest Quarter of
the Southeast Quarter.
Section: 17 Township: 28 North Range: 1 East, WM
Tax Parcel Number (nine digits): 821171011
Description of Proposed Project: The proposal is to develop the property with a variety of residential
housing products on this 30 acre site. These will include 26 single family detached homes on fee simple
lots. Tracts A and B are condominium tracts. Tract A will contain 32 attached units. Tract B will
contain 30 detached single family units. The gross density is 2.94 dwelling units per acre.
Approximately 43% or 13.1 acres, of the site will be in common open space for passive recreational use.
The open space areas will provide for project buffering and enhancement, passive, and active recreation
areas. Included will be a beach front picnic area, new, and existing trails, and an edge water park.
Current Zoning: G-l
Property Dimensions: Approximately 30 acres
Current Use of the Site: Undeveloped/Former Logging Dump
Use of Adjacent Sites: Residential condominiums to the east; residential subdivision to the north;
commercial to the northwest; Ludlow Bay lies to the south.
Floor Space of Buildings (List Separately for Each Use):
Existing: None
Proposed: Estimating up to 3,000 square feet per unit, including garages; proponent may not be builder.
List Providers for the Following Services:
Sewage: Olympic Resource Management
Power: Puget Power
Water: Ludlow Water Company
Disposal: Olympic Disposal Company
How Many People Will Reside or Work at the Proposed Project? Approximately 176 residents.
Hours of Operation: N/ A
Estimated Vehicular Trips Per Day to be Generated by the Proposed Project and Peak Volume Times:
Based on 6 trips per day per residence, 528 trips are estimated; see SEPA checklist.
~..
LOG I EM
Ii __..._......._
t61/
1/11/(;. ( 610
P.~~
~t,~
~-
.LItO 1
,..
e
e
Proposed Parking Plan: Each of the 88 units will be provided space on-site for at least two (2) cars.
Additional off-street guest parking will also be provided within the two condominium tracts, at locations
convenient to units.
Existing Off-Street Parking Spaces: None
Would Any Existing Parking Spaces Be Eliminated? IfVes, How Many? No
Other Parking Provisions, if Any: Additional guest parking may be provided at locations convenient to
units.
Describe Any Existing and/or Proposed Access to the Site: Existing access to the former log dump
portion is located opposite commercial area on Paradise Bay Road. An emergency access is possible
from North Bay Condominiums (their CCRs permit this). The site would be accessed from two new roads
to be constructed from Paradise Bay Road, a local arterial; and a third access from Oak Bay Road.
Will the Project Require Any Work Within 200 Feet of a Fresh or Saltwater Shoreline? IfVes, Explain:
The site is adjacent to Ludlow Bay. Development within 200 feet will include, roads, pedestrian trails,
park facilities, residential housing and utilities.
Will the proposal endanger the public health, safety or general welfare, or generate unacceptable impacts
beyond the property boundaries? If no, please describe why. No, the proposed residential project will
not endanger the public health, safety or general welfare, and will have only minimal, acceptable, impacts
beyond the property boundaries. See SEPA checklist for additional details. The Conditional Use Permit
is being requested to allow for development oftownhome style condominiums.
Describe impacts on the reasonable use and enjoyment of surrounding properties. The proposed project
should have no impacts on the reasonable use or enjoyment of the surrounding properties. The proposal
includes significant natural and landscaping areas along major roads and the waterfront. Future
residential units will be compatible with existing single and multi-family units on surrounding properties.
The significant expansion of the community trail system will increase the reasonable use and enjoyment
of surrounding properties.
How is the proposal consistent with the general policies and goals of the Comprehensive Plan and other
applicable community plans? The proposal is consistent with the policies and goals of" the
Comprehensive Plan in so far as Port Ludlow is one of the areas to which, " . . . the major share of future
growth should be directed toward. . ." and that it provides "A broad range of housing types and densities
. .." (The Port Ludlow Interim Urban Growth Area designated this site as multi-family with a maximum
density of 16 units per acre).
How will the character of the use be in harmony with the surrounding area? This proposal is much more
in harmony with the surroundings than the recently abandoned log dump. The combined uses of single-
family and multi-family within the proposed development mirrors and is compatible with the surrounding
neighborhood which consists of a commercial zone, multi-family developments, and single family
developments. Further, architectural styles will be compatible with existing uses.
Describe any off-site impacts created by the proposal. Are these impacts greater than other uses which
are permitted within the zoning district? The impacts from this proposal are smaller than other permitted
uses. The allowable density for this site is for up to 16 units per gross acre, while this proposal is for only
2.94 dwelling units per acre. See SEPA checklist for additional details.
rr;',.~ ",\ I 2
. ""~Y~-L-
2.26
.~..._,."._...~.~
..~
4'b~
...
e
e
Describe how the proposed development meets all applicable noise, odor, lighting and buffer standards
for the zone in which it is proposing to locate. The proposal exceeds all buffer and open space standards
for the G-I zone. It meets applicable noise, odor, and lighting standards by proposing uses and densities
that are consistent with the zoning code and Port Ludlow Interim Urban Growth Area.
\ \esm\sys\esm-jobs\528\24 \S2824-12.doc
#
vet.-
l( rJ;~( t5"(p
\1~\\1 \q1
. , .
Date
Page~~
"-..___ ". ZO
~\~"-~
~
Lr~4
--
e
\lM\I
e
Lnr~ ITr~".
,,-_,_,1- ~_~ J ,"-" ~ VI
u- __ Z. '2-C>
;~of
"'i OJ i'
e
e
Powers & Therrien (Diane Sires)
From:
To:
Cc:
Sent:
Attach:
Subject:
"Powers & Therrien (Diane Sires)" <powers_therrien@yvn.com>
"Stephen Causseaux" <c.allen@mchlawoffices.com>
"Powers & Therrien" <powers_therrien@yvn.com>
Friday, October 27, 2006 2:45 PM
L TR to Causseaux re LC2 pending litigation 102706.pdf; Enc to Ltr to Causseaux 102706.pdf
Powers v. Jefferson County & Port Ludlow Associates LLC
Mr. Causseaux:
Please find attached correspondence from Les Powers for your information.
Diane Sires
Legal Assistant
POWERS & THERRIEN, P.S.
3502 Tieton Drive
Yakima, WA 98902
Ph (509)453-8906 Fx (509)453-0745
This email is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. Section 2510-2521 and is legally privileged. This message and any
attachments hereto is intended only for the use of the person named above. If you are not that person, you are hereby notified that any dissemination,
distribution or copying of this email message other than to the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please
immediately notify the sender and delete this email from your computer.
To ensure compliance with requirements imposed by the IRS, we inform you that any U.S, federal tax advice contained in this communication was not
intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of (i) avoiding tax-related penalties under the Internal Revenue Code or (ii)
promoting, marketing or recommending to another person any tax-related matter.
e
e
LAW OFFICES
Powers &. Therrien, P.S.
3502 TIETON DRIVE
YAKIMA, WASHINGTON 98902
LESLIE A. POWERS
KEI1H R. 1HERRIEN
E-Mail: Powers_Therrien@yvn.com
TELEPHONE (509) 453-8906
FAX (509) 453-0745
October 27, 2006
Via Email
STEPHEN CAUSSEAUX
McCarthy Causseaux & Hurdelbrink Inc. P .S.
902 S. 10th Street
Tacoma, W A 98405-4537
Pb253-272-2206
RE: Powers vs. Jefferson County and Port Ludlow Associates LLC
Jefferson County Cause No. 06-200339-9
Dear Mr. Casseaux:
I am sending this letter to advise you that I filed a LUP A Petition respecting LUP A compliance
issues on Ludlow Cove II. If my contact with you is not appropriate, please advise me. I am
copying Jefferson County Department of Community Development ("DCD") with this letter. I
have addressed this letter to you because DCD has emailed me that it will not necessarily add
evidence that I identify to it to the Log for MLA06-00221. Accordingly, I have no way to
determine whether DCD has added the LUP A Petition and motion for stay to the Log for
MLA06-00221 and whether you will otherwise be notified of the action that I have commenced
in this matter.
I filed an administrative appeal of DC D's SEPA compliance for MLA 06-00221 in September,
2006, within the appeal period treating the receipt of a copy of DCD' s Staff Report as notice. On
October 2, 2006, DCD emailed me that it refused to entertain the administrative appeal because I
had not administratively appealed SEP A compliance for SUB05-00004, the application that was
rejected by AHE Galt and the SHB. What makes DCD's position more strange is that it
solicited my response along with that of a number of government agencies, including the
Washington Department of Ecology ("DOE") to its proposed decision to utilize the MDNS
issued with respect to SUB05-00004 to comply with SEP A requirements for MLA06-00221. I
responded within the response period identified in the notice that the proposed compliance was
not proper because it conflicted Mr. Galt's legal and factual conclusions as to the nature of use
posed by Trend West on Ludlow Cove II. Clearly, at that time DCD considered that its decision
on MLA06-00221 respecting SEP A compliance was independent of its approval of an MDNS
for SUB05-00004. I administratively appealed DCD's decision not to permit my SEP A appeal
ofMLA06-00221 within the appeal period thereafter. I asked DCD to confirm that my second
appeal would be heard by you. DCD has promised to address but has not yet confirmed my right
to appeal its second decision. I asked DCD to confirm my judicial appeal rights of its decision
/f.zno d3--
-""""-"'~~-_...".,......
~ of ___,.
~ OJ'Z-
e
e
Stephen Causseaux
McCarthy Causseaux & Hurdelbrink Inc. P.S.
October 27, 2006
Page 2
respecting LUP A under MLA06-00221. It has not provided me confirmation. After filing a
LUP A petition, I offered to dismiss same, ifDCD would confirm that my appeal rights under
LUPA respecting the SEPA compliance would commence with the decision of the Jefferson
County Board of County Commissioners ("BoCC"). Although Mr. Scalf said that he thought
that was the case, he did not confirm my rights. By email of even date with this letter, Mr. Scalf
confirmed that I had appeal rights under LUP A of the BoCC' s decision on MLA 06-00221 but
did not confirm that I had appeal rights of the SEP A compliance or handling of my appeal
thereon. I so advised Mr. Scalf that his correspondence did not confirm my SEP A appeal rights.
I am writing this letter to notify you that I have filed a LUP A petition based on DCD's failure to
provide notice of its threshold determination that the MDNS issued under SUB05-00004 would
be used to comply with SEP A for MLA06-00221 and the opportunity administratively to appeal
that determination and its denial of my administrative appeal rights thereon. I have also moved
for a stay of all proceedings to approve the consolidated permit application under MLA06-00221
pending the resolution of my SEP A appeal rights. That motion is scheduled for hearing on
November 17, 2006.
I believe serious consideration should be given to the deferral of the hearing scheduled for
November 3,2006 until DCD either confirms my appeal rights and I dismiss the appeal or the
Court disposes of my motion for stay. If my LUP A petition or motion for stay is given effect,
prior administrative proceedings will be adversely affected.
I would have preferred that this matter be handled by DCD' s recognition of my SEP A petition,
by its confirmation of my appeal rights or by its confirmation of my right to appeal its failure to
provide notice of its threshold decision on MLA 06-00221. DCD has chosen not to provide any
such rights or assurance. Given that DCD has not provided me notice of its threshold
determination to use the MDNS from SUB05-00004 to comply with SEP A requirements for
MLA06-00221, I have no notice of the date of DC D's decision to utilize the MDNS from
SUB05-00004 to comply with SEPA requirements for MLA06-0022l, I am left no choice but
protectively to file judicially.
I would appreciate a response on the request contained in this letter. I will make the same
request ofDCD. This letter covers emails to and from Jefferson County, the LUP A Petition, the
Declaration, and the Motion for Stay.
Your consideration of this matter is appreciated.
Sincerely yours,
POWERS & THERRIEN, P.S.
Lulf'e If. Pottier-if
LESLIE A. POWERS
LAP/dms
Enclosure( s)
~1---
-~--~
,~~
~~?J
14
IS
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
>-
~ 24
c:::)
C-::) 25
L.I.I
--I
-
.....
e
e
1
2
3
4
5
6
SUPERIOR COURT OF WASHINGTON FOR JEFFERSON COUNTY
7"
LESLIE A. POWERS, an individual, )
8 )
Plaintiff, ) NO.
9 )
) LAND USE PETITION UNDER RCW
vs. ) CHAPTER 36.70C
10
JEFFERSON COUNTY, a political ) (pETITION FOR RELIEF UNDER LUP A,
11 )
subdivision of the State of Washington; and, ) FOR DECLARATORY RELIEF AND FOR
12 PORT LUDLOW ASSOCIATES, LLC, a ) OTHER JUDICIAL RELIEF)
Washington limited liability company, )
13 )
Respondents. )
1. Name and Mallin!! Address of Petitioner
Leslie A. Powers
44 Heron Road
Port Ludlow, W A 98365
2. Name and Mallin!! Address of Petitioner's Attorneys
Leslie A. Powers, Pro Se
Powers & Thenien, P .S.
3502 Tieton Drive
Yakima, W A 98902
3. Name and Mallin!! Address of Local Jurisdiction
Jefferson County
1820 Jefferson Street
P.O. Box 563
Port Townsend, W A 98368
LUPA PETITION-1
POWERS & THERRIEN, P.S.
3502 TIETON DRIVE
YAKIMA, W ASlllNGTON 98902
509-453-8906
e
e
4.
Decision-Makin2 Bodv or Officer
2
Jefferson County Appellate Hearing Examiner.
3 A copy of the email is attached to this Land Use Petition and is identified on its face as a
4 email issued October 2, 2006, from Barbara Nightingale, Subject: RE: SEP A, in reference to
5 SOO05-0004.
6
5.
Identification of Parties
7
a.
Leslie A. Powers
8
b.
Jefferson County, Washington
9
c.
Port Ludlow Associates LLC
10
6.
Stand.in2
11
a.
Petitioner owns real property improved as a townhome with a street
12 address of 44 Heron Rd., Port Ludlow, Washington. Petitioner is a resident at that address.
13
b.
Ludlow Cove II is located on the shore of Ludlow Bay along the
14 estuary to Ludlow Creek, a salmon bearing stream. Ludlow Cove II and Petitioner's
15 residence are each part of the Ludlow Bay Master Planned Resort, the "Pope Property" under
16 and as defined by the Development Agreement, and are subject to a common set of covenants,
17 conditions, and restrictions affecting the entire Pope Property. As a result, Petitioner has a
18 recognizable interest in Ludlow Cove II. an interest in real property in Ludlow Cove II and an
19 interest in the development of the Pope Property in a manner consistent with its status as a
20 part of a master planned resort subject to land use restrictions and zoning protections therein.
21
7.
Statement of Errors Committed
22 Jefferson County Department of Community Development ("DCD") is the lead
23 agency with respect to SEP A compliance for Ludlow Cove II. DCD erred as follows:
24
a.
in determining that it could comply with SEP A with respect to
25 MLA06-00221 (the "2006 Application"), by adopting without independent review the
LUPA PETITION-2
7-1.-0
~Gi
.l;'1~
POWERS & THERRIEN, P.S.
3502 TIEfON DRIVE
._, YAKIMA. WASHINGTON 98902
509-453-8906
e
e
1 modified determination of nonsignificance (the "MDNS") that it issued as a threshold
2 determimition with respect to SUB05-00004 (the "2005 Application") without an independent
3 threshold determination with respect to the 2006 Application. The country has also erred in
4 failing to consider the erroneous classification of Trend West use as residential as determined
5 by Appellate Hearing Examiner Galt in his decision vacating the 2005 Application. HE Galt
6 found because the proposed Trend West use is in fact transient and commercial and not
7 residential. All in of these actions by the County are in violation of WAC 197-11-330;
8
b.
in failing to take into account the actual, not probable significant
9 adverse impact resulting from the location of a commercial operation in the form of a Trend
10 West resort on shoreland located on the estuary of Ludlow Creek, that is zoned single family
II residential;
12
c.
in failing and refusing to acknowledge that its decision to use the
13 MONS for the vacated 2005 Application for the 2006 Application constituted a threshold
14 determination as to the 2006 Application which requiring notice to interested parties,
15 including Petitioner and the opportunity to appeal administratively;
16
d.
in failing to give Petitioner notice of its decision to comply with SEP A
17 with respect to the 2006 Application by adopting the MDNS for the vacated 2005 Application
18 in violation of ICC 18.30.330(2);
19
e.
in failing and refusing to give Petitioner the right of administrative
20 appeal of its decision to comply with SEP A with respect to 2006 Application by adopting the
21 MONS for the vacated 2005 Application as required as a matter of due process under the
22 United States and Washington Constitutions and under ICC 18.30.220(2),230, and 330(2)(a)
23 and (b).
24
8.
Statement of Facts
25
LUPA PETITION - 3
POWERS & THERRIEN, P.S.
3502 TIEfON DRIVE
YAKIMA, WASlllNGTON 98902
509-453-8906
e
e
1
a
Petitioner owns real property improved as a townhome with a street
2 address of 44 Heron Rd., Port Ludlow, Washington. Petitioner is a resident at that address.
3
b.
Port Ludlow Associates, LLC (''PLA''), is a successor to Olympic
4 Resources ("Pope") under a development agreement (the "Development Agreement") with
5 lefferson County initially dated in May, 2000.
6
c.
PLA owns a plat called Ludlow Cove II. Pope originally applied for
7 the Ludlow Cove II in 1995. In 2002, Hearing Examiner Berteig held a hearing on the
8 Ludlow Cove II Plat. He found that the Ludlow Cove II Plat was vested in 1995 for land use
9 purposes, that it was zoned for single family use and that a permitted conditional use was
10 multifamily residential.
11
d.
Ludlow Cove II is located on the shore of Ludlow Bay along the
12 estuary to Ludlow Creek, a salmon bearing stream. Ludlow Cove II and Petitioner's
13 residence are each part of the Ludlow Bay Master Planned Resort, the "Pope Property" under
14 and as defined by the Development Agreement, and are subject to a common set of covenants,
15 conditions, and restrictions affecting the entire Pope Property. As a result, Petitioner has a
16 recognizable interest in Ludlow Cove II. an interest in real property in Ludlow Cove II and an
17 interest in the development of the Pope Property in a manner consistent with its master
18 planned resort classification and zoning protections.
19
e.
Under the Development Agreement and the MPR Code, the
20 development regulations for the Port Ludlow Master Planned Resort, and under the
21 Comprehensive Plan, Ludlow Cove II is zoned single family residential. Multifamily use is
22 not permitted.
23
f.
In January, 2005, under the 2005 Application, PLA applied to develop
24 Ludlow Cove II as a Trend West Resort. PLA and Trend West falsely represented in their
25
LUPA PETITION - 4
POWERS & THERRIEN, P.S.
3502 TIETON DRIVE
YAKIMA, WASHINGTON 98902
509-453-8906
e
e
1 application that the Trend West Resort was a residential application, a condominium time
.2 share project.
3
g.
The Washington Department of Ecology responded to the 2005
4 Application questioning whether the Trend West use was residential and whether it should be
5 permitted at Ludlow Cove II.
6
h.
Jefferson County Department of Community Development ("DCD"),
7 the lead agency for SEP A purposes, made a threshold decision to comply with SEP A as to the
8 2005 Application by issuing a modified determination of nonsignificance (the "MDNS'~.
9 Petitioner did not separately appeal the MONS.
10
1.
Petitioner and others challenged the residential nature of the Trend
11 West use under the 2005 Application in an appeal to Appellate Hearing Examiner Galt as to
12 the binding site plan and substantive permits and separately on procedural grounds the
13 shoreline substantial development permit (the "SSDP") to the Washington State Shoreline
14 Hearing Board (the "SHB"). On December 7,2005, ARE Galt found in favor of Petitioners
15 and co-appellants that the proposed Trend West use was transient and thus commercial under
16 the applicable zoning law, either based on the zoning in effect in 1995 or at the time of the
17 Development Agreement. ARE Galt vacated HE Berteig's decision to approve the 2005
18 Application as to the binding site plan and substantive pennits. In 2006, the SHB found for
19 petitioner that the SSDP had not been properly approved by Jefferson County and vacated the
20 SSDP contained in the 2005 Application. PLA filed a LUP A petition with respect to ARE
21 Galt's decision but did not move to stay ARE Galt's decision. ARE Galt's decision and the
22 SHB decision as to the 2005 Application are the [mal action of Jefferson County.
23
J.
In March, 2006, PLA submitted a consolidated permit application to
24 approve the Trend West use and project on Ludlow Cove II through an amendment to the
25 Development Agreement permitting "time share use" as a residential use and single family
LUP A PETITION - 5
i-~"-'" III
~ ':~~f. > :;~ll
2-1.:f; _
;an
~ j~~un
POWERS & THERRIEN, P.S.
3502 TIETON DRIVE
y AKIMA, WASHINGTON 98902
509-453-8906
e
e
1 and multifamily use as directly permitted principal uses on Ludlow Cove II as the 2006
2 Application. A new application for an SSDP was included in the Consolidated 2006
3 Application. The actual projected use remained the same. The 2006 Application contains a
4 description of the use from the 2005 Application but does not contain a binding site plan
5 committing the use to Ludlow Cove II. The 2006 Application proposes to adopt HE Berteig's
6 decision approving the 2005 Application and its Washington State Environmental Protection
7 Act, Chapter 43.21 C, RCW, ("SEP A") compliance. That decision and the 2005 Application
8 were vacated by ARE Galt and haves no further legal effect.
9
k.
In June, DCD sent a notice to Petitioner and others soliciting their
10 response to a proposal to use the MDNS and SEP A compliance associated with the 2005
11 Application for the 2006 Application. In July, Petitioner timely objected. In luly, the DOE
12 repeated its objection filed with the 2005 Application.
13
1.
After filing his objection and comments, Petitioner received no further
14 notice from DCD as to its disposition of the proposal to reissue the MONS for the
15 2005Application as SEP A compliance for the 2006 Application.
16
m.
In September, 2006, DCD provided Petitioner with a copy of a staff
17 report supporting the 2006 Application. It contained a reference to the decision to reissue the
18 MDNS from the 2005 Application as SEP A compliance for the 2006 Application.
19
n.
Petitioner timely filed a petition with DCD to have an administrative
20 appeal of its decision to reissue the MDNS from the 2005 Application as SEP A compliance
21 for the 2006 Application. Petitioner's objection includes, inter alia, reference to the change of
22 use of Ludlow Cove II from lower density residential use to commercial use without
23 disclosure or mitigation appropriate to the change. Petitioner urged that the change
24 represented at least a probable significant impact that was appropriate to a determination of
25 significance and full SEP A compliance. Petitioner urged that the determination of ARE Galt
LUPA PETITION - 6
L.'f-:, ,F;'
l.... ',~"
if
POWERS & THERRIEN, P.S.
3502 TIETON DRIVE
Y AKlMA, WASHINGTON 98902
509-453-8906
e
e
1 that the proposed Trend West use is transient and commercial changes the basis of the
2 conclusion ofDCD that the Trend West use is residential that formed the legal and factual
3 basis for its MDNS issued in connection with the 2005 Application. Petitioner urged that the
4 MDNS issued in connection with the 2005 Application cannot be used in connection with the
5 2006 Application because it was based on the erroneous classification of the Trend West use
6 as residential rather than commercial as found by ARE Galt. Petitioner finally urged that a
7 legislative act, approval of the proposed amendment to the Development Agreement by the
8 Jefferson County Board of County Commissioners cannot by change of definitions in the
9 Development Agreement change the factual nature of the subject use as found by AHE Galt.
10
o.
On October 2, 2006, by email, DCD notified Petitioner that his appeal
11 of its decision to use the MDNS from the 2005 Application to comply with SEP A under the
12 2006 Application was rejected as not timely because Petitioner had failed to appeal the
13 MDNS when it was issued as a threshold determination in July, 2005, in connection with the
14 2005 Application. In other words, DCD considers that for purposes of SEP A the 2005
15 Application and 2006 Application are a single application notwithstanding AHE Galt's
16 vacation of the 2005 Application and the decision of HE Berteig that approved it.
17
p.
Petitioner timely filed an appeal of DC D's decision not to permit
18 Petitioner's appeal of DC D's decision to use the MDNS from the 2005 Application to satisfy
19 SEP A compliance for the 2006 Application. DCD has not resp'onded to Petitioner's notice of
20 appeal.
2]
q.
Petitioner urges that DCD made a threshold decision with respect to the
22 2006 Application when it decided to comply by use of the MONS from the vacated 2005
23 Application, that DCD failed to give notice to Petitioner of such threshold decision as
24 required by law, that DCD knew full well that it had made a threshold decision as evidenced
25 by its solicitation of SEP A comments for the proposition that it could comply with SEP A by
LUPA PETITION. 7
~1..0~~___~_
---~
..:JJL~ .---
~(fJ
POWERS & THERRIEN, P.S.
3502 TlETON DRIVE
Y AKlMA, W ASlllNGTON 98902
509-453-8906
e
e
using the MDNS for the 2005 Application to comply with SEP A requirements for the 2006
2 Application in lune, 2006, that absent any other notice, the email notice of October 2, 2006
3 must be seen as notice of final action by DCD on SEP A compliance for the 2006 Application,
4 and that Petitioner is entitled to petition the Court under LUP A to determine that Jefferson
5 County has not procedurally complied with the requrrements of SEP A as to the threshold
6 decision to utilize the MDNS from the vacated 2005 Application as compliance with the 2006
7 Application and its decision not to permit administrative appeal rights and notice with respect
8 to such threshold decision.
9
9.
Relief Requested
10
a.
That DCD's decision to use the MDNS from the vacated 2005
11 Application to comply with the SEP A requirements for the 2006 Application constitutes a
12 threshold decision as to the 2006 Application;
13
b.
That DCD's decision to reject Petitioner's appeal of its decision to
14 comply with SEP A requirements for the 2006 Application by using the MONS from the
15 vacated 2005 Application is a final action exhausting Petitioner's administrative remedies and
16 entitling Petitioner to appeal judicially such decision under LUP A;
17
c.
That the SEP A compliance of lefferson County with respect to the
18 approval of the 2006 Application by adopting and conflating the MDNS issued on the vacated
19 2005 Application as SEP A compliance with respect to the 2006 Application be declared
20 legally defective and without legal effect;
21
d.
That Jefferson County's failure to provide notice and an opportunity
22 administratively to appeal to Petitioner be declared a violation of the Jefferson County Code
23 and Petitioner's Constitutional right of due process;
24
25
LUPA PETITION - 8
_.---7.Zo
, -Bf~ --
l)O( --
POWERS & THERRIEN, P.S.
3502 TIEfON DRIVE
YAKIMA, WASHINGTON 98902
509-453-8906
e
e
1
e.
That the matter be remanded to Jefferson County with direction to
2 comply with SEPA's and the Jefferson County Code's legal requirements of notice to
3 interested parties and administrative appeal of threshold decisions;
4
f.
By authority granted under RCW 36.70C.I00 and, subject to paragraph
5 (g) below by grant of a writ of mandating, prohibiting and conditioning any further
6 administrative or legislative hearings or approvals of the 2006 Application, whether ,
7 including without limitation, the hearing before HE Casseaux with respect to the SSDP and
8 advice on the proposed amendment to the Development and with respect to the hearing before
9 the BoCC relative to the approval of the amendment to the Development Agreement, be
10 stayed or prohibited until DCD has complied with the notice and administrative appeal
11 requirements ofSEPA and the lefferson County Code and due process as to Petitioner's right
12 to have notice of DC D's threshold determination respecting SEP A compliance with the 2006
13 Application and the right administratively to appeal same;
14
g.
To the extent any relief cannot be granted under the provisions of
15 Chapter 36.70C, RCW, that such matter be bifurcated and treated as a separate action and
16 claim for relief based upon the facts alleged herein;
17
h.
For such other and further relief as the Court may award.
18
19
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED this 19th day of October, 2006.
20
POWERS & THERRIEN, P.S.
21
~-4-r/~A/
Leslie A. Powers, WSBA #06103
Pro SE
22
23
24
Attachment: -Copy of the Email dated October 2,2006
-Notice to Interested Parties of June 23, 2006 requesting SEP A comments on
the 2006 Application.
LUPA PETITION - 9
25
-~.~~'"---
~-" ---<<--
So 2-
POWERS & THERRIEN, P.S.
3502 TlETON DRIVE
Y AKlMA, W ASIllNGTON 98902
509-453-8906
e
e
Page 1 of 2
Powers & Therrien (Diane Sires)
From:
To:
Cc:
Sent:
Subject:
"Barbara Nightingale" <bnightingale@co.jefferson.wa.us>
"Powers & Therrien" <powers_therrien@yvn.com>
"AI Scalf' <ascalf@co.jefferson.wa.us>; "Stacie Hoskins" <shoskins@co.jefferson.wa.us>
Monday, October 02, 2006 8:53 AM
RE:SEPA
Les,
Log Item 115 of SUB05-Q004 is a certificate of mailing of staff report and MONS. Log Item 114 from this same file
is the Staff Report and MONS. This was mailed out on July 26, 2005. There were no appeals to the SEPA MONS.
At this time, the SEPA MONS stands without being appealed and your request for special standing in the present
application is not being reconsidered. The date of the hearing is based upon availability of the Hearing Examiner,
County staff and the applicant. Members of the public unable to attend any hearing in this County are always
welcome to have a representative present their statement. As always, statements and perspectives can also be
sent by U.S. mail or email.
Respectfully,
Barbara Nightingale M.M.A., M.A.S.
Associate Planner
Port Ludlow Master Planned Resort
Jefferson County
Oept. of Community Development
(360) 379-4472
bnightingale@co.jefferson.wa.us
From: Powers & Therrien [mailto:powers_therrien@yvn.com]
Sent: Sunday, October 01, 2006 6:29 PM
To: Barbara Nightingale
Cc: Powers & Therrien
SUbject: SEPA
Barbara:
I may have missed it, but I did not see a log item that showed a mailing of the MONS decision on or about July
26th. I have trouble believing that itwould not have been sent to me since my views on the decision in
preliminary form were solicited and I responded with my criticism. I also have problems understanding why my
response on or about July 24th was not sufficient to give notice to OCD of my appeal to Mr. Cassaux, particularly
in light of the deference given to PLA to defer the September 22d hearing because it allegedly missed a posting. I
ask that OCD reconsider this matter.
