HomeMy WebLinkAboutLog230
! ,
","
~ 728134th Street SW, Suite 200
~~ Everett, WA 98204
425/741-3800 (Fax 425/741-3900)
TRANSMITTAL
MEMO
Date: February 22, 2005
From: Lyn Keenan
To: Mr. Al Scalf, Director
Jefferson Co. Department of Community
Development
621 Sheridan Street
Port Townsend, W A 98368
cc:
Project: Port Ludlow Resort EIS
~ .--....-.--
\~r~ F~B :: : ~ lID)!
! L_______J j
JEf-fEflSON COUNTY I
.. DEpT flF rOi)::JIUi~iTV OFVFLOO\Vil=~lT \
\___~~~:_ ,..1, i_~_<-., -:"::"', ~
File No. 27-03-002
Enclosures:
No. of
Co ies
1
Descri tion
Comment Letters and Comment Matrix
Action Requested:
DNone X For your Records D For your Signature For your Review and Return
D Other:
Date Required:
Remarks:
Faith and I are still talking about the best way to show the comment letters and identify specific
comments. We will have both the matrix, and mark-ups on each letter. Attached is an example
of where we are at the moment, but Faith and I will meet on March 1 to finalize our approach.
We want to make sure we have something we are comfortable with before our March 4 meeting
with you.
Thanks.
Lyn Keenan
LOG ITEM
# ~50
Page ----L- ofJ.L.
I
00
I
I 00
o
I I
I
I
I
I
.
.
,
. .
.,'
. .
~ '
.
~ .
. .
.
llO' . '.-,. .
.
. .
..
. .
.
~ .
. .
.
.
~ .
n
:r
a
"g."
CD
'i!"t i
~.
f
<
;ft.
c)"
::1
VI
.
.
n
:r
a
"
i
'i!"t
~
.
n
o
3
3
CD
::1
;r
~",
f
VI
"'0
o
::1
VI
CD
VI
"a
o
=
r-
n C
o c
3 r-
i ~
~ ~
.. rn
eft eft
o 0
:J jllI:I
C ....
'i!"t "a
a r-
=':1>
eft Z
!!! ~
eft rn
<
-
eft
-
o
Z
i I I I I I ' 1 I I I I I ' I I I I I I I I
I~~ roc 1::-!18'lol ~_' ~ III~I~I ~ 19:"I::!l ~ I~ ~1~18"I~ W 9. b g> 8' ~ c Ul I () ~ roc
I g 8" ~ I ~ I CT l.g I <D g I~. I ~ I =i I ~. I ~ ~. I Q I; ~ I Q I:) ~ 5 [" ~ g- CT ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~: I ~ z
I' ~ '" f:l I ~ I:T" : ~ I - I ! (f I <6 I ~ I g <D I ~ ! ~ ~ ~ g <n.., ~ g a; g ~ I '" Q
! ~ I I II II i I I 11 I I 11& I II ~ g I I i
I . I I I I ,I I :l I I
i I! I , i I I I i I
~ ~
w W
tJ1 ~
1G) I I I I I! ! II I I I I I I I
~ I I I I, 1 I I I I I. .
~ I 1 0 I I I II. I 10 10 110 . I I I: :., .
I 'I I I I' I I I I · .. .
II I 101 0 101 10101 0 I 001 0 ! 01 0 ~ I ~ :.
, 1+ 'LJJf.~ II_I. II J ":
! I ! I I I I I I
o 01
I ~____ I: . ' -L -LL-- -t- I
I I I I I I I I I i I I I
o ,01 0 I I I 01 I I ' 11 I III 0 I I 10 0
r'- 11-l+-l-+ I I .+.+ I 1~--1~-~_- _-1-1
II II I IT I,-TT II
I III I I II I 0 I
I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 I I ~. :
o 0 01 0 I I I I 1101, III I I HI I 0 0 I I 0 10 .
I I I I I I '-l i I I I ! I '
I t I+-I ' ,I I I I I I I I .
;--+-1----1----+--1 -ri-r--rr-t--- I ---r-r-T'+--i-i- --+-,-- -1-- .
