Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutLog303 ~ I~~~I IllioI!lw, LUDLOW MAINTENANCE COMMISSION POST OFFICE BOX 65060 PORT LUDLOW, WASHINGTON 98365 (360) 437-9201 November 2, 2005 Jefferson County Department of Community Development Development Review Division 621 Sheridan St. Port Townsend, W A 98368 Subject: Comments to Major Resort Plan Revision MLA-00407 Reference: (1) SOO05-00030 Boundary Line Adjustment Application (2) SDP05-00019 Shoreline Substantial Development Permit (3) ZON05-00035 Administrative Code Interpretation (4) ZON03-00044 Major Resort Plan Revision Community Development Department: This letter is the response of the Ludlow Maintenance Commission (LMC) to the subject application for a Major Resort Plan Revision to the Port Ludlow resort area as is contained in the reference documents. The LMC is the homeowners association for the North Bay residents of Port Ludlow representing approximately 1100 home, lot and condominium owners. The review and comments contained herein represent the collective opinions of the LMC Board of Trustees acting on behalf of the Port Ludlow North Bay Community. We are very concerned about the proposed major revision to the development plans for the resort area of Port Ludlow. The application does not appear to us to be consistent with State and County regulations and law, is not in compliance with the Master Declaration of CC&R's for the Ludlow Bay Village, and proposes a significant increase to the density of residential buildings within the resort area that will forever negatively impact the character and aesthetics of the resort area Our comments to the referenced applications are contained below. Boundary Line Adiustment ADPlkation In the preamble to the MPR Code (Ordinance No. 08-1004-99) Olympic Resource and its successor Port Ludlow Associates (PLA) agreed. to be subject to the provisions of this ordinance and that the further development of Port Ludlow within the MPR boundaries would be in accordance with the ordinance. Further, Pope Resources signed an agreement with Jefferson County in 2000 for the future development and build out of the Port Ludlow Master Planned Resort (MPR). Pope Resources and its successor PLA agreed. to be bound by the provisions of this Development Agreement Paragraph 3.903 of the !v1PR Code states "for any subdivision that has been approved and recorded, but only partially developed, a plat alteration shall be applied for and processed as set forth in state law and in applicable county ordinances." Further, Paragraph 3.15 of the Development Agreement acknowledges that the development of the resort complex may require alteration of the Ludlow Bay Village Plat Paragraph 3.15.2 states that "any alteration of the Ludlow Bay Village Plat shall be processed pursuant to the County land use procedures ordiruulce and applicable state law. A public hearing shall be required for any necessary plat alteration, and the review process shall consider the criteria in RCW 58.17.215 controlling the plat alteration." In view of the requirements of these paragraphs we believe that PLA must fIle for a plat alteration and cannot use a boundary line adjustment for the major revision requested for the resort area. We therefore request that the PLA application for a boundary line adjustment as is contained in SOO05-00030 be rejected. In discussions with Jefferson County Department of Community Development personnel it was suggested that Section 3 of County Ordinance No. 04-0526-92 and RCW 58.17.040 gave permission for PLA to apply LuG ITEM #30~ Page~_L._of 5" for 11 boundary line adjustment. However, our review of these documents indicates that these documents only state that boundary line adjustments of the type proposed by PLA are exempt from the requirements of those documents. We believe that the Development Agreement and the MPR Code therefore are controlling and require a plat alteration for any change to the plat of the resort area. Residential Density Item 3 of Section 3.906 of the MPR Code lists criteria for the approval of a major revision to the resort plan. One of those criteria is that the proposed revision complements the existing resort facilities. meets the needs of residents and patrons, and provides for unified development, integrated site design and protection of natural amenities. Application ZON03-00044 fails to meet most requirements of this item as described in the paragraphs below. The resort area is currently platted for 53 town homes and 5 single-family residences. To-date, 25 town homes and one single-family residence have been built. PLA has proposed that the remaining 28 town homes and 4.single family residences be replaced by 62 stacked flat condominium units that do not complement the existing resort facilities but increase the residential density by 57% and forever alters, in a negative manner, the character and aesthetics of the resort area. Although we understand that Jefferson County does not get involved in or consider internal CC.