Les Powers
Powers & Therrien, P .S.
3502 Tieton Drive
Yakima, WA 98902
Phone: 509-453-8906
Fax: 509-453-0745
This email is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. Section 2510-2521 and is legally
privileged. This message and any attachments hereto is intended only for the use of the person named above. If
you are not that person, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this email
message other than to the addressee is strictly prohibited. !fyou have received this message in error, please
immediately notify the sender and delete this email from your computer.
_~_,--.21-()
---
-~Cl~2oo6
50?>
e
e
Page 2 of 2
To ensure compliance with requirements imposed by the IRS, we inform you that any U.S. federal tax advice
contained in this communication was not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of (i)
avoiding tax-related penalties under the Internal Revenue Code or (ii) promoting, marketing or recommending to
another person any tax-related matter:
10/19/2006
JEFFERSON COUNTY.
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
e
RECEIVED
JUN 2 6 2006
POWERS & THERRIEN. p.a
621 Sheridan Street
Port Townsend, W A 98368
AI Scalf. Director
June 23, 2006
Dear. Reviewer,
RE: MLA06-00221 - Location: Parcel Number 968 800 102 in Section 17, Township 28, Range 01 East, WM,
located on Paradise Road at Breaker Lane, Port Ludlow. W A 98365.
Jefferson County has forwarded the attached application to you for review and ~omrnent because your agency is
responsibl~ f~~~f~rmil1!(Ig ~mpliance with state and federal requirements or may otherwise-be.affected by the
following proposal.This project includes a proposed amendment to the existing Port Ludlow Master Planned Resort
Code (MPR Code) to allow "timeshare" use for a 12Q-unit residential development within the Port Ludlow Master
Planned Resort situated on 14.66 acres identified as Tract E of the Ludlow Cove Development. The proposal
changes the current density from 4 dwelfing units per acre (A:1) pursuant to the County Comprehensive Plan to the
previOUS density of 16:1 in accordance with the 1995 Interim Urban Growth Area (Ordinance #01-0117-95). The
proposed project includes six residential timeshare buildings, one reception/recreation building, a private road
system, recreational amenities, including a private swimming pool, outdoor barbecues, spas, and pubnc and private
trails. The proposed project will be served by public water, sanitary sewer systems, and a storm drainage system.
An existing wetland and stream, together with associated buffers, are located in a native growth protection
easement, the boundaries of which are established as part of the Ludlow Cove Division 2 platting process. No work
is proposed below the Ordinary High Water Mark (OHWM) of Port Ludlow.Bay. Vehicular access to the new
development will be provided via a new private road off Paradise Bay Road. Residential development is a "primary
use" within the urban shoreline environment. A site plan, storm drainage plan. water and sewer plan, landscaping
plan, and building elevations diagram are attached to this application. Geotechnical reports, traffic.assessment,
habitat management plan, and archaeological resources and traditional cultural places assessment have also been
completed and are available for your review.
This project will require a Jefferson County Shoreline Substantial Development Permit, Jefferson County Building
Permits Construction Plan Approval, and Hydraulic Project Appro~al from Washington Dept. of FISh and Wildlife for
the discharge of stormwater. If the proposal is approved, policies and performance standards found in the amended
1994 Critical Areas (Ordinance No. 14-0626-95) and the 1989 Shoreline Management Master Program will be used
to form permit conditions intended to mitigate adverse environmental impacts. Additional conditions or mitigation
measures may be required under SEPA.
This proposal is subject to environmental review and threshold determination under the State Environmental Policy
Act (SEPA). The Department expects to adopt an existing environmental document, Mitigated Determination of
Non-Significance and Lead Agency Status, prepared July 26, 2005, and issue a DNS for this proposal. This may be
your only opportunity to comment on the environmental impacts of the proposal. Comments must be received within
thirty (30) calendar days of the published public notice or by July 24, 2006. If no written response has been received
within thirty (30) days, your agency will be presumed to have no comments. If necessary, the UDC administrator
may grant- an extension of time for comment. Please contact Barbara Nightingale at (360) 379-4472, if you desire an
. -eKtensieA-6f-time or-have-additional-questions"regardingihis'propusal:---. . --- --.----.-.- - - ...
Building Permits/Inspections
Development Review Division
Long Range Planning
-------~--- -..
FAX: (360) 379-~G ITE~l\f1
2ZtJ
--~ --
N-
;J/"
(360) 379-4450
ascalf@co.Jefferson.wa.us
.... " ...: .....a, . . .. ~ .~..
-.' :'
e.
.-',-:'" '.
.;
-t..;'.. .:: !" ,
Thank you in advailce for your attention to this matter.
Sincerely,
c: NICOLE FAGHIN. REID MIDDlETON
7650 OAK BAY RD, JCFPD #3
. CITY .OF PT - BLD/COMM DEV
POBOX 278, CHIMACUM SCHOOL DISTRICT 49
.. CITY OF PT. BLD/COMM DEV.
!,1TN: :rO~ AUMOCK. CITY OF PT FIRE DEPARTMENT
. LINDA ATKINS. JEFFERSON COONTY HEALtH DEPART
, 31974, UTILE BOSTON RD.. PT GAMBLE ~KlALlAM TRIBE
'ERIC~ DIRKSON, PORl: TOWNSEND lEADER
PO BOX 929. JEFFERSON CO PUD #1
SHERRIE SHOLD. JEFFERSON CO ASSESSOR
, 1615 W. SIMS WAY. JEFFERSON TRANSIT
JIM PEARSON. JEFFERSON CO PUBLIC WORKS
PO BOX 1180, PORT OF PORT TOWNSEND
LEROYPATlERSON, WSDOFTRANSPORTATIONOLYMPIC ,
JEFFREE STEWART, DOE SHORELANDS OFFICE
ATTN: BETSEY DICKS, DOE SEPA REVIEW
LEANNE JENKINS, PLANNING DIA.. JAMESTOWN S'KlALlAM TRIBE
SHELLY AMENT, WDFW
RANDYJOHNSON,WDFW
. WDFW SEPA REVIEW
OLYMPIC REGION; CONNIE SALLEE, WA STATE DNR
EXTERNAL PROJECTS. WAST ATE DNR SEPA REVIEW
PO BOX 1906, O.E.C.
JEFF CHEW. PENINSULA DAILY NEWS
RICHARD SMITH, LMC GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS COM
, KOKO CRONIN, US ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS
RAND I THURSTON, WDFW
e
"Ln,,,:,;
'"".,_l .,,,,,l
H:'
e
e
2
3
4
5
6
SUPERIOR COURT OF W ASIDNGTON FOR JEFFERSON COUNTY
7
LESLIE A. POWERS, an individual,
8
)
)
) NO.
)
) DECLARATION AND STATEMENT
) IN SUPPOR.T OF STAY
)
)
)
)
)
)
Respondents. )
JEFFERSON COUNTY, Respondent
PORT LUDLOW ASSOCIATES, LLC, Respondent
9
Plaintiff,
10
vs.
11
IEFFERSON COUNTY, a political
subdivision of the State of Washington; and,
PORT LUDLOW ASSOCIATES, LLC, a
Washington limited liability company,
12
13
14
TO:
TO:
15
16
I, Leslie A. Powers, being of full age and sound mind, do hereby declare as follows:
17
1.
I am competent to make this Declaration and anI personally aware of the facts
18
stated herein.
19
2.
I am a resident of Port Ludlow, Washington.
20
3.
In support of its request for stay of the pending review of the consolidated land
21
use application for Ludlow Cove II filed under MLA06-00221 (the "2006 Application"),
22
Petitioner states as follows:
23
a.
Unless the administrative and legislative hearings and/or approvals of
24
the 2006 Application are stayed, Petitioner will be denied his due process right to appeal what
25
is obviously a threshold determination by Jefferson County Department of Community
DECLARATION AND STATEMENT
IN SUPPORT OF STAY - 1
POWERS & THERRIEN, P.S.
3502 TIETON DRIVE
YAKIMA, WASHINGTON 98902
509-453-8906
e
e
1 Development ("DCD") to forego independent SEP A review of the Trend West project even
2 though the basis for its threshold determination on such project under the 2005 Application
3 was based on the erroneous view that the Trend West use was residential rather than
4 commercial. Appellate Hearing Ex.aminer Galt's decision, the final action by lefferson
5 County on the 2005 Application vacated the approval of the 2005 Application on the basis
6 that it was erroneously characterized as residential and not commercial. By relying on its
7 threshold determination supporting a modified determination of nonsignificance on the Trend
8 West use under the 2005 Application, DCD continues to rely upon an erroneous standard in
9 making a threshold determination on the Trend West use under the 2006 Application, that is
10 that the Trend West use is residential and not commercial notwithstanding AHE Galt's
11 decision. While this may be the result that the applicant wishes through the proposed
12 amendment of the Development Agreement between Jefferson County and the applicant, the
13 current fii1.al determination of Jefferson County is that the Trend West use is commercial and
14 not permitted at Ludlow Cove II. Unless DCD's decision to treat the MDNS from the 2005
15 Application as applicable to the 2006 Application is treated as a threshold determination and
16 unless Petitioner is given notice and right of administrative appeal, failure to grant the stay or
17 to prohibit further proceedings on the 2006 Application will deprive Petitioner of his due
18 process rights and his rights under the Jefferson County Unified Development Code to receive
19 notice and administratively to appeal threshold decisions respecting landuse applications.
20 DCD has refused to permit Petitioner to appeal; Petitioner's rights have been abridged and
21 may be permanently abridged by the continuation of substantive proceedings on the 2006
22 Application. Without administrative appeal rights, Petitioner is left without remedy and
23 method to perfect appeal to the Court.
24
b.
Because the effect of a decision by this Court in favor of Petitioner will
25 vacate and vitiate all land use decisions made by the Hearing Examiner and/or Jefferson
DECLARATION AND STATEMENT
IN SUPPORT OF STAY - 2
A
?" 0 POWERS & THERRIEN, P.S.
-~_._-- 3502 TlETONDRIVE
r~ Y AKlMA, WASHINGTON 98902
-!JI..-I- ,,--- 509-453-8906
So<b
e
e
1 County Board of County Commissioners, staying the review and/or approval of the 2006
2 Application will assure that such decisions will be rendered with local administrative and
3 legislative fmality for purposes of further judicial review. Since the stay is rendered only to
4 pennit compliance with the procedural requirements of SEP A for the publication of threshold
5 decisions respecting the 2006 Application and for the administrative appeal thereof, the stay
6 will not affect the substantive decisions themselves except to the extent that Petitioner's
7 administrative appeal of such threshold determination is upheld by the Hearing Examiner.
8
c.
Petitioner has repeatedly asked DCD to issue proper notice of its
9 threshold determination to use the MONS for the 2005 Application to comply with the SEP A
10 requirements of the 2006 Application and right administratively to appeal same and has
11 repeatedly brought to the attention ofDCD the legal problems that arise as a result of a failure
12 to provide notice and right of appeal. DCD has refused or failed to respond to Petitioner's
13 request for notice and appeal and has insisted that Petitioner has no right of appeal of its
14 threshold detennination for the 2006 Application because Petitioner did not appeal the MDNS
15 when it was issued in July 2005. In other words, DCD insists that a project that has been
16 rejected and vacated by final action of Jefferson County based on an erroneous
17 characterization of use, a characterization that equally and erroneously supported the MDNS,
18 can in some way adequately address the proposal of the same use under the 2006 Application
19 without any reference or attention to mitigating the results ofthe difference between
20 characterizing the use as residential and commercial. The use affects the shoreland. It affects
21 specifically aspects of the Shoreline Management Act. This matter has been raised with
22 DCD. DCD has not responded.
23
d.
To protect Petitioner's due process rights and to avoid further delay
24 incident to an order vacating any decisions made by the Hearing Examiner and BoCC based
25 upon the failure ofDCD to comply with SEP A notice and appeal requirements, Petitioner
DECLARATION AND STATEMENT
IN SUPPORT OF STAY - 3
POWERS & THERRIEN, P.S.
3502 TlETON DRIVE
YAKIMA, WASHINGTON 98902
509-453-8906
,/!-
e
e
1 requests that the hearings before the Hearing Examiner and the BoCC be stayed and
2 prohibited until the Court has addressed Petitioner's due process and SEP A rights to notice of
3 DCD's threshold determination on the 2006 Application and right administratively to appeal
4 same.
5 I declare under penalty of perjury pursuant to the laws of the State of Washington that
6 the statements listed in this Declaration and Statement in Support of Stay are true and correct.
7 Dated this 20th day of October, 2006 at Yakima, Washington.
8
9
,6"&::#~r
10
Leslie A. Powers
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
DECLARATION AND STATEMENT
IN SUPPORT OF STAY - 4
POWERS & THERRlEN, P.S.
3502 TIEfON DRIVE
YAKIMA. WASHINGTON 98902
509-453-8906
" --,,,_~Z1::!?__<___
~
fjlD
e
e
2
3
4
5
6
SUPERIOR COURT OF WASHINGTON FOR J]~FFERSON COUNTY
7
LESLIE A. POWERS, an individual,
8
)
)
) NO. 06200339-9
)
) MOTION FOR STAY
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Respondents. )
CLERK of the above-entitled Court, and
JEFFERSON COUNTY, Respondent
PORT LUDLOW ASSOCIATES, LLC, Respondent
9
Plaintiff,
10
Ys.
11
JEFFERSON COUNTY, a political
subdivision of the State of Washington; and,
PORT LUDLOW ASSOCIATES, LLC, a
Washington limited liability company,
12
13
14
TO:
TO:
TO:
15
16
COME NOW the Plaintiff and move the Court for a stay of all state court proceedings,
17
including discovery and depositions, until a decision is rendered by the Superior Court on the
18
Plaintiffs' Motion for Stay, a hearing on which is currently scheduled for 1 :00 p.m. on
]9
November 17tIJ., 2006 before the Honorable Anna Laurie.
20
This motion is based upon the records and files herein ,md the Declaration and
2]
22
Statement in Support of Stay filed with the court on October 23, 2006.
23
Dated this 26" day of October, 200~~ ~~
Leslie A. Powers, WSBA #6103,
Pro Se
24
25
MOTION FOR STAY - 1
~1-1> POWERS & THERRIEN, P.S.
_ _.. 3502 TIETON DRJVE
~n+ .Y.A.K1MA, WASHINGTON 98902
,",' ..__c 509-453-8906
5"11
.CO'::lC .L U.L .:>
e
e
Powers & Therrien (Diane Sires)
Sent:
Subject:
"Powers & Therrien" <powers_therrien@yvn.com>
"AI Scalf <ascalf@co.jefferson.wa.us>
"Powers & Therrien" <POWERS_ THERRIEN@yvn.com>; "Elizabeth Van Zonneveld"
<evz@cablespeed.com>; <LewisHale@aol.com>; "Rick Rozzell" <rr2dp@aol.com>
Friday, October 27,200610:28 AM
Re: LUPA Petition
From:
To:
Cc:
AI:
This still doesn't completely address my question. Willi be permitted to appeal (a) the decision of OCO to utilize
the MONS from SUB05-00004 to comply with the SEPA requirements of MLA06-00221; (b) the decision of OCO
that my right of appeal of the SEPA compliance for MLA06.00221 was cut off when I did not appeal the MONS
issued under SUB05-00004? If you can confirm that I have.the right to appeal OCO's decisions under (a) and/or
(b), identifying which, I will be able to dismiss the LUPA petition. The issue that OeD raised when it denied my
administrative appeal rights of its decision to use the MONS for SUB05-00004 to comply with the SEPA
requirements for MLA06-00221 is that I cannot tell when the final decision of the County has been made as to my
appeal of SEPA compliance for MLA 06-00221 and or the denial of my appeal rights respecting same. I realize
that I can file a LUPA petition on the substantive permits, and, as far as that goes, a SHB petition on the SSOP
component thereof. The appeal of the consolidated permits is not, however, the issue. Rather it is the SEPA
compliance with respect to same and my right of administrative appeal of that SEPA compliance. As I indicated
earlier, the simple solution would have been to have sent me a notice of a threshold determination of OCO's
decision to go with the MONS for 05-00004 and permit me to perfect an appeal to HE Casseaux thereon.
Alternatively, my right to appeal OCO's denial of my appeal right to HE Casseaux could have been recognized.
OCO has done neither. Your response to which I reply is inapposite. Please respond to my actual question.
I appreciate your assistance.
Les
-- Original Message ---
From: Al Scalf
To: Powers & Therrien
Cc: Elizabeth Van Zonneveld ; LewisHale@aol.com ; Rick Rozzell
Sent: Friday, October 27,20069:01 AM
Subject: RE: LUPA Petition
Les
From the land use procedures ordinance:
A application involving two or more permits, at the request of a applicant can be consolidated into a single
process. Use the highest procedure.
So everything is a type C. The request to amend the development agreement and the shoreline permit
application.
TYPE C
BOCC decision based upon a recommendation from the Hearing Examiner who conducts a open record public
hearing.
Effect of decision: "The decision of the Board of County Commissioners shall be the final decision of the
County on the application unless, within twenty-one (21) calendar days after issuance of a decision, an appeal
is filed in Superior Court in accordance with Chapter 36.70C RCW."
So I suggest you wait to see what the BOCC does. The eocc will conduct their own public hearing on the
TYPE C. They will approve or deny. Once the BOCC decides DCD will issue the BOCC decision with the 21
2.1-f>_______"_,
~ oj .__...
'61"J--
10/27/2006
J:"dY~ -::.. UL ..)
e
e
day appeal notice to Superior Court. Any party of record can appeal under LUPA: the development agreement
decision, the shoreline permit decision, the environmental review, any procedural concern, etc., etc.
AI
-----Original Message-----
From: Powers & Therrien [mailto:powers_therrien@yvn.com]
Sent: Wednesday, October 25,20064:55 PM
To: AI Scalf
Cc: Powers & Therrien; Elizabeth Van Zonneveld; LewisHale@aol.com; Rick Rozzell
SUbject: Re: LUPA Petition
AI:
If you can confirm this, I will of course drop the LUPA claims. I am not interested in fighting issues that
are not currently before me and remain open on appeal when the final decision is made as to the
substantive proposal and the SSDP. I would appreciate a response at your earliest convenience.
Thanks for the update.
Les
-- Original Message ~-
From: AI Scalf
To: Powers & Therrien
Sent: Wednesday, October 25,20064:41 PM
Subject: RE: LUPA Petition
Les
Last week, I sent your review/request to David Alvarez for legal consultation. He hasn't commented
yet. You filed the LUPA, I understand you are protecting your appeal rights. However, I tend to think
the appeal period is still in front of you. After the Hearing Examiner makes a recommendation, the
BOCC will make a decision to approve or deny, then a appeal period would open up for any and all
aspects of the proposal. This appeal right is direct to Superior Court.
your thoughts,
AI
----Original Message-----
From: Powers & Therrien [mailto:powers_therrien@yvn.com]
Sent: Monday, October 23,200612:48 PM
To: AI Scalf
Cc: Powers & Therrien
SUbject: LUPA Petition
AI:
Because no one responded to provide me with information on my right to appeal DCD's decision
of October 2, 2006, that 1 lost my SEPA appeal rights by not appealing the 2005 MONS in
August, 2005 and I was at the 21st day from that decision, I filed a protective LUPA Petition. I
would prefer to withdraw the filing if your office can assure me that I will be given the right
administratively to appeal either the substantive decision to use the 2005 MONS as compliance
with SEPA for MLA 06-00221 or the procedural decision that my failure to file an administrative
appeal on the MONS in August 2005 in respect of SUB05-00004 substantively terminated my
SEPA rights under MLA06-00221. I asked you to respond by October 18th. You said that you
would respond last week. I received no response and simply ran out of time. I again ask that
you provide me the opportunity for an administrative appeal and an official notice of what I
r -, I"'''"''' ~
L~~_.,~-(~"".'J ~. ~ :-:,,~~',~~ll
~~
~C.'"_.._,--~,
151~
--
10/27/2006
.t'dY~ .J or: .j
e
e
consider a threshold determination to rely on the 2005 MONS without further mitigation to reflect
AHE Galt's decision respecting the type of use that is associated with a Trend West project.
Les Powers
Powers & Therrien, P.S.
3502 Tieton Drive
Yakima, WA 98902
Phone: 509-453-8906
Fax: 509-453-0745
This email is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. Section 2510-
2521 and is legally privileged. This message and any attachments hereto is intended only for
the use of the person named above. If you are not that person, you are hereby notified that any
dissemination, distribution or copying of this email message other than to the addressee is
strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please immediately notify the
sender and delete this emaH from your computer.
To ensure compliance with requirements imposed by the IRS, we inform you that any U.S.
federal tax advice contained in this communication was not intended or written to be used, and
cannot be used, for the purpose of (i) avoiding tax-related penalties under the Internal Revenue
Code or (ii) promoting, marketing or recommending to another person any tax-related matter.
10/27/2006
rage J. OI L.
e
e
Powers & Therrien (Diane Sires)
Sent:
Subject:
"AI Scalf' <ascalf@co.jefferson.wa.us>
"Powers & Therrien" <powers_therrien@yvn.com>
"Elizabeth Van Zonneveld" <evz@cablespeed.com>; <LewisHale@aol.com>; "Rick Rozzell"
<rr2dp@aol.com>
Friday, October 27,20069:01 AM
RE: LUPA Petition
From:
To:
Cc:
Les
From the land use procedures ordinance:
A application involving two or more permits, at the request Of a applicant can be consolidated into a single
process. Use the highest procedure.
So everything is a type C. The request to amend the development agreement and the shoreline permit
application.
lYPE C
SOCC decision based upon a recommendation from the Hearing Examiner who conducts a open record public
hearing.
Effect of decision: "The decision of the Board of County Commissioners shall be the final decision of the County
on the application unless, within twenty-one (21) calendar days after issuance of a decision, an appeal is filed in
Superior Court in accordance with Chapter 36.70C RCW."
So I suggest you wait to see what the SOCC does. The BOCC will conduct their own public hearing on the lYPE
C. They will approve or deny. Once the SOCC decides DCD will isSue the SOCC decision with the 21 day
appeal notice to Superior Court. Any party of record can appeal under LUPA: the development agreement
decision, the shoreline permit decision, the environmental review, any procedural concern, etc., etc.
AI
-----Original Message-----
From: Powers & Therrien [mailto:powers_therrien@yvn.com]
Sent: Wednesday, October 25,20064:55 PM
To: AI Scalf
Cc: Powers & Therrien; Elizabeth Van Zonneveld; LewisHale@aol.com; Rick Rozzell
Subject: Re: LUPA Petition
AI:
If you can confirm this, I will of course drop the LUPA claims. I am not interested in fighting issues that are
not currently before me and remain open on appeal when the final decision is made as to the substantive
proposal and the SSDP. I would appreciate a response at your earliest convenience.
Thanks for the update.
Les
-- Original Message --
From: AI Scalf
To: Powers & Therrien
Sent: Wednesday, October 25, 2006 4:41 PM
Subject: RE: LUPA Petition
i'-~"'-" ,
Lr,1'"'; '--':-"t
't:...j'~,~ ~ ,,-"l',\l
#-
2 ']..0 ,
~~..,
u;.\ ______~.
SIr;
10/27/2006
t'age L OI L
e
e
Les
Last week, I sent your review/request to David Alvarez for legal consultation. He hasn't commented yet.
You filed the LUPA, I understand you are protecting your appeal rights. However, I tend to think the
appeal period is still in front of you. After the Hearing Examiner makes a recommendation, the
BOCC will make a decision to approve or deny, then a appeal pmiod would open up for any and all
aspects of the proposal. This appeal right is direct to Superior Court.
your thoughts,
AI
-----Original Message----
From: Powers &. Therrien [mailto:powers_therrien@yvn.com]
Sent: Monday, October 23, 2006 12:48 PM
To: AI Scalf
Cc: Powers &. Therrien
Subject: LUPA Petition
AI:
Because no one responded to provide me with information on my right to appeal DCD's decision
of October 2, 2006, that I lost my SEPA appeal rights by not appealing the 2005 MDNS in August,
2005 and I was at the 21st day from that decision, I filed a protective LUPA Petition. I would prefer
to withdraw the filing if your office can assure me that I will be given the right administratively to
appeal either the substantive decision to use the 2005 MDNS as compliance with SEPA for MLA
06-00221 or the procedural decision that my failure to file an administrative appeal on the MONS
in August 2005 in respect of SUB05-00004 substantively terminated my SEPA rights under
MLA06-o0221. I asked you to respond by October 18th. You said that you would respond last
week. I received no response and simply ran out of time. I again ask that you provide me the
opportunity for an administrative appeal and an official notice of what I consider a threshold
determination to rely on the 2005 MONS without further mitigation to reflect AHE Galt's decision
respecting the type of use that is associated with a Trend West project.
Les Powers
Powers & Therrien, P.S.
3502 Tieton Drive
Yakima, WA 98902
Phone: 509-453-8906
Fax: 509-453-0745
This email is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. Section 2510-2521
and is legally privileged. This message and any attachments hereto is intended only for the use of
the person named above. If you are not that person , you are hereby notified that any
dissemination, distribution or copying of this email message other than to the addressee is strictly
prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please immediately notify the sender and
delete this email from your computer.
To ensure compliance with requirements imposed by the IRS, we inform you that any U.S. federal
tax advice contained in this communication was not intended or written to be used, and cannot be
used, for the purpose of (i) avoiding tax-related penalties under the Internal Revenue Code or (ii)
promoting, marketing or recommending to another person any tax-related matter.
L(";7":' ITr-l\.iIi
,~, ~,"",,,,, j >"""--.-< nil
#. 1-26
.:!~ O~. ._
4)1 V
10/27/2006
rage .1 OI .1
e
e
Powers & Therrien (Diane Sires)
From:
To:
Sent~
Subject:
"AI Scalf' <ascalf@co.jefferson.wa.us>
"Powers & Therrien" <powers_therrien@yvn.com>
Wednesday, October 25,20064:41 PM
RE: LUPA Petition
Les
Last week, I sent your review/request to David Alvarez forlegal consultation. He hasn't commented yet. You filed
the LUPA. I understand you are protecting your appeal rights. However, I tend to think the appeal period is still in
front of you. After the Hearing Examiner makes a recommendation, the BOCC will make a decision to approve
or deny, then a appeal period would open up for any and all aspects of the proposal. This appeal right is direct to
Superior Court.
your thoughts,
AI
----Original Message-----
From: Powers & Therrien [maHto:powers_therrien@yvn.co'm]
Sent: Monday, October 23,200612:48 PM
To: AI Scalf
Cc: Powers & Therrien
Subject: LUPA Petition
AI:
Because no one responded to provide me with infOrmation on my right to appeal DCD's decision of
October 2.2006, that I lost my SEPA appeal rights by not appealing the 2005 MDNS in August, 2005 and I
was at the 21st day from that decision, I filed a protective LUPA Petition. I would prefer to withdraw the
filing if your office can assure me that I will be given the right administratively to appeal either the
substantive decision to use the 2005 MDNS as compliance with SEPA for MLA 06-00221 or the procedural
decision that my failure to file an administrative appeal on the MDNS in August 2005 in respect of SUB05-
00004 substantively terminated my SEPA rights under MLA06-00221. I asked you to respond by October
18th. You said that you would respond last week. I received no response and simply ran out of time. I
again ask that you provide me the opportunity for an administrative appeal and an official notice of what I
consider a threshold determination to rely on the 2005 MDNS without further mitigation to reflect AHE
Galt's decision respecting the type of use that is associated with a Trend West project.
Les Powers
Powers & Therrien, P.S.
3502 Tieton Drive
Yakima, WA 98902
Phone: 509-453-8906
Fax: 509-453-0745
This email is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. Section 2510-2521 and is
legally privileged. This message and any attachments hereto is intended only for the use of the person
named above. If you are not that person. you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or
copying of this email message other than to the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you have received this
message in error, please immediately notify the sender and delete this email from your computer.
To ensure compliance with requirements imposed by the IRS, we inform you that any U.S. federal tax
advice contained in this communication was not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, for the
purpose of (i) avoiding tax-related penalties under the Internal Revenue Code or (ii) promoting, marketing
or recommending to another person any tax-related matter.
Lt""';r, I,r-r oM
~~) "'~l. i I \~..t'Jl
10/27/2006
rCl~t:: .l UL L.
e
e
Powers & Therrien (Diane Sires)
From:
To:
Cc:
Sent:
Subject:
Les,
. "Barbara Nightingale" <bnightingale@co.jefferson.wa.us>
"Powers & Therrien" <powers_therrien@yvn.com>
"AI Scalf' <ascalf@co.jefferson.wa.us>
Tuesday, October 24, 2006 10:57 AM
RE: MLA06-o0221
The County handles the provision of appropriate files to the Hearings Examiner pursuant to County policy and
procedures.
Respectfully,
Barbara Nightingale M.M.A., M.A.S.
Associate Planner
Port Ludlow Master Planned Resort
Jefferson County
Dept. of Community Development
(360) 379-4472
bnightingale@co.jefferson.wa.us
From: Powers & Therrien [mailto:powers_therrien@yvn,com]
sent: Friday, October 20, 20064:13 PM
To: Barbara Nightingale
Cc: Powers & Therrien; AI Scalf
SUbject: MLA06-00221
Barbara:
Judging from DCD's treatment of SEPA issues fhere is considerable crossfertilization between SUB05-o0004 and
MLA06-00221. I know that DC D's position is that the same substantive project can utilize the prior log
interchangeably. I dissent this view. Nevertheless since it is the view of DCD and probably the applicant and
since there is obvious cross fertilization of individual log items between the filings, to avoid confusion, I request
that the entire file for SUB05-00004 be included as part of the log for MLA06-00221.