I I -----[- r+~-T I, i - -'r :
I 0 I 0 0 I I 10 0 I I I I 0 I . .
II I I I ! I' II II I' I I I
I ,I, I I I
I I I I I I I I I I I
I I 01 ' 10'0 I I 10
I I I I I
.-L t--~ ..L'
I I Iii I] I '. I I I I I I I 1 I I
t--I I I I ' I I I till I! 'I
t- I t 111
_-11- 10 I 10 I ! I
I I I I I I I
I I LIt- 1
I r+ I 1-- ,
I I i 0 0 10 I 0
I ++1 ____e-_ll - t-L
I I I I ~ 0 I
< ~ I I '"U ~ '"U '"U I I ~ OJ 9. )> :J
, cO C:J
I --0 c-o ~ -0 c-o I 0 - I Q... CD Q.. 0
I' ~ ~ I CD ~ (,l c CD ~ )> =: ;;; t'<1. ~
Cf) _ Cf) ................~ Cf) _ .., ::J C ~. C
'< I '< CD I '< ~ ~ :J I'" ::!'. I
I I , I i I @ I g! I
~=It
~
o
f
I
. .
. .
~ ,
,
o 0 10 ..0,
. .
~
I
I
I
I
I
r
I
I
I
.
.
.
.
.
,
o .
.'
,
.
~ '
.
~
,
o
~ .
. .
o
I I
10 0 III
, -jtt
I I I I
I I ! !
I I i I'
I ! I+-
I I
I
I
I
01 0 ~1- :. :.:
I 0 101 ..
J_-+t
. . .
, .
I
I
I
1
I
I
I
r--
I
!
I
..
o 0
II
'01
. ,
----- -- --
I
I 10
H-
I I
I .
I I
.
.
~ .
o 0
. .
~ar II ~ ~11
0] I c v
r ~ I Ii r ~
!I Qo;;o m Q1
)> CD :J-.
fu ~.n ~.~.
i-o !!!. S. (3 :J
1(3 Q...;D :J co I
C5~.<~~1
i Q.. () a. ~u
~
n
:r
,,,.a. ..
-0: ..
...
CD."
...
W
f
:S.
VI
cr
':I
VI
"
.
.
.)
.1
'.,
'.1
jl!,
.
.
n
:r
a
-0
i
..
..
:1
n
o
3
3
CD ,
:I
...
VI
""Pi ~~
f
VI
"
o
:I
~.
eft
':
!I
:r:
:,..-
Q
o
()
/'
'J
-D"
25
')
o
e
":&
Q) ~
CO .,,-
,: ~.IT
r~
00
~.~ i
I ?"
&
,0001 I
I I I
~- ,--1--
--
I
10
. .
. .
~ .
.
o .
.
.
.
. .
.
'Ill
.
.
.
I
~ .
. .
, ' ,
.
. "
~ .
..
.
.
. n
," :r
. a
~
...
CD
. .,
.
w
.
,,:f
~
-.
'"
-.
0
:s
'"
,
.
.
"
''"
,
, ,
,
.
''''
.
.
.
n
:r
a
~
i
.,
~ '"
. 0
n
o
3
3
CD
:s
;r
,*,,~ j;k~
~'f
'"
"U
o
:s
'"
lCD
'"
. .
, .
"
May 27. 2004
JUN - 1 200~
JEFFERSON COUNTY OeD
To: The Jefferson County Department of Community Development
621 Sheridan Street
Port Townsend, WA 98368
We are lot owners in North Bay and members of the Beach Club. We have
several concerns with the DSEIS now resubmitted by Port Ludlow
Associates.