&R's of individual subdivisions, the County should understand that this application is in direct violation of the Master Declaration of CC&R' s for the Ludlow Bay Village (LBV). The revised proposal for a significant increase in residential units does not meet the needs of the residents of Port Ludlow and in fact is strongly opposed by them. Pope Resources, the predecessor to PLA, in 1993 initially proposed a total of 90 residential units for the resort area. Strong opposition from the community resulted in a fInal application from Pope Resources for a total of 58 residential units, as is currently platted. PLA bought the resort area from Pope Resources with the understanding that it was platted for 58 residential units. Here we are again going through the same arguments that were considered 11 years ago. Residents of Ludlow Bay Village have purchased town homes with the assumption the resort area would be developed as platted in 1994. This major revision to the 1994 plan will replace further town home and single family units with stacked flat condominiums and will result in a significant reduction to the value of town homes currently built within LBY. The proposed major revision does not provide for unified development of the resort area. Currently, the LBV residential owners are required by the Master Declaration of CC&R's to become members of the Ludlow Maintenance Commission (LMC). PLA's proposal will result in another Homeowners Association within Port Ludlow and another club to serve owners in the area. This will further divide the community rather than bringing it together. Additionally, the residents of LBV are currently required to become members of the LMC and provide annual dues to the LMC. Under the PLA proposal the LBV residents would no longer be required to become members of the LMC and LMC wiUlose significant revenues if this proposal is accepted as submitted. The proposed major revision to the resort area places residential units on areas currently platted for commercial buildings and places commercial buildings within areas currently platted for residential use. The increase in the number of residential units reduces the open space within the resort area. We request that the request for an increase in residential density within the resort area be rejected and that the residential building in the resort area be limited to no more than 53 town homes and 5 single-fanuly residences. Over-Water Construction The baseline proposal for the major revision to the resort area eliminates any building construction over the lagoon. However, PLA has requested an administrative code interpretation of the ability to build over the water inZON05-00035. In its proposal PLA reserved the right to build over the water if they receive a favorable ruling of the administrative code interpretation. The State of Washington Department of Ecology in a 2004 ruling stated that over-the-water construction is not allowed. We believe that the ruling of the LOG ITEM #3o~ Page ~ .of~ _._~ DOE should be the last word on this matter and therefore request that the PLA request for an administrative code interpretation be denied. Traffic and Parkin!! Neither traffic nor parking within the resort area appears to have been adequately addressed in the application for a major revision to the resort area or in the Final Supplemental Enviromnental Impact Statement We point out what we believe are serious deficiencies below. The PLA application indicates that each residential condominium unit will contain two parking spaces. Our understanding is that these two parking spaces consist of one in a single car garage and one in the driveway to each unit The problem with this allocation is that the setback from the roadway is only 12 feet and therefore the driveway to each unit is not sufficient to allow the parking of a normal size automobile. Thus, the reality is that each unit only provides for a single parking space. The parking study did not provide for additional parking of residence cars off of their property. Additionally, no parking is allocated for the Port Ludlow Yacht Club, which the application indicates, would most probably occupy the second floor of the new restaurant building. Parking for over half of the users of the marina will be required to park several blocks from the marina in the parking lot north of Heron Road. There are no pathways or sidewalks for pedestrian walking from the parking lot to the marina or to commercial facilities located on the waterfront Development Standards and Guidelines contained in the Development Agreement specify under item 5 the requirement for paved sidewalks located within the resort complex in areas where the pedestrian traffic is most concentrated. The PLA plan contains no paved sidewalks anywhere within the resort area. This is a serious deficiency that must be corrected. The LMC owns a portion of the Harbor Drive roadway, an internal road within the resort area. The developer shall not make any modifications or improvements to that roadway without the written approval of the LMC. Additionally, the increase in the proposed density will result in additional wear and tear on the roadway. If an increase in residential density is approved by the County, LMC requests mitigation fees be paid for the additional maintenance that will be required of the roadway. There has never been a traffic study of the traffic flow within the resort. The only studies done were of roadways external to the resort area. There are many safety issues associated with traffic within the resort area. The minimal setbacks from the roadway will prevent residential owners exiting their premises from seeing traffic on the roadway until they are into the roadway. There is a severe lack of turning space for emergency vehicles that may have to enter the resort area to fight fires or to provide emergency care for residential owners or guests of the resort area. Because of possible traffic and safety issues adjacent to Building R8 of the resort plan, we urge that the building be eliminated from the plan. This will be evident if an internal traffic and safety study is conducted of the resort area. Amenities Section 3.901 of the MPR Code sets forth those properties that are allowed for construction within the resort area. The list contains facilities that are of benefit and would be available to all within the MPR zone. Included therein are items such as an indoor tennis court, an indoor pool and sports complex, a museum and interpretative center, and a youth center. While these community wide amenities are not promised, there is the strong implication that the resort plan should include some level of amenities available to the total community. The revised plan virtually eliminates all community wide amenities. We would request that PLA be directed to negotiate with the community for an acceptable amenity package for the resort area. LOG ITEM #303 Page-3_..."of.