The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutLog069 FOSTER PEPPER & SHEFELMAN PLLC ATTORNEYS AT LA LOG n--"M de ~ # fiCI _ Page _ ot ':f .MI08 .. JEFFERSON COUNTY OeD January 6, 2004 VIA CERTIFIED MAIL and VIA FACSIMILE Al Scalf Director of Community Development Jefferson County 621 Sheridan Street Port Townsend, W A 98368 David Alvarez Prosecuting Attorney's Office Jefferson County P.O. Box 1220 Port Townsend, W A 98368 Re: Ludlow Bay Village: Alteration of Subdivision by Port Ludlow Associates Violation ofRCW 58.17.215 Dear Gentlemen: As you may recall, we represent a group of homeowners in the Ludlow Bay Village plat in Port Ludlow. Our clients have become very concerned about a conceptual site plan that has been prepared for Port Ludlow Associates (PLA) which seems to propose a significant alteration of the Ludlow Bay Village plat. Because PLA has not yet sought or obtained the consent of our clients to pursue the alteration proposed in this conceptual site plan, we have been asked to bring this matter to your attention to ensure that this proposal is not prematurely considered for approval by the Department of Community Development. I discussed this matter briefly with each of you before the holidays. Mr. Alvarez suggested that a letter be written to both of you to formally state our concerns and our position. Our concerns stem from a conceptual site plan for the Port Ludlow Resort prepared by Architectonics Design and Planning Consultants for PLA. The conceptual site plan is not dated so I have attached a copy of it to this letter to eliminate confusion over whether we are discussing the same version of the site plan. As you can see, the conceptual site plan appears to be imposed over the existing lot 50413843,01 Direct Phone (206) 447-2690 Direct Facsimile (206) 749-2193 E-Mail ta r aj@foster.com I I I I THIRD AVENUE Suite 3400 SEATTLE Washington 98101-3299 Telephone (206)447-4400 Facsimile ( 206)447-9700 Website WWW.FOSTER.COM ANCHORAGE Alaska PORTLAND Oregon SEATTLE Washington SPOKANE Washington , I Al Scalf David Alvarez January 6,2004 Page 2 lines of the Ludlow Bay Village plat. The Ludlow Bay Village plat was recorded contemporaneously with the Ludlow Bay Village Covenants Conditions & Regulations (CCRs) on June 6, 1994. This contemporaneous filing of the plat with the CCRs brings Ludlow Bay Village under the third sentence ofRCW 58.17.215, which states as follows: If the subdivision is subject to restrictive covenants which were filed at the time of the approval of the subdivision, and the application for alteration would result in the violation of a covenant, the application shall contain an agreement signed by all parties subject to the covenants providing that the parties agree to terminate or alter the relevant covenants to accomplish the purpose of the alteration of the subdivision or portion thereof. RCW 58.17.215 (emphasis added). Because the attached conceptual site plan violates the CCRs, any application to have such a site plan considered by the county would need to be signed by all parties subject to the covenants, including our clients. Let me explain how the conceptual site plan violates the CCRs. This site plan appears to propose the construction of a mixture of housing types, including stacked flats and two-story townhouses, along with some new commercial buildings. The mixture of housing types proposed, and resulting increased density, violates the CCRs and the face of the plat in the following manner. Sheet 2 on the face of the plat lists the addresses applicable within the plat. Each lot identified on the face of the plat is given one and only one address. Additionally, the CCRs specify that 53 residential town homes and 5 single-family residences are intended to be constructed within the plat. These restrictions essentially impose a density limit upon the plat by allowing for no more than 58 dwelling units. The conceptual site plan proposes 103 dwelling units. Additionally, the definitions of "dwelling unit," "lot," and "resident," in the CCRs indicate that only two types of residential structures are allowed within the plat: single-family residences and town homes. This restriction is corroborated on the face of the plat where