Here we will address our major concern, which is the severe loss of open
space around the Beach Club, Mill Pond, and Marina. The area adjacent to
Oak Bay Road with several trees growing on the green is the signature area ,
of Port Ludlow, giving some validity to the boast that this is the Little , \ ~:'S 1
Village in the Woods By the Sea. If this area is stacked with condos it will ..
lose its great beauty and welcoming aspect. No fmancial gain will make up
for the loss of this space to the community, where it has get-togethers and
events during the summertime, as well as cherishing the area at all seasons~
Further, counting the mill pond as open space, then proposing to ring it
tightly with smaller condos goes against the rules and common sense. \
Parking and fIfe access will be severely eroded, along with the open space l., ~~.L
we hold so important.
dA~
Sincerely,
Grant and Wenonah Sharpe
PO Box 65113
Port Ludlow, W A
98365
LOG ITEM
#~5:
Page-+-of-L
LOG ITEM
# ;2.30
Page ~ ofL
Rosalind K Plorde
55 McKenzie Lane
Port Ludlow, W A 98365
~~
JUN -1 2004
JEFFERSON COUNTY OeD
Dear Sirs,
I was very dismayed the other evening at the Port Ludlow "Town Meeting," to learn of
the DSEIS that Port Ludlow Associates is to submit to Jefferson County for their
proposed expansion in the lower harbor-resort area. An outside consultant sitting in a
remote location and drawing lines on a "plan" To reinforce and validate what the
developer wants to do, is a sorry way to conduct business. There seemed to no '\11 ~
understanding ofthe original intent or design and concept of the "Resort at Port Ludlow, ,~..\
and worse, no real effort to consider the impact of this plan. Practical considerations
such as the amount of space it takes to park a car, drive down a street or allow emergency
vehicles access to residences seem to be glossed over and/or ignored. Packing in more
residences and subdividing open spaces into ''products'' is the only thing evident in this
plan.
The "impact" is both esthetic and physical. The regulations put forth by the state of \
Washington to safeguard shorelines and other environmental considerations are not ~ \ '\ 1. \0
included at all. There is no evidence that either PLA or their consultants made any finite
measurements of the space, did any research on drainage, land slides, water supply,
proposed usage, transportation or safety.
We as residents of Port Ludlow, moved to this community to enjoy the attractions that
both nature and the original developers provided. If and when some facilities are made -s
"exclusive" to only a segment of the community, and the natural environment is
degraded, many will begin to think of going elsewhere. PLA seems to be trying to
present another scheme not unlike the last effort to create revenue by imposing ill-
conceived and grandiose pr<;>grams for the golf and marina community.
Many of us are retired, but we are not senile or stupid as this DSEIS report would
suppose. We count on Jefferson County to reject this proposal as both inadequate and a \,
travesty for all concerned. If Jefferson County counts on our property taxes to contnoute ~ \ ,-\, "S ;L
to the county coffers, they must make sure that Port Ludlow remains a viable and
attractive community or it may decline to a mere shadow of its former self.
Thank you for your attention and interest.
Sincerely,
~ Ii.. p~~
Rosalind K. Plorde
LOG ITEM
#.J..Y tp
Page-l-of.-L-
LOG ITEM
# J..30
Page (p of l!
.'
"
Jefferson County
Department of Community Development
621 Sheridan Street
Port Townsend, WA 98368
May 26, 2004
Dear Sir:
I am writing you in regards to the proposed development of the marina area here
in Port Ludlow. If developers wish to build and develop the area around the
marina they should be responsible, at their expense, for the entire infrastructure, \ I
which would include the expansion of the sewer treatment plant. The burden \ \ L\.~ ~
should not be placed on the residents of Port Ludlow. People have bought lots
with the understanding that they will be able to have hook ups when they build.
The sewer system is adequate for the existing lots. Any major development like
what is being proposed must be required to meet future needs. Parking is another
major concern. Restrictions have been put in placed over the years, which protects '1 \ ~\.~ k,
the residents. The developer should not be able to negate these without the q..
consent of all property owners. I know that we have to have development but
anything as major as what has been proposed needs very careful study with the
present and future in mind. Please do not let development take place that will ~
cause major problems. They will be gone and we are stuck with the corrections, if
even possible...
full ~J;t~
e d Me DonBld . . .
333 Montgomery LN
Port Ludlow, W A
360-437-5038
~~~
=-.