I also want a complete copy of the Development Agreement with attachments, Recording File No. 435974 and the
PL VC CC & Rs, Recording File No. 435975, included as part of the log for MLA06-00221.
Les Powers
Powers & Therrien, P .S.
3502 Tieton Drive
Yakima, WA 98902
Phone: 509-453-8906
Fax: 509-453-0745
This email is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. Section 2510-2521 and is legally
privileged. This message and any attachments hereto is intended only for the use of the person named above. If
you are not that person. you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this email
message other than to the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please
immediately notify the sender and delete this email from your computer.
To ensure compliance with requirements imposed by the IRS, we inform you that any U.S. federal tax advice
contained in this communication was not intended or written to be used, ar.~1'f:~;~sed, for the purpose of (i)
#: 2-U
~
St'b
10/27/2006
rd.ge L. OI L.
e
e
avoiding tax-related penalties under the Internal Revenue Code or (ii) promoting, marketing or recommending to
another person any tax-related matter.
Lnn IT~~"jIj
"",,/i ~""" . I ,...'" .:it
2,26 __,
.~. r"
~ f"'~ >,''''.",.".,.-._._---""
51~
10/27/2006
J::Clyt:: .L Ul. .L
e
e
Powers & Therrien (Diane Sires)
From:
To:
Cc:
Sent:
Subject:
"AI Scalf' <ascalf@co.jefferson.wa.us>
"Powers & Therrien (Diane Sires)" <powers_therrien@yvn.com>
"Barbara Nightingale" <bnightingale@co.jefferson.wa.us>; "Stacie Hoskins"
<shoskins@co.jefferson.wa.us>
Monday, October 16, 2006 3:49 PM
RE: SEPA Appeal of Trend West - Ludlow Cove Division 2 - MLA06-00221
Les
I am in receipt of your emails.
I will review these issues with the project planner and we will respond to you later this week.
AI
----Original Message-----
From: Powers & Therrien (Diane Sires) [mailto:powers_therrien@yvn.com]
Sent: Monday, October 16, 2006 3:26 PM
To: AI Scalf
Subject: SEPA Appeal of Trend West - Ludlow Cove Division 2 - MLA06-00221
AI:
See attached for filing in your usual manner.
Diane Sires
Legal Assistant
POWERS & THERRIEN, P.S.
3502 Tieton Drive
Yakima, WA 98902
Ph (509)453-8906 Fx (509)453-0745
This email is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18U.S.C.Section:<.510.2521 and is legally privileged. This message
and any attachments hereto is intended only for the use of the person named above. If you are not that person. you are hereby notified that
any dissemination, distribution or copying of this email message other than to the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you have received this
message in error, please immediately notify the sender and delete this email from your computer.
To ensure compliance with requirements imposed by the IRS. we inform you that any U.S. federal tax advice contained in this communication
was not intended or written to be used. and cannot be us'ed, for the purpose of (i) avoiding tax-related penalties under the Internal Revenue
Code or (ii) promoting, marketing or recommending to another person any tax-related mailer.
Lt" ,,,,", '"T""~..."."" JI
~.._~i'" ~ j - ,,:,\tJ
?~-
~~ 01_--10/27/2006
C:;1-1>
t'age .L or .L
e
e
Powers & Therrien (Diane Sires)
From:
To:
Sent:
Attach:
Subject:
"Powers & Therrien (Diane Sires)" <powers_thrarrien@yvn.com>
"AI Scalf' <ascalf@co.jefferson.wa.us>
Monday, October 16, 2006 3:26 PM
LAP Comments 101606.pdf
SEPA Appeal of Trend West - Ludlow Cove Division 2 - MLA06-00221
AI:
See attached for filing in your usual manner.
Diane Sires
Legal Assistant
POWERS & THERRIEN, P.S.
3502 Tieton Drive
Yakima, WA 98902
Ph (509)453-8906 Fx (509)453-0745
This email is covered by the ElectronicCommunicalions Privacy Act. 18U.S.C.Section2510-2521 and is legally privileged. This message and any
attachments hereto is intended only for the use of the person named above. If you are not that person, you are hereby notified that any dissemination,
distribution or copying of this email message other than to the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please
immediately notify the sender and delete this email from your computer.
To ensure compliance with requirements imposed by the IRS, we inform you that any U.S. federa, tax advice contained in this communication was not
intended or written to be used, and cannot be used. for the purpose of (i) avoiding tax-related penalties under the Internal Revenue Code or (ii)
promoting, marketing or recommending to another person any tax-related matter.
Lr'?,,;: !T-.:!I
"%..."" I, ","
~!/~
zU>
~
~~\
10/27/2006
e
e
October 16, 2006
Mr. AI Scalf, Director
Department of Community Development
Jefferson County
621 Sheridan Street
Port Townsend, WA 98368
RE: SEPA Appeal of Trend West
Ludlow Cove Division 2 - MLA06-00221
Dear Mr. Scalf:
This letter supplements my previous filings of July 24, 2006, September 24, 2006, October 2,
2006, and October 13,2006. I obviously have standing. DCD provided me notice requesting a
response under SEP A of its proposed decision to use the MDNS and its supporting Staff Report
on June 23,2006 with a response date of July 24,2006. The notice was sent to me and various
government agencies and persons listed thereon. I responded on July 24, 2006 objecting to the
proposal because it conflicted the final action of Jefferson County, ARE Galt's decision that the
proposed use was transient and commercial and not residential. In further support of my
demand to have my appeal of the threshold decision of the DCD to forego SEPA compliance on
MLA06-00221 in favor of the adoption of the MDNS for SUB05-0004, I offer the following
additional analysis.
ARE Galt Decision
1. As I have repeatedly noted, the proposed Trend West use has legally and factually been
found to be transient, commercial, not residential, and not permitted on Ludlow Cove II as zoned
under the Zoning Code or the MPR Code by ARE Galt in the fmal action by Jefferson County.
That decision, albeit appealed, has not been stayed by the applic.ant in the LUP A petition that it
filed. AHE Galt's decision vacated HE Berteig's decision as to the site plan and other permits
contained in the consolidated permit application of the applicant other than the SSDP. The
SSDP was vacated by the SHB. The MDNS that I did not appeal was based upon the legal and
factual conclusion set forth in the staff report that Trend West is a residential use. This
conclusion, without regard to the nature of ownership, was rejected by Mr. Galt as the final
action of Jefferson County. While I did not appeal the MDNS approved under SUB05-0004, I
did participate in the successful appeal of the substantive permits leading to the vacation of Mr.
Berteig's decision to approve same. By not appealing SEPA in 2005, I did not forego my right
to insist on proper SEP A compliance in connection with MLA06-00221. I was asked by DCD to
respond to the SEP A compliance issues of MLA06-00221. I timely responded.
?-zo ._
..5:Z!-
l)'J...'L
Mr. Al Scalf, Director
Department of Community Development
Jefferson County
October 16,2006
Page 2
e
e
SEP A Coml'liance Issues
2. I contest the notion that DCD can simply adopt an MDNS which was based on an
erroneous interpretation of law and facts that has since been rejected by the final action of
Jefferson County. In order to adopt the previous MONS, WAC 197-11-630(1) requires Jefferson
County to independently review the content of the previous SEP A documents and determine that
they meet the adopting agency's environmental review standards and needs for the proposal.
The Environmental Checklist contains the following questions:
"8. Land and Shoreline Use
e. What is the current zoning classification of the site?
f. What is the current comprehensive plan classification of the site?
L Proposed measures to ensure the proposal is compatible with existing and
projected land uses and plans, if any:"
AHE Galt found that the use was not permitted under wither the zoning to which PLAffrendwest
claim the application is vested or under the MPR code. Given these determinations, do you not
have to find a significant adverse environmental impact on land use? In other words, how can
the County find its previous review adequate given AHE Galt's decision?
Further, as I discuss below, given the AHE's decision, the use is not a permitted use within the
shoreline designation. This fact, too, causes the prior environmental analysis to be inadequate.
3. If known, the adopting agency shall disclose in its adoption notice when the adopted
document or proposal it addresses is the subject of a pending appeal or has been found
inadequate on appeaL WAC 197-11-630(5). Clearly the County knows that the proposal the
previous MDNS addresses was found inadequate on appeal. However, your notice does not state
this.
4. The June 19,2006 Notice of Application also states that it is a Notice of "Pending
Threshold Determination." If the County is making a new threshold determination, as the notice
clearly implies, then I may appeal it. Please consider this letter an appeal.
SHORELINE MANAGEMENT ISSUES.
5. The issue of the classification of the proposed use is critical to the issue of the
permissibility of the proposed use at Ludlow Cove II because Ludlow Cove II is located in whole
or part in a shoreland subject to the Shoreline Management Act (the "SMA") and its regulations
(the "Regulations") and the Master Shoreline Management Program of Jefferson County (the
"Program"). The Regulations distinguish use as to classification, regulation, degree of favored
status and permissibility on a shoreland. See WAC 173-26-211,221, and 241. These uses arerrequired to be incorporated into the applicable local governmental shoreline management
'Lt"r., 1'1'~"~. ~
t..j :'._,j 'f ~>,;";'
Mr. AI Scalf, Director
Department of Community Development
Jefferson County
October 16, 2006
Page 3
e
e
program. They are incorporated in the Program with definitions. Program Sec. 2(83) defines a
residence as "a dwelling and those structures and developments within a continuous ownership
that are normal appurtenances. Program Sec. 2(84) defines residential development as the
development ofland and/or construction or erection of dwelling units for the purpose of
residential occupancy. Program Sec. 2(25) provides that commercial means uses that are
involved in the wholesale or retail trade or business activity. Th.ese definitions attempt to
address actual uses. They do not suggest a purpose of changing a use by expanding or
contracting a definition as proposed by the applicant. Based on definitions consistent with these
definitions that are contained in the Zoning Code, AHE Galt found the proposed Trend West use
transient which is by nature commercial. The applicant seeks to avoid this result by redefining
the term to include a Trend West use as residential for land use purposes applicable to Ludlow
Cove II and to do so by legislative act of the BoCC redefining the terms residential and
commercial as they apply to Ludlow Cove II under the Development Agreement.
6. The standards for residential and commercial use of the shoreland are different.
Commercial use is only favored if it is water oriented. Nothing in the operation of a private
resort, a use proposed by Trend West, is water oriented. In fact because of the fragility of the
actual beach area of Ludlow Cove II, human access must be restricted. The only available public
beach is located near the Inn at Ludlow Bay and Ludlow Village Townhome Plat and is not part
of Ludlow Cove II. The remaining public water front is occupied by the marina, most of which
is gated and reserved for private vessels. Non water oriented commercial use is not favored
under the Regulation. See WAC 173-26-241(3)(d). It is clear that the Port Ludlow MPR as a
whole is or should have been designated as "shoreline residential environment". See WAC 173-
26- 211 (5)( f). This designation applies to shorelines inside urban areas and inside master planned
resorts subject to RCW 36.70A.360. It applies to single and multifamily residential development
permitted within urban or master planned resort zones. The purpose is to "accommodate
residential development and appurtenant structures." Attention to density, frontage width,
setbacks, lot coverage limitations, buffers, shoreline stabilization vegetation conservation critical
area protection and water quality are required. Equally required is the assurance of no net loss of
shoreline ecological functions considering environmental limitations and sensitivity of the
shoreline area as well as infrastructure and services available and other comprehensive planning
issues. Multifamily and multilot use must provide joint use of community recreational facilities.
Commercial development is permitted only if it is "water oriented".
7. Considering the finding by AHE GaIt that the proposed use is transient and commercial
and not residential and further noting the obvious that it is not water oriented, it is clear that it is
not a permitted use on the shoreland at Ludlow Cove II. Yet the applicant seeks to avoid this
result by redefining terms and hoping that the definition that impacts, inter alia, the Program, will
trump all inconsistent ordinances, regulations and statutes that apply to the use of Ludlow Cove
II. The Program was approved by the Washington Department of Ecology (the "DOE"). It may
be amended only with the consent of the DOE. That consent has not been solicited in connection
with the subject application.
SHORELINE MANAGEMENT ISSUES AND SEP A
1 r.
~'c.'
_..._~
~{',,---
~~~-
~~
Mr. AI Scalf, Director
Department of Community Development
Jefferson County
October 16, 2006
Page 4
e
e
8. Since the proposed application has placed at issue the classification of use and that
classification has already been determined contrary to the applicant by final action of Jefferson
County, the applicant's proposal cannot be reviewed under an MDNS that is based on an
erroneous classification of use even if it purports to change the classification by legislatively
modifying terms to permit the use. SEP A clearly applies to the shoreland use issues. Chapter
90.58, RCW and its concerns are incorporated therein. See WAC 197 -11-444(2)(b) identifying
the shoreland as an environmental matter. An MDNS based on an erroneous classification of use
cannot possibly meet the requirements of public disclosure, comment and appeal unless that
declaration is itself subject to appeal rights promised by ICC 18.40.810. The present MDNS
directly conflicts the proposed use. It would only be supported if that use could be legislatively
modified. Since it is factually driven, it is totally unclear that such a result could obtain.
9. Since as proposed, the use is directly barred by WAC 173-26-211(t) as a non water
oriented commercial use in a shoreline residential zone, that proposed use requires more than an
attempt to avoid SEP A compliance by adopting an MDNS that incorrectly concluded the
proposed use was residential where Jefferson County has determined that the use is commercial.
It is clear that the approval of the proposed use has an independent significant environmental
impact considering the factors set forth in WAC 197 -11-444(2)(b). It is clear that the use is more
than probable. It is certain. Its construction directly violates an environmental regulation
promulgated under an environmentally oriented statutory complex. The definitional
requirements of impact, probability, and significant set forth in the definitions of WAC 197-11-
752, 782, 794 have clearly been met. They have been met due to the currently correctly defined
distinction between residential and commercial arising from the final action of Jefferson County,
Mr. Galt's decision. They were not addressed and could not have been addressed in DCD's
SEPA compliance by adoption of the MDNS and Staff Report for SUB05-00004. This follows
because the application and the environmental questionnaire required by and provided in WAC
197-11- 315 and 197-11-960 were based on the premise that the proposed Trend West use was
residential. Ultimately, by final action, ARE Galt declared that the proposed Trend West use
was not residential but transient and commercial. The standards applicable to residential use of
the shoreland and residential environmental concerns do not meet the standards of use of the
shoreland and environmental concerns of a commercial venture. Mr. Jeffery Stewart of the
Washington Department of Ecology noted that he opposed the project because he believed it to
be commercial and not residential as represented. See SUB 05-00004, Lot Item 41. He has
attached the same letter as the DOE's continuing response to MLA06-00221. See MLA06-
00221, Log Item 91. Because DCD did not and could not have addressed the SEP A concerns
associated with the applicant's and its mischaracterization of use, its SEPA compliance is fatally
flawed. It is flawed with respect to MLA06-00221 which issued after AHE Galt's decision
confirming the commercial, not residential nature of the applicant's proposed Trend West
proposal. This distinction is required to be addressed both as to the decision to use an MDNS
pursuant to WAC 197-11-350 and the mitigating conditions that the MDNS must contain.
Mitigation is not resolved by defining commercial to be residential as is here attempted. In short,
the proposed MDNS compliance is fatally flawed and does not support the applicant's proposal.
Lt"'\ 1":'
......_J <'-'--~
}~ -~----
.9'1- -----'
t;2r;:
Mr. AI Scalf, Director
Department of Community Development
Jefferson County
October 16, 2006
Page 5
e
e
10. Because the prior MDNS .cannot support the current proposed use under t he current
application and because an explanation showing why the proposed use is in fact not as a matter
of legal defInition, not commercial or showing why the definition should be changed because the
proposed use does not have an effect that is consistent with a non water oriented commercial use
is required as part of a threshold determination other than a determination of significance, the
decision ofDCD to rely on a prior MDNS was itself a threshold determination requiring it to
accord the right of both comment and appeal of the decision itself and notice with respect
thereto.
ADDITIONAL SEP A DEFECTS.
11. Log for MLA06-0022I does not contain any evidence that an environmental checklist
required by WAC 197-11-315 in the form provided in WAC 197-11-960 was submitted in
connection with the consolidated permit application for MLA06-0022I.
12. Based upon WAC 197-II-340(3)(a), it is clear to me that DCD as the lead agency should
have withdrawn the MDNS for SUB05-00004 when AHE Galt determined that the proposed
Trend West use was not residential as represented in the application but transient and
commercial. That it did not do so and that it here attempts to use an MONS that it was legally
obligated to withdraw further shows the failure of SEP A compliance with respect to MLA06-
00221 and supports my right to appeal an obviously defective decision ofDCD to utilize a failed
MDNS to comply with SEP A in connection therewith.
RELIEF.
13. Since DCD has not provided notice and opportunity of appeal to the undersigned despite
continued warning of its defIciency, a defIciency that has arisen and is unique to MLA06-00221 ,
the HE should remand the application with instructions to comply with the procedural
requirements applicable to threshold determinations involving notice to interested parties and
opportunity to appeal. This follows because the application is a consolidated permit application
and must be considered simultaneously with its SEP A compliance.
Because there is a threshold issue of compliance with procedural due process applicable to the
SEP A compliance for the consolidated permit application, prior to hearing the substantive
consolidated permit application, the undersigned requests a ruling that SEP A compliance, a
threshold determination, notice thereof and the opportunity to appeal be provided to all interested
parties including the undersigned and that the substantive hearing be set over until DCD has
demonstrated compliance with this requirement. The undersigned requests that this ruling be
made prior to any hearing on any substantive issue relating to MLA06-0022I.
Please provide this letter to HE Casseaux for action prior to any hearing on MLA06-0022I now
scheduled for November 3,2006. If you intend to deny my appeal, please confIrm that the email
of October 2, 2006 is the final action by Jefferson County on this subject and that my LUP A
it ____ ~"'?D
~
C;2JP
~-~
Mr. AI Scalf, Director e
Depamnent of Community Development
Jefferson County
October 16, 2006
Page 6
e
Petition will be timely if filed by October 23,2006. I will need formal response to this email not
later than October 18, 2006. Your assistance is appreciated.
I haveread this supplement to the appeal and believe it to be factually and legally well grounded
and correct.
. ce?~if4,,~
Leslie A. Powers
44 Heron Road
Port Ludlow, WA 98365
Li'''''f''':; l"q::~, 1/
',",.' '';'" I ~.~I\l1
e
e
Powers & Therrien (Diane Sires)
From:
To:
Cc:
Sent:
Attach:
Subject:
"David Alvarez" <dalvarez@co.jefferson.wa.us>
<C.Allen@mchlawoffices.com>; <s .causseaux@mchlawoffices.com>
"Powers & Therrien" <powers_therrien@yvn.com>; "de Sa e Silva, Marco"
<MarcodeSaeSilva@DWT.COM>; "AI Scalf' <ascalf@co.jefferson.wa.us>; "Don Marcy"
<DMarcy@Cairncross.com>; "Barbara Nightingale" <bnightingale@co.jefferson.wa.us>
Monday, October 30, 2006 4:33 PM
Letter to Causseaux dated 10 30 06.doc
Letter to HE Causseaux
Here is the County's response. David Alvarez
Le,'"'
.2-U_
~;,>
.' -;J..? I ,
S2~
e
VIA E-MAIL ONLY
October 30,2006
e
Juelanne Dalzell
JEFFERSON COUNTY PROSECUTING ATTORNEY
Courthouse - P.O. Box 1220
Port Townsend, Washington 98368
Telephone (360) 385-9180 FAX (360) 385-0073
David W. Alvarez, Deputy Prosecutor
John Raymond, Deputy Prosecutor
Cheryl Potebnya, Deputy Prosecutor
Katherine Gulmert, Deputy Prosecutor
Lianne Perron-Kossow, Victim Witness Advocate
Stephen Causseaux
McCarthy, Causseaux & Hurdelbrink, P.S.
902 S. lOth Street
Tacoma, W A 98405-4537
Re: Les Powers letter to H.E. Causseaux dated October 27, 2006
Dear Mr. Causseaux:
You have asked for a response from the County and this is the County's response. The
County has been properly served with the LUP A Petition Mr. Powers refers to. The County
believes the procedural issues raised in that LUP A Petition are without merit. The hearing
scheduled for November 3,2006 should go forward as previously arranged and properly
noticed to all interested parties. The primary reason to have the November 3 hearing go
forward is that the substance of that hearing will not make the SEP A challenge of Mr. Powers
any more or any less valid. Why? Because his challenge is purely legal in nature, i.e.,
whether the County can use a 2005 threshold determination for a 2006 application.
Very truly yours,
David Alvarez, Chief Civil DP A
Cc: All via e-mail
Les Powers
Marco de Sa e Silva
Don Marcy
Al Scalf
Barb Nightingale
'#.
"de Sa e Silva, Marco" <MarcodeSaeSilva@DWT.COM>
"AI Scalf' <ascalf@co.jefferson.wa.us>; <bnightingale@co.jefferson.wa.us>; "Christina Allen"
<C.Allen@mchlawoffices.com>
"Les Powers" <powers_therrien@yvn.com>; "Don Marcy" <DMarcy@Cairncross.com>; "David
Alvarez" <dalvarez@co.jefferson.wa.us>; <Iyn.keenan@cendant-trg.com>; "Diana Smeland"
<DSmeland@portludlowassociates.com>; "Randy Verrue (HCV)" <r_verrue@hcvpartners.com>;
"Troy Crosby (HCV)" <t_crosby@hcvpartners.com>; "Helm, Wayne" <wayne.helm@cendant-
trg.com>; <mdorsey@portludlowassociates.com>
Tuesday, October 31, 20064:07 PM
Ur from M. Silva re Powers v Jefferson County (00472051 ).PDF
Port Ludlow Associates: Letter in Response to Powers Request for Continuance of November 3
Hearing
e
Powers & Therrien (Diane Sires)
From:
To:
Cc:
Sent:
Attach:
Subject:
Dear AI, Barbara, and Christina: I am attaching the response of PLA and
Trendwest to Mr. Powers' October 27 request for a continuance of the
November 3 hearing before Mr. Causseaux. Christina, please deliver a
copy of the letter to Mr. Causseaux. Thanks very much.
Marco de Sa e Silva I Davis Wright Tremaine LLP
1501 4th Avenue, Suite 2600 I Seattle, WA 98101
Tel: (206) 628-7766 I Fax: (206) 628-7699
Email: marcodesaesilva@dwt.com I Website: www.dwt.com
Anchorage I Bellevue I Los Angeles I New York I Portland I San Francisco
I Seattle I Washington, D.C.
e
.... .....- ",...--.
e
e
October 31,2006
Via Electronic Mail
Stephen K. Casseaux, Jr.
Jefferson County Hearing Examiner
McCarthy Casseaux & Hurdelbrink
902 South 10th Street
Tacoma, W A 98405
Al Scalf, Director
Barbara Nightingale, Planner
Jefferson County Department of Community Development
621 Sheridan
Port Townsend, W A 98368
.Re: Pow?rs v. Jefferson County
Jefferson County Superior Court Cause No. 06-2-00339-9
Appeal of SEP A Threshold Determination (Trendwest/Ludlow Cove Division II)
Dear Mr. Casseaux, Mr. Scalf, and Ms. Nightingale:
The undersigned -- Marco de Sa e Silva and Donald Marcy .- represent Port Ludlow Associates
LLC and Trendwest, Inc., respectively. PLA and Trendwest are co-applicants for a shoreline
substantial development permit, and PLA is the applicant for an amendment to the Port Ludlow
Development Agreement dated May I, 2000, to allow the development of a 120-unit Trendwest
timeshare project on land currently owned by PLA, located in the unincorporated Port. Ludlow
Master Planned Resort, Jefferson County, Washington.
We are writing to ask that Mr. Casseaux proceed to hold the November 3 hearing on the
applications ofPLA and Trendwest, notwithstanding that Leslie A. Powers recently commenced
an appeal of the MONS under the Land Use Petition Act, RCW Chapter 36.70C, in the case of
Powers v. Jefferson County, Jefferson County Superior Court Cause No. 06-2-00339-9.
Background
In January 2005, PLA submitted applications to Jefferson County for approval of a 120-unit
Trendwest timeshare resort project - identical in every feature to the project described in the
applications now pending before the Hearing Examiner. The County issued an MONS for the
project on July 26,2005. No one appealed the MDNS. The Hearing Examiner subsequently
approved a shoreline substantial development permit and a binding site plan for the project. Mr.
SEA 1900287v2 65364-13
Seattle
22.4
~.
5~1
e
e
Stephen K. Casseaux, Jr.
Al Scalf
Barbara Nightingale
October 31, 2006
Page 2
Powers and two other property owners (Rick Rozzell and Lewis Hale) appealed those decisions
to the Jefferson County Appellate Hearing Examiner.
On October 14, 2005, the Appellate Hearing Examiner ruled that the he lacked jurisdiction to
hear the appeal of the Hearing Examiner's shoreline decision, and so he dismissed that portion of
the Powers appeal. Mr. Powers and the other property owners 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 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. ]
In the Powers 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.
On June 8, 2006, PLA and Trendwest filed new applications for a shoreline substantial
development permit for the Trendwest project and an amendment to the Port Ludlow
Development Agreement. 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 proposed amendment to the development agreement subjects the
Trendwest project site to the Port Ludlow Development Agreement (the application has been
deemed vested under ordinances in effect on January 19, 1995, prior to the making of the
development agreement) and changes the development standards applicable to the Trendwest
project site to permit the proposed use at the proposed density. Sometime after the application
was filed, the County decided to use the 2005 MDNS in its review of the environmental impacts
of the Trendwest project.
On or after October 19,2006, Les Powers commenced an appeal under LUPA of the County's
decision to use the 2005 MDNS. In his appeal, he did not name Trendwest as a respondent,
although Trendwest is a co-applicant in the pending shoreline permit application. On October
27, 2006, Mr. Powers moved the Court for a stay of state court proceedings and implied a
hearing date of November 17. .
I Trendwest no longer seeks a binding site plan approval.
SEA 1900287v2 65364.13
Seattle
"Lr.r'
",,--,
2.7--2-
~.C
t)3'2-
-
e
e
Stephen K. Casseaux, Jr.
A! Scalf
Barbara Nightingale
October 31, 2006
Page 3
Procedural Grounds on Which the Court Is Likely to Dismiss the Powers Appeal
There are several procedural grounds on which it is likely the Court will dismiss the
Powers LUP A appeal at the initial hearing to be held later under RCW 36.70C.080:
. The LUPA appeal is untimely because it was commenced more than 21 days after
Powers received notice of the County's decision to use the 2005 MDNS;
. Powers failed to exhaust administrative remedies prior to commencing his LUP A
appeal by appealing the County's decision to the Hearing Examiner, his
administrative remedy under the Countr s Land Use Application Procedures
Ordinance, Ordinance No. 04-0828-98;
. SEP A forbids orphan SEP A appeals -- the appeal of a SEP A procedural decision
must be linked to the appeal of a substantive decision -- and the Powers LUP A
appeal relates to a SEP A procedural decision only; and
. Powers failed to name and serve Trendwest, the co-applicant for the shoreline
permit, in violation ofRCW 36.70C.040(2)(b)(i).
Substantive Grounds on Which the Court Is Likely to Dismiss the Powers Appeal
The County's decision to use the 2005 MDNS was correct -- no adoption, incorporation by
reference, addendum, or other new SEPA 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. There
has been no change to the Trendwest proposal -:- substantial or otherwise - since the 2005 MDNS
was issued. And there is no new information indicating the proposal's probable significant
adverse impacts. Therefore, no new environmental decision is required. See WAC 197-11-
600(3)(b).
In addition, the SEP A Rules do not require either the adoption or incorporation by reference of
the 2005 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). 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
2 In his letter dated October 27, 2006, to Mr. Causseaux, Mr. Powers claims, "I filed an administrative appeal of
OCO's SEPA compliance for MLA 06-00221 in September, 2006." This is inaccurate. An administrative appeal
cannot be filed without payment of an appeal fee. Mr. Powers did not file an appeal fee relating to the Trendwest
MONS. He therefore did not file an administrative appeal.
SEA 1900287v2 65364-13 Seanle
c.~_:l,?::6_._
C'~ ri
.~~,'-",.
'5~'
e
e
Stephen K. Casseaux, Jr.
Al Scalf
Barbara Nightingale
October 31. 2006
Page 4
document. 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.
Conclusion
There is no basis on which to believe either that the County's decision to use the 2005 MDNS
was in error or that the Powers appeal will not be dismissed on procedural grounds at the initial
hearing under RCW 36.70C.080." .
Without either a Court order staying the proceedings, or a reasonable basis on which to believe
the County's decision was mistaken, or a basis on which to believe the Court will reach the
merits of the case after considering the procedural issues described above, the November 3
hearing before the Hearing Examiner should proceed as scheduled.
Thanks very much for your consideration.
Sincerely yours,
f1E;~r:M
CAIRNCROSS & HEMPELMANN, P.S.
f~
Donald E. Marcy
cc: Leslie A. Powers
David Alvarez
Diana Smeland
Randy Verrue
Tr9Y Crosby
Wayne Helm
Lyn Keenan
Mark Dorsey
SEA 1900287v2 65364-13
Seattle
~------_.
~ --
5''1
e
e
November 2, 2006
Sent Via Email c/o Al Scalf
STEPHEN CAUSSEAUX
McCarthy Causseaux & Hurdelbrink Inc. P.S.
902 S. 10th Street
Tacoma, W A 98405-4537
Ph 253.272.2206
RE: Powers vs. Jefferson County and Port Ludlow Associates LLC
Jefferson County Cause No. 06-200339-9
Dear Mr. Casseaux:
Mr. De Sa e Silva chooses to respond beyond the procedural issue raised by the undersigned in
his LUPA Petition. His analysis apparently is that MLA06-00221 describes the same substantive
project as SUB05-00004 and, that accordingly, DCD, without threshold determination is entitled
to adopt the MDNS descriptive ofSUB05-00004 under the authority ofW AC 197-11-600. Mr.
