HomeMy WebLinkAboutExhibit258
RE: Jefferson County Appellate Hearing on File Nos. MLA05-00407,
ZON03-00044, SDP05-00019 and SUB05-00030
Hearing Date Dec. 6, 2007 10:00AM
REeF. rVEI\)
nEtt 4: 2nn1
~t\\t~~~~t~~'1'f ut~
To: Appellate Hearing Examiner: Phil A Olbrechts
Ludlow Maintenance Commission Rebuttal to Applicants and Jefferson County
Staff Arguments and Final Response
1. Master Planned Resorts recreational nature.
JCC - Ordinance No. 08-1004-99 Section 3.40 describes the RCICF'zone.
Resort Complex/Community Facilities. Providing amenities and services
associated with a resort and the surrounding community, and supporting existing
residential uses. The RC/CF zone recognizes the recreational nature of the resort and
includes the existing and planned resort complex, as well as limited permanent
residential uses.
PLA seeks higher density residential development here than was provided in the
approved plat for Ludlow Bay Village. They also seek to reduce the existing restaurant,
the Harbormaster to about one half its current capacity, and have no plans for recreation
facilities of any type. Youth center, pool, or exercise room, all of the recreational
facilities included in the Resort plan as adopted in 1998, and in the permitted RCICF zone
when the Resort was acquired from PLA's predecessor, have been eliminated in PLA's
proposed revision. Only the marina retail space, boardwalk and office remain of resort
recreation facilities included in PLA's proposal. To exchange Resort Commercial and
Community Facility uses for condominium residential is simply rezoning without calling
it that. PLA must demonstrate the ability to provide the resort recreation facilities
contemplated in the approval of the MPR. They can do so in a number of ways; by
eliminating some of the proposed condominium apartment buildings and building
recreation facilities to serve the hotel and marina and added condos. Or by making a
capital contribution to LMC and contracting with LMC to provide for expansion ofLMC
LOG 'TEM
# Q-S~
Page \ of /
1
facilities for resort and marina guests use, and condo buyers membership in LMC with
access to those facilities. Or PLA can make some other arrangement to provide the
recreation contemplated in the beneficial MPR Ordinance. What they should not be
allowed to do is simply build out more condominiums and walk away, leaving the resort
without the economic engine for its future viability and leaving the LMC privately owned
community facilities exposed to resort visitor use without provision for expansion,
support or compensation. LMC's common properties, Beach Club, tennis courts, beach
and barbeque areas, etc. are centrally located to the proposed development. It will be
difficult to separate or divide LMC facilities from resort visitor access or prevent visitors
from using LMC facilities. With the proximity of LMC facilities to the proposed Resort
Revision, PLA will be able to take advantage ofthe Club's presence in its marketing of
new homes. For all these reasons and more,'PLA should contribute to LMC's capital
expansion plan and contract for resort guest use. Without an agreement for use of LMC
facilities, we do not believe Port Ludlow qualifies for the continued designation as a
Master Planned Resort. The RC/CF zoning within the MPR Ordinance cannot simply be
ignored. PLA should be required to submit proof of recreation facility access as a
condition of any resort revision approval.
2. Road Ownership and Maintenance Responsibility
Jefferson County staff states, "The County doesn't want more roads." LMC's concern is
for its members and its own future responsibility for a share of maintenance cost for
roads within the RC/CF zone. These are roads that will be used for the commercial
benefit of the Resort, by hotel guests, restaurant and conference, church and meeting
guests, retail and marina traffic, and the visiting public as well as 170 residential home
LOG ITEM
# 1),5~
Page ~ of
2
owners and LMC members using Beach Club facilities. In short, this is road will be used
by the public. It can be anticipated to have more public traffic than the subdivisions now
under construction by PLA such as Olympic Terrace II with 80 approved Iiew homes.
Yet, those subdivisions as well as all of the rest of the MPR will have county-owned and
maintained roads. PLA and Jefferson County expect the resort core roads will remain
privately owned, not by the resort, but by the condominium associations and Ludlow Bay
Village Townhome Association and LMC. In so doing, the costs of road maintenance for
the benefit of the resort are thrown onto local residents and LMC. Jefferson County may
not want more roads, but public roads are a responsibility of the County. Where it
permits development Jefferson County should establish standards for road construction
and accept and maintain public roads as a condition of that development.
3. Architectural Control Committee and LMC re2ulations
PLA has stated that they are not subject to ACC review for new construction in the
proposed Resort Revision. A large part of the proposal centers on Boundary Line
Adjustments oflots within Ludlow Bay Village. Ludlow Bay Village Plat was submitted
by PLA's predecessor to and accepted by LMC in its entirety. All the lots in LBV are
member lots ofLMC. As such, when new construction is proposed for those lots, LMC's
Bylaws and Regulations apply, including Regulation II, Land Improvements, Article I,
Approval Requirements. "No lot shall be cleared or excavatedfor construction, nor
shall percolation testing holes be dug, until ACC approval is received. All construction
on any property, including exterior lighting, is likewise subject to approval as prescribed
in the Regulation". PLA cannot have it both ways, claiming membership for its lots, to
enhance the value oflots or townhouses to prospective buyers, but claiming no
LOG ITEM
# ~S1> 3
Page ~ of
responsibility to LMC to abide by LMC's governing documents. LMC's duty is to
ensure that all member lots and condos are subject to the same degree and level of
regulation. That duty extends to the lots in LBV plat.