each residential lot is identified by either an "SF" for single-family or a "TH" for town house. The single-family lots are shown on the face of the plat as SF1 through SF5. The town house lots are shown on the face of the plat as TH1 through TH53. When read together with the CCRs, it becomes clear that the SF and TH markings on the face of the plat are intended to be restrictions on the use of these lots. Lots marked with an SF can only be used for single-family residential uses. Lots marked with a TH can only be used for town house residential uses. The proposal on the conceptual site plan, by proposing the construction of stacked flats on single-family and town house lots, violates both the face of the plat and the CCRs. For example, the building on the conceptual site plan designated as "R1" appears to be located over single- family lots SF2 through SF4 of the plat. Building R1, however, is not a single-family structure. Rather, the conceptual site plan indicates that eight units--four stacked flats and four town 504138430] , . Al Scalf David Alvarez January 6, 2004 Page 3 homes--are planned to be constructed on these three single-family lots. This proposal clearly violates the density and housing style limitations imposed by the plat and its restrictive covenants. As another example, building R9, containing four stacked flats, is proposed to be located over lots TH33 and TH34. Not only does this example violate the type of housing restriction by constructing stacked flats on town home lots, it also violates the density restriction on the face of the plat by locating four dwelling units where only two were planned. There are numerous other examples to which one could point to illustrate the manner in which the site plan violates the restrictive covenants imposed by the plat and the CCRs. In fact, our preliminary analysis indicates that every single building proposed on this conceptual site plan violates some aspect of these restrictive covenants. Hence, because Ludlow Bay Village is subject to restrictive covenants, and because the conceptual site plan would violate those restrictive covenants, RCW 58.17.215 requires that PLA obtain the signature of every single Ludlow Bay Village homeowner before it may even apply to the county to have such a plat alteration considered. It is for this last reason that we felt the need to bring this matter to your immediate attention. We have been told that applications on this plat alteration could be forthcoming as soon as the middle of this month. Our clients want to make certain that their position is well understood by the county before any such applications are filed, particularly because the county should not consider such applications to be complete unless and until our clients have consented in writing to such alterations. In closing, I would like to request two things: 1) that the county planning and legal staff confer with each other regarding the subject of this letter and confirm that the county agrees with our position regarding the applicability ofRCW 58.17.215 to this proposal; and 2) that the county planning staff keep us informed of the status and progress of this proposed development and notify us of any related activity. Thank you in advance for your cooperation in this regard. Sincerely, By Jeffrey B. Taraday Enclosure cc: Peter Joseph Bill Master 504]3843.0] . ) PORT LUDLOW RESORT CONCEPTUAL SITE PLAN . -=---i , I , , 1 ""l ' I' if 1/' I /1 Y ',~r . " .,. 1: '0 ., ~.; I I~ i'~ ~.u - PARKING .,'R .~D."~ d ,J .I,! \ , I I ; ," 1\ tl\ ' IF~ : I;' t" h', F' Je \\ : N 343500 ,,\ \. II \, ~ "'I J ! )ID.- '8 -' I :, , , 'r i f , ..... I r ...;. , I i I PHINNF'r .~:;....-- / ./ \ ' N 343000 DENSE TREES J j ..r' ( I I I N .342500 ~ N 342000 , I SF) "'~' ~.: !Yl-'t.IU"'~ I @ T11>EI1 . o 50 100 SECTlON~~QUGH _~_. ~! , :~ @' 5020S B2S0 <U SECTION THROUGH R5 AND R3 , , ~(,.~: I J(P(I~ I Q :10 '00 ~' y -1..... rf / SCALL ! 1 , ,,- . ; I. --..-........... . .---.J r- ~ '~1:~' ARCHITECTONICS DESIGN AND PLANNING CONSULTANTS 1018 MARKET ST., KIRKLAND, WA 98033 www.ARCHITECTONICS-INC.COM PHONE: 425,828.0329 FAX: 425.889.8338 I __I "'--1 ;:.;:.=.=~ '0/ri II ,W. .:, I ,I" .G 'i1..I}IoI(!,,~f}!I)('l 'l.lnd\fJ::;(a\~IIUf' 1.(OI:O,/t;li