De Sa e Silva's rendition ofthe facts shows that his factual proposition is in error. Moreover,
WAC 197-11-600 does not support the notion that a threshold determination is not involved in
instances such as this where there may appear to be a common substantive proposal when the
MDNS was based upon an erroneous interpretation of fact and law as determined by AHE Galt
in his decision of December 7, 2005. AHE GaIt confirmed that DCD based the issuance of its
MDNS as well as its approval of the consolidated permit application for SUB05-00004 on the
erroneous conclusion that the proposed Trend West use was residential. AHE Galt determined
that it is transient, and accordingly commercial. That conclusion should have vitiated the MDNS
with the consolidated permit application. Such a result is consistent with WAC 197-11-
340(3)(a)(ii) requiring a DNS to be withdrawn for new information or for a misrepresentation.
Here, it is clear there was a misrepresentation. The application referred to the use as residential
"condominium timeshare". At the same time it contained a letter from the Trend West architect
asking Jefferson County to classify it as a hotel for certain construction requirements. See
SUB05-00004, Log No.4. Based thereon, the MDNS should have been withdrawn when the
representation of residential use was determined to be erroneous by AHE GaIt.
DCD issued a notice on June 23, 2006 to "Reviewers" including undersigned. Therein, it
proposed to adopt the MDNS from SUB05-00004 to comply with SEP A requirements for
MLA06-00221 under the theory that the substantive project was the same under each application.
The undersigned was a "Reviewer". The notice recites that "the Department expects to adopt an
existing environmental document, Mitigated Determination of Non significance, and lead agency
status prepared July 26,2005, and issue a DNS for t his proposal." The document invites
comment and questions and offers an extension of time to respond upon request. The document
__'_ "2-1-0.___
~C_~
S~~
Stephen Causseaux
McCarthy Causseaux & Hurdelbrink Inc. P.S.
November 2, 2006
Page 2
e
e
further recites that a site plan, sewer plan, storm water plan, landscaping plan and elevation plan
are attached to the application. See MLA06-00221, Log No. 48. The undersigned responded on
July 24, 2006, under MLA06-00221, Log No. 99. DCD has made no announcement of an actual
adoption of the MDNS from SUB05-00004 to comply with SEP A requirements for MLA06-
00221. There was no means by which the undersigned could determine the effect of his
comments or any other comments on DCD's decision or what his rights of appeal thereof might
be.
A review of the notice requirement to adopt a prior SEP A compliance document under WAC
197-11-630 and 197-11-965 shows that the associated notice does not meet the requirements of
either because it does not inform the public of the actual adoption of the prior compliance
document. Rather, the notice of June 23, 2006 was a notice requesting response as to whether
DCD should comply with SEP A by adopting such prior compliance. For example, to adopt a
prior document, the document that is adopted must be published with the notice and sent to those
identified on the distribution list. See WAC 197-11-630(2). That was not done. Moreover, the
notice does not disclose the effect of AHE Galt's decision that reclassified the proposed use as
commercial, not residential, the basis for the original MDNS. This disclosure is required by
WAC 197-11-630(5). It is a little hard to understand how this does not have the effect ofa
pending appeal, particularly where the applicant has a pending LUP A petition challenging AHE
Galt's decision.
The consolidated permit application while containing various site plans and the like, as Mr. De
Sa e Silva admits in his letter, does not contain any binding site plans or other plans tying the
Trend West project, as designed to the property. Rather, it contains a proposed amendment to
the Development Agreement asking for three things, that Ludlow Covell be permitted for single
family or multifamily use, that the use be limited to nine dwelling units to the acre and that
multifamily use as it applies to Ludlow Cove II permit timeshares as defined in the proposed
amendment. It also contains a request for a shoreline substantial development permit and,
independently, a JARP A filing. Although the box in the application is marked to include a
building permit, no permit application accompanies the consolidated application. DCD has
confirmed that there is no application for a building permit. When the undersigned asked DCD
how a specific project was tied to the site, a requirement for an SSDP, the undersigned was told
that the project would be tied to the site in a subsequent application for a building permit.
Unfortunately, a building permit is a Class II application and does not require notice to interested
parties beyond the applicant. Thus, a neat trick will have occurred if this proposal is adopted.
The applicant will be free to build any single or multifamily residential units on the property that
it chooses with a density not to exceed nine units to the acre and those units may include
timeshares. What the applicant may ultimately build on the site is left entirely open. Yet, the
applicant asks the SSDP to issue against such an open application. It is the case as Ms.
Nightingale recites in the notice of June 23d that the application includes various site and other
plans; it is not the case that they are in any way binding on the applicant. Obviously, Ms.
Nightingale is aware of the difference; she carefully describes the plans without reference to
"binding". It is merely misleading to a reader not focusing on the distinction, particularly in light
of the absence of the relevant documents from SUB05-00004 which would highlight the issue.
._.~. 2;kO
~
5~&
Stephen Causseaux
McCarthy Causseaux & Hurdelbrink Inc. P.S.
November 2, 2006
Page 3
e
e
In response to Mr. De Sa e Silva and Mr. Alvarez, what we have here is the same kind of gross
example of ignoring procedure and due process that characterized the SSDP approval in SUB05-
00004. There, DCD sent the file to the Washington Department of Ecology ("DOE") for
approval and issuance based upon HE Berteig's approval of the consolidated permit application
for SUB05-00004. DCD failed to notify the undersigned or provide administrative appeal rights
as required by LUPO. The undersigned with Mr. Rozzell appealed to the Shoreline Hearing
Board. The SHB granted the undersigned's motion to have the SSDP vacated and the entire
matter remanded to Jefferson County for failure to follow its own procedures and provide
procedural due process to the undersigned and Mr. Rozzell. Here, DCD has approved a
threshold determination to comply with SEP A requirements for MLA 06-00221 by adopting
MDNS for SUB05-00004 notwithstanding the fact that the basis upon which it was approved
was rejected by Jefferson County through the opinion of AHE Galt on December 7, 2005. The
MDNS must be considered vitiated with the vacation of the substantive permits to which it
relates by operation ofW AC 197-11-340(3)(a)(ii) and (iii). To adopt the MDNS, DCD must at
minimum explain in its notice that the underlying substantive permits have been rejected on a
basis that conflicts with the Staff Report for the MDNS. This it did not do. Rather, it solicited
comment on its proposal to adopt such MDNS and then failed to notify the undersigned, and,
apparently, anyone else that notwithstanding comments in conflict of that proposition it in fact
adopted the MDNS. That adoption, particularly in consideration ofthe requirement that the
MDNS be vitiated with its substantive permits because it relied upon a premis rejected by
Jefferson County through the decision of AHE Galt, must be summarily rejected.
DCD owes the undersigned notice of its final decision and the right to appeal same. This is a
function ofIocal ordinance and the undersigned's constitutional legal rights. The undersigned is
an interested party. DCD recognized as much by requesting the undersigned's review of its
proposed decision. Having invited review, it owed the undersigned the right to appeal its final
decision administratively to the hearing examiner. This it refused to do on the basis that the
undersigned failed to perfect an administrative appeal of the MDNS under SUB05-00004.
However, we are dealing with MLA 06-00221, a consolidated application that does not even tie a
project to the subject property. Surely, the undersigned's appeal rights of such decision cannot
have been vitiated more than eleven (11) months before the deadline for comment and seven (7)
months after AHE Galt ruled the original application violative of zoning law. Nothing in WAC
197 -11-600 provides a basis to conclude that a persons due process rights may be vitiated against
action under a prior permit application as Jefferson County and the applicant advocate. The
purpose of the protection is to preserve constitutional rights; the applicant and Jefferson County
ought not be permitted to vitiate those rights on a procedural basis.
The issues argued in this letter have been pled to the Superior Court in the undersigned's LUP A
petition. Without regard to anyone's view of how matters should or might be resolved by the
Court, the fact remains that it is for the Court, not Jefferson County or PLA to resolve the issue.
Mr. De Sa e Silva's response confirms the gravaman of the problem. Jefferson County again
ignored its procedural rules that protect the undersigned's due process rights and again has
presented an application for approval that is fatally flawed on a procedural basis. DCD was
warned by the undersigned to grant the undersigned appeal rights on the procedural issue of its
right to administrative appeal. DCD misrepresented the rights it "thought" or "believed" the
2..~-~
~oi
.
C01>7
Stephen Causseaux
McCarthy Causseaux & Hurdelbrink Inc. P.S.
November 2,2006
Page 4
e
e
undersigned possessed to obtain dismissal of the undersigned's responsive LUP A petition. The
vacuous nature of DC D's response is confirmed by the response of Mr. Alvarez and Mr. De Sa e
Silva herein. The undersigned in their view has no persisting appeal rights. It cannot appeal the
decision after the BoCC reacts thereto. The statements of Mr. Scalf to the contrary or apparently
to the contrary are merely misleading statements designed to eliminate an impediment to "get to
yes" .
I ask the hearing examiner to defer decision on Ludlow Cove II until the Court hears the
undersigned's motion for stay. Notwithstanding statements to the contrary backed by
misrepresentations of law or fact, the undersigned has a valid position under LUP A created by
DCD and its failure, yet again, to follow procedures designed to protect the undersigned and
other members of the community against the rent seeking activities of the developer and its allies
in DCD.
Your review of this letter is appreciated.
L~lfe If. Po<<lefi'.f
Leslie A. Powers
44 Heron Road
Port Ludlow, W A 98365
L(:'~~ ,'-~... ., . ~" /~
__ "o1-'2.-D _,,_~,___"
~ ..------...
53~
.
e
- llU~ D'A-I
L'...... ,.... I""'" l"- ~VI
~ 51, "'; '~i' '-<., r.
:'--.6' '~_''- ~ ,,....,.,"
# 22D
t-',:, ~ Of
i~ ~,Jf~'
5~1
e
e
. ~c~~c~<?~,,~~,~~~ I
November 15, 2004
AI Scaff
Director of Community Development
Jefferson County, Washington
621 Sheridan Street
Port Townsend. WA 98368
Re: Dwelling unit accessibility requirements
Mr. Scaff,
Here Is our understanding of the dwelling unit aocessibility requirements under
the 2003 lBe with the Washington amendments.
Use I Occupancy Classification
IBC Section 310.1 R.1: Residential occu~ies where occupants are primarily
transient in nature. including:
Boarding houses (transient)
Hotels (transient)
Motels (transient)
Transience is the key factor of the A.1 occupancy.
"The key characteristic of Group R-1 that differentiates it from other
Group R occupancies is the number of transient occupants (i.e.
those whose stay is less than 30 days). IBC 2003 Commentary.
Section 310.1. pg. 3-49,
The Trendwest Resort under consideration provides transient
residential occupancies. The average stay of Trendwest Members at
Trendwest resorts is less than 4 days. The members do not have any
ownership interest in any partfcular property or unit. In general. all
members may use any unit in any Trendwest resort based on a point
system. Members do not have a right to retum to any particular unit at
any particular time. Members make reservations based on rooms
available at the time a reservation is made.
You wi' note "Vacation TImeshare Properties- is listed as an R~2
occupancy. however this reference is based on traditional vacation
timeshare properties with fractional ownership to a particular unit.
6720SW ),V..!:,\,04M,SUIU 100, POll.TlANll,OtllGOI',\ 97219 PHONE 503-24S-7100 I ~Al( S,O!-2.t5-'7tO I WWW.AMAA.('~I
ra- II(nllW
-~-
"~- ->-
e
e
. ~c~r~c~~"~~,~~~ I
. .
Accessible Dwelling I steeping Units
1107.6 Group R. Group R Occupancies shall be provided with accessible
features in accordance with 1107.6.1 through 1107.6.4. Accessible guest
rooms shaJl be apportioned among unit types and classes of sleeping
accommodations.
1107.6.1. Group R~ 1 occupancies shall be provided with accessible
features In accordance with 1107.6.1.1 and 1107.6.1.2. ~
Requirements~ Table 1107.6.1.1~r of units associated with
roll in showers and total number of required
accessible units, ~
1 gp.tJntts requires Kocesslble units including
v!' units with roU-in shower.
Type - B: 1107.6.1.2 requires Type- B units where
dwelling or sleeping units are intended to be
occupied as a residence.
Section 1107.6.1.2 does not apply, as Trendwest ~
units are transien1. and will not be occupied as a
residence.
In summary, we believe our project will be required to provide 7 accessible units ~
and will not require Type B units. We request you confinn our interpretation.
Please do not hesitate to caH us if you have any questions or concerns.
&A~
Thank you.
~~
Mark. Nielsen. AlA
Ankrom Moisan Associated Architects
6720 SW Macadam, Suite 100
Portland. Oregon 97219
503.9n.5293
markn@amaa.com
MP~ ~y ~
q
/~bl /04-
6120 SW M....V'lO...M, Slim 100, PO<<llAlo,o,OllEco>. 97219
I'~'it. 50).245.7100 I fA); 503.2<45-7710 I Y,'\\W.Ml........COM
~~~/Dh
_2~,O~~ _
~c~f__
'5~'
e
e
l\U\I~ T VI)
..."_~D
~
.5"t2-
e
e
J~
Powers & Therrien (Diane Sires)
From:
To:
Sent:
Attach:
Subject:
"John Van Z" <johnvan@cablespeed.com>
"Elizabeth Van Zonneveld" <evz@cablespeed.com>; "Les Powers" <powers_therrien@yvn.com>
Wednesday, November 01,20067:16 PM
2006.1 0.31.port ludlow.declaration.mndraft2.DOC
Fw: Revised CC&Rs
Les,
Here's the note and CC&Rs from Larry N per our discussion earlier tonight.
Elizabeth
----- Original Message -----
From: Laurence Nobles
To: John Van Z ; Jim Br~nl'!aman ; Howard Slack; Bank Sile( ; Doug Herring; Bruce Schmitz ; Barclay
Hampton; Don Clark; Mary Stuart; Sue Ryan; Tom McCgy; Tony Durham; Terry O'Brien; Suzanne E. Graber;
Lani McCarry ; aruce Pyles; Bill Browne; Alan Panasuk ; Adele Govert
Sent: Wednesday, November 01, 2006 11 :31 AM
Subject: Fw: Revised CC&Rs
I am forwarding the attached set of draft CC&Rs that are now proposed by Trendwest for the Ludlow Cove 2
Tract E (Log Dump) property. Tom McCay will try to schedule a meeting of the Community Development
Committee for next week to review their proposal and to formulate comments that we may wish to send back to
them. In the meantime the Hearing is scheduled for this Friday at 1 PM at the Bay Club. I will seek advice from
the Board at its meeting tomorrow as to what I should, or should not, report to the Hearing Examiner on this
matter. If you have any comments prior to tomorrow's meeting please give either Tom or myself a call.
Larry
----- Original Message -----
From: Nyman, Matthew
To: Inobles@cablespeed.com
Cc: Keenan, Lyn
Sent: Tuesday, October 31, 2006 5:05 PM
Subject: Revised CC&Rs
Larry -
Hi. I'm the new inhouse counsel for Trendwest / Wyndham. I enclose a revised draft of the CC&Rs, revised to
address your comments. I have not put all of your changes into the CC&Rs verbatim, but I have put almost all of
the concepts into place. I think at this point we are willing to work with you on putting a set of CC&Rs on the
property that is mutually acceptable.
This is a working draft, and has not been reviewed by anyone at Trendwest other than me. We have a number of
reviewers, so I reserve the right to modify these CC&Rs further upon receipt of further comments. I have to
emphasize this point because I am fairly new to Trendwest, and I may not be understanding all of the timeshare
issues that we have in play here. It is possible that I may have to "take back" some of these provisions due to our
status as a timeshare company, but my impression is that most of your requirements are doable.
One key point that we need to discuss is how to deal with amendments, and issues like external review. We
cannot impose the Declaration on parcels other than our own, so any design review or amendment restriction will
have to specify the reviewer in the document. I've left blanks for the reviewer in the document. I'm not sure what
we are comfortable with in this regard, and I don't think we can agree to discretionary third party review on behalf
of our timeshare owners. This is a potential sticking point, but let's talk about it.
I think we should plan for a call on Thursday to go over these in more detail. I'll be happy to t~ Y1ff~Ahe
.if 22-0 _
- ~(~ -:::-_-:-:-
e
e
reasons why I didn't insert some of your changes, and we can discuss it in more detail then. Bottom line is I see
no reason why we cannot work together to get these done in some fashion.
Matt Nyman
Senior Counsel
Wyndham Vacation Ownership, Inc.
10735 Willows Road
Redmond, WA 98052
Phone: 425-498-2684
Fax: 425-498-3059
e-mail: matthew.nyman@wyndhamvo.com
''The sender believes that this E-Mail and any attachments were free of any virus, worm, Trojan horse, and/or
malicious code when sent. This message and its attachments could have been infected during transmission. By
reading the message and opening any attachments, the recipient accepts full responsibility for taking proactive
and remedial action about viruses and other defects. The sender's business entity is not liable for any loss or
damage arising in any way from this message or its attachments."
Lf'""
'-.<"
/1
..~--,._"'---_.~
55? ___,
~~
e
e
Recording Requested By:
When Recorded Mail To:
Trendwest Resorts, Inc.
Registration Department
9805 Willows Road
Redmond, W A 98052
DECLARATION OF
COVENANTS, CONDITIONS AND RESTRICTIONS
(PORT LUDLOW)
THIS DECLARATION is made , , by TRENDWEST
RESORTS, INC., an Oregon corporation ("Declarant"), whose address is 9805 Willows Road,
Redmond, Washington 98052.
Declarant hereby declares as follows:
RECITALS
A. Property. Declarant is the equitable owner of all of the property ("Property")
specifically described on Exhibit "A" attached hereto and incorporated herein.
B. Proiect. There are one hundred twenty (120) numbered units plus the
Common Area set forth and described on the recorded Map for the Project of which the Property
is a portion.
C. Program. Declarant desires to subject the Property to and impose upon it
covenants, conditions and restrictions ("Restrictions") contained in this Declaration, and as
subsequently amended.
DECLARANT HEREBY DECLARES that from and after the Effective Date all of the
Property is held and shall be held, conveyed, hypothecated or encumbered, leased, rented, used,
occupied, and improved subject to the following Restrictions:
1: DEFINITIONS. Unless the context otherwise specifies or requires, the terms used in this
Declaration shall have the following meanings:
{00464334.DOC;2}
I
226
..~~~
----,
e
e
1.1 Common Area: all land and Improvements located on the Project which do not
constitute part of a housing unit to be constructed on the Property or other separately owned or
rented portion, and which are shared in common with other owners or lessees outside the
Property but in the same Project.
1.2 County: Jefferson County, State of Washington, in which the Property is located.
1.3 Declarant: Trendwest Resorts, Inc., developer of the Project, which has entered
into an agreement to purchase the Property.
1.4 Effective Date: the date when this Declaration is recorded or filed.
1.5 Improvements: buildings, outbuildings, roads, sidewalks, driveways, parking
areas, fences, retaining walls, stairs, decks, landscaping and vegetation, poles, fixtures, interior
walls, built-in appliances, furnishings, and any other structures or attached improvements of any
type or kind.
1.6 Proiect: the Property and all Common Area and other separately owned or rented
dwelling units governed or administered under a common plan and scheme pursuant to the
Declaration including all Improvements constructed thereon or therein.
1.7 Restrictions: any or all covenants, conditions, servitudes, provisions and terms of
this Declaration, as same may from time to time be amended, supplemented or modified. [Need
to discuss the amendment process and how it can be controlled.]
1.8 State: the State of Washington, in which the Property is located.
1.9. Voting Power: the aggregate votes of all owners of the Property or any portion
thereof.
2: USE RESTRICTIONS.
2.1
Property.
Animals. No live animal, fish or bird of any kind shall be brought to or kept at the
2.2
Camping. There shall be no camping or temporary structure on the Property.
2.3 Clothesline. No outside clothesline or clothes drying or airing shall be conducted
or maintained on the Property or on any improvements if visible from any other improvements or
the Common Area.
2.4 Creditors. Claims of creditors of the Declarant and any owner of the Property are
subordinate to this Declaration.
I r"
1$.,...,"
2
{00464334.DOC;2 }
--
e
2.5 Damage. Without the prior specific written permission of there
shall be no use of the Property (a) which increases the cost of maintenance thereof, or (b) which
in any way alters the Property or the location, color, design or materials of any Improvement.
2.6 Declarant. Notwithstanding any provision herein (other than provisions that
specifically apply to the construction of the Property), Declarant shall have the right to perform
such acts as are necessarily incident to construction and development of the Property and sales of
Property and any portion thereof.
2.7 Exterior Lighting. No exterior lighting shall be installed or maintained on the
Property or the Common Area, other than that provided by Declarant. Artificial outdoor lighting
shall be arranged so that the light is shaded and otherwise directed away from adjoining
properties, and care shall be taken by Declarant to ensure that adjoining property owners are not
adversely affected by the lighting conditions.
2.8 Lawful Activities. No activity shall be conducted on the Property in violation of
any law or ordinance, which affects the quiet enjoyment of any owner of the Property or any
adjoining property owner.
2.9 Nuisances. No noxious or offensive activity or nuisance shall be carried on or
maintained within the Property or Common Area, nor shall anything be done or placed upon the
Property or Common Area which shall cause unreasonable embarrassment, disturbance, or
annoyance to any owner of the Property, any adjoining property owner, or their guests. Control
ofIoud or offensive noise must be exercised at all times, particularly after 9 P.M.
2.10 Power Equipment. No power equipment, hobby shops, car maintenance or boat
maintenance (other than emergency work) shall be permitted on the Property without prior
written approval of shall consider the possible
effects of noise, air pollution, dust, dirt, grease, fire hazard, interference with radio or television
reception, etc., from the proposed activity.
2.11 Refuse. The storage of garbage, rubbish, trash, and any furniture, fixtures or
equipment not in active use, within the Property shall be in a clean, secure and sanitary manner,
and screened from the view of any other improvements located on the Property, the Common
Area, adjoining property owners, and roads. All refuse shall be frequently and regularly removed
from the Property. There shall be no burning of trash on the Property. No outdoor incinerators
shall be kept or maintained on the Property.
2.12 Storage. There shall be no storage of flammable liquids or gases on the Property.
2.13 Vehicles. Vehicles shall be parked only in marked parking areas, enclosed
parking or garage areas appurtenant to the Property and available for parking by owners of the
Property. No stripped down, wrecked or junk motor vehicle shall be kept, parked, stored or
maintained within the Property or the Common Area. No off-road, unlicensed vehicles shall be
operated on the Property or the Common Area. No commercial vehicle bearing commercial signs
or markings shall be parked within the Property unless such vehicle is used as LC~IPT1Q.:~~he
220
~ --
5'.L11
{00464334.DOC;2}
3
-
e
Property's means of personal transportation. No vehicle shall be operated in the Property or the
Common Area in a manner which constitutes a danger or nuisance to others. Applicable
provisions ofthe local vehicle code shall be enforced within the Property.
2.14 Waste. No waste shall be committed on the Property.
2.15 Trees and Vegetation. No pruning or removal of trees with a trunk diameter
exceeding six inches (6") measured at breast height is permitted without the approval of
. Notwithstanding the foregoing, trees that are diseased or dangerous to life or
property may be removed or pruned upon the advice of a licensed arborist. In addition, trees that
are removed or pruned in connection with the construction of the Property as contemplated by
any applicable site plan in accordance with applicable governmental requirements are not subject
to this limitation.
2.16 Temporary Occupancy and Temporary Buildings. No trailer, recreational vehicle,
boat, basement of any incomplete building, shed, tent, shack, garage, barn, or any other
temporary buildings or structures of any kind shall be used at any time for a residence, either
temporarily or permanently. Temporary buildings or structures used during the construction of
any improvements on the Property shall be removed immediately after the completion of
construction.
2.17 Storage Sheds and Outside Storage. No storage buildings or sheds, whether
prefabricated, metal or any other construction whatsoever, whether permanent or temporary,
shall be located on the Property once the construction of the Property has been completed.
2.18 Construction Activity. Construction activity may take place only between the
hours of7:00 A.M. and 6 P.M., Monday through Saturday, Sundays and holidays excluded. It is
understood and agreed that during construction, certain rubbish, debris, odors and loud noises
will occur during the construction of the Property. Declarant will use reasonable efforts to
minimize any such effects so as to prevent unsanitary, unsightly, or offensive conditions for any
adjoining property owners. Normal construction activities and parking in connection with the
construction phase shall not be considered a nuisance or otherwise prohibited by this
Declaration. Any lot clearing debris must be removed from the site within a reasonable period
from the time of cutting. Lot-clearing debris must be removed and may not be burned on-site
under any circumstances nor during any time of the year.
2.19 Signage. No signs which are visible from neighboring property shall be erected
or maintained on the Property except (a) signs required by applicable law; (b) one primary
identification sign, located near the entrance to the Property, not exceeding 15 feet in height
including all structural supports; (c) such interior traffic and advisory signs as required by
Property Manager; (d) emergency services address plates which are issued by Jefferson County;
and (e) signs that are approved by . No signs on the exterior of buildings or on
the Property shall be constructed of neon lights, or have flashing lights or moving parts.
{00464334.DOC;2}
4
..____U1:L-
~L~
S~lb
e
e
2.20 Parking ofRV's Campers Trailers and Boats. Parking of recreational vehicles,
trucks, trailers and boats is not allowed on the Property on a permanent basis. Parking shall be
permitted in the parking areas of the Resort for guests at the Property.
2.21 Pesticide Use. All pesticide, herbicide and fungicide use shall be performed in
conformance with applicable law. Pesticides, herbicides and fungicides with the shortest
hydrolysis half-life shall be used. A two-week half-life is desirable. Moreover, pesticides
appearing on the United States Environmental Protection Agency's "Priority List of Leaching
Pesticides" shall not be used. Pesticides, herbicides and fertilizers shall be applied to the outside
areas during the dry summer season, rather than the winter runoff periods.
2.22 Open Fires. No open fires shall be lighted or permitted on the Property, except in
a contained outdoor fireplace or barbecue unit while attended.
2.23 Design Review. The following standards will apply to any construction or
improvements to existing facilities:
(a) no improvements, alterations, repair, excavation work, grading or other work
that alters the original exterior appearance of the facility may be undertaken without review by
(b) no building, structure, or improvement on the property shall exceed 35 feet in
height. [The height shall be defined as the vertical distance to the highest point of the building,
structure, or improvement including eq 1 uipment and appurtenances thereon, when measured
from grade. Grade shall be defined as the highest point of elevation of the existing natural
surface of ground immediately adjacent to the foundation of said building, structure, or other
improvement before grading.] [Note: Needs engineering review]
(c) buildings shall be of new construction using new materials, wood, stone, and
brick. No asphalt, fiberglass, metal on plastic shall be used as finished exterior siding. The use
of transparent stains in lieu of paint is acceptable.
(d) roofs shall be made of materials with a life expectancy of no less than 40
years. No reflective metal roof material may be used.
3: PROPERTY
3.1 Maintenance. The Property shall be maintained by the owner(s) of the Property.
3.2 Compliance with Countv Requirements. The Property shall be used consistent
with any condition imposed on the Project by the County, and the owner of the Property shall
comply with all such conditions.
4: EASEMENTS. The following easements are also reserved over all the Property in favor
of the owners of the Property and of Declarant in relation to construction at the Property,
{00464334.DOC;2}
5
~ ..._..._a._____......
e
e
provided that such easements shall not unreasonably interfere with use and enjoyment of the
Property by the owners of the Property.
4.1 Construction. Declarant hereby reserves for itself and its contractors and
subcontractors a non-exclusive easement for ingress and egress, drainage, encroachment,
construction, and for temporary storage of construction materials, equipment and vehicles
thereon, over the Property until the earlier of (a) completion of the construction, finishing and
furnishing of all improvements, or (b) ten (10) years after the Effective Date.
4.2 Ingress and Egress. Declarant reserves for the all future owners of the Property,
including itself, and for emergency vehicles and personnel, mutual and reciprocal nonexclusive
easements for ingress and egress, for pedestrian and vehicular access.
4.3 Parking. Parking spaces shall be used for parking of permitted vehicles only and
not for the permanent parking or storage of boats, trailers or non-mobile vehicles of any
description. Garage space shall not be used for conversion into inhabitable space such as, but not
limited to, a hobby shop or recreation room.
4.4 Utility Easements. There is hereby reserved, and Declarant may hereafter grant,
easements throughout the Property for lines, cables, wires, condUIts, pipes and drains for
electricity, gas, water, sewer, telephone and similar purposes ("utilities"). [Note: Trail
Easement dealt with separately]
4.4(a) Interference Prohibited. Within the easements existing at the Effective
Date or thereafter created by the Owner of the Property for the installation and maintenance of
utilities and drainage facilities, no structure, planting or other material shall be placed or
permitted to remain which may damage or interfere with the installation and maintenance of
utilities, or which may damage, interfere, or change the direction of flow of drainage facilities in
the easement.
4.4(b) Access and Maintenance. Utility, or drainage, duct or flue easements in
the Property or in the improvements shall at all times be open and accessible to (a) public and
quasi-public utility corporations and other persons, erecting, constructing or servicing such
utilities and quasi-utilities; and (b) to Declarant and its successor or assigns during
construction;all of whom shall have the right of ingress and egress thereto and therefrom, and the
right and privilege of doing whatever may be necessary in, under and upon said locations for the
carrying out of any of the purposes for which said easements, reservations and rights of way are
reserved or granted. The easement areas in the Property and all improvements located thereon
shall be maintained by the owners of the Property, except for those improvements for which a
public authority or utility company is responsible or has accepted responsibility.
4.5 Television Reception. It is contemplated that a cable or central television antenna
system may be installed and connected to the improvements on the Property. Said system, if
installed, shall be maintained by the television company which installs the system or by a
successor chosen by them. To the extent required to implement the foregoing plan, there shall be
an easement appurtenant to each such improvement for the purpose of connecting the same with
LC r. i :",,1
'~._~~,,2 '2-6
," ,~ ------
llJ lJD
{00464334.DOC;2}
6
It
e
the central television cable or antenna. The Property shall be subject to such easement in favor of
all owners of the Property and in favor of the company which installs the system, to provide for
the passage through the Property and any improvements thereon of television connections from
any improvement to the cable system, and shall be subject to further easements for the placement
and maintenance of such connections. The foregoing easements are granted and reserved subject
to the condition that their use and enjoyment shall not unreasonably interfere with the use,
occupancy or enjoyment of all or any part of the Property.