JUN -1 200~
JEFFERSON COUNTY DeD_
LOG ITEM
#~7
:>ape ---L- of l
LOG ITEM
# ;< ~O
Page 7 otJL
The Sharpe Family Trust
10 Admiralty Lane # 304
Port Ludlow, WA 98365
Monday, May 24, 2004
p~
JUN -1 200~
Jefferson County Dept. of Community Development
621 Sheridan St.
Port Townsend, WA 98368
JEFFERSON COUNTY OeD
RE: Draft SEIS - Port Ludlow Resort Plan Revision:
Gentlemen:
We have reviewed the details on the Draft SEIS for the Port Ludlow Resort Plan Revision, and wish to
make a few comments. We fully understand that the owners should be expected to get the best possible
retum on investment under the master plan. It must, however, be done carefully, with actual facts, and with
some level of integrity. We do not wish to be obstructionist, but we will watch that the process be done
right. In the spirit of cooperation, we would like to point out a few issues that need to be corrected.
. The transportation. asse. ssment in.. secti. 'on 3.6 is substantially in error, and ShO. .Uld be corre\cted.
Actual impact is more than double the stated figure. \: 4.~.<O
. Detailed architectural drawings and road plans are not induded as required. d\l\.~.\O
. The Bay Club and the Beach dub are not conference facilities as stated, but are private dubs for
the use of members and their guests under very specific guidelines. ':!; \ l\.~.:)"
. We are very concerned that existing basketball, court and playground facilities are to be removed,
with no replacement plan. Our major concern is the loss of the only safe playground for children.l.\\~.1.~
. The parking plan is unwise in the extreme, and contains significant factual errors. The supervisory
board will do well to exercise a great deal of oversight on traffic portion of this project I have seen a \ ,
number of cases of front and back parking touted as two spaces. Inevitably, one car (or more) wind 5 \,-\."S.f
up parked in the street. Not good. The report also daims quite a number of additional spaces that
can be rented for overflow. This agreement is for about half the number daimed, and expires
January ~013.
. The report daims the private lawns of Admiralty I and II as public open spaces. This is a significant '0\ ~~.(
misrepresentation of the facts.
Over all, the plan has a number of loose ends, and several misstated facts. We hope that these issues can ~.
be resolved equitably, to the benefit of all involved.\
I know yours is often a thankless job, so I want to express my thanks for your efforts to serve on this board.
We hope that these comments will be useful, and help you in your deliberations.
Phon'-~~tr~
#J1<2
Page--L-of-!-
Fax: (480) 314-0125 Mobile: (480) 540-3370
Ld~ Lfff!M60.437.7304
# d-..30
Page <6 of-1L-
SharoeC~cox.net
May 29, 2004
Mr. Al Schalf, Director
Jefferson County Department of Commumity Development
621 Sheridan Street
Port Townsend, WA 98368
Dear Sir:
JJDTO~
JUN - 120M
JEFFERSON COUNTY OeD
Re: Revised Port Ludlow Resort Plan and
and Draft EIS therefor
A review of the proposed Port Ludlow Resort Plan and Draft Supplemental Environmental
Impact Statement, dated April 2004, reveals the following inadequacies and adverse im-
pacts if accepted and implemented as now presented:
1. In the marina area of the Resort: The proposed development of a long row of a nu~
ber of closely built large commercial and large residential structures immediately along ~ 1\ :'S \
and next to the sensitive shoreline of Port Ludlow Bay. All or part of this phase of the "'0.
development may be in violation of the county's Shoreline Management Master Program.
2. In the area of the current location of the Resort's HarbOrmaster Restaurant: The pro-
posed development of residential buildings on the terrain that includes very steep slOpes ~.\ '? (
above the shoreline and an existing Iagoonlmarshland frequented by many kinds of water ..d-\~ "
fowl. An or part of this phase of the development may be in violation of the County Shore- l\"l.
line Management Master Program and Building Codes.
3. Along the shoreline from the start of Ludlow Bay Village to the current marina office 10- ~l
cation, to the existing single residence west of the marina office: The proposd (and contin- ~\l\.'t,
ued) drastic reduction of ubli horelin a s nd ub i w t r viewi 0 0 nities
with no mitigation offered.
4. In the upland area of the Resort: The major elimination of open space in proposed high \.\\
density residential areas with no mitigation offered.
5. Wi\hin the entire resort area: Inadeuqate analysis and detail on accommodations for in- 9.\\.1.
creased commercial and residential parking and street traffic. .
