HomeMy WebLinkAboutLog306
..
-.>
Amy Recht
103 Puget Loop
Port Ludlow, W A 98365
&
Dorothy Winter
81 Puget Loop
Port Ludlow, W A 98365
November 4, 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
Community Development Department:
This letter concerns the application for a Major Resort Plan Revision to the Port Ludlow
resort area. While we believe that Port Ludlow Associates has a right to develop their
property, we are very concerned about some of the proposed major revisions to the
development plans for the resort area of Port Ludlow. Besides not appearing to be
consistent with State and County regulations and law, the application is not in compliance
with the Master Declaration ofCC&R's for the Ludlow Bay Village. It is our
understanding that both the Ludlow Maintenance Commission and the Port Ludlow
Village Council are addressing these concerns point by point in much greater detail than
we feel qualified to at this point in time. What we can address is our concerns about the
increased density this plan proposes, our safety concerns about the location of the
helicopter pad, our frustration that the issue of building over water is being raised yet
again, and the lack of information provided about the Admiralty III project.
We object to PLA's proposal to increase the density of residential units in this area. PLA
purchased this property as it is currently platted. This plan was derived from many years
of negotiations between the previous owner, the community, and the county. We believe
that PLA should be limited to the number of residential units currently planned with no
mcreases.
The location of the helicopter pad in the new proposal is a traffic problem for Oak Bay
Road and a safety issue for the condos the helicopters will be forced to fly directly over.
There are also some very old trees in the proposed location that would have to be cut
LOG ITEM
#_60 (P
Page___~L_~of~m
down. Finally, we believe the winds in the proposed location are much stronger than in
the present location making take offs and landings more difficult. Have any helicopter
pilots been consulted as to the viability of this new location? We live just off Walker
and use this intersection at Oak Bay Road frequently. It is our understanding that this
intersection would be closed while a helicopter is using the pad. We are concerned
about the traffic issues involved in this closure as this is intersection is located on a curve
and is difficult to see around. It would be a shame for auto accidents to occur on Oak
Bay Road due to a helicopter flight that was intended to save a life. We believe the
community is best served by leaving the helicopter pad in its present location.
It is our understanding that PLA has requested an administrative code interpretation of
the ability to build over the water. The State of Washington Department of Ecology in a
2004 ruling stated that over-the-water construction is not allowed. The county should
uphold the ruling of the DOE and deny the PLA request for an administrative code
interpretation.
No Site plan or preliminary plat for the Admiralty III condominiums has been included in
the PLA application. Also lacking is a complete detailed environmental analysis of the
proposed complex. It is commonly known in this community that the area on which this
complex is to be built has major ground water problems. These need to be addressed by
the Port Ludlow Drainage District, the DOE, and the Fish and Game authorities as it is
our understanding that fresh water may not be discharged into Ludlow Bay due to the fact
that it is a spawning ground for smelt. Also, the proposal to construct the Admiralty III
complex eliminates a recreation park currently located at the north end of the Admiralty
buildings. If this park is eliminated by PLA, a new recreation park needs to be built in
the vicinity and should be included in their proposal.
It is also our understanding that the previous Shoreline Substantial Development Permit
included 51 conditions on the developer. Many of these conditions have not been met. It
is our firm belief that a new Shoreline Substantial Development Permit should be granted
only when all 51 of the previous conditions have been met.
Sincerely,
f4L
Dorothy Winter
tl~ ~~
"-l. .' ,.',. .
/\.j.,1! !. .
LOG ITEM
# 30 (0
Page_--6c.ot2-