5: ENFORCEMENT.
5.1 Who May Enforce. Except as otherwise specifically provided, each owner of the
Property shall have the right to enforce any or all of the Restrictions.
5.2 Proceedings and Relief. Every act or omission whereby any of these Restrictions
is violated in whole or in part may be enjoined or abated by arbitration or by a court of
competent jurisdiction, whether the relief sought is for negative or affirmative relief. The
prevailing party in any action or proceeding shall be entitled to recover damages, costs and/or
attorneys' fees.
5.3 Violations of Law. Any violation of any state, municipal or local law, ordinance
or regulation pertaining to the ownership, occupation or use of the Property is hereby declared to
be a violation ofthe Restrictions and subject to any or all ofthe enforcement procedures set forth
herein.
5.4 N on- Waiver. The waiver of any breach of these Restrictions shall not be deemed
a continuing waiver of any subsequent breach, whether of the same or another of these
Restrictions.
5.5 Arbitration. Any dispute as to the violation, interpretation or application of any
Restriction herein, shall, upon written request of one party to the dispute served on the other(s),
be submitted to arbitration, and such arbitration shall comply with and be governed by the
provisions of the Rules of the American Arbitration Association.
6: GENERAL RESTRICTIONS
6.1 Amendment and Term. This Declaration shall remain in force until amended or
rescinded as follows. This Declaration may be amended (i) to comply with lawful requirements
in connection with obtaining and maintaining registration of a vacation ownership club provided
no such amendment shall diminish the rights and protections of the owners of the Property, or
(ii) to rescind the Declaration entirely. No amendment shall be effective until recordation in the
office of the County Recorder or the filing with the agencies where the original Declaration was
filed of a document fully setting forth the amendment, specifically referring to this Declaration,
and setting forth the authority by which the amendment was adopted.
6.2 Applicability and Effect. The Restrictions and covenants set forth herein are made
for the mutual and reciprocal benefit of each and every owner of the Property; and are intended
{00464334.DOC;2}
7
2-"2-0
...~.~_._._~~:=~
Sl5'"f
e
e
to: (a) create mutual equitable servitudes upon each of the improvements and the Property, in
favor of each and all of the owners of the Property; (b) to create reciprocal rights among the
owners of the Property; ( c) to create a privity of contract and estate between the grantees,
successors, and assigns of Declarant; (d) to operate as covenants running with the land as to each
owner of the Property, for the benefit and burden of the Property, and each owner of the
Property.
6.3 Notices. Any notice herein permitted or required to be delivered shall be in
writing and may be delivered either personally or by mail. If delivery is made by mail, it shall be
deemed to have been delivered seventy-two (72) hours after a copy of the same has been
deposited in the United States mail with postage thereon fully prepaid and addressed to any
owner of the Real Property at the address of of such owner located at the Property.
6.4 Interpretation. The provisions of this Declaration shall be liberally construed to
effectuate their purpose of creating a uniform plan for the development and operation of the
Property. This Declaration shall be construed under the laws of the State of Washington.
6.5 Severability. If any provision of this Declaration is declared to be invalid or
unenforceable, the remaining provisions shall nevertheless remain in full force and effect.
6.6 Captions. All captions and titles used in this Declaration are intended solely for
convenience or reference and shall not affect that which is set forth in any of the provisions
hereof.
6.7 No Public Rights Created. Nothing contained in this Declaration shall be deemed
to be a gift or dedication of any portion of the Property to the general public or for any public use
or purpose.
6.8 Gender; Number. The masculine, feminine and neuter genders, or singular and
plural numbers, shall each be deemed to include the others whenever appropriate.
6.9 Exhibits. The following exhibits are attached hereto and incorporated herein:
"A" Property Description
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Declarant has executed this Declaration on the day and year
first above written.
Declarant:
TRENDWEST RESORTS, INC., an Oregon
corporation
By:
Name:
{00464334.DOC;2}
8
_..-24..0
.!Jf121-~~---
"~\"-=''''<'~'~""",,,,,,,, ,-
S5Z-
e
{00464334.DOC;2}
Title:
By:
Name:
Title:
9
e
L."".,....." '....~-" ".
~~I":,~~',: I ~ b,.".,. ~~:w;
"},J,,,
7-'Z.d>
.~~~
~3
--
e
e
STATE OF WASHINGTON)
)SS.
COUNTY OF KING )
On this day of , 2006, I, a Notary Public in
and for the State of Washington, duly commissioned and sworn, certify that I know or have
satisfactory evidence that is the person who appeared
before me, and said person acknowledged that he signed this instrument on oath stated that he
was authorized to execute the instrument and acknowledge it as the
of Trendwest Resorts, Inc. to be the free and voluntary act of such party for the uses and
purposes set forth therein.
(Notary Signature)
Residing at:
My commission expires:
STATE OF WASHINGTON)
)SS.
COUNTY OF KING )
On this day of , 2006, I, a Notary Public in
and for the State of Washington, duly commissioned and sworn, certify that I know or have
satisfactory evidence that is the person who appeared
before me, and said person acknowledged that he signed this instrument on oath stated that he
was authorized to execute the instrument and acknowledge it as the
of Trendwest Resorts, Inc. to be the free and voluntary act of such party for the uses and
purposes set forth therein.
(Notary Signature)
Residing at:
My commission expires:
{00464334.DOC;2}
10
L()") IT::7\'i1
-~..___.1-26
~-'--...,......-
~-
"''''''''''-'''-<;'~'"''----
55"~
e
e
~~~ l~d
I ~,......r- \i.C~"Ji
L'",.-? ' ~.~Vl
#. '2-20
.".(~of
5~J
e
e i't:} oiL;:': :/." ........: rrt "1'r \r 7" r". .~~ ri _. .'
t~ ,"1':.\ L;' \'t h '.: h i.! d.-':\ I~ II
.i~~_ \~,)~.. _4 ',..-' '-'.'-"~ ./ i.~ _,~,'j iL .,./
~~
J/
-
JEFFERSON COUNTY
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNnY DEVELOPMENT
621 Sheridan Street. Port Townsend. Washington 98368
360/379-4450. 360/379-4451 Fax
www.co.jefferson.wa.usloommdevelopment
r ~ . :.~
1~fff~~~flf\! i:1lmpy ,iwn
~c}t..!: .. e'"'''Y.S;''i: ~....~,'t-,.;;.~ ~ Jt;f.l'
Master Permit Application
... "Project D8sCrl~~n .(h'c1ude"s~pa~ate sheets"~sl'leCessary): .
low v. 'D v." . "-12 n
Tax Parcel Property
Number: 968800102 Size:
Site Address and/or Directions to Property: Blst side of Paradise Ba
Properly Owner(s) of Record: Port Ludlow Associates
Telephone: 360.437.2101 Fax: 360.437.2522
MaRing Address: 70 Breaker Lane, Port Ludlow WA 98365
AppDc:antlAgent (If different from owner): ~ MiddlBtt'lO~ Inc.
Telephone: 425.741.3800 Fax: 425. 741.3900
Mailing Address: 728 134th St. SW Everett. WA 98204
MLA:
14.66 acres (acres/square feet)
Road at Breaker Lane
email:
email: lkeenanireidmidd.com
Suite 200
What kind of Pennlt? (Check each box that applies)
o BuIldIng
o Demolition Pemtit
o SIngle Family
o Garage AItac:hed / Detached
o Manufac:Iured Horne
o Modular
o CommerdaI.
o Change of Use
o AdcIteas
oPlcpane..." .
o NIowed '"Yes" Use ConsIstency AnaI~
o Stormwater Management
o Site Plan Approval Advance Determination (SPAAD) ·
o TemponuyUse
o WIreless TeIecormu1IcatIo ·
o Forest PnICIIces AdIReIease of Six-Year Moratorium
" May 1'fIqU1,. . Pre -AppIlc.tIon ConfeIvnce -Requhs . PnMppIlcMIon Confetence
Please Identify any other local, state or federal pennlts required for this proposal. If known:
lRoad~
~ V.-Iance (Minor, Major<< Reasonable Economic Use)
o C0ndltlonaI Use [C(a), C(d). or C) ..
o DisaeIIonafy "0. or Unnamed Use CIasslficallon
. 0 SpecIal Use (EssentIal PublIc FacIIties) ..
o Boundary line Adjustment
o Short Plat ..
X~ Bilding Site Plan -
o Long Plat ..
. 0 Planned RuI'aI Re8IdentiaI"Dev8IoPment (PRRo)lAmendments ~
..0 Plat v8catloniAltef'8tlOn .. . . ". " "
.0 shoi-eatie Mas" PrOgram ~eimJt R8vIsi6ns ..
~ ShoreUne Management Substantial Development ..
o Shoreline Management V.-lance
o ComprehenSIve PIanIUOCIland Use DIsIrk:t Map Amendment
o Jefferson County ShofeIne Master Program Amendment
DESIGNATION OF AGENT
I hereby designate Reid Middleton, Inc. to act as my agent In matters relating to
OWNER SIGNA11JRE
By IIgnIng this application form, the owner/agent attests that the Infonna
hili, her or It.s ~. Any meterIaI falsehood Or any omission of ..
may r8Ut In this permit being: nul8nd W!id. .
I fur1her ... to "save; Indeinnry .nc. hold hannIess JeffersOn County against a1118bi11t1es, judgments, cOurt Costs, reasonable atIomey's lees Sod
expenses which may In any way accrue against Jet'fer8on County as a result d << In cansequenc:e of the granting of this pennll
, further lIgnle to provide acceas and rtght of entry to JetferIon County and Is employees, representatives or agents for the aoIe purpoSe of application
review and any required later Inspections. Access and rtght of entry to this property shall be r~ shaD occur only during regula' business
~. I_I
SIgnatIn: Date: \.. L..l..2..l i!J>':-
herein, and In M'f~, Is true and correct to the best of
. made by. the DWl:*Iagent with. respect to this eppI!cation packet ."
The action or actions ApplIcant will undertake as a result of the Issuance of this pe y negatlvely Impact upon one or more threatened or
endangered species and could lead to a potential "take" of an endangered species those terms are dellned In the federal law known as the
"Endangered SpecIes Ar1: or "ESA." Jefferson County makes no assurances to the applicant that the acIIons that wII be undeftaken because this
pennit has been Issued wIH not violate the ESA. Any 1ndlvIduaI, group or agency can file a lawsuit on behalf of an endangered species regarding your
actlon(s) even If you are In compliance with the Jeff.-son County development code. The AppIlcant acknowledges that he, she or It holds individuai
end non-Iransferable responsIbllity for"adherlng to and comp/yIng with the ESA. The Applicant has read thls d~ 8ncfslgns and dates It below.
Signatu'e Date: ~ ~ t) ...;: " ". .
.. " L(i<,: II t: ;;.1
C:\Documcota md Setqt\mochil\Desktop\Muta' Pennit AppIicatioo 7 1- 2_6
~f
'o~-&
e
e
OWNER BUILDER STATEMENT
The signer of this statement does hereby certify that they are the Owners of the parcel referenced herein, that they are not lcensed contractors and that
they wII be assuming the responsibility of the General Contractor for the proposed project
SlgnabJre: Date:
..
..
.
PHoNE:
( .)
.Ew.JL.:
. WAINS
NuMBER
PHoNe (
EMA!l.
FAX:
( -, . )
GENERAL CONTRAcTOR OR MANuFACTURED HOME INSTALlER:
MAILING AooAESS:. :
C<::lNTRAcTOR'S ltcENSE
NUMBER:
ARcHrTECT/ENG1NEER:
MAulG ADDREss:
FAX: ( ) .
Type of Heat:
Bedrooms:
Existing:
Proposed:
Total:
Shoreline: Type of Sewage Disposal:
o Sewer
o Community System
o Individual System
SEP Pennlt #
Water Supply:
o Private well 0 Two Party
o Public
Name of System:
project Type:
o New
o Addition
o AIteratIonIRemodel
o Repair
o Demolition
Frame Type:
o Wood
o Steel
o Concrete
o Masonry
o other:
Bathrooms:
Existing:
Proposed:
Total:
Number of M1A Partdng Spaces:
Proposed
-WID you h8ve Food~? Yes I No .
. .
in. I
t Underground Tank t Pbove grOund Tank Size d Propane 'Tank:
t Heat Stove t Cook Stove t Woodstove t FWpI8ce Insert t Hot WatM Tn t Pellet Stove t Other
n be n n Yes I No
When IIppIyIIIfI for a permit to Inslall tank you must also submit. site pllln showing 1111 of the buildings, all pt'OpfNty
Hnes, tank location .nd size, dlsta from the propane tank to all fJI'OI*1y lines, buildings and septic system components,
IndudJ the te$81V8 area.
MezzanIne:
- . .. . . " .' '.::}~~nt' . . ::.,;.~"r: :~l;;;,~l
~~~~.;~;j:;:t~~;)::J:~t'.~~.~;~~.t!F-':i~ .:::::~'::::;::\: .?;::i;:iX;~;f
.. ~l~'~t~rt..: ;~~1';;~;;~1f.i~Lj~{.:;~'i
Main Floor
2 Floor
3 Floor
.Heated Basement.
Unheated Basement
Other Unheated
Garage/Carport
Decks
Other
ESnMATED COST (REQUIRED)
-FaIr matIet value of all labor and matertals foundation to finish
C:\Documaus lad Seuinp\moc:bil\Daktop\Master Permit AppIicadon.7-8-04..doc:
rL
<...(:;L
It/2-Z/uz,
~.~
of
e
1lMv
e
LOG ITEM
# 220
P; ."'P~ of
i ,...,.,.-'
- s-'i~
e
e
'3l-j
TYPICAL RESTRICTIVE AND PROTECTIVE COVENANTS COVERING
THE PLATS OF PORT LUDLOW NOS. 1,2,3,4,5 AND 6
(For verification as to each plat, reference must be made to the recorded Declaration filed
on each subdivision.)
POPE AND TALBOT, INC., (herein "Grantor"), a Washington corporation hereby
declares and certifies restriction upon the land subject hereto as follows:
1. Membership in Maintenance Commission: The owner of each lot in platted
land now or hereafter subject hereto shall, by such ownership, be a member of LUDLOW
MAINTENANCE COMMISSION, INC. (herein '"Maintenance Commission"), a non-
profit corporation, formed under the laws of the State of Washington, and shall continue a
member thereof while an owner, subject to the Articles and By-laws of said corporation:
"owner" for purpose hereof is the person (or if more than one, then collectively) entitled
by deed or real estate contract to the occupancy of a lot or lots in the platted land subject
hereto.
2. Assessments and Lien: The Maintenance Commission is empowered to
establish assessment upon lots in platted land subject hereto for the common benefit of
such lots as to utilities, roadways, property protection, drainage, landscaping, insurance,
improvement, and payment of taxes upon common property and the holding of ownership
or leasehold therein, or otherwise for common purposes, all as determined pursuant to the
Articles and Bylaws of the Maintenance CommiR.~on. Such assessments shall constitute
a lien upon each such lot as of the due date thereof, and such lien may be foreclosed by
the Maintenance Commission in the same form and manner of procedure as the
foreclosure of a real property mortgage lien under the laws of the State of Washington,
each owner, and each party hereafter owning or claiming an interest in one or more lots
within the platted land subject hereto, agreeing and recognizing that expenses of title
examination and assurance, costs of attorney of the Maintenance Commission, court costs
and interest at 10% per annum shall be included with the amount of any delinquent
assessment in the judgment of foreclosure of such lien. The authority to establish
assessments and lien therefore against lots within the plats subject hereto shall, as to each
lot, first arise when the same is first sold by deed or real estate contract from the Grantor
herein, its successors or assigns, as developer of a plat within the property described in
Exhibit A to a grantee or contract purchaser thereof. Assessments shall be assessed and
collected on a fair and uniform basis as among lots subject thereto, subject only to such
reasonable differential as may be established by the By-laws of the Maintenance
Commission between improved lots and unimproved lots.
3. Land Use: Lots within the area now or hereafter subject hereto shall be
utilized solely for single family residential use consisting of single residential dwelling
and such outbuildings (garage, nor more than one guest cottage, patio structure) as
consistent with permanent or recreational residence. Structure shall be of new
construction and shall not be commenced until building permit or appropriate public body
L. t'"""..;r">.....,. I..'T~.'" r. ,M
. /....j' -""'~_; 5:. ~,_,)";I
'f'.~_ .Pb
1 ~t>
C5 b"PJ
e
e
is obtained, together with architectural control approved as provided in paragraph 4.
Progress of construction shall be steadily progressed and exterior to be completed within
twelve months from commencement of construction. No trailers, mobile homes, tent
houses or temporary structures shall be installed upon any lot except solely as necessary
during active construction period as limited.
4. Architectural Control Committee: No building or structure (including fences
or any manrnade obstruction) shall be built or placed or thereafter altered on any lot, nor
shall a lot be cleared or excavated for use, nor shall any tree of six-inch or more breast-
high diameter be cut, until after the details and written plans and specifications thereof
disclosing clearing, size, materials, location, finish and elevation (and as to tree cutting,
with specific identification of individual trees to be cut) have been submitted to and
approved by the committee referred to herein. The Architectural Control Committee
shall consist of five individuals who shall be appointed by and subject to removal or
replacement by the Board of Trustees of the Maintenance Commission. Address of the
Architectural Control committee shall be in care of the Maintenance Commission at its
registered office, 208 Second and University Building, Seattle, Washington 98101, or at
such other registered office location as may hereafter be established. Within thirty days
of submission of plans and specifications to such committee, such committee by a
majority vote and in writing may approve or disapprove or may conditionally approve
plans and specifications so submitted. If such plans and specification be so disapproved
(or if conditionally approved, then unless the condition thereof be complied with) the
projected construction shall not be undertaken, or if undertaken in violation hereof: may
be abated by legal proceedings instituted by any party having an interest in the
enforcement hereof as provided in paragraph 9 below at any time until but not after
completion of the projected construction. Construction, clearing, or excavation
undertaken without submitting details, plans, and specifications as aforesaid, shall be
subject to action under paragraph 9 below, irrespective of time of completion thereof.
The committee shall in good faith exercise discretionary approval and disapproval of
plans and specifications on a basis of rninimi7.ing interference with enjoyment of nearby
lots and of enforcing an improvement use and occupancy of the platted area in a pleasing
but not necessarily uniform combination of permanent residences and recreational homes.
5. Easement, Roads and Reserve Property: By this declaration, Grantor confirms
the granting and reservation of easements, the dedication of public roads and the
designation of reserve property, all as shown upon the Plat of Port Ludlow No. One, filed
contemporaneously herewi~ and reserves unto itself, successors and assigns, the right
similarly to grant reserve, dedicate and designate such matters in future plats subjected
hereto. Grantor reserves unto itself the right to transfer title or to contract therefore or to
lease or grant the ''reserve'' property as designated upon the plat or plats which are
subject hereto, to the Maintenance Commission, or to grant, contract or lease easements,
rights or permits for utility services to any utility district, utility company or public body
for purposes of installation, maintenance, replacement or extension of utility services
useful to the area subject hereto. Title to the "reserve" property is reserved to the
Grantor, its successors and assigns until transferred to the Maintenance Commission or
public body. Use or enjoyment of the "reserve" property for any purposes or uses by or
LOe
2
~~, 1-2.0
'~ci __'_'.'_
Cj(pO
e
e
for lot owners is permissive only, and no rights by prescription or adverse user as to the
"reserve" property or any part hereof shall accrue in favor of any lot or lots owners.
6. Nuisance or Offensive Use: No nuisance or offensive use shall be conducted of
suffered as to lots subject hereto, nor shall any lot be utilized for industrial or commercial
use (excepting only, appropriate real estate signs not exceeding 30''x 30" in size, in sale
of lots; Grantor further reserving unto itself: its successors and assigns, as to each plat
which is filed or recorded as subject hereto, the right, for a period of five years from the
filing of the respective plats to operate a conventional real estate sales or agency office
upon an unsold lot within such plat), nor as a dump, nor shall there be kept animals or
stock or any kind, other than conventional domestic pets (provided that the Maintenance
Commission may establish permissive rules for the maintenance of trained riding horses).
All garbage and refuse shall be stored on the owner's lot, in sanitary containers, obscured
from public view and shall be regularly hauled by, or for the owner to public dump or
other suitable dump site not within the area subject hereto.
7. Utilities: As to each lot in the area now or hereafter subject hereto, it is
required, as a covenant running with the land, that, upon the raising or maintenance of a
habitable structure thereon, there be established and maintained by the owner of such lot
a connection with electric and water and sewer utility lines, each as then available to the
lot, upon the contract terms (including lien rights for service) then prevailing by the
utility district or company providing such services; and, as such utility services may
become available at a later date, any then existing utility systems including water, sewer,
electric, gas, cable television and telephone, shall be underground exclusively. There is
reserved to the utility district or utility company providing utility service, the exclusive
right to connect improvement upon the lots with the utility service lines, for which
service the lot owner will pay the then prevailing price for such connection as charged by
such utility district or company and the charges therefore shall together with regular
utility service charges, be a lien upon the lot, subject on nonpayment to foreclosure
action, including costs, interest and reasonable attorney's fees, as in the case of a real
property mortgage lien. In those portions of the area subject hereto where sewers are or
become available, the lot owner will, at the owner's expense and before occupancy of
improvements upon the lot (or if sewer service lines become available after occupancy of
improvements, then forthwith upon such availability), request connection thereof to the
sanitary sewer line which is available for such service, the connection to be effected by
the utility district or company providing such utility service, at its then prevailing charge
for such connection. No pit (or equivalent) toilet facility shall be constructed or used and
each residence shall, before occupancy, be connected at owner's expense with either: (i)
septic tank and drain field as approved by public authorities and installed at owner's
expense, if sewer service line is not then available, or (ii) available sanitary sewer service
line, whenever such sewer service line is available. When and for so long as public water
source shall be created or used for lots subject hereto and each residence structure shall
be connected at owner's expense to such public water system.
8. Amendments: This declaration may be amended or terminated by duly
recorded amendatory declaration, signed and acknowledged by owners (as said term is
Ln~ IT~ ';!l
'lO,,,# ',,",,"" t '-"f."I'o:~.
'J-?-D
~ (' ..---.,..-.
st,t
3
e
e
used herein) of at least 80% of all lots within platted areas which are then subject hereto
(each lot being entitled to one vote), provided that no more onerous restrictions than
those herein may be thereby applied as to have effect as to existing noncompliance
therewith unless the same be unanimously so approved and recorded, and provided
further than the right of assessment and lien and required utility connections, in favor of
the Maintenance Commission, Utility District or company, as above provided may not be
restricted or eliminated except as approved by resolution regularly adopted by the Board
of Trustees of said Maintenance Commission.
9. Enforcement: In I:he event of violation of the terms hereof, any owner of any
lot subject hereto, or the Maintenance Commission above provided for, may institute
proceedings for abatement or injunction or for property subject hereto, each owner and
the Maintenance Commission being recognized to have a proper interest in the matters
herein provided for, and the matters provided for herein being recognized as specifically
enforceable.
10. Severability: The provisions hereof are severable, and the invalidation of any
part of parts hereof shall not thereby disqualify or invalidate the other provisions hereof
which shall remain in full force and effect in accordance with their terms.
11. Integrity of Lots: Where the terms "lot" and "lots" are used in this
declaration, the same refer to a lot or lots as platted according to a recorded plat thereof
which is subject hereto, as executed and recorded in lefferson County, Washington, by
Grantor herein; and Maintenance Commission membership, assessments and liens, and
restrictions of use, shall apply to lots as so platted; no platted lot shall be re-platted except
as this declaration be so amended as specifically to permit the same, all in accordance
with the requirements of paragraph 8 hereof, nor shall any division, re-division or
consolidation of platted lots or portions thereof have the effect of relieving the
application of restrictive covenants to the platted lots as platted.
4
L.r~' ('" Ii
\..) \.::: ~._ , ~ ",/1
:';f 22-6
;.,':~~
5 (p '2.-
e
\I
e
~V..4
LG~ IT;-'"
./.I. '-' , I c.::.; ~;1
''IT "
i"~ ~2.6
1 .~, ~of
5&3
~
86/1&/1994 85:24
368437138/11
~UUM!~ r~wr~nl~~~
e ~LAP COpy
e
.JEFFERSON COUNTY .
DEPARTMENT OF c;OM~UNI,:" DEVELOP~~NT
.21 ....fkI... ......., P.rt To.....ct. WA ..3&.
38003"""'$0 .'!f'IWW.co.leffersO...W..ualcommd.v.IOp....ntJ
BECOMMERDATlON TO
JQ-.~ON C01T.NTY JIEI.1UNG EXAMINER
.b.cI
MITIGATED DETERMINATION OF NON~SIGNIF.lCJlNCE
n.OJ'OUL If.l.lllU:
LaCU... eo... Di1l'iuoll Z
. .
PaoPOUL "DDC2IPftOH:
A lZQ...unit time-8haxe multi-family residential
de'98lopment llituated on 1.,66 acre. within the Port
L\ldlow MPR..
~1JIItZD .....OY.ILS:
Bindiag Site P1a.nICoDClominiwn Subdivision
ShoraliDe Sllblltantial Development Pennit
SEPA'l'IarelIhold Determination
MLIL _:
SUB9fS..00003 (originalllUbdivUion cue)
ZOH'9~l (original Conditional UBe zoning cue)
SUB()8..OO()()f
SDPOS-OOOOa
MI.J\OS-00029
PIl:IDIJ'f CUE ".:
.IPrLICJUn':
Po%1: Ludlow Aaoc:iatelf
RBP.RESENTA~
Mart Doney. Project Manager
ID"" DZCIIIOM~
M'J.ii9a'ed. netenn.taattoa of NOIl..sjgalO.c....c:e
DCOM'M'EIID..I.ftO.
TO ....UfO J::Z:&MIIIID~
Jl.PP""". with CoD.clltto...
..... .uJfl.otI~ D.a.:
January 18,2005; Revised May 9,2006
February 2. 2005, Re"rised. May 11. ZOO8 and June 1.
3008
July 21. 2006
.&ppUe.U.1l Date;
l'foUo. ., .l.ppUaatl.. D.t,,~
....a........... DE&DLIIQr:
.a..vu" >>, %005
66/16/1994 65;35
3604376870
~UUM!~ r~ur~~14~J
e
e
Jefferson County Deportment of Community Development
L.udlpW Cove Division 2
july 26. 2005
hltUe ..aria. Did.:
.aupllt 16,2005 at 1:30pm ba JeffeftloD. Cormty
.....lIor Coo.droom. Jetrenou C01Iaty CD1l.Ithou..
JI.IEPA appMJ ill tiled.. u... .ppeuhearixlg wi1l 1>. coMolidated with 1he Public Hearing .chedwed. on che
.......,,~.
PROPOSEDF1NDINCSAND CONCLUSIONS
PJlltT I ..&CKGaOUND IHFO:aMJl.TION
1. Legal DaKriptloa. Parcel NumbeJ- 968 800 102 Ludlow Cove Division I. Phase
I. 'TJ:M:t E in Section J 7. Township 28, Range 01 Eut. WM; Located on Paradise Bay Road,
Pod IMdlo.... 'W'A 98388.
Z. Prlo.. ..1&ted Pnjeet. The c::unent project. Ludlow Cove Division 2, is the
..cond phue of the Ludlow Cove project approved August 2, 2002. 'The original Ludlow
C09'8 project included JlGbdi'riAon appronl to create. 24 single family Iota, variance
appron.lll to reduc:e the widths of the private: aoce.. road euements. and a conditional
U8e apprOYal for future maltifamily deT8Jopment on parcela then designated as "Tract. A
and II."
3. "n\e ccmditiow lIH approwal for Ludlow CO'9& noted that the future multifamily
pl'Oject phue would require Mpanlte SEPA l'U'rie... (ph.ued review). In addition. the
conditional 11M approftl caJ1ed. out the apecific lite development standards to be used in
nm-- of the .te p~ .nd building pexmi. for the future mulbfa.mily project. A three
yell!' time limitation for aubmiUal of a SEPA application was eatabli:shed. with an
additiolUll year granted for submittal 01. complete bu.ildiD.g pennit applications. (See
conditiOl\ Dwnbex 88 in the Hearing E:a:aminel' deciaiolllol' Ludlow Cove, File no. SUB95-
0003. dated Augut 2. 20(3).
.. The Idte de'l'8lapment IltancIanU embJahed in the prior approval can be found in
Section 7 of the applicable Zonhag Code, ord.Uw\ce 09-0801-94, at section 7.40.1.8. b, C.
I d. and. ft.
II. The origiJull Lu.dlow Core project wu nhmitted and llUbatantiaUy complete on
January 19. 1998.. The pl'oJect""""ed 10 the land. U8e roles and development atandardll in
effect on the date the application..... nhmitted. The multifamily component of Ludlow
CQV8, i.e.. uu. project - Ludlow CO'll"8 DiTlsion 2, ".... conditionally approved, wbject to
fub.uu SEPA J'meW'. Ceztain SEPA md Sbm:eline permit conditions related to the
0'l'igina1 LudlO'Ul' Cove apptonl allIO apply to Ludlow Cove DivUion 2.