I hope for your serious detailed study of the problems I have outlined above which appear
to warrant major changes to PLA's seriously flawed development roposals for theHesort.
(
LOG ITEM
# ll{ ~
Page---L-ofL
LOG ITEM
# fJ..30
Page q of II
, .
Jefferson County Department of Community Development
621 Sheridan Street
Port Townsend, WA 98368
JUN ... 1 2OlJ4
JEFFERSON COUNTY OeD .
5/27/04
RE: Draft of the Environmental Impact Statement for Port Ludlow Development
To Whom It May Concern:
My husband and I have lived in Port Ludl&w for just one year now and love it, as well as the rest
of Jefferson County, very much. We are trying to keep ourselves informed as to proposed
projects, etc. which will have an impact on our unique ooaIfnmity while allowing for healthy
growth and prosperity in Jefferson County.
As we understand the DSEIS, we have the following strong concerns that we hope will be
considered and acted upon prior to moving forward with this project:
. We'd like to see a detailed analysis of parking and traffic patterns planned. From what we
see, we're concerned that there is not enough parking which will lead to much street ~"\~ \.
parking. Not only is this a cosmetic problem, but more importantly, a safety problem. ..
We need appropriate fire truck and emel'2encv vehicle access. We also see potential
for much higher traffic volume and can't tell if that has been dealt with, especially with
roads dead-ending at the Inn (where do we turn around)? \ ,
. Will there be a decrease or elimination of public access to our beach? ?\ ~.~ .1
. Some land that is currently zoned as residential is proposed for commercial developmen, ,
and some residences proposed would occupy land currently zoned commercial. What ~\~ ~ .~
impact will that have on current condo owners?
. What open space will still be there? One of the things we love about P.L. are the green \.
belts and open area, including the pond. We'd hate to see condos (or anything else) builtl\\"'.~. \
over the pond. In fact, we thought it was originally zoned to be a common area for the
recreation and enjoyment of !ill homeowners.
. Our understanding is that there has been little, if any, analysis done regarding drainage. I \ \
This is a great concern for those currently living in condos as they already have some -\ \
problems. Is there an estimate of increased silt or storm water runoff'?
As implied above, we do want to see PLA prosper, but not at the expense of overlooking the
good of the folks who currently make up this community. We believe that a plan can be
developed that is acceptable and beneficial to all parties. However, in order to do this, more
analysis is needed and dialogue with this community.
~
The Buehlers CWal/n€'" ~.stephan f~
120 Fleet Drive, Port Ludlow, W A
LOG ITEM LOG ITEM
# ISO # ~60
Page-l-ofL Page to of-1L
" '
.~
m1 :J. ~ :lOOV
25 Sea Vista Place
Port Ludlow, W A 98365
Jefferson County Dept of Community Development
621 Sheridan Street
Port Townsend, WA 98368
JUN-l 20M
JEFFERSON COUNTY OCD
To Whom It May Concern:
As a current resident of Port Ludlow, and as a property owner from Mats
Mats Bay for over thirty years, I am writing to comment about the DSEIS
for Port Ludlow.
Growth for this area is inevitable, but growth should be regulated
responsibly for the long-term future of Jefferson County, one of the most
beautiful areas in the country. Unfortunately it appears that the owners of
the resort, PLA, are suffering from short-termitis, and want to increase their ~.
profits at the expense of responsible growth. Fortunately, the county can \\,\.~ \
and should control the resort plan to ensure that the various county
regulations are enforced, including Shorelines Management, fire department
access issues, parking adequacy, storm water runoff provision, and landslide
hazards.
It is my understanding that the report used for evaluating threats to the
environment is over 12 years old. That seems hardly a good basis to use. at
this date.
d\ l\. ~. \J:)
l\.~ . ~
To increase the residential density by over 50% in the resort area is too
much. My husband and I hope that the EIS is modified and redone to reflect ~
what is best for Port Ludlow and Jefferson County's long range plans, which ~
should not be a degradation of the area, but an enhancement.
Sincerely,
\
}(m~ 11-/ Ih-
~lee-Y\ m\1l?)
LOG 'TEM
# ~I
page-L-of_'
LOG ITEM
#~,~O
Page II ofJL