Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutLog136 e e Page 1 of 1 Barbara Nightingale From: Barbara Nightingale Sent: Tuesday, September 05, 2006 1 :56 PM To: 'LewisHale@aol.com' Subject: RE: Tract E Lewis, In the current compo plan it is zoned MPR Single Family 4:1 (i.e. 4 dwelling units per acre). The present comp plan was adopted on August 28, 1998. Barbara Nightingale M.MA, MAS. Associate Planner Port Ludlow Master Planned Resort Jefferson County Dept. of Community Development (360) 379-4472 bnig htingale@co.iefferson.wa.us From: LewisHale@aol.com [mailto:LewisHale@aol.com] Sent: Tuesday, September 05,2006 1:40 PM To: Barbara Nightingale Cc: AI Scalf Subject: Tract E Barbara, can you help educate me on the zoning for Tract E. The original MPR ordinance, as I read it shows the area as multifamily, so presumably it was revised to single family at some point. How and when did this change occur and what is shown in the current comp plan? Thanks, Lewis LOG ITEM # 13~ Page / of 1 9/13/2006 e It Page 1 of 1 Barbara Nightingale From: LewisHale@aol.com Sent: Wednesday, September 06,20068:57 AM To: Barbara Nightingale Subject: (no subject) Barbara, good morning and thanks for the heraing notice. Unfortunately my fax machine had some difficulty with the doc so could you please resend, 206 365 0782, thanks. Also, I understand PLA issued a revised amendment document and was wondering if you could email a copy, again thanks so much since I know this is a very busy time for you. Regards, Lewis L~ ITEM # I) Page~ of 9/13/2006 e e Page 1 of 1 Barbara Nightingale From: Barbara Nightingale Sent: Friday, September 01, 2006 11 :37 AM To: 'LewisHale@aol.com' Subject: RE: PLA response to comments Trendwest Lewis, That could very well be the case. Thanks and have a great weekend! I'm gone at this point. Just wanted to put out a couple of fires this morning. Barbara Nightingale M.MA, MAS. Associate Planner Port Ludlow Master Planned Resort Jefferson County Dept. of Community Development (360) 379-4472 pnighting91e@QQjefferson. W~~_y~ From: LewisHale@aol.com [mailto:LewisHale@aol.com] Sent: Thursday, August 31, 20069:43 PM To: Barbara Nightingale Subject: Re: PLA response to comments Trendwest Barbara, in looking again at PLA's comments, I still find their response fascinating. I can only assume by the way they tried to deflect or dodge Alison's comments that they believe they are valid and could not perfect a way to counter them. Lewis LOG ITEM # /)~ Page 3 of 9/13/2006 . -- Page 1 of 1 Barbara Nightingale From: Barbara Nightingale Sent: Thursday, August 31, 20066:34 PM To: 'LewisHale@aol.com' Subject: RE: PLA response to comments Trendwest Lewis, The HE will discern whether he can address both points when he hears the issues and he sees what kind of information he has. We (meaning - we here at the County - not just me) believe he will address both parts of the application, the shoreline permit and the amendment. That is the best I can answer I can provide right now. Barbara Nightingale M.MA, MAS. Associate Planner Port Ludlow Master Planned Resort Jefferson County Dept. of Community Development (360) 379-4472 bnightingale@co.iefferson.wa.us From: LewisHale@aol.com [mailto: LewisHale@aol.com] Sent: Thursday, August 31, 2006 5:47 PM To: Barbara Nightingale Cc: AI Scalf Subject: Re: PLA response to comments Trendwest Barbara, my concern is that I don't trust the political manuevers going on in the background (not within DCD). went back and looked at the minutes from the BoCC meetings and it is absolutely clear they want recommendations on both and that this is a "consolidated" application (shoreline and dev agg amd). This was followed by a unanimous motion to have the HE conduct a public hearing on the consolidated application. Commissioner Rodgers noted that "the benefit of having the consolidated aoolication heard by the Hearing Examiner is that it would separate the legal aspects from the political aspects". Clearly the BoCC wants the HE's recommendation on the technical aspects of the amendment. PLA is being way too cute with this. In fact their response is captioned "Notice of Application for Shoreline Substantial Development Permit". So with all due respect, this is not a question of what you "believe" the HE will recommend on and I would expect that your staff recommendations to the HE will so state. Sorry to be so direct but this is not about you or DCD but my concerns noted above. Please confirm that you will be requesting (directing?) the HE to render a recommendation to the BoCC on the dev agg amd based on the legal and technical factors involved. Regards, Lewis LOG ITEM , (1 ~ flIg,~ of 9/13/2006 . - Page 1 of 1 Barbara Nightingale From: Barbara Nightingale Sent: Thursday, August 31, 20062:46 PM To: 'LewisHale@aol.com' Subject: RE: PLA response to comments Trendwest Lewis, We believe the HE will