~ Admiral1v ill The application for a major revision to the resort area indicates that the application includes the construction of Admiralty III condominiums. However, no site plan or preliminary plat for Admiralty III is included in the application. Further, the FSEIS did not complete a detailed environmental analysis of the Admiralty III complex. Therefore, we request that all reference to Admiralty III be eliminated from the application and that PLA have no vesting rights regarding Admiralty III as a result of the submittal of this application. While the land area planned for Admiralty III appears to be an appropriate use for the construction of condominium units it requires a separate filing as a long plat. If the County or Hearing Examiner disagrees with us regarding the removal of Admiralty III from the application, there are still serious issues to be addressed with the Admiralty III complex. There are significant groundwater problems in the area planned for Admiralty III. The area is also classified as a moderate landslide area. The design of the stormwater collection proposed for Admiralty III is not compliant with DOE requirements and must be redesigned. It must be reviewed and approved by the Port Ludlow Drainage District. The construction of the Admiralty III complex would eliminate a recreation pm currently located at the north end of the Admiralty buildings. The PLA plan does not replace this park and any approval of Admiralty III should be conditioned on its replacement Maintenance Facilitv The PLA application for a major revision of the resort area proposes to install a maintenance facility at the north end of the Admiralty complex. We believe that the constmction of this facility in the proposed location is in violation of the Development Agreement design standards and guidelines. The design standards and guidelines state that service and storage facilities are to be located out of public view and fenced or landscaped. The design proposed by PLA is within the public view and is not fenced or landscaped. We recommend that PLA be required to locate the facility in compliance with the Development Agreement design standards and guidelines. Helipad The application by PLA proposes an installation of an emergency helipad to be located at the comer of Oak Bay Road and Marina View Drive. While we view the helipad as a desirable amenity for the community, it is in the wrong location. In its location proposed by PLA, it will stop traffic on Oak Bay Road and into the resort area when the helipad is in use. Additionally, if put in its present location several old trees will have to be cut down and the flight of helicopters will be over residential units. We believe the helipad should remain at its present location at the north end of the Admiralty complex next to the horseshoe pits. Shoreline Substantial Development Permit We have .J;l0 objection to the approval of a Shoreline Substantial Development Penuit as long as it is in compliance with the latest revisions to the Jefferson County requirements. We do, however, object to PLA's request for an extended lO-year shoreline peront term. We believe a 5-year term penuit will allow PLA all the time necessary to complete the final development of the resort area. Their arguments for the extended penuit are not credible. Jefferson County does not require that the development be phased so that one phase of building cannot be started until a prior phase is completed. The County simply requires a phasing plan to be submitted. Secondly, we believe that the residential market can easily absorb the additional residential units in a short period of time not to exceed 5 years. Most of the town home sales completed to-date were completed before the units completed construction. Finally, the Port Ludlow LOG ITEM #30:3 Page L( of5" community does not want construction to be continuing within the resort area for another 10 years. We believe that a 5-year term is more than sufficient to complete the development activities. Bondinl! We recommend that any plan for the resort development that may ultimately be approved by the County include a requirement for bonding for any amenities that are to be constructed in the resort area. This is the only means that the community has to be assured that amenities will be built since there is not a requirement for a schedule under which such construction would occur. We strongly urge Jefferson County to reject the application for a major revision to the Port Ludlow resort area. We would have no objection to the PLA continuing the development of the resort in accordance with the currently approved plat with the exception that over-the-water construction is no longer penuitted. The plan submitted by PLA does not serve the interests of the Port Ludlow community and does not further the development of an integrated community. It fails to meet all of the five criteria for approval of a major revision as is specified in the MPR Code, Paragraph 3.906, item 3. We are willing to sit down with PLA and the County and work towards a plan that is acceptable and of benefit to all in the Port Ludlow community. Sincerely, ruee Schmitz Prtiden~~~~ ,dt1Y; I~~.A::;:? Ian FeJPmm /} Trea . er, LM}Y / / LOG ITEM #3D~ Page!;; of ~ O$Af.~A~MOA / Arthur Moyer ...~ Secretary, L~ /~/ -.......... ~:.~ ,./;.!eny O'en /' Board ember, LMC m~;k J!_1.fJ(c~ ~att '*fa- ~ Board Member, LMC