Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutLog326 , r;)-J \Jg '11 fPORR l[D~WI LUDLOW MAINTENANCE COMMISSION POST OFFICE BOX 65060 PORT LUDLOW, WASHINGTON 98365 (360) 437-9201 ~ .' / November &, 2005 David W. Sullivan Jefferson County Commissioner P.O. Box 1220 Port Townsend, W A 98368 " t\ M ?n"~ , U 'J duj Subject: Port Ludlow Major Resort Plan Revision MLA-00407 Dear Mr. Sullivan: The Ludlow Maintenance Commission (LMC) recently provided comments to the Jefferson County Department of Community Development (DCD) regarding the subject proposed major revision to the final development of the Port Ludlow resort area. The LMC is a homeowners association for the North Bay residents of Port Ludlow representing approximately 1100 home, lot and condominimn owners. The LMC be}feves that the majol''fevision to PIe res6n\plan, as submitted by Port Ludlow Associates (PLA), is not in . cOmplianCe with Stite and~ CountY .rules and regulations and violates provisions of the Development Agreement signed between Jefferson County and the then developer Pope Resources. Additionally, it violates provisions of the Master Declaration of Cc&R's for the Ludlow Bay Village. I have enclosed a copy of the letter submitted to the Jefferson County DCD by LMC. We encourage you to review the letter and we ask for your oversight-of the request by PLA. The Port Ludlow community is strongly opposed to the proposed revision as submitted by PLA and we trust that you will assure that the DCD review and recommendations follow all applicable State and County rules and regulations and that any revision is compliant with the Development Agreement and the Jefferson County Master Planned Resort (MPR) Code. Thank you for your review and attention to this request. Very truly, /J / t8u~-='&xr d~ Bruce Schmitz J President, LMC Board of Trustees fB) le ~ IE 0 \YJ [E fn\ If\1 NOV 1 0 2005 l1U Cc: JEFFERSON COUNTY OEPT. Of COMMUNITY DEVElOPMEN-r Brian Belmont, General Manager LMC Art Moyer, Secretary LMC Board of Trustees LOG iTEM # ~~~ Page~of-42- 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 62] Sheridan Sl. Port Townsend. W A 98368 Subject: Comments to Major Resort Plail Revision MLA-00407 Reference: (1) SUB05-00030 Boundary Line Adjustment Application (2) SDP05-000 19 Shoreline Substantial Development Pennit (3) ZON05-00035 Administrative Code Interpretation (4) WN03-00044 Major Resort Plan Revision ,. ..' ':. \' ~fnll11Ul~ity Devel~pl'n~nt Department . .. This letter is the response of the Ludlow Maintenance Commission (LMC) to the subject application for a Major ReS0l1 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 tlle 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 Witll the Master Declaration of CC&R' s for the Ludlow Bay Village, and proposes a significant increase to the density of residential buildings witllin the resort area tl131 will forever negatively impact the character and aestlletics of tlle resort area Our comment.s to the referenced applications are contained below. Boundary Line Adjustment Application 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 tlle provisions of this ordinance and that Ole further development of Port Ludlow within the MPR boundaries would be in accordance with tile ordinance. Further, Pope Resources signed an agreement with Jefferson CoUnly 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 .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 slates that "any alteration of the Ludlow Bay Village Plat shall be processed pursuant to the County land use procedures ordinaIlce 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 58.17.2] 5 controlling the plat alteration." In view of the requirements of these paragrapbs we believe that PLA must ftie for a plat alteration and cannot use a boundary line adjustment for tlle major revision requested for tile resort area. We therefore request t1mt the PLA application for a boundary line a4iustment as is contained in SUB05-00030 be rejected. In discussions 'with Jefferson County Department of Community Development personnel it was suggested Ow Section 3 of County Ordinance No. 04-0526-92 and RCW 58.17.040 gave permission forPLA to apply ~ LOG ITEM O~3~ b faCf~-of~ for a boundary line adjustment. However, our review of these documents indicates that these documents only state tllat boundary line adjustments of the type proposed by PLA are exempt from Ule requirements of those documents. We believe that tlle 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 tll31 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 tlillt tlle 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 llilderstand 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 ViIlage(U3v.:). , . \ . . ' . . . The revised proposal for a signifioant increase in residential units does not meet the needs of the residents of Port Ludlow and in fact is strongly opposed by tllem. 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 [mal application from Pope Resources for a total of 58 residential units, as is currently platted. PLA bought the resort area fTOm Pope Resomces witll 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 witll the assunlption tlle 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 to""'11 homes currently built witlrin LBY. The proposed major revision does not provide for unified development of the resort area. Currently, the LBV residential owners are required by tlle Master Declaration of Cc&R' s to become members of the Ludlow Maintenance Commission (LMC). PLA's proposal will result in another Homeowners Association witlun Port Ludlow and anotller club to serve owners in the area. TIus will furtller divide the colmnunity rather than bringing it together. Additionally, the residents ofLBV are currcntly required to become members of the LMC and provide annual dues to the LMC. Under the PLA proposal the LBV residcnts would no longer be required to become members of the LMC and LMC will lose significant revenues if tilis proposal is accepted as submitted. TIle 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 witlrin tlle resort area. We request that the request for an increase in residential density