8. Site im~el\tIJ aDd infr-..t:ructure fOI'Ludlow Cove Division 1 are complete,
includh1g . :partial tl;ail and bridge for the :reqWred beachtront public acee.. at Picnic
PotAt. The Div:iJlion 1 project hu been re'V'iaed to include o.nly seventeen homes. Seven
home. in the fiI'IIt pluule of DiY:iaion 1 are C1UX8ntly under cOlUlltrucUon.
stoff report and recommendation/MONS
Ludlow Cove Dlvlsloo 2
SU805-OO(X)4, SDP()5.{XX)()2
Page 2 01 24
L-'~f"""
\,.",<:
"",1..t- 21")""
. .. .1-4J
r~.__
r;~5
e
LUUM!~ ~~UPE~TIES
e
PAGE 02
aC/~O/l~~~ a~;~~
.;!oo..." It:ltl I !;I
Jeff~Bon County Department of Community Development
Ludlow Cove DIvision 2
My 26. 200S
7. "I"b.e entire Ludlow Cave project. Di9blioJl I and thilI Di..uion Z pxopoea.t. are
project. anticipiJted .. part of the build out of the Port Ludlow Master Planned Resort
community. The Development Program .... nrriewed in a 1993 Environmental Impact
Statement that establiahed many mitigation J'equir:ementa for the entire buildout. Among
thoe requirements we.J'e coJ\Sen'BDcy .et-aides. water quality and groundwater
nt.ource monitoring.1U\d shoreline public ilcceS8 point.. Even though the Port Ludlow
Muina. was elltabJi8hed .. the pnnuuy public acce.s point for the MPR.. the Ludlow Cove
project w.. alae zequ.ired to provide public accM. to !be Picnic Point beachfront. The
DiYialon 1 buildout has partially completed this public. acce... all noted above.
8. Other.......... Jtenntt. aa4 App.....,..J... In addition to the Binding Site
PlaIIICondomWum S\1hd.ivifton appro'hl and Shoreline Subltantial Development pennit
that cona1itute the current application. the project will J'~e Bu.ildi:ng Permils and a
COMtnldion Apptoval Plan appl'oved by the County Public Worb department.
Hydraulic Project Approvill (llPA pennit) ill required for discharge of stonnwater Irom
the d.1:.unage and wate1 quality treatment ary.tem. 'The exilting NPDES permit (National
PoDuCant Oi.8clw:'ge Elimination. Syalem) from 1he State Department of Ecology for
~ Cove CXJ'V'eD aU of l4u:IJow CQve. Diviaic>n 1 and Di1riAon z.
8. JLppUc:a1lI. Cocl-. n.e follo'flt'i.llg Jelfenon County code. &11d requlationa apply:
... JetfenIcm. County Sdbdiviaion ()rdio.uu:;e 804-0526-92
b. Port lIadlow Interim Urban Gxowth Ate.. Orctina.nce #01-0111-98
e. Jel'I8DoR Cou.ty HeaxiNJ Eumirter orcliunce "l-031s-.91
d. Shoreline Managenvrnt Muter P.togram adopted March 7. J989
e. State EDvinmmental Policy Act Implementing Orc:Ji.nance
f. Jellenon County Crilical.Areu ordinance #06-0509-94
g. Je8&non County Zolling Code #09-0801-9'
PJlB.T U LOCATION JlND SITE DESCIUP1"ION
10. LudJaw C~e Di-rilion a is located. between Paradise Bay Road aztd Port Ludlow
Bay. apptoximately 1000 feet .outh of the int......aion of Par~ Bay Road artd Oak Bay
Road. Acoe.. to tbe aiee ia directly acrOll. ParadUe Bay Road horn Breuer Ltu)e, which
prcrridea sceeu to the Village Commel'ciaJ Center. The lite is recorded as Future
Development Tl:1ICt E of the plat of Ludlo", C0't"8 DiriIion 1. Phue 1 ~ Tract E comprises
the paroe1J; fQl1'fl6dy ahown ..1'nt:tI: A and B in the approved pre1irninuy plat of Ludlow
CO". 'nl.e property encompaue. 14.68 acre_. or appro:limately 838.890 .quare feet.
'1"be .nte ia located. on the north .hore of Ludlow Cove at the west end of Port Ludlow Bay.
TbiII are. of Ludlcw Cove has cOllUnonly been caUed the "log dump" by Port Ludlow
..-cIen".
11. The .1. ia cuzreatly :wned for .ingle family retidential development according to
the MP.R Code. ordinance #08-1004-99. bllt..... lI'.Oned G-l for Gener:al U:lIe when the
ori.gina1lAtdlaw Cove pl'opoMl.... aubmitted. Multifamily development required
Conditional u. .prO'Q1 under G-l J:on.in.g. (See abow for description of prior related
. project and. the Conditional UN appranl gnnted .. part of the original tAldlow Cove
dec:bion). At the time of project .ellting. the .ate wu located within the Port Ludlow
Stoff report and recommendation/MONS Page 3 of 24
Ludow Cove DMsJon 2
SUBO${)()()()..(. SOP05-00002
Lr"; r"';
'k" '."
"~ 2-2-6
~~-%
'5' {pU
-".~
.-~""'"1"
0b/lb/1994 05:35
361343713878
e
LUUMl~ ~~U~~~I!~~
t-'A\,Jt;, ~q
e
Jefferson County Department of Community Developn"lent
Ludlow Cove Division 2
July 26. 200S
Interim UGA and deaignated ilL the CompreheMive Plan for multifamily development
with a muimwn deNity of 18 dwe11lng unita per acrll. The site La d~aignated UIban
under the Jetfarson County Shore1ifte Muter Prognm.
12. A Claa D wat1a11d of jut over one aC1'8 18 located on the north part of the site
(Wetland 1). A 1IRUIll1team. nma parliaUy in . dra.i.n.-ge ditch from west 10 east along the
edge af Wetluull uui dilIcharges into Ludlow CO'I'8. Thia meam was repoIted as a
Type 3 lItream when Ludlow CO'9'8 was originaUy re'Viewed aveh though the proponent
JlUhnaitted .rudie. claui.fying the atream .. a Type 6 .aeam. To resolve the conflict
between Type 3 and Type 6 butren. a IIp'Iem of butler averaging 19'U approved by the
County ill colW\l1~ti.ol'l with the WaahingtOIl Deputm.ent of Fiah and Wildlife that met the
requi:rementa for . Type 3 Ib'eam. The wetland. .tx'eun. and buffer areas for the project
were elttabu.hed .. put of the orig~ Ludlow Cove approval and were P31col'ded with
the final plat of Ludlow Co98 Dfriaion 1. On the CUD'ent plana the stream is shown as a
Type 8 stream" but ia IlUbjed to the recorded buffer requirements.
13. '1be upland are.. oltJuJ lrite"lIIope from north to aouth toward the shoreline. The
C8. 01 the .ue propoMd fOI' dtwelopment. the central and .outh portiOnl. .lope gently
(2% to 7% .topel). '!be area 01 Wetland 1 and the Type 5 stream slope mote steeply
(about. 18% 1IIope). Along the .....ler.. edge. the property dropa 8teeply. with vertical
reUef raJJ.gilIg lXom three to hnmty feet. '1'be developable a:nta of the aite excludes
WetlaNi 1. the ~... the UlIOC'iated b1lffeD.....hich are p~served in. Native
Growth Protection EMement. Total de"l"t!llopahle OIJ'ea m.euured from the line of ordinary
high .....ter to the NGPE or Pandiae Bay Road .. approzitnately 554. 385 3QUare feet.
PART m THE .aOPOUL
14. The Ludlow Ca9'e Di-rildon 2 proposal would dev.;"P Il l.2G-wtit tilp,Je-lhaxe
muJ1UamBv 'I"A_kJ,..ntial p-;ed ft" 14 66 ~. aituated ~thin the Port Ludlow Master
PlaDned.lte-.:rt ~all growth &rea in Jetfenon County. The proposed prOJect would
in~ Jd.x. multifarnilv ~abare rwential ~.. on'l="r!Ceptionlrecreation
bv.ild.i.Ra. a pn....ta road -rtem. l'8CI'eation.N amenities auch as a gri'll"&te.wim.ming pool.
barbequM. .-pu. and public IU'Id. priYate traila. The ~roiect will be ~d bQublic
....te.!..ud II8W8%' ~ttmII prarided bY' Olympic Water and Sewer, me, A .tonn drainage
lIJIItom for water quality mitigation wiD be coNtructed. A ~le acoe.. road .se~s the
llite oJl 01 Par.dUe Bay R~ acrou from Breaker Lane. PubliC acee.. to the _atetfront
will be provided by .. tnW. ac:ro.. the property from Parad1ae Bay Road to the Picnic Point
anNl, .. zeqWred in U\e prior app%ove1. The wetland and atream areu. along with their
...ocia.ted bull.., are located in a Native Crowth p..otection Ea.aement. 'The Habitat
Ma.nagement Plan developed.. part of the original a.pproval describes a Wetland BuJJer
I / F.zmuu::ement Plan that will be complet~ .. part of Diviaion Z. ShQfe1in'" T....-.g;etation
jJNJ N(1..,.i~ rlOIdl .r=sM'Ciilvr t~ ~~~..!'-'i".l""" Plan yAt'n..Li:l'~d - part o~t~ o~iina.1
5 /. G ap~. No 'WOrk is p~~ below the ordinary hign "atel'~ar 0 Polt Ludlow Bay.
! 18. ........io.. to PlroJecI. The project. 8.11 originally applied for would have created
Ml'9'eD aepuate paxcelll. In addition. .. "lPOIriance proponl to reduce the width o1lhe
p~te ac:ceall road ........ included. FoUowing' review of the initial applicatiOn. the Public
Stoff report and recommendafion/MDNS Page 4 of 2...
ludlow Cove Division 2
50805-000004, SOPQ.S.()()()()2
~
<:)y~'
22.!2._-----
"'""''''''''-------
~ .--
5117
06/16/1994 65:24
3G0437ElS70 e
Jefferson County Deportment of Communlty Development
lu~ Cove Division 2
Juty 26. 2005
L0UM1~ ~K~~KI1~~
e
Worb dep&11mal1.t conclu.ded that the....nance for road width was not necessary. On
MIIY 9. 2008, the applicant re'riaed the application to elimh\ate the requc:"t for varl!!lce
and.to reduce the number of DropoMd laC_ from .~ to f~. The revised site plan also
deleted a propo.ed trail along the waterfront beeaUN the location was found to be
infeuible due to the Bteep bank and muddy Ihoreline.
18. 'nle four lot ~ RlfJects a phuing plan for construction of the seven
buUdingw. The tint pbue wiJ1 contain only the :rec:reation building (building 1)and four
parJr:ing apacell. Phue Z ilduda bui1d.Usg. 1 and Z ud the associated parking. Phase 3
containw buildingw 3 and .. ud. .~JIIted parking. aDd phase" contains the last two
bu1ldinga (8 IUld 8) and their puking.
PDT IV NOTICE.IHD COMMENT
11. Nodce. tfotice of tile propoaal wu puhlUhed on FebZll.U'J 2. 2005. Notice of the
reNed project wu origIu11y publillhed on May 1 J. 3008. A _cond revised nonce to
COI1'ect errOD in the May 11 publicadon aDd to clarily'what change. had been made to
the application....... puhJ.illhed on JWle 1. 2005.
18. ...lic: Coft\lllW". Jlublic comm.ent 'WU l't'JOlliNcl under the February. May. and
]1UWt 200S conunent perioda. 'J"h8 foU.owing iauea &rid eoacenul were preJlented:
a. .~_.., IIm..s BewJ'ly: IlUpportmg the proposal and noting positive impacts
on tu hue aad commuDity bualneue. aDd amenities..
b. a".Il.I'. HlUXJ: oppoaing project aad e.xp:rening concern over impact on
chuacter of the community. traffic, parJci.ng. JIe1Irer and Water capacity. fire
and &mel981'1C'1-nic:ea. and. demand for I'ecreational and commexciaI
amenities.
c. Coon, Bill IIIld MsaDna: ccm.cern 0't'e'1' tra.lUd.ent uature of Trend-est residents;
inc:rea.-d tn.Iic; ......ter ud IIeW8r apadty; potential changes to chan.ct8x of
the community; ......oquacy of envirOlUllenc.J. renew.
d. Bide. LewUJ: UMt:I'tiJIg WIe ill coJUmerdalnol rellidentia1; .....erting MPR code
controltl and a ....jor revi.li.oll 10 relOd plan ja required..
e. .""... Mid\ael Ulcl Nancy: ute ahould be left in :natural state to protect the
I
Bay; money will not l'9mailJ. in community because thel'e ia illack of services
&lid retail in COftUllunity.
f. ..nIJJ.. Doug: JfotiJ1q economic benefibl of the propo.al.
g. Bupp. Gregory: prefenmg atandar!i condOltUniwn use and stating that
timeahue .... .. Wr:e . commercial hotel.
h. J.~T, Mal aDd. hAUl: eonoem 09'8r ...tex: and leWer capacity; financial issues
hated to t:ime-Mue developments; parld.ag'. tralfic. demand for amenities;
multifamily UN in IU'all cuxrently :r:oned for Ilinqle family de'98lopment.
i. ..,...dag.,r. Guy and 8wIan: oppoatn.g PIOject and challeh.g1ng compliance
with MPIl tegu.1.Ni0'tlM. ZiOnlng ordi.n.allce; IlUpporting iaaue, raised by Mr.
PO'lV8k11 iN::lu.d.iDg lack of benefifa to oomm.mUty. lack of amenitiea; exprea5ing
!lenel'al concem about County pennJ.t pR>>O&1IIIe8.
j. ,....08, ~ regarding SEPA proce.~: public process.
Skiff repa1 and recommendation/MONS
Ludlow Cove OiYtsfon 2
SUBO.><X'n)..f. SOP05-00002
Page 5 of 24
Lr-;,f);
"i",,,,,"'"'-(,,,,,.i
0&/16/1994 05:35
3684378876 .
LooMl':) PRUt"l:.RTl!:.,:)
PAUE l:ltl
e
Jefferson County Deportment of Community Development
Luclow Cove Oivislon 2
Jut'( 26. 2005
k. l.ooJ'f'lb, Bert: xaUdng ~O:A of cornmeJ:d.al nature of project. vesting. traffic.
intpacta, compliAnoe witb MPR Code. . '..
1. o.mlc:llea. Brett: questioning commercial naru:te of use, noISe. desIgn
compatibitity .
1'1\. Pd.t. Mary-lee W.: wppo:niDg the propoul based on benefits to the
community &1'Ld 0'nD'aJl taz !HAle.
n. Potren. Le.: seeldDg amenitiell auociAted with Resort Corople:c
developmentj que.-ti.oni.bg whether elder care housing might be :required;
._erring !hat Ttend..... lUe ill a cmnm.erdal pel not a residential use: raising
e.tuary and Almon habitat iuuN; qu.eltiolliJ1g whether lite has been
emveyed fox archaeologicod imporlauoe; ~g vesting rules including
application of ruGA oxd.iI\ance #0 l..()) ] 1-98 and Zoning ordinance #09-0801-
94; queationing legality of proporlIed de_ty; quutioning a.pplication of
Binding Site PIanICondominium chapter of wbdivision code; asserting MPR
ord.ilw:lce appliM..
o. Sdl.mlu, Bru.oe: Il88k:iDg amel1itiea _IOdated with Resort Complex
development: queldioning the application of atate veiling law and usertinq
the \W8l1\.uat be mtegrated into and npport the on-aite recreational nature of
the MP1l; UIIf'JrIb:Jg the'l"rendweat Ule ia a commercial use noC a residential
.....; qoo.cioa.Ulg' tnIIiA:: a:nalytda.
p. SmlOI, Gt'Ult azu:l Nancy: supporting project. noting economic benefits.
q. 0..... Floyd: ccmceming public acC9U trail to watexfront and Juggesting a
IUIIQ8 for the tniJ (Cui ~11 Trail).
r. VAIl %......1.., John aNi Elizabeth: concem over ve.ling. density. 'risibility of
buillli"g'a ('rima1 impact), traJfic. paxk:iJ\g. geQeraJ environment. chMacte:r of
community; qoe.uoning 1eg.Jity of time-llhare Ule: aeeking amenities
lILUOCiated with Reeott Complex development.
18. Jl....r:y t;a:mnw.t
.. J.tr.nOll C...ty 'O'partm...., of Public Wor....: atonnwate:r management. Wile
of rec.'Ommend.atioa from the 9eoteehnical report prepared by GeoEngineers
dated Much 3%, 1995. c:otv:UU'iJsg genenDy with conclusiolUl of udic
Ul8l18ment pl'epared. fox the project by Geralyn Reinan, PE, recommending a
ped.ellt:ri.m aoatnllc on PulldiM Bay Road, recommending a five foot wide
paved, taparated pede.trian wa.JJcway along southerly aide of access road on
the aile, reco ending two deaignated 4 foot wide bike Janes on the aecell
road, det a M!COnd.axy acce.. road i.. not required. and noting
genenl co N for .ppronl.
b. Jelfenoll Co "Dlcne: noting impacta on _h6riff's office _tafting from
inaeued. tioD..
c. JeII.noD 0 ". Jlueaor'. OIlI.ce (Shenie Shold): no comments until or
unle.... Cond 'wn ~tion ill fUed.
d. nm M.a.r:cbal rt rOWlUencf .Ffno .DepufmeJlt): reilerating requirement for
30 foot wide :ve11tmetl for emergency access. noting l'equirementJ for
turning radii tumarou:ndJt.
e. lYre DI.trId : I18eking mitigation fee. purauant to SEPA and Subdi:w.ion
.ppraral.
i tfi.~r'1rQ! ~.4
L".'!"'.c...v->,_.., ::- ,>,,--,~,~
,",,' - J !_-,~"-. J \.P~'
-~
...~.~
S'lP'j -----
Stoff report and tecom
Ludlow Cove Division 2
SUBO,5.{)Q()().C. SOP05-OOQ02
eG/16/1S94 e5:24
3Ge437flS7B
.
LOUMI~ ~~U~~~I~t~
e
JeffeBOO County Department of Communiiy Developmenf
Lud9W Cove Division 2
July 26. 2005
f. QIm.cum Sdllool Dl.tdcf (per telephone meaage to MicheUe Farlan as
I\oted in letter to Wayne Helm dated. J21l/2004): a .chool impact fee of 431.10
per lot would be chuved.
9. Olpnplc W.t.r lUIII ,S'c1wr, hi.:'.: confirminq that domestic water and sewer
hoobpa aufIlcient for the 120 dwelling unit project are available.
h. Pon ,.dlow DrabJ.p Dutrlct regarding stonnw3te[ management;
applicable codea; enTironmelital checJr:lat; required NPDES permit and
HydTnlic Project Appranl; geotecluUcaJ review; technical plan sheet review.
1. afT 01 Pod 2"ow.u'...cI: regardinq public aoce.. and use of native plant
matariId.JJ in ahore1iDe land.capiftg.
j. .fra,. .Deputrn..t 01 J:cologr: noting that if use is commercial it would
require Shore1hte Conditional Use appr09'a1; atati:Pg that project .is: on a
uoreline of ltatewide lignificance; emphuU::i.ng importance of public access
and lItatiDg that wuerfront traU. ahould be Opell to the general public and
connected. to the 0'f'8I'ell trail .,..tem: reeommendiJIg public parking. signage.
&lid moreline traillancUcapiDg be c:ol'Ulidered; alia including atandard
colrtmenU for c:lea.nup of to.dc materi.ab:. should any be encountered. and
erOlden and water quality protection.
PJlBT V L.I.ND USE CONSIS".~CY BEVJEW
zo. C--1ate.". ........ Pmject reriBw rf.lqPiru that all code JJtandards be met or
that . p%"oject be modUiec:f or COIlditioned to meet applicable Bta.ndards before pennits
c::ut be apprond and iaued. For Ludlow Cove DiWrion Z the code standards of
a.rclinazace #09-0801-94, MCtion 7.40. 1 (a)-(e) .pply. .. do requirements oItha interim
C2itica1 al'eu ordmance, the .horeJiJae muter program, U\d the aubdiviJion standaxds.
The critical are.. ata1ldudI: will be addl'e..ed. as plUt of this .ection along with land use
and zoning' code jaw... Th.i& put u.clutle. a relpOlUI8 to .many questions ;raised in the
public comment Iett8Tll iDdud.mg questions about ..tiIlg and whether the expected
thne-abanI ownenhip of the Pl'oject meet. the applicable definition for residential use.
Corwistency with aboreJi.De pe.onit I'tand.a.rw. J.a .ddze..ed in Paxt VI and with subdiviaion
stand.uda for the bbuiing .te plan in PIU1: vu.
21. V........ State Ia.. provide. that a project veN to the land use controls t'hat are
u. dect on the date a complete buJJd.ing pannit 01' prelimJ.naly pla.t application is
aubmitted. A complete application for the Ludlow Co'V'e project was submitted. on
January 19, 1995. The project...... apprawed onAugwrt 2,2002 and iJ\cluded Conditional
U.e appl'09'al foX' the cuxrent mu.Jl:ifanilly project. 1\ three year time limit for auhmittal of
plans and commencement 01 en'rirolUnental re'Yiew for the multifamily project wu
Ntabli.-bed. "1'he cux:rent project h.. met that timel:ine. Citi;r:;en comment. noted that the
Interim Urban Growth Area QUGA) ominance that the project vested to was appealed
aad later iD:nL1idated. (The WGA ~ Ntahliahed a Multifamily designation for the
llit..-:lllt. 16 uninl per.1lCJ:'e deNity maximum.) Even though the ruGA ordinance WaJ!:
U:tvalidated before the Ludlow CO'f'& project WQ approved. the project remains vested.
Thill .. baaed on ....te Jaw. w1Uch provide. that comprehewrive pJans and deveJopment
reguLationa are prelJ'Wl'\ed valid when they are adopted, (.e8 RCW 36,10A.320) and that
SIbft report and mcommendatlon/MONS
locMow Cove DNlsJon 2
SU~. SDP05-00002
Page 7 of 24
.__.-nQ...~~~
.&:2:!!- ,--..,..-."
'570
05/1&/1994 65:35
~
~
~
~
~
t
~
\;)
\J
\)
N
L..UUPl.1j rf'li.'Ufo.c.;.;..n I .........J
3&64370870
e
Jefferson County Department of Community Development
Ludlow Cove Division 2
JUly 26.2005
e
detenninatio.M of innlidity axe prolpecti'9'e o~y RCW 38.70A.303). ThUl. the project's
ve~ WN not aflected..... thouQh the JUGA ordinanee was ove~d.
aa. Bec:aWle of th8 'ge1JtiDg rul.. the ~ent MPIt Code and ~le family zonin~ is not
II.pp)!Cllble to Lw:U0'I! Cove. In Kt"',t\ol)1l, sJllii>>-QQ.. -w;fi dat~. to ~tical wea LJ
r~tiont: or ~.ted .torm axtd nriace wateJ'" manu.all do not '!Pply. ~ the
~~fortha~~~=li.=-:lIYtA
de -.7~":-~~~"''''~'' ~~ ~j
23. ___ o.-nIdp....... ~le~ (1IOII-OIlO1-ll4) does I ~
not .pedficaJly addreaa time-ahaze owne~p. Mul. . Residential PegelQpuP!ht is
de&-d as followa at r.ection 3.10.89:
- ~~~;".:l.~7':""~7Jtin9
=~fl~~inmul~ Jdrudure.r~ eRG the
~, D\ whicl\ ~ UMt 0CC'UrI. E.1t8rii ie. incl!!..d;, but
~not~:~~~"'=8" mu1ti=~on~:~umI,.a~~ent
ho,'-~ muea aJld !i.OUHII. rry nrll'" ,,r,.
mother-in-la.... aDd.ac:c'l8UOJY apa:rtmenta, lIha1l not be considered multi-family
~ideDce..
34. commeI'Cial U-. Genen.l,!oS del....... at aection 3. J
or ...
38. 'l'nnaiel\t Accommodiltiolw is defined at MCtion 3.10.94 as follol!:':
A bv.ildiDg or group of building. in which lodging or lodging and meals are
pi3-rided far truwient guestS fw- t;Umpeuation. 'll'arwient accommodollltions
mi:blde but are not limited to cabiu.t'8lIorta. hoteb. motels. hos~eb. and-
c ~. or )JUXPO'N of thi8 Orc.lbulnce. tx-NUlient _hall be defined. as
being DOt more than 30 con.ecuti'Ye cia,.. duration.
28. The::JeB'enon Co_ty Shoreline Muter P:rogTiUn doe. not define multifamily uae.
but doeIl d.efUte Commercial at ectlob 3.28 of the MNter Program, aJI follaW3;
Uae. and faciJi.tia. that are involved in ....hole.ale or l"etail trade or business
ac:tivitie..
27.
p~
e
e
'.~f
Sfaff reporl and recommendatlonlMONS
Ludlow Cove Division 2
SUIIO.s..0000.4. SOP05-<XXX>2
Page 8 of 24
->-__ 220
~----~
c >-
J 71 ->.>
0&/1&/1994 e5;24
3604370870
" e
LUUMl~ ~K~~~II~~
e
Jefferson County Deportment of CommunffyDevelopment
Ludlow Cove Division 2
Juty 26. 2005
!
3S. Undex the scmb\g eade definition, tnNIient ac:commod.ation.s are diBtinguished J ) t/ ,
notiWlt by leDg'th of ....,.. h...t by tb8 fAGt ~.t tI\l accommoaatlons ax~ avai1allTe for hire Y 1 ~ '
(for compelnllation). 'ftt&propoAl will not haWl! rOOlNl generally available for rent as ~ """/ . A/r
would.. hotel, 1\\otel. or lItlUldard resort. Nor will the facility be aubjec:t to the Cou.nty r A~ "- ','
~~ I~~j
28. _dIro "__hi intereots no. .utlay j/[;';
ofm ne ill X' me memhenhip ~
}'1nt~ ia a ....nonnal Drnt'MlrV VttAreld, t e. _.' . . tion that
t--. holda the fee o..m.er.hip intere.t. '1'he rewltina oro.pe~ intereld: is ti ifferent fnj d / / '
con~cta.a1 intexeat one acqui1"e. when rentiDg .. room for a night in a ~o<<el. /" r ~
30. The County ftewt timeshaxe O'9t'MraNp facili.tiea u being "in between" a ~ r
lltandard iMidelltial uelU\d a purely commercial WIe. The facility, however. is mew! like
.. xegubir mWt:i.family UII8 than . commercial ~. In d~ this altion ounty
1'_"=ng y an the definition ofm~I88identi&l devel:me~ As ahown above,
!he ~~ dAlbution ~kally _~ the aueaticm of O_fl!:.ll~. ThUl, the
County .... concluded the proooMd deYelopment qualifiea aa a multifan'liIpesidential
d~t.
31. IIMoIt .......tle. .... ....... MPIl Co4e lbIqa1I'emellt.; l3derCiiIN. Because the
project ja YUted to . prlo:r code. ~ ~~... DOt aqp\y:. Ame~tie. u.ociated
with futur8 dA!mJ~1'MDt of the RMprt!on8 (JhP. RAIIOrl CompleiiCommuni.tY Facilities
ZOIMI ""iduch iDdude. the lM.I'ina, Inn at Porl Ludlo..... re.au:gmt. and other facilitiea) are
not t.t;d to or triggered by dnelopment in the gener_ Port Ludlow community. In
ad~iHon tbe ~1K'n't conmJu: unemtiee: reflect .. range of permitted ~.. The uses are,
l\ot.~fLo,...I~,. l"'-p.iwd aumdt by virtue of bAina ImtAd as "permitted" in the WK
code. Similuly. the idea of.. e1dercare faciUty- in the Port Ludlow community is a
pennJtted ue. b1atJlIlIOI . r~.nt. '
3a. Cxitical...... ........: Ordi.--ee 05-OS"-M. The applicant baa Dot asked for
lIXly variation 01' d8'rialion frQ.ttI. lItandlQ'd IIpplicatiOD of the hlterim Critical Area
<ncli.b&noe (lCAO). 'l1w ICAO... nme'"'<l and applied to the original Ludlow <;ove
project aDd a _t of conditio... bued on thQ. terms and lItandard. of the ICAO were
d8"9&loped for the originel pmject.. Some of those conditiOM ablo covered and were
m.~ to apply to the cuuent DhUioll 2 propon1.
33. The p...v appw. ...J. (oJ: tIdow a...... e.ltabli,daAd mauirements forwetbmd and
~ buffeD aDd for a Habitat MlUUlQewnant Plan ULd kandacape Plan that alao apply to
~<:'QXI'e.nt pl'ojed. The lIMP 'Wall prepllred by GeoEngineen in 2003 and approved by
JEdlenon County and the Wuhington Deplllbneht of Fiah and Wildlife. A Lrt.ndacape Plaxt
conaiIrteut ..nth the lIMP hu a'bto been preJHd1'd. The pLm ma.k::ea lUe of native plants in
....tIaAd buften and along the .J\oreline in area that will be enhanced.
34. Upon ~ o'the curreRt propoaal. the Department ha,s detennined tha.t
compliance with the ICAO aad prior conditio;na appropriately addresses critical area
.prorectiOft lane.. Although a Mp1e ...tement that the project mus1 comply with the
Staff report and recommendaflon/MONS
Ludlow Cove Division 2
SUIK).S.()()(X).4. SOPO>OOOO2
page 9 of 24
BG/16/1S94 05:35
3604370878
e
LUUMJ.::. I-'l<Ut1:.~ I J.I:.::.
r-~ V(
e
Jefferson County Department of Community Development
Ludlow Cove t)i'.olslon 2
Jutr 26. 200S
ICAO ....ould...ti.Id.)' technical compliance ~. the Departmern has developed a set of
recommended ClOftditioNl that restate the original conditiona and 1rill ensure tha.t
bnpoJ'tant t8qUiremenu: a:re not O't'8doo1r>>d. TheM recommended conditiolUl to
ixnplement the ICAO are tiel forth in Part X and are identified as lCAO COnditiON.
