Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutLog308 ... --{ November 3, 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: (I) 50005-00030 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: We are members of the POlt Ludlow community and reside at 717 Rainier Lane in Port Ludlow. We are concerned by Port Ludlow Associates (PLA) application for a major revision to the Port Ludlow resort area. We believe the application. as submitted, violates provisions of the State and County Code and Regulations, certain provisions of the Jefferson County MPR Code and the Port Ludlow Development Agreement, and is not consistent with the needs or desires of the Port Ludlow community. We provide comments against the subject plan and the four reference documents below. Boundary Line Adjustment (SUB05-00030) We understand that PLA and Jefferson are citing RCW 5&.17 .040(6) and Section 3 of County Ordinance 04-0526-92 as providing an exemption from the requirements of RCW' s 5&.17.212 and 58.17.215 regarding a change in the plat of subdivision. We believe that this ruling is in error for several reasons. RCW 64.34.020 defines a condominium as real property and real property is defined as including parcels with or without upper or lower boundaries, and spaces that may be filled with air or water. Thus, while the PLA proposed Boundar-y Line Adjustment might not create more lots it does create more parcels. Each of the proposed condominium units, under the definition ofRCW 64.34.020, is a parcel so that PLA, with its application of a major revision to the plat is increasing the number of parcels by approximately 57% and thus the exemptions ofRCW 5&.17.040(6) and of Section 3 of County Ordinance 04-0526-92 do not apply. Further, Paragraph 3.903 of the MPR 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 altemtion of the Ludlow Bay Village Plat shall be processed pursuant to the County land use procedures ordinance 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 5&.17.215 controlling the plat alteration." In view of the above infonllation and requirements 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 SUB05-OOO30 be rejected. Over-the- Water Construction (ZON05-00035) The Washington State Department of Ecology, in an October 25, 2004 letter to Mr. Al Scalf, stated that over-the-water constmction shall not be allowed in the resort area. Although the baseline application by PLA does not include building over the waters of the lagoon, the have requested an Administrative Code LOG ITEM #~~() S Page_ Lof ~ .. " Interpretation seeking to have this building restriction removed so that they can build over-the-water. We believe that the Department of Ecology ruling on this issue should prevail and the request by PLA should be denied or rejected. Traffic and Parking within the Resort Area The Final Supplemental Enviromnental Impact Statement (FSEIS) for the resort development contains a traffic study of the major roadways surrounding the resort area but no study has been conducted of traffic flows within the resort. We believe that this is a serious deficiency in the FSEIS as there are significant traffic issues within the resort area Additionally, there are shortcomings of the parking study conducted and contained in Appendix J of the FSEIS. We describe below the issues that we believe remain regarding parking and traffic within the resort. The PLA application for a major revision of the resort area and Alternate 1 in the FSEIS indicate that each new residential unit will have two parking spaces in tandem. One is in a single car garage and the other is in the driveway to each unit Unfortunately, the setback, and thus maximum driveway length. is only 12 feet. This length is not sufficient for the parking of a car so the application has misstated the available parking spaces. No allocation is provided in other parking lots for the second car. Additionally, no parking allocation appears to have been provided for the Port Ludlow Yacht Club that may occupy the second floor of the restaurant Many of the parking spaces for the marina are located in parking lots north of Heron Road several blocks from the marina. No sidewalks or pathways are provided from parking lots to commercial facilities or other residential units thereby requiring pedestrians to walk on the roadway and compete with vehicular traffic. This is in violation of the Development Agreement guidelines that specify that sidewalks are to be provided in areas of heavy pedestrian traffic within the resort area. This deficiency must be corrected in any approved plan. Residential Density We support a continued limitation of 58 residential units for the resort core and support building out the resort area under the existing plat with the provision that over-the water construction is not allowed. This issue was thoroughly reviewed in the 1992 to 1994 time period when Pope Resources applied for and received approval of a Hearing Examiner for platting for 58 residences. PLA, with its purchase of Pope Resource's property in 2001, understood that the resort area was platted for 58 units. Paragraph 3.4.4 on page 3-61 of the FSEIS indicates that the proposed plan of Alternate 1 will result in more intense development of the resort and that there will be increased activity levels, vehicular traffic, noise, light and glare. The Port Ludlow community does not want this more intense development, as it will forever change, in a negative manner, the character and aesthetics of the area. We do not want to see the open space of the resort diminished by the additional residential units proposed by PLA While we have no objection to the construction of a recreation facility to serve the Port Ludlow Inn and Marina guests we strongly object to the requirement that the Ludlow Bay Village (BY) residents must join the recreational facility. The current Master Declaration of CC&R's for the Ludlow Bay Village require that, upon conveyance, the residents of the LBV must join the Ludlow Maintenance Conunission (LMC) and that the LBV residents come under the jurisdiction of the LMC Architectural Control Conunittee. If the LBV residents are not required to become members of the LMC, a significant loss of income will occur to the LMC threatening the viability of that organization or requiring an increase in assessment for all of the North Bay residents. Shoreline Substantial Development Permit (SDP05- 00019) We have no basic objection to the issuance of a new Shoreline Substantial Development Permit as long as it complies with the current Jefferson County Master Shoreline program. We would also request that the 51 conditions of the lapsed Shoreline Substantial Development Permit be complied with in totality before construction can be allowed to begin in the resort area. We further believe that any permit that may be LOG ITEfVI #3QK Page --~-..9t~_. " issued have a term of not exceeding 5 years in duration. The request for a lO-year term is not realistic. We do not want some level of construction continuing for a period of 10 years. Realistically, there is no reason why construction cannot be completed in a 5 year time period. Admiralty ill The application submitted by PLA does not include a site plan, preliminary plat, or any details on the proposed 39-unit condominium complex. There is simply not sufficient detail to allow a review of this portion of the application. We would therefore request that any reference to Admiralty III be removed from the application and that any consideration of Admiralty III be by a separate application. Further, we request that PLA have no vesting rights in Admiralty III through the subject application. Maintenance Facility PLA has proposed a resort maintenance facility at the north end of the Admiralty complex. We believe this location to be in violation of the requirements of the Development Agreement design guidelines that state these types of facilities must be hidden from public view. Helipad We support the installation of a permanent helipad for emergency evacuation of individuals but believe the proposed location is wrong. If installed at the comer of Oak Bay Road and Marina View Drive, traffic around and into the resort will be stopped everytime the helipad is in use. Further, installation in the proposed location will require the removal of a significant number of old trees and forever alter the open space character in this area of the resort. We trust that our comments will receive a favorable review by the Jefferson County Community Development Department and that you will assure that the applicable State and C01lllty laws are followed and the interest of the Port Ludlow community is preserved. By this letter we request that our name be added to any distribution list that sends out public notices regarding the subject application. Thank you for your consideration of our requests. Very truly, ~~~. 00~~~ Bruce and Dorothy Schmitz 717 Rainier Lane Port Ludlow, WA 98365 LO~ I Tf':.. \'1.;; #3Q "-. , p ~._,-"= age....3.._ elf. .3