Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutLog199 r. ( . " , . ".- .....'" Ii...""....... '."".. ;.,.,.......i}I!....:........ .'"..... . ''''.. .. .. .~ .. -. .. . -. ".. PORe: luOloUl vtllAC1€ COUT)ctl P.o. BOX 65012 PORe LuOLoili, iliA 98365 July 8, 2004 p!t~ "". 12 2004 RRSONCOUNIY OeD Mr. AI Scalf, Director Jefferson County Department of COmmunity Development 621 Sheridan Street Port Townsend, Washington 98368 RE: Resort Development in Port Ludlow. Washington Dear Mr. Scalf: At the regular monthly workshop meeting of the Port Ludlow Village Council held on July 1, 2004, the Board of Directors passed the following motion: "That a letter be written to the Jefferson County, Washington Department of Community Development on behalf of the Port Ludlow Village Council stating that the Council is 100% in agreement with the comment letter written by President Carol Higley Saber in regard to building over the lagoon as proposed by Port Ludlow Associates in its Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement; that the Port Ludlow Village Council expects Jefferson County to act in accordance with the direction given by the Washington State Department of Ecology in regard to building over the lagoon; and that no more permits for over-water building be issued t() Port Ludlow Associates by Jefferson County until the issue of whether or not sud~ l>uilding is legal is properly settled by the Ecology Department of the State of Washington or adjudicated in a court of law." A copy of the letter referenced in the Motion is attached he"'~t:o inti made a part hereof. We request a reply as to whether your department will comply ~'\H ~he directions given by the Department of Ecology and the above motion. , ~ ~~~~ Port Ludlow Village Council cc: Jefferson County Commissioners LOG !TElVl # --L3.L " PaQe 1 of I ^ '- .........,.... ....,-".-----. ~.......'"-,. , . . , .' . May 29, 2004 Jefferson CO\Ulty Department of Community Development 621 Sheridan Street Port Townsend, Washington Dear Sirs: I am writing my comments in regard to the Port Ludlow Resort Plan Revision's Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (DSEIS) dated in April 2004. I understand that by the extension granted by Mr. Al Scalf. Director Of the Department of Community Development on May 24,2004,1 have until 1une 14, 2004 at 4:30 PM to place this letter in the bands of the Department of Community Development. Before beginning the critique to be contained in this letter, I want to make it clear that I am writing simply as a citizen of Port Ludlow, Washington, without reprd to any office that I may hold in the community or any professional position that I have attained. Let me also state that I have every desire to see the developer, Port Ludlow Associates (PLA) succeed in the build out of the Port Ludlow Resort. My concern arises when I see the prospective plans for the final development of the resort as seriously flawed and. in my reading of the law, proceeding in some areas in an illegal manner. I have detailed my further concerns in an Appendix to this letter (Appendix A) which is attached hereto and made a part of this letter for the record. I have chosen to do this because I believe that if the areas that I believe to be illegal applications for a building permit are addressed (denied), the majority of the objections expressed by myself and the community to the DSEIS will disappear. Therefore, the body of this letter focuses on those illegal areas. Initially, I am referring specifically to the Shoreline Management Master Prognun for 1efferson County dated March 7. 1989. Section 5.160 of that document specifically prohibits the building of "residential stmctures on or over marshes, bogs, swamps, lagoons, tidelands, ecologically sensitive areas or water areas subject to the master program:' With reference to the DSEIS, this prolubition specifically applies to the PLA plan to build residential units over the shoreline of the lagoon in the resort Although the DSEIS states (page 3-10) that "no wetlands or streamS are located within the Resort,"this is an untrue statement since the over 2+ acre lagoon constitutes a wetland that is utilized by wildlife residing in or passing through the area. PLA contends that it is not subject to the Jefferson County Shoreline Master Program because the lagoon was "man-made". In my reading of the law and from my personal experience in watching others attempt (without success) to get around the "no building over wetlands" requirement, it does not matter whether the lagoon is made by nature or man-made. This body of water is not like a swinuning pool in one's back yard. Once a wetland is created, it remains a wetland in perpetuity or WItH natural conditions change and it dries up of its own accord. A reading of the description of the lagoon in the DSEIS, Section 3.2.1.1, Affected Environment, further substantiates my view. This lagoon was created in 1967 and enlarged in 1994. Thus, it has existed for 37 years. It is awoximate1y 10 feet deep. It is very close to the Bay and there is water exchange between the lagoon and the Bay. I myself have seen otters playing around the lagoon as well as herons and egrets feeding in the waters of the lagoon. Indeed, one of the "conditions" required in the 1993 permit for resort development of the Inn and surrO\Ulding townhomes was the pla1\ting of eel grass in the lagoon to promote use by wildlife and aquatic creatures. Qearly, then, this body ofwater is a wetland and must remain subject to the Shoreline Management