38. M~and1y.ti. ....lop.....t .t...lanl.: 7.4O.1(a)..(82: Section 1.40.1 (a)-(e) of
the ~pplicab1e zoning ordinanc:lll praridN me development atandarda for multifamily
.ramdantW d898lopment .. follows:
&. p.ARJDNG LOT DESlGR: All parJrillg lot. for m:u1tifamily residential
deveJopmenUl &hall COI\tain faux (4) OJ: mOl"e paridng apace. de..igned and
mown in plan farm with the following elemellu: propo.ed and es:isting
lItl'UCt1DeJI, tufI.ic cin;:q},aUon. adjoinmq lltreetB, drainage, llghtinq,
~~ing, fenciI\g, and~. The plan shall be incorporated u part
of tha project and. aile plan submittaL
b. ACCem DESIGN: All ingI8U ad ogre.. to a parking lot containing four (4) or
more puldDg lIpacell m.n. be deYeIoped ao vehicles entering and leAving the
pari::irlg Jot are h..~ in . fonnld motion.
c. SECOBITY LlGHTlNC: LigbtiDg fixture. shall be de.igned and hooded to
pre~l\llhe tight IIOlUCe fl'om being direc:tly "riaihle from Quts.i.de the
bowlclarie. of the property. 'ftte inteMity or brightness of all security lighting
IIhaD: DOt ad.-.....ly a8ect the 'Me of IIWTOUllWxu;J prope.rties or adjacent right.-
of.........,..
d. SE1"BACX. STANDARDS: In addition to the I8qUirementl of Section 1 Z.OO of this
Ordinance. aU multifa.m:ily ~ment. .man conform with the following
minimum II8tbK'k 1ItaI1dardIl:
i. .... Jot _; tweDtJ feet (20')
n. Side Jot Jmea: ad Ilide Mtback Ihould be no less than five feet
(8'); tbenmofthe.u:se .etbacbllhould be at least fifteen feet (15'
e. OPEN SPACE: Open lIpaoe equal to fifty percent (80%) of total 91'0" Jiving
uea ahall he dewoted to lancbat.ping and/or outdoor recreational facilities.
Dri.......'P. loading are.., man&UNring 1Ip&c:8 and parking .talla dWl not be
C'~ed put of thia x-equiIed apace. 'I1U.s opem apace aha.11not be covered
with impenneah1e aurfacea except for tenm. courte. ~ pools or other
.unilar WIe. wlW::h require u.impenneab1e amace. Conformance..nth th.i8
atand.ard au.u. Dot be requixed fox' conditional ua:e. located within a "C"
mning di*ict.
38. The pl.a.u auhmittOd with the propollal demonstrate compliance with four of the
five dellign~. (a), (b), (d). aDd (e). All parking lots have four or more ~aces
with wBicient ail1e width to allow ~ to drive fo~ when eziting the lot. The
plua m.play all requhed elemen~ including propoli8d Iltruct\u'e. (there are no exilting
1I1:ruc't1u'elI). trdic circulation. adjoiniag meet_. dra.inage.lighti.ng. landacaping, fencing,
and ac:reening. Seth.a,..b are dealt with... part of the general b11lk and dimensional
atandarda below.
31. Section 7.40.1 (el) _abu.hea JpecIa1 aetbac:b anel uo refers to the .tanduda of
Section 12. Section lZ containe the generally applicable bulk and dimercllional standards
staff report and rocommeodo60n/MDNS
ludlow Cove Division 2
sueo~4.S0PO~2
Page to of 24
L''-''rc rT'
tc \,.~: ! 1 E f",1
,--~,-2 7-Q
/::;~~t"
" .....1
S"~
~----,~
0&/15/1994 05:24
3&84370870
e
LUUM1~ .~ur~~.~~~
e
Jefferson County Oeportment of Community Development
lvd~ow Cove Division 2
.July 26, 2005
for eaeh zoning district. ParIl:mg lIlU\dardl as provided In lleCtion 13 are included below
for zon.ing' code conlriatency. For the 0..1 zone and multifamily dwelling. the following
~ apply, .. modified by 7.40.1 (d) for lide ud rear sethacD. Note that the
lItanducU for the project reflect meu\U'ements &I applied to the new. lots to he created
by the binding ate plaD:
Jt.eqwdnrneld
a. Lot lIize: 8000 *I. ft.
b. Lot Width: 70'
c. hont Setback Phue 1 &I 4: 38'
from p~ .ay Rd;
Phue a &3: ZO' fin acce.. euement
d. :Rear Setback: 20'
8. Side Setback; S', tota11S'
f. ., Open. Spa.ce: 80% of total gro..
Jtring uea
g. Bui.1d.ing- Height: 35'
h. Parking: 1.8 pel' unit or 180
holed
138.26911q ft.. amalle.t lot
120' ~e 310t, to over 500 feet.
over 150'
zS, Bldg ..
30' &om ahoreline. BJdg 2
. Varies from 30 · to 100' from rear
(Id\oreUne) lot lines
5' Bldg 3, aU totm ezceed minimum.s
Developed a:rea :::. 7.10 acres; . .
Pennanent open space ::::: 7.56 acres
38' or leu an.txuctule.
184, a1loca.ted per unit per Phue
38. Open Ipaca aquir:ed. by II8ClIoIl 7.40. 1 (e) muat equal SOO.lo of total grouliving
area.. ",. Mmm builct.Iftrp propoMd fol' the site Mva . total grOBS 6q\1are footage of
174.834. The requhed.open..-c:e ill one lIalftlUs area, or 87,313. The project provides
approximately 260,983 ....ue feet of open area. not including drivewaYJi. maneuvering
area.. loading 1pIICN. ad parlring. uu:l not including the Native Growth Protection
Baem.ent. 'lbUII, the open ~ace requiJement iI met
38. 0... e1emellt hu not been detailed on the plana. 'The .tandard for &hieldi11g
NCUrity lighdng. 7.40.1 (c) ia a requirement mOlrt often aeen applied to building pennit
nrnew. 'Ib.e lItandard can be met by p~ q>ecificatiolUl and a detail of the lighting
propoMd. The requirement ill easily checked during review of building permit plans
prio;c' to building permit tauance. TIWs will be a recommended condition of approval.
,
40. The 1ut zoDlDg code iuue relata to the 180 required parking apace.. This
1I.1Unber UlNJ'f\U that the ~..tioD building (building 7) u acce..ory to the retlidentiaJ
u.Nt.. in the complex and ;.. not _ commercial recreation cent8%'. A condition will he
impoaed to IinUt ~ uae of bui.ldjz,g '1 to aoceuory- rea:eation unlesa the binding site
plan approval ill formally- nrriaed e.d aU developmeDl lItandarda and requirements at
the time of the .....n.ion we met.
PUT VI SJlOBEI.l1tfE SnST1U'tTI&L DEVELOPMENT PEItMIT
ofJ. Multif&miJ.y J'lltllideldial use iM it prlmuy uae in the urban en'rironment for Jefferson
County. TI\. policies and perfODl'UUlCe1ltandarda of Sectiona .f.. J08 Urban Shoreline
o.aignation, B.180 R.emdential. 6. 190 TraMportation. and 8.20 Utilities, apply to the
propo.al. These .ectiozw were a..bIo applied to the original shoreline pexmit for Ludlow
stoff report and recommendation/MONS Page 1) of 24
Ludlow Cove Divfslon 2
SU8Q5..0C)(X)4. SDP05-<XlOO2
,..~,. !"'. '.v1
<.! '.. ,c.
I I ~~J
226
:>~(".r:
~/ "'.} ~
ti71
~b(lb(l~~q ~~:~~
.;l!.')tJef.3 , tJo , tl
"e
~UUM1~ r~r~~ll~o
l-'AGE 1:18
e
Jeff~on County Department 01 Community Development
Ludlow Cove Division 2
Juty 26. 2005
COYe and relRllted. in.. II8t of cODditiotul that were 'applied to the project.. T'hOM
copditiol\S related primarily to public acoe... tdonnwates- management, and compliance
writh the requited deYelopment .tandid'dJI under the ]effenon County Shoxeline Mas1ex
Program.
43. The Shore1iDe Muter Pl"ogram IIeW out a llel of development standa.rda that the
project moat comply with. The_ lJtandaxd.s include but .xe no1limited to requirements
foX' parking. lmdJlcapiDg, aetbacka. height. p.teMJ"'I1ltiol\ of natural features. locations
ud limitationa on fellClU and aece"oIY' strw:::tuxea. The proposal as submitted meetl:
thetIe .taradards and they 1rill not be repeated all ccmditi.ou of this appxoval. Similarly.
Idandaxc.la related to general ez:ollion control iUld tltonnwatex management will not be
repeated. lnatead... a conditiOIl. 'IlriU be recommended that requires any c::ha.nge in the
approved p~ to be nbmitted to the Department for X8View to ensure continuing
compJiaDC8 with applicable Shoreline and zoning code atandal'd.6.
43. No l1.8W'in\pada or iaue. not already C09'8wd by the priot shorelU1.e analysis
attach. to the cune;at pl'OpOtlal. With t!\e impoCtion of a a:imilal' eel of conditiON to ensure
the Shaxeline Mallter Px'ogJ:am .t.;U.U:larCU are met, no furthex review for the new Bhorelme
pennit ill tequired. See Put X for ahol91ine lubstantial dewelopm8nt permit
xequi:remotWI. irlAwtifiAd .. SOP conditio:na.
4:4. ... DOE a..tt.... "!'he Deputrnent :reoei'Ved a 1etter from the .tate Department
of Ecology da.t8d Much 3. 3008 that raiMO oil. number of i8aUM that m\.Wt aho be
ac;ldreaed. The lint la1I8 relates to the que.o.on of tMidential \Ule and time.bare
OWJtenhip. T1ud ~ ia presented in Part V, Land U_ ConaUtency. It may be noted
here that the Departmellt of Ecology hu no juzUdiction mer local code interpretation
and that the DOE lettw .amply dates tl1at if the WI8 wue to be considered a commercial
WIe, . ditfenmt permit proce.. would apply.
46. 'n\e IIeCODd DOE .sue ooncerra.: public acoe.. to the watemont. -nw. iA:ue wu
aJAIO r.u.ed in alettu received from the City ot Port T~d. The prior approval fOI the
original Ludlow CO"N project corwidered the entire tite. including the cuxyont
development pUC8l. Public eece.. to PiaUc Point wu required bued on Shoreline
Muter Program. aDd SEPA authority. ThoIl8 col\ditiona have been partially fulti.ned. to
date.. part of the Dnuion 1 project. 'l"he conditiou ate J'eitel'ated. in this project, (see
Pan X) which will f&1lfi11 the public ac.ee.. requirement. ixnpoaed on the Ludlow Cove
pl"oject.
46. The Department .-lao l'IDtea that cezt.m major components ot the public access
pJan for lha entire MPR community were elftabliahed in the 1993 E1S fot the Port Ludlow
DeY.lopment Program. ThoM compozsenlJl included public access at the Marina and
Bu.l"ln8r POUlt, lI.iqna.ge and maintenance agxeementa.
"7. The DOE Jetter ahlo etated thIrt the propoaal.ite wu located on a .h.oreline of
wtatewide ldgnUtcance. AD iUeM of Pugel Sound lying Raward from the line or extreme
low tide are conaidea-ed morelina of ...tewide aignilicance. No part of this project,
I\ow8ver. wiD or:.x:ur "..tf.ll'Wud of the line or extxeme low tide. beloW' the ordinary high
Staff report and recommendation/MONS
Ludlow Cove OiVufon 2
SU805-00004. SOPOS-OOOO2
Page 12 of 24
".___~""_~ 1-.9..
~
~7~
06/16/1994 65:24
3&043713878
e
LOOM I S ~UI""t:.t< I ! t:.~
I "",,,..u.... '"' f
e
JeHenon County Departmenf of Communtty Development
ludl9W Cove Division 2
Jut'( 26. 2005
...ter madr;. 01' IWeIl writhln the lIhoreJine _tback, except the ahoreline xevege1ation
requir6d. .. part of the original_ppronl and shoreline permit.
PUT VB BlNDllfG SITE PL&N/StmDlVISION ANALYSIS
48. In order to proTide euy acce.. to the ve.ed development regu1a.tion. the
prOYiUol'Ll of Jeft'enon County Subdivmon Ordinanee #04-0826-92 Section] 1 are .hown
bolow in full;
COJlDO.a:n"uM DI"I'IIlOID
11.10 J\ppl;.....~l..,.. . onu. IIeCtIon coJWdrule. . "biDding .ate plout procea" for divisiorul
of land into lata or b'adII, .. pemdned b,. ltCW 88.11.040(7), when the imprcwement. to be
ooNtxucted thelreoA will be included in one (1) or more eondomiNu.ma or ~ by an
-..od.ation 011' ochex legal entity in which the CJWnera of unit. therein. or their OWMl". associatioN.
...... & mam.benhip (n other legal or beneficial int_e".
11.20 "A~..i_~. 1. The .c:lIni1u.txa~ procedure for nrriew 01 condomin.iW'ft divisions
~ fo'lU (4t) W ftrwel' tbntDing units lIball be the ume procedure u described.in Sedion B,
6ubtladion 8.30 or tIWt ordin.aftce.
3. The ad.minUltrati'nl pro.eodure for review of condominium
divieiona con~ a.. (8) 01" more lob: or tracl.1lahall be the lIl&me proceduze as de.cribed in.
Sedion 6. S~ 6.20 of thilI orc:.U.ruanoe
11.30 ~
11.301 c.te.....: 1. A1l condornilUum ~Nl ahall conform with the Jeflonon
Coubly COmpni....... Plan ad/or applicable oommuNty degeJopment plan. the proviaioN of
U. Je8enon CcMmtJ DeYelopment oocIe. No. ::HIS, the p.tcm.ion.a of RCW 88.17 including the
adoplian of S:eqWr4KI findiaga. and the I"equttementl of thiIl orcl.iAaDce. PROVIDED. in the even of
a d.Wcl'apuc:J' be~ the Iltandu'cU etlta.bUahed Ml"ein IUtd thoae contained in any applicable
plua., control. or ordinuu::e. u.e.tricter lItU\d&rda lIhallapply.
a. 11Ie applicazalllhall demmud.rate that the loti or tract., street
I*tt~. and. oon6quadon of. dwwtUillg uN.. propoed are .peci.6ca.Uy adapted to the u.es
a.n.tidpat.o. IIDd tab _0 aa:va.nt othe:r UNa in the 'f'icinity.
11.302 Scboo" aad. SchoolgroUl\da. JW condominium cl.tYUliona ahaU comply with the
aChool and ~ pI'UW'iIdoAl of Section 1. BubMction 7.303 of ttWl ord.ina..nce.
11.~ 'h<.lliVScboOl Ju Stop; llppJicariona 101' condomirUum dmlIions .haU be
rtftieolNd to dalanniDe wh8th-Il'....t or Kbool bu trlopllU'e neceauy to promote the public
aoce.. to ...... aIld convetdient tr....I.
11.30<< Bldetn1b, Applicationa for condominium dirisionll .h~ be revie\ll'ed in
onia:r that pr~ ~ ---~'7lo eNIIU'"e !Ide 'IAJkiag conc:tit:ioN for pede.ui.&N, IU\d .tudent.
who oNY walk to and from 1IChoo1. Ieceige adequate consideration, COmltrudion of aideW'il.lb. or
ldmUar planning ".tuxea maj be requited fol' fiILal bindmcl trite pUn .pproval.
11.308 Screening and IIdering: 1. Screening and butferinq areu thalJ be
alIl.-hu.hect wtlh . mtnlmam _d<<h of tmliNy-1bre feet (28') along aU exter1ol" properly lines.
Z. SaeelRil.1g aad buJl\r:.rb.\g are... ....n not contadn -.nJ' ooNtxucted facilities, o.rected or
placed. with the ellWllpUon 01 utility tin... fencing. at lMtCU.'d.ry poD. 3. Sc::reenirlg and. bullering
.......1lMl1 be left In lb_ naNnl"ate, or, if~, .w.pplemeJltod by plan...
11.306 Opea8paoe Land: AU <<:ondomi:nium c:fhoUioNl maU comply ...stb. the open
apace r~n" of Section S, SubIedion 8.308 of Ihta oldiMnce. PROVIDED that the minimum
~a for op.n 1Ip&Oe ahaIl be tweney..he pvceru (28%) ot Ih.e tOlaJ grou uea of the condominium
d.iYildon coNWtent with the Open8plce St;mdudl in Appendix G oflhill ordinutce.
Stoff report and recommondation/MONS
Ludlow Cove DivIsion 2
.SUB05-0000-4. SDP05-00002
Page 13 of 24
c'$. "',., ^
.. -,-~--.--""""'~
~~"
-.,.J.',
_."_o"~
'f7&,
e&/16/1~~4 05:35
Jb\:l4jftHHioj
LOOMIS PROPERTIES
PAGE 09
e
e
Jefferson County Deportment of Community Development
LUcJOW' Cove Division 2
Juty 26. 2005
11.301 S~te Emritonmutal Policy ktlterviorfr: All coJldominiam d.i'vU:ioM .tw1
complT -i1h the e119ironmeDtld xe'riew pX~1\lI of Section e. Sub.e<:flon 8.301 of tlWl or~ce.
11.308 SigNJicU\t Natural Fe.tu.retl~ 7JIis section does no' .ppJy bec.~ the proJect Is
MJbIecf to StpA. . .. C _ d_ .' <Ii" --;..!..... f
11.309 ao.,d.a: 1. Doe..noC -"ply. ~. Ou.......muuum VUWM CO"--"'.::f 0
five (6) or more dwelliAg uNtil .!WI comply willi the road design xequirement5 de.cribed in
Sec::tlon e. SublleCtion ..!OS (.tIouJd be 6.309) oruu. oJ:d1.nance.
11.40 ~iredlm~"
11,401 ltoaell: ~da in Condom.iN.u.m dtritlKtIW ~ comply..nlb Section 8,
a~n&."OI oItNaOl:~.
11.402 OII-$ile 'l'UI6.c Imp.eta: Ccmdominhun c:tirisionll ahall proceed in
c:IORlpJ1al\Cle ~ <<he off....... Ilrallk:! impld. pmw1aiol\ll of Section 5. Subsection S.40Z of thi.a
Dll'dmuce.
11.403 kidgea: DoesJloUpp/I'.
11.404 Sigu~Ko.d Iiqns .m.n be iutal1ed in acc::ordanee with Jelfenon County
IdanCIudL Road ~.un be .approved by 1M loud. p\LUUUlt to recommendation by the
Dintctor ofPubUc WOlle>>. Tral5c lIigDIl-.d Nfety drcnicetl &h&lI he provided and imtaDed by the
appJk:&nt in accol'daru::e with the Manual on UJdfonn Txalfic CONxol Device..
1.406 Draiaage: Drainage fac:Wda adequate to pI1!m'Jnt erosion. noodinq OJ
.........d to tbe _ of the ~ proped'J. (Ill( rllCilitiell withln. the condominium division. or 10
adjacent priva1e or public popelCty JdW1 be ....a.Ued according to a ckaiM.ge pYa approved by
the Dkectox of PubUc: Work&: in accordance with County ...and.udL The pl~ lIbaIl aho_ fu11 detail,
ilv:JIIdiDq dWI Joc:aUoN!. Jengthll. and. .... 01 cVrelU. and the method and locatiol\ of I'UJ'I-otf
__ d......
11.406 Wat_ Supply; Eada chteWnq .te within a condominium divi1Iion .hall be
pzcn1ded 'Irid1. & .....teI: npply in .lICCOI:dance with all app1K:&b1e State ...cute_, the X1Ilea and
regulations of the Wu.hi:niltollState Department 01 Health, the Jdemon Cowdy Health
Dep.u:tmtml. pd the COOl'd.i:Aacecl Water Spem Plan. pl'09'illioM regarding quantity. qulity.
.ou:I:CIJ. .ource pmtection. c:.IiIItribatioft ud ..age mothoda and f.ciliuea. and treatment .md
t&!lllliP9 pr~.
11.401 . Sewage DJapoAl: Iut.u..Uon of lleWage clUIpou.l.,..te",* within
condominium dtriajolW ab.aI1 he in c:ompUuoe with regulatiONl and lItandaxdJi otthe Wuhington
Stale Deputment of Health. the WlUlN:ngton State Depanmel\t of Ecology. Uld the CoU.l\ty Health
DeputlnelRl,. .ad maP. be approved only after .. Ute ilwpedion bT the County Health Department.
11.408 Fire ~ Applicantll for ODl\dominium diviai011S shall provide
adequate lire protection in ac:co,;dance with tbtt: Unifonn Fire Code &nd local tire diatrict
reClOll\JMndalioml ClOIt.IWd..... .... State law.
11.409 ~ ...d "'~phone Senice: 1. Complete hultallatiOn of elec;tric ud
telephone ~ 1lI requi:red in condominium divWolUI. 2. No new oondom.lnium diviaion 'Jh.aD
he .IIIII'1riced by ovuhoad utility faciJiUft.
11.410 aunoe,.: ~caJ l'eq'1lin!!,mene.-lor nu?ey datA and monume-nt.tion)
I UIO !luptdi9.Q1l. ("ntcAnIc411 ft!iCJUUwmentJ)
ll.eo ~. (nM:hnk;aJ .lt~menb)
49. ~oa_ Bection 11.::lO of the code u arnhiquotu with regaxd to whethex
.. project with more t1um four dwelling units but only four lot. or tracts should be
proceued .. . full ~Ol\ or u a .hod plat. 'Ibe Departmel\t resolved thiJ
ambiguity by requiring the mom eztGMiYe pxocs.s u for a full IlUbcliWli~m application.
S1o" roport and recommendation/MONS
ludlow Cove 0Msi0n 2
SU805-<XXX>4. SDP05-00002
Poge 14 of 24
2-Z0
.,.--".....----~
.~
~77
---"".~=-...,..
"--''''-'~'~-
8&/1&/1994 135:24
3684378870
e
LOOMIS PROPERTIES
I"'AUI:. tlC!
e
Jefferson County Department of Community Development
Ludlow Cove DMslon 2
July 26. 2005
eo. Complilutce with the applicable Compreherwige Plan policie. was addressed in
the original Ludlow CDYe appl'o'W1l1 whU:h .dd.nll..ed Countywide GrO'tllth. Housing and
Re.identiall>eYelopment. Udlltiea and Tnut..portati.on., mld residential deNitiea pursuant
to the Port Ludlow Interim Urban Gro9lth Area ord.iJw\ce. No further review pursuant to
aection 11.301 "required.
81. P.rcmai.oJ'IIJ for doolll (IIeCbon 1.303) require payment of a school impact fee of
'.37.10 per lot, or 11.148.40, which will be imp08ed as a condition of approval. Transit
facilities (11.303) are not required; how..... .utewalb (section 11.304) or trail
CODAecti.ona will be required to exunue sale 'lIIO"a1ldng conditioN for pedeltrians. In
addition. a cb.ange the acce.. road or dti.""way demgn is requ.i:red to accommodate
bicycles.
5Z. Appropriate IlCI'eeNng of more than 3S' along all exterior property linea is shown
on the alte plana (Section 11.305) and approximately 70 % of the total gr08S area has
been prell8l"t'ed .. open IIpRCe meeting the requirement. of Section 11.306. (Totalaire
inc:1ud.lag NOPE equa1a approxim.tely 638.590 .q. ft, mm.w. approx. 187.881 sq. It of
building. cl.ri'v'8lI, padting. walkwa}1l. equals approll:. 460. 700 sq. ft of open space).
53. SEPA nnr:t..w hu: been conducted for the propoAl. (Section 11.307)
84.. Therequinllnen.. of l18Cti.an 11.309 require that roads be designed with
appropriate OONlidwation for ~ and projected roads. anticipated traffic yolwnes
and pattel"N, topographic and d.ra.iDage COI\ditiolUl. public convenience and safety. and
the propoMd UlI8Ii afthe land _ned. (See 8.3(9). A tIdic mdy \IV8.s prepared for the
project and revie1ft'Jd by the Public:: Worb Department. The Public Works Depa:rtment
l4Ih..wed the lltUd.y and COIICUlXed gSN!!.nUy in its concluaiona. "lbe Public Worlca
Department ~ 18COrnm..... . chaJtge in design for the access road or driveway ao that
bi.cyclM CiI.1\ he accommodated more u.fely and that a c:roe:swaUr: a.cro.. Paradise Bay
.RD.d. be funded by the proponent. n..e.. recomme1\datioN are found in Pm X. at
ClO~ no. 3 aIId 38.
88. The applioable lI8d1on nlIIeranced by 11.309 goo. on to de.cribe requirement.
for public and private roa~ in fu.11 nhdi".qjolUl. The follcnring section, 11.401. then
requir.. compliaDce with lI8Ction 8.401. which Mtb out .lightly c:WIerent st&.1\dardl
IIpp1icable to Dolt nhdi....OIUI. "11le Department and. the Public Worb Dep.nment
ha'l"lll re.olved tIWI ~ency by reference to .andard requirements: lor all
IUhdiviaiON IIl\d 1lboJ1: piat. with regard to roadway duign. eaJIements. infra.structuxe
cJe.ign ....d mll(fw,latiOll. IlUdDtenanc:e, road appmach permit.. road ligna and nam.ing.
ilulpec:tiona, nrety. U\d final plat approval. ~ .tandard. conditione are !let forth in
Part X and idNl~ .. SUB conditioN. CompJi&nce with these conditiON aatiafie. the
x:aquirement. of SectiON! 11.309 and 11..01 for Roads. 11.402 for Off-Site TraJtic Impacts,
aDd 11..04 forSigu.
68. ."... proJed includ.. .. Itarm...ter drainage .-ptem with water quality treatment
meeting the rerpindnenbl at the applicable 189' Stolmwater Management Manual for
the Puget Sound Buin. When cOlUltruction it complete. the proponent will enter: into a
stoff report and recommendation/MONS Page 15 of 24
ludlo\llt Cove Division 2
SUBOs.0000.4. SOfl'OS.(OO)2
22:0
~-
r:s7~
06/1&/1994 05:35
3&8437887\:1
1.t..A-J1.......~ r "It"J' .....,... I ...4t-"""
e
e
Jefferson County Department of Community Development
lu~ow Cove Division 2
July 26. 200S
Btann,,"ter Management FadUry Maintenance Agreement with the Port Ludlow Drainage
D"'trict to euure the fac:iJitie. are appropriately maintained for the. life of the project.
'the proposal therefore .meets the requiremenU of aection 11.405 for Drainage.
8'1. Section 11.406 and 11.407 deal with water 8Upply and .-ewag'e disposal. The
project will be.-e:rwed by Olympic Water and Sewer, Inc. which hu verified that
adequato capacity exiG for the 120 unit project. Connection to the Olympic Water and
s.wer H.ni.co .,-em meew lItate and local requirements. ProvisiON for long tenn
monitoring of water npply and water quality have been made through the 1993 EIS and
prior deva.1opmellt approvaJa.
88. Fk8 protection ul"8qUired by JlGdion 11.408 is aaured by required compliAnce
with the applicable fire code. In addition, the .uuctuxe. will be fully sprinldered. A fire
protection impact lee .......;requ.Mted by .Fire Distrld #3. The fee will be imposed
punru.nt to Suhd.iYU:ion _d SEPA authority to mitigate impaClllgenented by tile
prOpollaJ. "l'IU fee q ..t accordi.n.g' to .. agreement between the CoUnty and the Fire
IMtrict at $193 per dwelling unit. ThUll a total fee of $23,160 will be required as a
condition of apprcnral. (See Part X, number 9).
88. No OYerNtad utiIitiea will be buItaDed. and full electric: and telephone serrice will
be prcm.ded. m.eeti:ng the requirement. 01 aecti.on 11.409.
80. The applkable code mo providell Jltaad.uda for a rlUlg8 of matten including
laddre-mq. fees. and ......pectiOM. Complialu:e with the applicable code. and standard
po1U:ielJ ;uul prac:ticu of the Public Won:. Department will be required u . condition on
-.pJ>>1"0'ftll feu- the project.
PDT"t1D SEPA ANALYSIS
8J. h'ocr......... Acca.n:liDg to Section 8.10.9 oftha applicable SEPA ordinance. when
the rell'pOlWible otIicialllUlkel . threllhold detenn.i.nation and iaue. a DNS or MDNS. the
naponGble ~ shaD,... the "optional DNS prooe.." punuant to WAC J97-11-3S5.
'nda xequiru aJ\ initial-wM_ment. plior to puhlUlhi:nq notice of the application, of the
aJgnific&nce of potential project-driven 8119ironmental impact.. In addition. the'
Depa:ctment l'Ilut fu1ly I'lftiew .n commenD l'eceiTed during the cornxnent period,
Folknria.g the notice of app1ication comment period, the Department must determine
whetha:r the DMS 01: MOHS ia Iti1l appropriate. 1\ determination of aignif1cance (a. DS
requUiIT.g aD Envixomn.ent Impact Statement) mWlt be publWled it further review
indicat. the ilUti.lUIf"'"-.,.8ftt ... incoxrec;t. For project. that are to be decided by the
Cobllt., hearing eD1Iliher. the notice or the thrMhold detennma.tion shall he issued
col\C.1lD'8nUy with the notioB of public hearing before the Hearing exAmineI'.
0.3. IacolpO..tiOll. 01 prio.. .....roDDMatallrewf... and doc:u.m.e...b. The foDowing
8nTUoram8ntal docum.enb, u modified by uu. analyBi,ll, are incorporated by reference
into thia iwriew: ]893 EJS far the Port Ludlow DeTelopment Programj 2002 Final
Modified Mitigated. Detem\in.ation ofNon-Significance (FMMDNS) for LudloW' Cove,
SUB96-00003 and _1IUppc:nting' Il\e.m.oraudllm.
Staff report ano recommendotion/MONS
Ludlow Cove Division 2
SU~. SOPO>OOOO2
Page i 6 of 24
220
---------.-..-........-~----,~_...