within the resort area be rejected and that tlle residential building in the resort area be limited to no more tllaI1 53 town homes and 5 single-fanlily residences. Over-Water Construction TIle 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 tlle water in ZON05-00035. In its proposal PLA reserved the right to build over tlle water if they receive a favorable ruling of tlle 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 tlillt the ruling oftlle LOG ITEM #3~ Page _of (p ~ DOE should be tile last word on this matter and therefore request that the PLA request for an administrative code interpretation be denied. Traffic and Parkin2 Neither traffic nor parking within tile resort area appears to have been adequately addressed in tile application for a major revision to the resort area or in the Final Supplemental Environmental 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 tilese two parking spaces consist of one in a single car garage and one in the driveway to each wnt The problem with tins allocation is that tile setback from the roadway is only 12 feet and tilerefore the driveway to each unit is not sufficient to allow tile parking of a normal size automobile. Thus, tile 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 parlcing is allocated for tile Port Ludlow Yacht Club, which tile application indicates, would most probably occupy the second floor of tile 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 parlcing lot north of Heron Road. There are no patilways or sidewalks for pedestrian walking from the parking lot to the.marina or tocommerc;ialfqcilities located on the waterfront Development Standards and QllideliI).esContained in the Developme.llt ~greement specify under item 5 the requirement for paved sidewalks located within tile resort complex in areas where the pedestrian traffic is most concentrated. The PLA plan contains no paved sidewalks anywhere within the resort area. TIns is a serious deficiency that must be corrected. The LMC owns a portion of the Harbor Drive roadway., an internal road witilin the resort area. The developer shall not make any modifications or improvements to that roadway witilout the written approval of the LMC. Additionally, the increase in tile 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 rnain1enance 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 tile resort area. There are many safety issues associated ,vith traffic within the resort area. The minimal setbacks fTOm the road\\'aY will prevent residential o\\ners exiting their prClniseS fTOm seeing traffic on the roadway until they are into the roadway. There is a severe lack oftuming space for emergency velricles tilat 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 trnffic and safety issues adjacent to Building R8 of tile resort plan, we urge 111at tile building be eliminated from the plan. TIlis 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 tile 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 ti13t PLA be directed to negotiate with the community for an acceptable anlenity package for the resort area. LOG ITEM # 3c2(P Page_lf of-14- Admiraltv 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 tllat all reference to Admiralty III be eliminated from tlIe 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. TIle design of the storm water collection proposed for Admiralty III is not compliant WillI 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 park currently located at the north end of the A~al. ty buildings,1J11 PLA plan does not replace this park and any approval of Admiralty m shouJd'be conditiQJleOon its replacement. Maintenance Facility . The PLA application for a major revision of the resort area pro~ses to install a maintenance facility at the north end oftlle Admiralty complex. We believe that the construction 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 pro~sed by PLA is within the public view and is not fenced or landscaped We recommend tlIat PLA be required to locate the facility in complia...J.ce widl dle Development Agreement design standards and guidelines. Belipad The application by PLA pro~ses an installation of an emergency helipad to be located at the corner 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 ihe north end of the Adnriralty complex next to the horseshoe pits. Shoreline Substantial Development Permit We have no objection to the approval of a Shoreline Substantial Development Pennit 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 permit term. We believe a 5-year ternl permit will allow PLA all the time necessary to complete the final development of the resort area. Their arguments for the extended pernut 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 pbase is completed. The County simply requires a phasing plan to be submitted. Secondly, we believe that tile residential market can easily absorb the additional residential units in a sbort 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, tile Port Ludlow LOG ITEM #,;~ Page __.. of4 ~ community does not want construction to be continuing within the resort area for anotIler 10 years. We believe that a 5-year term is more than sufficient to complete tile development activities. Bondin2: We recommend that any plan for the resort development that may ultimately be approved by the COlmty include a requirement for bonding for any amenities that are to be constructed in the resort area. TIlls is the only means that tlle conmmnity has to be assured tIillt amenities will be built since tI1ere is not a requirement for a schedulc under which such construction would occur. We strongly urge Jefferson County to reject the application for a major revision to tile 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 permitted. TIle 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 tile 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 tile County and work towards a plan that is acceptable and of benefit to all in the Port Ludlow conmmnity. Sincerely, , . LOG ITEM #0~~ Page of~ ./ Oxftt;AE~ Arthur Moyer //7.1 Secretary, U\!1.Q /' / -:;;C;~~/#- Tcrry O'~n Board ~embcr, LMC ~k./c;l(J(4 chae Platt ~ Board Member, LMC