4. Storm Draina2:e Desi2:n Authoritv
The matter of adequate storm water drainage system design is ofutinost concern to LMC.
It is also clear in the enactinent language for the Port Ludlow Drainage District where the
authority for system design review lies. The Port Ludlow Drainage District (PLDD) is a
creature ofCh. 85.38 RCW and is a distinct municipal corporation known as a special
district. A special district may, according to state statute (RCW 85.38.180), "engage in
drainage control... .,and surface water control activities, and investigate.... maintain and
operate improvements, works, projects and facilities necessary to control and treat storm
water, surface water and flood water." Furthermore, a special district may "take actions
necessary to protect life and property from inundation or flow of flood waters, storm
waters or surface waters."
On May 15, 2000, the Jefferson County Commissioners approved the creation of the
District granting them the powers listed in the petition as amended. The voters approved
the creation of the PLDD on September 19,2000. In the Petition for the establishment of
the Port Ludlow Drainage District, the District is granted, "responsibility for drainage of
all areas in North Bay (within the Drainage District boundaries) not owned by Jefferson
County." Pursuant to Section 4.15 of the Petition, it states: "The District shall have the
authority to conduct plan review of development within the District boundary in order to
ensure the developments are connected to the District's drainage facilities in a manner
LOG ITEM
# ?~g
Page~of 4
------_..
consistent with the District Storm Water Comprehensive Plan." The Drainage District
has adopted a Comprehensive Storm Water Plan.
Finally, in Section 4.17 of the Petition, the District is given the authority"... to require
new and existing developments within the District boundary to connect to the District's
drainage facilities. A Drainage Permit from the District shall be required for
developments to connect to the District's drainage facilities. The District shall have the
authority to inspect connections to District drainage facilities to ensure that connections
are made consistent with the District Storm Water Comprehensive Plan."
The entirety of the RC/CF zone (the Resort Revision project) lies within the jurisdiction
of the PLDD. In particular, the FSEIS for the proposal classifies the Admiralty III
portion of the project as "moderate slippage" risk geologically. Clearly, this is not an
appropriate place either for retention ponds or barrels, as indicated in the proposal, nor
for infiltration of storm water into the ground, which is a stated objective of the Jefferson
County Public Works in storm water system evaluation. PLDD has the authority for plan
review and approval in its jurisdiction, and that jurisdiction should be recognized in any
decision to allow development in the Resort RC/CF zone.
5. Shoreline Development Permit.. SDP91-017. issued Mav 11. 1993.
Jefferson County and Applicant argue that this permit has expired, and that no appeals
were raised within the allowable period. LMC agrees the Permit has expired and no
further building can be permitted within its authority. The Conditions set out by
Jefferson County, in its role as manager for Washington State Shoreline Management Act
(RCW 90.58) (SMA), do not expire. The ongoing nature of the SMA's expectations is
indicated in the l~guage of the Permit. Condition 11. states: The project's storm water
#
Page
LOG ITEM
Q-st
S of
5
management system shall be incorporated into the ongoing Port Ludlow Bav "Water
Quality Monitorinf! Program - Nonpoint Sources". Conditions to the Permit that have
not been upheld by Jefferson County in its continuing role as SMA manger but should
not be viewed as lapsed include:
No. 13. Eelgrass shall be planted in the eastern sector of the pond to prevent the
growth of sea lettuce (Ulva).
No. 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. 1-89. "
No. 21. Landscape design and planting materials for the perimeter of the
pond shall minimize the need for herbicide application. Native plant
materials shall be utilized to the maximum extent throughout the entire project
site to reduce the use of fertilizers, pesticides, and herbicides. When the
application of such chemicals is necessary, they shall only be applied by state-
licensed personnel.
No. 22. Buffers of grasses, low growing plants, shrubs, and trees shall be
planted along the shoreline and around the pond, providivg habitat, water
quality enhancement, and vrotection from human disturbance.
No. 23. Primary landscape materials planted on the site shall be those native
trees, shrubs, grasses, and herbaceous cover which provide food and cover
for wildlife, for example, Douglas firs, Western red cedars, vine maples, wax
myrtles, and wild strawberries.
#
Page.
LOG ITEM
t} S<6
b of
6
All of these conditions are ongoing. Nowhere in these permit conditions is there
language contemplating a temporary requirement or single or one-time only provision for
such plantings and screening and protective measures. Wildlife use of the pond and its
shoreline is expected to continue, and the provisions to support that use are to continue as
well.
Of special note and importance in the 1993 Permit is provision for future protection of
the pond shoreline. Condition 29 states,
"Pond shoreline length equivalent to at least 50% of the existing shoreline length
shall be provided for bird loafing area. This shoreline area must be buffered bv
landscape vegetation to discourage lJublic disturbance. "
The Resort Revision Proposal disregards this provision and proposed a boaters gathering
place on the lagoon shoreline area that is reserved for wildlife use by SDB91-017. No
mention or recognition of the 50% limitation contained in the 1993 SDP is made in the
Berteig Decision or staff reports. The Conditions ofSDP91-017 may be "signed off',
but, they cannot be regarded as completed. They must be made a part of any new
shoreline development permit, with responsibility for continued monitoring by Jefferson
County ensured and not be ignored as in the past.
Respectfully Submitted
Elizabeth Van Zonneveld and Vaughn Bradshaw
Ludlow Maintenance Commission
LOG ITEM
# 0-,~~
Page 7 of1
7