Act of the State of Washington and the Jefferson County Shoreline Master Progmm. LOG ITEM # l1q Page ~, __ otlf~~: Currently in the DSEIS, PLA proposes to build a series of "stacked flats" and town homes over the shore of the lagoon and extending into the lagoon. My count from the map labeled "Figure 8 - Drainage Basins" at page 3~12 of the DSEIS shows at least 12 and pemaps 13 of these buildings are to be built over and extending into the lagoon. If, as I believe, this building over the shoreline of the lagoon is not permitted under the Shoreline Management Act or the Jefferson County Shoreline Management Program. this would eliminate at least 12 buildings from the crowded plan proposed by PLA and automatically decrease the complaints of the Port Ludlow citizens related to traffic, parking and congestion (See. Appendix A herein). Indeed. no less than the Jefferson County Tax Assessor-Collector, Mr. Jack Westennan, had declared those lots located over the lagoon as "unbuildable" and lowered the taxes assessed to PLA on those lots. My second area of concern relating to legal aspects of the proposed DSEIS relates to the changes requested by PLA in location of commerciallresidential properties. While I have no personal objection to the switching of these locations. I am concerned when it appears that PLA is attempting to make these switches without going through the proper permitting process. Specifically, the location of the present Harbormaster Restaurant is a commercial area ~ 1993 Resort PIan. Figure 2-AItemative 2). In the DSEIS, townhomeslstacked flats are being planned for this area. Currently, along the shoreline of the Marina, single family residential units are platted (See, 1993 Resort Plan, Figure2-Altemative 2). The DSEIS contemplates making this area a commercia1 area with a marina store, restaurant and recreation facility. Section 3.903 of the Jefferson County Ordinance 08-1004-99 requires that any subdivision that has only partia1ly been developed must apply for a plat alteration "as set forth in state law and in applicable county ordinances". The Resort plat was approved and recorded in 1993 thus, any alteration to that plat must be applied for and processed separately from seeking approval through the DSEIS process. RCW 58.17.215 states that an application for such plat alteration "requires the signatures of a majority of those persons have an ownership interest in the lots, tracts, parcels, sites or divisions in the subdivision. " Since the townhouse owners now living in the resort area outnumber the developer when it comes to a vote by head count and the RCW does not give an advantage to the majority lot owner, PLA would be treated as a single lot owner for the purpose of such a vote. Knowing that PLA would likely fail to gamer the required votes for such a plat change, it appears that PLA is tIying to slide this plat change requirement through in the DSEIS. Although the two issues stated above are but a few of the flaws that I have found in my reading of the DSEIS (See, Appendix A hereto), they are the mQSt serious because they appear to flout the laws of Washington and Jetrerson"County. In light of these flaws alone, I believe that the Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement submitted to Jefferson County, Washington by Port Ludlow Associates should be rejected in its entirety. Sincerely, Carol Higley Saber P.O. Box 65487 14 Sea Vista Tenace Port Ludlow Washington, 98365 LOG iTEM # lqq Page.-.3__._0(_Ce._h r . Appendix A Overall Critique of Port Ludlow Resort Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement TraffidParking: . Focus is on roadway impact (State Route 104, Beaver Valley Road, Pamdise Bay Road, Oak. Bay Road) rather than parking at the resort which is the primarY concern. No analysis of parking requirements at the resort is given. . Several dUferent numbers are given for total parking spaces: which are correct? . Incorrect number of spaces stated as leased from LMC for Resort use (See. LMC letter to Jefferson County Department of Community Development re: DSEIS). . No citing of code requirements for adequate parking for each type of use (business or residential) is given such as " one parlring space for each three restaurant seats". . What sort of on street parking is anticipated; where? It is impossible to detennine where driveways are located from the maps within the DSEIS. . Residences will have tandem parking for two cars( behind each other) and will tend to use street spaces or parking lot spaces for at least one of those cars per household Drives for residences will effectively eliminate street parking considering the density of development since driveways cannot be blocked No on street parking will be allowed on the road to the inn as that is to be a two-way road and is not wide enough to allow for paddng as well. . All streets are dead-end streets without tum-around areas. With cars in the streets and no turning areas this creates as hazard in emergency situations. Will fire trueks and emergency vehicles be able to maneuver? . No discussion given to the "elevator" at the parking lot or the "18 foot wall" at the parking lot as shown on the plats atld diagrams. What do these items consist of! What are the safety measures (if any) connected with these items? . No consideration was given to the present average use of current parking in determining adequate future parking needs at buildout of the resort and expansion of the marina. Even now, during events at either the marina, Beach Club, Inn