Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutLog121 May 20, 2004 Jefferson County Department of Community Development 621 Sheridan Street Port '''Townsend, W A 98368 MAY 26 2084 JEFFERSON COUNTY OCD Subject: Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (DSEIS) For Port Ludlow Resort Plan Revision Attention: Mr. AI Scalf Dear Mr. Scalf After a thorough review of this document I am dismayed to find that our county planning officials would accept a report as flawed and incomplete as this one. There are many discrepancies and important omissions. The State Environmental Protection Act requires that an EIS "must be prepared in a professional manner with appropriate interdisciplinary methodology". Significant errors and omissions which need to be addressed include: 1. Where is a comprehensive, detailed analysis of parking, and traffic flow in this high density area complete with a Sllmmary of legally required parking, and a realistic discussion of access and availability? 2. Little information on the specifics of the proposed buildings Including dimensions, floor plans, and elevations are provided. It is almost impossible to understand exactly what is included in the project. 3. Practically no information; on the locations of the various buildings and how they relate to the streets for access. 4. Incomplete and error filled site plans, Marina plans, and other diagrams. 5. A confusing discussion of this proposal as a destination resort when all evidence indicates that it is nothing more than a high density housing development. Specific comments and questions follow: Comments on the ''preferred project" Page 3-43 through Pages 3-50 1. Building layouts are shown for only one of the proposed buildings R-8. Where are the layouts for R-l through R-12? 2. Figure 12B shows elevations for type I and type n units. Where are the elevations for a type III unit? 3. Why is the restaurant building on figure 12B shown combined with the marina office? This does not agree with the site plan figure 3B. 4. Only the Trail Plan Figure 13 shows the location of the various buildings and then barely readable, by area number. Why are these not shown on the site plan figure 3B? Which is the governing document for the EIS? LOG ITEM #~ Page--L-of_~. ',;0 5. Which building houses the facilities for the Marina i.e. Laundry, showers, bathrooms. Comments on Parking and Traffic: 1. Where is a summary of legally required parking spaces? A review of Section 6 of the county development standards along with reasonable estimates ofwbat would be required by the administrator reveal that a minimum of 45 spaces should be provided for the three new buildings on the water. Why does; the site plan only show 18? Does the plan allow for the 190 parking spaces which will be required for marina users? 2. The residents in R-l on Pintail will not park tandem In their driveways since parking will be available for their 8 additional cars in the marina lot. 3. The site plan shows an elevator for access to the upper parking lot but it is not referred to in the text oftbe EIS document. Is this r~ly going to be provided? 4. The EIS states that at busy times the public will park on the streets. At present no parking is allowed on Gull Dr. for fire truck access. At least 45 driveways from the new dwellings will intersect the streets. Where is a detail accounting of the street parking claimed by the EIS? 5. Considering emergency vehicle requirements, will on street parking be allowed on Heron Rd., Gull Dr. , Widgeon, Pintail and the UOl18med street behind R-5 and R-6? 6. Why does the EIS not address the subject of what is a reasonable distance for regular users of amenities to travel on foot if the site is properly planned? Comments on the Site Plan Figure 3-B 1. Why is only one street labeled? Why not Show Gull Dr., Widgeon Rd., and Pintail. 2. Are the proposed new buildings to scale? They appear to be artist renderings with no useful information to the reader. Since parking is a critical issue and driveways will be ~ why does the site plan not show them for each of the dwellings? Driveways will have a significant impact on available street parking and must be shown since it is probable that the residents will park their extra cars in the street rather than in the driveways. 3. Why are the buildings not labeled with area numbers shown on the Trail Plan Figure 13? Are these locations correct? 4. What is the street access for units in area R-2? 5. What is the building shown between area R-4 and R-5? Is this a residence? 6. What are the buildings within R-6? Are they all alike? No driveways are shown. Are these units equipped with two indoor parking places for each dwelling unit? Are there in filet 14 dwellings in this area and room for 28 cars? 7. What are the dimensions of the street leading in to R-6? Is the area in the street in R-6 adequate to accommodate the 28 cars to operate and provide access fOT fire trucks? LOG ITEM # .JdJ Page.::l..- o~ ~- ...~ Comment on the Proposed Recreation Center: This 7500 sq. ft. facility will be available for the exclusive use of the LBV residents (62 dwelling units), the guests of the 37 room hotel, and the people on boats in the 48 guest slips in the marina in the summer months. A conservative estimate of the cost of this building is probably $750,000. It is certain tbat PLA would expect that the cost to maintain, operate, and amortize the investment in this building would be born by the users. The current residents ofLBV (25 owners) are already members ofLMC and enjoy the use of the Beach Club for recreational uses at a cost of$400 per year. We can see no reason why these residents would be willing to assume the burden of an additional Club facility. The covenants and regulations applicable to all of the present undeveloped lots (33 Platted) provide that the purchasers of these properties will become members of the LMC and users of the Beach Club amenities for $ 400 per year as well as the current owners. !fall the proposed new dwellings are construc~ under the present CC&R's every owner of the new units would become a member of the LMC and a user of the Beach Club unless the developer seeks to alter the language in the current Plat documents to remove this privilege. What is the rationale for providing a new recreational club :tacility when one is already available and how could it possibly be supported financially by only 62 owners , a 37 room hotel and 48 visitor slips in the marina which are only used during the summer months. It would seem that this facility is included in this proposal to support the myth that this a destination resort project when it is in :tact simply a high density housing project. The economic reality is that this building can not be justified and will never be built. In the light of the obvious shortcomings of the EIS document it should be rejected and returned to the proponent for a complete reevaluation. This high density project has so many adverse impacts that it will not be accepted by the Port Ludlow community. The community wants a tasteful, thoughtfully crafted development in the Marina area that we can enjoy and be proud of long after PLA bas left. Srely, . ./J ~~a:r~~~ James M. Brannaman 563 Pioneer Dr. Port Ludlow, W A 989365 LOG ITEM # IdJ Page..:3 of .3 --- .~ ..-, ~