-~ ,---
571
~b/1b/l~~q ~O;4q
.JCt.l'i.:lfCO/U
............, ~;;> rr<\Jrr.;"r< I J. r.;,,;;>
r~\;It. t:l':l
e
e
Jefferson County Deportment o' Community Development
LudlOw Cove Division 2
July 26. 2005
63. CoJUUtio.. aa4 Nq1Ii:r'e:meoat. frown pdol' nvtew- The original Ludlow Cove
appraral included conditioJUf and. requirement. for developmer'Lf. of Tracts A and B (now
ttac:1 E for thiB pl'opos8l). Those cOnditions related. to coNtruction impaCUl, general site
development. wetland and atream protection. M,bitat management, drainage, gn.d.ing
and eroslon control, archaeological relo\U"eea. and ahoreline acce... Many oj the prior
coDditiOlUl are cOde requirements that do not technically l\eed to be duplicated through
SEPA review. For clarity. the code requirement. are detailed in Part X as conditiolll of
appro-ral and identified MlCAD, SUB, OT SDP conditio... Celtain SEPA condifioNS related
to the prior appro""" are u.o set forth in t-art X and identified u SEPA requirements.
84. Impact. Not eon..eclB., PriOI' Ea...mm:meJdal....eww Because the full plana
for deveJopment of thia aile were rel8n'ed under the Pbued Renew approach for
Ludlow Cove. certain impacbl could not be analyzed when the project wu originaUy
appl"D'W'8d. '111.0N impacta relate to txalfic and lr.I.Jwportation. ae8thetics. and impacts on
utiUtiM and public llenicel.
88. 'I'nJIle ... ~datto.lmp.atIt. A tndIic impact lUUIlysis waa pxepared for
Wdlow COYe Divilion Z by Cere1yn kei:nart P.E. in. December 2004. The analy..ia found
that lhe propou1 would generate approximately 128 new daily "Week.end trips. with 89
~ trip. DCiC:Un'iDg duriag the peak houx-. The a.naly.ia di3clollea that the cu:aent
JeveJ.. of _nice (LOS) for an movement. at che interaection of Paradise Bay Road is "A."
Leftl of IIervice ia .. qualitative me..-ure dellCribing opera.tional conditiON within . traffic
*811II1. Six leYe1e are dellig:nated. with .. Ato Iepre8elltmg the belt opera.ting conditiona
and "F"' repmaentillg the wont. The additiona.t '9'olume8 generated by the project are
within the operatiOMl capacitiea of the intenectiOlUl and roadways in the area. The need
for lei: tum .tonge WIllI reviewed &rid the report conclude. t1at channelization warrants
a'8 not met.
88. Accident datllwel'e tWIo reviewed for the area near the project !rite. Three
accident. were found duriJ1g the four yeu period .ftIr9'eyed from ZOOO through ZOO3.
One ftlU'-end colliaiOD. occuned at ParadUe Bay Road and Oak Bay Road. Two lIingle
TBhide co11.iaiona. whfue the Y8hiclealeft. the roadway. occurred on Puad.iJe Bay Road
betlffbun Oak Bay Road and Spinnaker P1aoe. The fmquency of accidents is th~ area is
low and hi DOt expected. to change 8ignificlllltly as .. remt of the propotlal.
81. A .gbt diatan.ce anal,..t. conducted lor the proposal dUclosecHhat shrub. and
bt'Wlh located aloDg ParadiMt Bay Road limit vWbility and that trimming the shrub. and
bJ"\Wh would impl'CJYe the entering light dbtance to the eut and nO'J'theut (from the site
driYeWayonto Parad:i8e Bay Road. 'l"hUIl'ec::ommendati.on will be imposed as a condition
of lIppJ:on1 (no.IS).
88. 'nut Jerr.non County Public Worb Deputment reviewed the traitic anal)"3is for
the propDAl and conC1U'll in itJI conclulliolUl regudil\g intenection level of service.
road....y capadty. and c:hanne1b;ation warranu.
~9_ ~ Public Worb department a1ao concluded that the propoaal would generate
pedeltrian traflic th.t would croaa ParadUe Bay Road to r6ach the emting commexcial
. StoN report and recommendation/MONS Poge 17 of 2~
lUdlow Cove Division :2
SU80~~.SDPO~2
_~_._2 '2.1}>________.____
~~. ~._-'-
~eJJ
~b/lb/l~~~ ~~;~~
.:101::1'+.:1/1;,10/0
~UUM1~ F~UF~KIIC~
I-'AGE. 11
--
e
Jetfef50n County Deportment of Community Development
Ludlow Cove Division 2
Juty 26. 2005
centaT. Public W Ol'D fu.rth8I' l'ecomrnetuled that tM app1ican.t fund construction of a
c:::r0AW1Ilk. On. J.'~ of thd recornmen.dA.tion. Community De'Velopment stat!
reeommended to the 1'elIpOIWble olScial that jf a a:0U'9n1k is requ.ired. it be constructed
neat to the Ludlow Ccm!II DiftGon Z acce.. d.rive. ;I.ther t.lwm at Ebbtide Court aJI initially
wggellted. by the Public Worka department. 11\. re.ponaible official concluded ~t. a
collCtition requiring funding of the design and CONrtru.ction of a crosswalk ....ould nutigate
pot8l\tia1 ad'gexwe impacts generated by the project. See Part X. condition no. 28.
10. P\1blic Wota alia xeeoaunended thilt ptcm.iOJUI fox: an onaite pedestrian trail and
for bicycle !.Mea along tbe aide. of the intenual acce.. roads be required in order to
midgate ....ety im~ and meet au.bdiviai.on requi:ramenta for road deaiqIt that
appxop.riately conaiden .mk:ipated txaflic volume. iUld patterna. public convenience.
and ...rety. Thewe comIiticnw am found in Pal't X. at !\os. Z and 3.
11. ....uaedc:.. 1be coMtrw:tion of .iz: multifemily l'Miden.tialatructures will create
Uldhetic impllCla dUlezent from what might be expected from the construction or lingle
family r_del\QO.. "I'bMe impacta are mitigated i:n patt"by the llite de~lapment
ataDdudI that apply to tbiI: projeCt purwAIIllo the original Ludlow Cove decW.on. In
addition. the .lope of tile .Ie (dowm and away from Parad.ile Bay Road). and the luge
wetland and natural habi\at area that will be praened between the road and the
de'NJoped area 'WiD. J'odQC8 impact.. No aignificant wie.... impact is e:cpected, and no
further mitigation ill required.
13. utWti... 11we project will be IMU"'V8d by Olympic Water and Sewel'. me,. which
hu confirmed that IP'fIV-iAIU capacity e.... No f&uther SEPA analy.is is xequired. The
MER,U alIceatiaD. maintained by the COWlty will be updated to reflect the addition of 120
J.'I8. reaid.eRtial u.tUta.
13. ...Jk Ierri~. -- ..riJf. 'I11.e County Sherifi' commented that inaeued
l'eaidentW. de"elopment .d.cb a burden to law eaforoement and mc:reuea Itaffing
pntQUl'ea. 'The same' coDUftent 19''' aJ.o n.'.ICenttr IlUbmitted with regard to a proposed eo
unit.mg1e fAmily x.idential deYelopment pl'opoNl in Port Ludlow. In response to the
fiat comment trom the Sheri!r.1he app.lieant and the County reviewed whether the
imp&ct 'Il/'U ~ tmd whether SEPA authority .:dated to impose conditionl on the
project. "1'be r&Yiew concluded tlud the impact ...... incremental and that the Sheriff's
oIfice had. Hve.ral optioD.l and oppol'twtitiea for dealing with budget impacts. No SEPA
authority to milig...te the ~em..l\te1 impact ..... fOW'ld. "'8 analysis foX' the current
project reTeP the -.me information. Tbe impact iI not aignificant and SEP A mitigation
ia neither requintd nor aftilab1e.
7". Puhllc: ..nt~ - nx. Dt_del. The propo.alllite is located within Fire District 3.
Puauant 10 an agxeemenl with the F:i:re Dhltrict. the County h;u used SEPA authority to
impoMl JIll impact fee ofS193 per unit to mitigate impact:. di:rectly related to new
"retUd.entia1 de...elopment. I(be agreemeDl with the Fixe Diatrict doe. not apedf:ically
add.rn.. multifamily cI~ment or set. different fee lor multifamily 'lI'en~ single
family developll\Qnt. :Re-riew of other juriIld.ic:t.i.IUI' fee IChedules Wall .mconclU'Jive about
the l'81atioNhip between aingle family and multibunily de'9'elopment for fire dPtrlct
Staff report and recommendation/MONS
lodlow Cove Oivmon 2
SU805-0000-4. SOP05-(XXX)2
Page 18 of 2-4
__"_"~---2-~~__,.~_
~._~--~
c.; 2;1
8&/16/1994 05:24
3&643713870
LII..AJI"LL~ f "\ojIIli I""..,~ .--
e
e
Jefferson County Deportment of Community Deveropment
lvc.flow Cove Ol't'tslon 2
M 26. 2005
bnpadll. Therefore, the Irtandud fee bued on the. ,,:umber of units in the development
will he required.
78. PabJ.lc "me.. - Icllool cU.strict. The County .u.o has co1Jected a $chool impact
fee for the Ch!rn..cum School Distrlc1 baEd on an agreement similar to that used with the
fbe 1>tIltrict. .At the thne the projed ~ in 1995. a fee of $437.10 per Jot was
collected. ,,",U. allCb.ool impact fee of S 1748.40 will be requi:ced.
18. AddJ......... "',1. 18...... ....... fa .....Ue Com.xne.. Left.n. Additional i..ues
ra.illed during the public COl11J.'O.8tl,t period and not already addressed include que.bons
about noi&e control. uchaeological ~urce protection, a:nd salmon habitat. The County
wiJ1 limit the houn of oonIIb'uction at the ute to mitigate noise impacts based on the prior
an.alysia done for the original Ludlow Cme Pr'oject. Salmon habitat and ctne.- habitat
protection. iuue. ha."e been addr&aed. to the degree needed, as part of the requi:red
Habitat l'tIanagement Plan appl'O'V'8d. by the County and the Wuhington Department of
f1ah and Wildlife.
77. An:ha.eological r8lO'IU'C!e Pl'otection ... .u.o addreued in the prior approval An
Archaeological RellOureel Il1'ld Traditional Cultural Place. Asae.sme~t report Wall
comp1eted in ZOO3 for the entire Lw:l1ow CoYe !lite. An eziating archaeological.ire is
located within Dm..ion 3. "ftte coDditiona from the original Ludlow Cove approval
related to archaeological re.QU1'Ce profaclion -.ill alto apply to DivUrioD 2, See Part X,
ao. 17.
Put D.: CONCLUSIONS
78. DKI. ~ County hM detenn:i:aed that the ahave-deac:ribed proposal,
co11d.\IC.1ed ha conlormaDc:e with the appl'O'fttd plant and required. mitigation measures,
win not have . probable ~ ad9QD8 impact on tile enYiromnent. An 9I\vironmental
impact tIt.tament ilIl10t ntqUin!d. underRCW 43.alC.030(2)(c). Thia detenn.ination Wa.:l
made aftM I'8V'iew of. completed envitOllll"lenlal ch.eclt.tiat and other infonnation on file
with the Jeftenon County Deputm.ent olConununity QeoreJopment. wpection of the site,
and conaideration of~. aubmitted in re~DH to the notice of application.
.d
eomm..c ...w. "J."lU detemd;n.a,tioa. . iuBed p'WlIWInl to WAC 191-11--358, the Optional
Dim Proc:8M. 'I1\en ia DO additional COl1U'l\eN period
.&ppe.J. Any appeal of ths. fiDa1 thrMhold detennination InlUt be submitted in writing
before 4:30 P.M. &__ 9. Z005 to the SEPA Re.pozWble OBicial, leifer.on County
Oeputment of Community Developm8l1t. U1 Sheridan. Sb:eet. Port TOWNend~ WA 98368
for ClOl\liderlldion by the Jetfeoon County Hearing E:nminer.
Appeal .tat.men.. lnuat make apecific factual objt'JCtio~ to the anaIy.u preMoted in thi.!
report. Contact the Department of Community Development to read 01" uk about the
pl'ooedUIell for SEPJ\ appeal.. If... appe.l J.. m4ld, the app...u .e~ ~U be h.ltlat
0.. pultJtc Jaaartng oa. fh. ~nU. proJed widell i. alnad:, .chedu.lecl for AlI.guft 16,
Staff report and recommendatiOn/MONS
Ludlow Cove Oivi$lon 2
SUB05-0000.4. SDP05-00002
Page 19 of 24
')..z,D __-
~~,-""""",-"",,,,,,-,-~~-
C~ ,-..,,__,,~_'
_~..LL
'1?J.~
/.
'1994 05:35 3&04370670 ~
Jefferson County Deportment of Community Development
ludkJ'l,o( Cove Division 2
July 26. 2005
&008 .. 1:30 pills. Ole J...-.o.. Ccn&JlItf laJMDior Caudl'oom. Z'" GOOI' oltha County
Coa:d1aoa...
\...l.n.,Jt.,,L;;J , .'\J" -..... ---
e
19. IlECOMMEND.lTION. The Depamnent of C~mmunity Development
J'8Coamnendll ApFoval of the BiIt.d.iJuJ Site Plan I Condominium Subdivision and
Shore1U\8 Suhtltantial DeTa10pment Permit for Ludlow COTe Divi&ion Z. subject to
oonditionllu detaUed below in Put X.
SIgned; c\ .. ~~ Dole: nl..J4cror-
Slod. :~..poMIbt.omclat ~
Je....on County DIrector of community D~y.&opn,.mt
Put X IlECOMMENDED CONDmONS
Colle ~..t. .....-. to Ic.lO, tMlI&ol'eUae hbllflllllfbt1 D....elopm.at
Permit. iUIIl~. ngalatio.. an bulIeat- ...'CAO, SDP, .ur.d SUB,
~...-cU"T. S1i:PA t..letlt_ a c;oadltloa Jtued oa autbodty ofth. State
Ea~tU PoUer Act .. appJi" .......... tJ:t.e Jd.noa Cov.aty implem.eatUag
o"I_-..~..
Pd_ t. P.1'I'Idt b..-....:e .~ by aeariq .~ lit. Dtllt..dtaac:e
1. Propolled roadwayw. aoceu driYell. puking area. and tx"aib JIha.l1 he dMigned to
the IItal\duda of the JetIanort County PubJic Works Depllrtl'bent and. the American
AaaociatiOll of State Highway aDd Tranapor1atiOIl Qflit..b.l. (AASHTO). An necessary plans
aDd apec::i.ficatioN ahall be whmitted to the Pub.lic Worb Department for review and
app~O'9'lIl. SUB
a. The plu.a Ihal1 iDdude . 8 feet wide pedelJtrian ......ur:w.y along the southerly &ide
of tho 1ICCe.. I'oad to the bui1di~.. The......Jkwa.y.thaU he 8Udaced with all-weather
materia1a. PlanI.Ih&U be IlUbmitted to the Public Works Department fox review and
.pproftl. SUB; SEPA
3. The plUUlIhaU include two four feet wide bicycle lane.. which may constitute
pa'"f'8d. a:nd. demaroated lIh~den. aJol'lg' the main entry dri'Ve. 8][cept at the boulevard
ent.rance. At the boukwud entrance. two 13 foot alphalt driving lanell will be
aupp1emented with _-.en feet wide lIhoulderll of gnu-paTe or aim.i1ar m.aterial to
ach.f,eore a .20 foot section w.lficial\t for fir& and emeJqe1'lcy vehicle. a.ccess. Lane width
aloug the bUance of the enby drive m.ay be reduced 10 10 feet in each direction.
a~ of the bicycle lane.. Plana man be submitted to the Public Works Department
for reriew and appl'oval. SUB. SEPA
c. The building permit plana lIhall include lighting specifications and details to
confixm that lighting fDture. Be designed and hooded to prevent the light .ouree hom
Stoff report and recommendation/MONS
Ludlow Cove Olvision 2
SUB05-0000.c. SDP05-00002
Page 20 of 24
---~^-_._.
~ ...._---~
~0::'J
8&/1&/1994
El5:35
36El4370671i:l
L.~ll:) rf'li.ur:l:."'- I .LL;....I
~
e
L.AP COpy
Jefferson County Deportment of Community Development
Ludlow Cove Division 2
Jufy 26, 2005
beiDg directly ...whle from outdde the boundariea of the property. The intensity or
brlghme.. of all MCUrity lighting lIhaI1 not ildvenel,. alfect the use of aurro\U"lding
propertie. OJ' adjacent righu-of-way. Zoning Code. 7.40.1.(c).
e. The applicant jIhalJ obtain a Road Approach Pennit from the Public Works
Depa.rtm.ent for 01008.1 Onto Paradise Bay Road. SUB
8. P1au and colUltJ:uction activitiel: dudl confonn to the recommendations in the
geotechJ1jcal report prepued by GeoEnghleon: dated March 22. J 995. provided that a
nniaed. geoteclmJca1 l'eport confonairtq to the requirement. of the lCAO (ord. no. OS-
0809-9~) may be nhmitted in aupport of a reque.t forreTiaioDS to the reconunendations.
n.. Comm.u.a.ity Din...lopment Deputmel\t may approve a revWon when equal or better
procection of critical ilreu1rill be obtained. ICI<<O
7. Clearing limita for roada. water. MWer. and dorm 'Water utilitiel. erosion. control
fK:W.tie.1IIKf aU afte ocm..tructioa IIhaU. be muked in the field and approved hy the
County. Critical &1'8& bdeD .hall. be marked with IUgNl at inteIVD of one every 100
leet. Iftle .igN IIhall contain the following language: "Critical areil buffex. Do not remove
or .Iter ~ Dati'f'8 "fe9etation." lCAO
8. A Stounwater Site Plan that include. a Large Pareel Erosion and Sediment Control
Plan a.bd . PeDlUU.\eftt Stonnwaler Quality Control Plan and that confoxms to the
requirementa of tile Stonnwater Management Manual for the Puget Sound Basin and.
PubUc Worb Deputment -.and.udl aha11 be IlUbmitted ud approv-ed. Minimum
Requirements N-J - 11 from the Stoxmwater Management Manual shan apply. SEPA
8. A Fire Dimid Impact Fee.ha1l. be payable at al"ate of $193.00 per unit for each
blliJdiDg pennit at the thne of iau.anoe. SUB. SEPA
10. An.... for penni.bI to be ialNed ud other work perlonned associated with the
penniu aha1l be paid. SUB. SEPA
......... Coaatnac:u..
11. Aa detreribed in tM H.bitat MtuUIg'ement Plan developed for the LudJow Cove
project and to limit ongoing alte w.turbece with the potential for erosion and water
quality impacu. aU a:l.te work ln9'Obing the uae 01 hea., equipment for infrutructw:e
iruIt.JJation,1ogging. cJearing. grublUg' and gmdJ.ng .hall be completed in one phue.
FoJ.1owing thiII phue. I'6lJtoratloD and I'tabWzation ah.a11 be conducted. including the
application of mulch, hycno.eed. Rabilizatioll of cut and fill areas. constIuctlon of
biOJlWa1e.. and tho planting of I'&-vegetated are... lCJlO. SEPA
12. A Nt of .pprOfttd plana -.n be OIl aite at all times during construction. SUB
13. Temporuy B'I'08ton control.Beat Management Practice. .h~ be implemented
continuoualy in confol'l'ftMCe with the appJUYeCl plana. lCJIO
14. Beuo.tud c:oUtnu::tion limitatioll: Coutruction acti'9ity between November I and
April J IlhallI'8q1lire appranl of .. ~mporuy Erosion and Sedimentation Control (TESC)
Stoff <<!IpOf't and recommendation/MONS
Ludlow Cove Dlvisjon 2
SUBO~.SDPO~2
Page 21 of 2<4
_.___J~___~__~.
-~ ._--~_._---
CS"ffi
86/16/1994 05:35
36843 11Ji:l Itl
......"'..ft..n.4.a.~ t .,"". _:r.. c ...--
~
e
Jefferson County Oepa1ment of CommunIty Developmenf
Ludlow Cove Division 2
July 2&. 2005
P1an U\clu.d.i11g Relit Ma:ra.age.ment Practice. and meeting the requirements of Jefferson
CO'lDlty and the 1994 Stonnwater Management Manual for the Puget Sound Basin. lCAO
18. The proponent aha11 arrange for aU required jnapectiona from the applicable
COWlty depaxtment or other agency .uch .. Olympic Water and S&wer, Inc.. the Fire
Dilrtrict ox Fire Department, or the Health DUtrict. SUB
18. Con.tru.c:tion hoUl1l of opention man 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 Saturdaya:. SEPA
11. To elUluxe lIXdt.aeolog1c:al re8OUrce. are protected, ill profesaionaJ. archaeologist
IIhall monitor any ground diaturbing acti'rities within the buffer area for Site 45]E208, a5
lItabd aud dellCrihed in the hcluIeo1ogical Re.ource Aaeument prepared for the
pr;eject. If archaeological reJlO1U'C81 are encountered during land development activities.
tlwt following proc:edunt IIha1l apply.
a. STOP WOK A,.oid fm1her diaturbance to the area or removal of any
...~.
b. Badly the Je8'enoa County Director of Conununity Development at 360-
378....480. The Couhty will immlKiilately notify tile State Office of
Archaeology and HDtoric Pre.ervatiOIt (OAHP) at 206-153-5010.
c. hOled tbe uea from vandAl8 8l'ld coUec1on.
d. k.... a quaIifiecl ~logUt e'f1lluate the aite and make
recommeIldatioal fen ~ mlJ' f&uthar work in the area.
e. Obtmn.. pe:mUt from OAHP if further excaY&tion or d.iaturbance of the &ite
ia~. .sEPA
..... To Occ:upaaoy Of"'" ....,I~.
18. The project enginee.r ahall ce.rlify to JaffBhOrt COUl'lty th;d cOllltruction and all
reJ..ted land diIrtuxbing ac:ti'riti... have OCC\Ured in confonnanoe with the
~tiOl\& of the Much aZt 1996 geoteclmicaJ repol1 or an updated report il
approved by the Community I>eTelopment Departmeltt. lCAD
19. Tl1a prOPOneAt ahaU. "alter connltation with the Public Worb Department, trim
the ~ and bZWlIt along Pa.radi.M Bay tto.d at the proporty'. frontage. u needed to
im.prOftl aight ctiIlluce ad vWbility from tbe oacce.. drive, Any trimm.i1\g of shrubs and
bruh within the Natiw Grow1h Protection Euentent IIhall be accompliahed in a manner
cornpli.im.t tuith condition l'LO. 28 below to minimize impact on the NGPE. SUB. SEPA
ZOo The PnwWoN of the HOlbitat Management Plan and Landacape Plan required by
aIld developed in acx:oxda.nce with the original Ludlow C0'f9 approval thall be
COlIlp)eted. lCAO, SDP
.. A pIJlm\UIIBnt phyllical Mparation between wetlaDd and stream buffers (or
th. Native Growth Protection JIlr8.) and the developed portion of the site
ahall be iNIt.aIJed.
b. A notice to title dYe10aing the prBlJence of the wetland and stream buflenr.
and. the HatiWt Growth Protec:tion Area ahall be mcorded with the Auditor
in a form .pplO'98d by the Pro~ting Attorney. ICAD
Sfoff report and recommendation/MDNS
Ludlow Co....e Division 2
SU~.SOPO~2
Page 22 of 24
.",".___n~.____,_~.,.~,..,
",~
1'Pf)
~O/~D(~~~~ ~~.~~
..JU""""".JtUU.fU
...........,..,~.;;) r"'un:.", I ,It;.:)
,....~\;lt. tl:l
e
e
Jefferson County Oepatment of Communlty Development
l.lJdIoW Cove Di\ltslon 2
July 26. 2005
PdQI' to I'1aal .lJwIl-. Site PIaaIFiaal Plat .lppro9al
al. The pX'opo.nent ahall comply with aU proceHing timeJinea an~ final binding site
p1aDlfinal plat requlre~ .. elltabliahed by the Public Woda Department. SUB
32. An feea for wo,,;'k perfonned prior to final approval.hall be paid. SUB
33. AD euemenb of recol'Ci ahaU be gxaphically portrayed on the final plat and .hall
Utclude the Auditor'. File Number (AFN). Utility euement. ahall be made by a lIeparate
n!lCOJ'ded euement, 0'1" declaration 01" dedication of euement. and by graphic portrayal
em the tmaI plat. SUB
34. The ped.eJJtriart trail along the edge of the Ntltift Growth Protection Easement and
accauillg the waterfront at Pia1ic Point.. .hcnm. on the approY8d p1a.na _hall include an
....-ment ten feet wide fOI" public Wl8. The firla1 binding aite plan/final plat shall include
the following ~.: "Trail to be part of the Port LudloW'Trail System. The Port
wd.low Community .un h.e..... the right to WIe the trail for pedestrian purpo.es. Tbe Port
lAldJow Tr6 Committee, under the direction of the Port Ludlow Village Council .ball be
1'8~1e for JI'l.IIintelW\08 of the Txail." SDP
%8. h1It..auctul'e lI'ptenw including thb water and sewer .,..tem. J>O'Irer and
communication 1IJ1IteIn. acce.. dmee. putiDg. aDd pedestrian tnil. Uld bicycle
Unprcmnnelltl shaD. be inatalled in accordaDce with the app~oYed plan4. and inspected
&Ild appr09'8d. by Olympic: Water and sewer. Inc.. Jetlenon County, Fire District # 3. th.e
County Fire Manhalt 01" other appllc.abJe agency. .. required; PROVIDED that the
applicant may enter into . nrety ag.reement with the Department of Public Wo:rlal iUI an
altemalift to con'lplaCe i:n.IltaUation of tequired road or driveway improvements prior to
&ud plat appl'OV1Il. The a'U1'8IJ' may not exoeed one year and mut be in a fonn
acceptable to 1he County ProMaltot. AU neb lIU.J:el;ie. md include an estimate of the
cold of an imptonmenb aNi the eld:U:nale muat be approved by the Department of Public
Worka prior to e.cx:eptance of the In1I'ety. :No o'98rhead utWtie. .hall be installed. SUB.
26. "!'he project engineer alW1 certify to Jetfenon County that cONtmctlon and all
1ud d.iatU%biDg a.ctlvltiM haTe GC:II::\II'I"ed In coNonmmce with the recommendatiolUl of
the March 22. 1898 geotec:luU.cal report or an updated reporl i1 approved by the
Comm1lll1ty De"f'81opll'l8Dt Dopadmeng. SUB, [CAO
21. TIle proponent ~ enter into a Stonnwater Management Facility Mamtenance
~eDt with the County. The agreement &hall be .igned and filed with the jeffenon
Cou.nty Auditor pricxr to final plat appraval. SUB. SEPA
28. The applicant IIWJ. ent_ into an agxeement with je.ffenon County to reimburse
the County fox the full co.t of de.iqnmg and conmvc1:ing . painted crosswalk across
Pu.m.e Bay Road in the 'ri.c:i1Uty of the .,ite acce.. drive. SUB, SEPJ(
29. The proponent IIhall pay a School Dbtrict Impact Fee in the amount of $] 748.40
('.31.10 per lot for to the Chimacum School D~c1. SUB, SEPIt
Stoff report and recommendation/MONS
ludlow Cove Dlvlsion 2
SU80><XJ(X)4. SOPOS<<lOO2
Page 23 of 24
.,_J:-~-<-,-
r-~'
. _~J..:J- C'
~LP
~b/lb/l~~q ~~;~~
..:",'''O''.;! I OQ f 0
L..,-,"-,,"-I.L~ rF"i.urc..I"'\' ",c;..J
,~\;U;. ~ '"
e
e
Jefferson County Deportment of Community Development
Ludlow Cove Division 2
July 26..2005
30. The entry chne for the Idte .un be named and the name .hall be shown on the
flna1 plat. The proponent PaD .elect the road name in consultation with the Department
of Public Worb to avoid duplication of ex:iating road 11&II\... SUB
For..... 1M. 01.. PIoj.d
31.. Treeallhall not be remO"l'ed from the Native Crowth Protection Easement area
unle.. . profeuiOD&l axbori8t de~ a potential Afely hazard ellistll. In the event a
ttee witlUn the NOPE needa to be remared for ufe1y pUIpOl!Ies. the tree .hall be cut no
cl.o_r than 3-feet off the ground ao .. to keep the root *Y*tem mta.ct. In order to ensure
.lability of the dope. :native vegetation (ahtub. oJ'tree.) ;appropriate for slope stability
puxpOlM!l. .hould he planted to replace the tree that .... removed
3%. Native vegetation i:n. critical areaa. hulf8l'll, throughout the Native Growth
Protection .Area and along the aho:reline shall be Il'UJIintamed in compliance with the
appn:nred Habitat Mmaagernen.t Plan and ~pe PJan..lCAO, SDP
a. Tree. aha1l ROt be reJn099d unJea it ia determined by a professional
uborilt that. potential.atety hazud ~.. In INch a case. the tree shall
be cut no clORr than three feet to the ground and. the root system .hall be
upt mtlld.
b. Mainteuace worit: ahall be done by hand or with minimal mechanical
appu.tu.
33. LluuUcapirtg on thed4mlloped pardon of the a.i.te .hall be maintained in
comp~ with the approved Lartdtrcape P1an.lCAO
34. Roada. utilitie.. ~. &lid other im~R1eDts ~ comply with the
appUcabJe po1iciea ad p8lfonnance mmdank of the ]e.fteraon County Shoxe1ine
Maugemaht Ma.ter PI'ognm. SDP
38. The projec;:t man be built tmd. maintalned.m compliance with the appJ'oved plans.
SUB,. Zoning Ordinance
38. The rec:matiOIL bu.i.1d.ing. BuWting 7.11han be operated as an acceuoxy use to the
r.:idential complex. Comm8l'C'ia1 opeqtiol\ of the facility JIhaU not be allowed unl8u the
binding ate plan approval ... formally revUed and land UIe. puking and all othex
dtweJopment.lltu1da:rdll appJicable lit IlUCh future time Me met.
SIaH report and recommendation/MONS
Ludlow Cove Division 2
SU80~4.SD~
Page 24 of 24
~."70'_..2:.Z:D --,~->.,~-,^~""'
~,.~
'JfJ7 5" ~ 7