or Harbormaster (which are often simultaneous, particularly in Spring, Summer and Fall), parking can be difficult to find. . Drainage: . There is no description as to how adequate drainage is to be accomplished. Present drainage is often inadequate. Development (particularly of Admiralty ill) will only increase the drainage problems. . The North Bay Drainage District has not been consulted on these issues even though they are the agency which will directly involved in solving drainage problems that arise. . With so. much additional land to be covered by asphalt and. conaete in the Admiralty ill area, why are there no detailed provisions made for drainage which is already a problem for the Admiralty I and n units. . Where is the retention pond for Admiralty ill? Is there to be one at all? If not, is this development allowed? LOG ITEM # lq~ page__,' __ofJ.L . 1, --I .! . Density: . The proposed residences are a significant increase (56%) over the current plan (from 87 to 190 residential units over all ; with an increase from 58 town homes to 88 residential units within the resort itself) creating a crowded situation not conducive to a resort atmosphere. . The floor plans included in the DEIS do not repre$eD1 all the typeS of residences proposec1 and it is impossible to teU which of these units are to be located where in the blocks of shaded areas representing housing. . Floor plans for the commercial areas are not included in the DBIS nor are the locations adequately designated on the plats. . Designation of some residential nnits in the proposed plan occupies )and zoned commercial (where the present Harbormaster is located) and some of the cwrently zoned. residential area (along the marina waterfront) is proposed to be commercial space. Doesn't this require a re-zoning and a re-plating? No consideration seems to have been given to the legalityfilleplity of this change. . No discussion was given to the building of residetJtia1 nnits on pilings over the lagoon. Only a one sentence mentioned that the lagoon was exempt from the Washmgton State Shoreline Management Act but no citation was given nor any opinion cited by an official of any agency as to the truth of that statement . It is not realistic to say that just because the lagoon is man-made that it is not a wetland. It has been in place for 37 years and water is exchanged between the Bay and the lagoon. . The presence of wildlife around the lagoon was minimized, based on 12 year old data yet, I myself, while dining at the Harbormaster have seem eagles, herons. osprey, muskrat, beaver, otter and deer around the lagoon. I cannot believe that the greatly increased density will not have an adverse effect on wildlife within the water and around the water of the lagoon. -. . Two additional propane tank storage areas are contemplated but are not shown on the site maps and no analysis of the safety of this propane storage was done. Economics: . A great deal of space is given over to comparison of the current proposal with the two prior proposals. Is this used as a justif'k:ation for the current proposal changes to the resort plan? Otherwise. why are these comparisons in there in such detail? . It seems strange that Jefferson County appears to be passing on the economic viability of this project and commenting on clNrogjng economics. Since economics has been introduced into the DSEIS, it would be interesting to inquire as to the economics of the proposed club which is open only to guestS at the Inn, the townhome residents (who already are designated to be mentbers of the LMC Beach Oub), and guests at the marina (but not slip holders). . How can such a meager use base support a facility that will probably cost 1/2 to 3/4 of a million dollars to build (to say nothing of maintenance)? If the townhome residents are to be forced to be excluded from the LMC in order to build the new club base, this win require a change to the current Cc&Rs which requires a 1000'" approval (not a likely prospect). Oumging economics would seem to dictate that this facility is not viable. LOG \TEM #~.__.. Page _:J of~ , .. . . " . :- . . . Reference is made to use of the conference center as PLA offices. However, this facility is under lease to Port Ludlow Vacations, a company nnAffiliated with PLA. There is also the possibility that this facility will be sold to an outside party as negotiations are ongoing. Overan Evaluation: . It appears that Jefferson County Department of Community Development relied totally on PLA for input into this DSEIS. . The lack of citation of federal, state or county codes to support the statements made is shocking. This does not allow adequate evaluation of the DSEIS in relation to Code requirements. . Port Ludlow is designated at a Master Planned Resort (MPR) under the Codes of the State of Washington. That designation was originally creau:d by the Washington State Legislature with Port Ludlow in mind. Now, with the increased density and major changes proposed in the DSEIS, it is hard to realistically continue to call Port Ludlow an MPR. If that designation fails due to the actions of the developer, it opens the community up to all sorts of land use designations leading to much uncertainty in the future. . Increasing the density, changing the focus of Port Ludlow from a resort to just another residential area, removing the open spaces so prized by the citizenry, will have an adverSe effect on property values reducing the tax base for Jefferson County in the long run. LOG iTEfVi #-13. q Page..___{f.,,_of(p'