recommend on both the shoreline permit and the proposed amendment. Barbara Nightingale M.MA, MAS. Associate Planner Port Ludlow Master Planned Resort Jefferson County Dept. of Community Development (360) 379-4472 bnightingale@co.iefferson.wa.us From: LewisHale@aol.com [mailto:LewisHale@aol.com] Sent: Thursday, August 31,2006 12:19 PM To: Barbara Nightingale Subject: Re: PLA response to comments Trendwest Barbara, thanks and I do have one question based on their response to Alison's letter. On page two, in response to log item 56, they state that the HE "will not take any testimony regarding the application for an amendment to the Port Ludlow Development Agreement..." What am I missing? I thought that was the purpose of the hearing. Rather they suggest the hearing only deals with the shoreline permit. Please clarify, Thanks, Lewis Lf ITEM * (J - Page ~ of 9/13/2006 - e Page 1 of 1 Barbara Nightingale From: Barbara Nightingale Sent: Wednesday, August 30, 20065:54 PM To: 'LewisHale@aol.com' Cc: AI Scalf Subject: RE: PLA response to comments Trendwest Lewis, PLA responded on time as requested. This office is not in any way over-staffed and our work is plenty. I will be able to make a pdf of the PLA/Trendwest responses tomorrow and will send it to you at that time. That gives you 3 weeks to build your response. Thanks, Barbara Nightingale M.MA, MAS. Associate Planner Port Ludlow Master Planned Resort Jefferson County Dept. of Community Development (360) 379-4472 bnig htingale@co.jefferson.wa.us From: LewisHale@aol.com [mailto:LewisHale@aol.com] Sent: Wednesday, August 30,20063:24 PM To: Barbara Nightingale Subject: PLA response to comments Trendwest Hi Barbara, I was curious if you have yet received PLA's comments that were due on this past Monday and I was wondering when you followed up with them when they told you they will provide. This goes to the concerns I raised earlier regarding equitable time for the community to respond. At that time you felt the 28th gave us sufficient time to respond and I concurred. However, if they do not provide by Friday I will be requesting that the hearing be moved back...fair is fair and they have had since July 21 to respond and I need time to work with my attorney. Thanks, Lewis LOG ITEM # (J ,{, Page 6 of 9/13/2006 . - Page 1 of 1 Barbara Nightingale From: Barbara Nightingale Sent: Wednesday, August 02, 2006 1 :22 PM To: 'LewisHale@aol.com' Subject: RE: Ludlow Cove II Dev Agg Amendment Lewis, Now my 3 cents: The proposal is for a 120-unit timeshare condominium. Tract E is a 14.66 acre parcel if you multiply that times 4 (for 4:1 SFR), you get 58 single-family dwellings. Yes, development standards can be changed through an amendment to the development agreement but only with consent of both parties (Jefferson County BoCC and PLA). Also, the hospitality code does not refer to just bed and breakfasts, it refers to renting dwellings out for less than 30 days. Galt's decision does not change the ability of folks to do that in Jefferson County. Just some information I thought might shed some light on the picture. Despite Galt's decision, renting a dwelling out on a transient basis in Jefferson County (in a residential neighborhood) is legal. However, the development agreement does not address that - was it an oversight on the part of the development agreement negotiators? - probably. It is only one of the "use" oversights in the drafting of that agreement, that can only be addressed through amendment. Thanks, Barbara Nightingale M.MA, MAS. Associate Planner Port Ludlow Master Planned Resort Jefferson County Dept. of Community Development (360) 379-4472 bnightingale@co.iefferson.wa.us From: LewisHale@aol.com [mailto:LewisHale@aol.com] Sent: Tuesday, August 01, 20069:57 AM To: Barbara Nightingale Subject: Re: Ludlow Cove II Dev Agg Amendment Barbara, thanks and I'm back for three cents worth:-) The question is can they then change the "use" by changing the development standards?? And it seems we are not talking about transient use in single family residences i.e. bed and breakfast, in fact we are not even talking multifamily ..or at least that is Galt's view which I presume is now the counties "interpretation" of the use is really a resort or hotel use. And I also think the density they are talking is way more than 4: 1? Very complicated for my tiny mind, but I'm really trying to understand their arguments for the hearing. I don't see how they get there, but I guess that is what the process is all about. Thanks, Lewis lOG ITEM # I'J ~ Page 7 of 9/13/2006 6. . Page 1 of2 . Barbara Nightingale From: Barbara Nightingale Sent: Tuesday, August 01, 2006 8:27 AM To: 'LewisHale@aol.com' Cc: AI Scalf Subject: RE: Ludlow Cove II Dev Agg Amendment Lewis, PLA has it wrong on the zoning. It is currently zoned Single Family Resident 4: 1. However, in Jefferson County I this does not necessarily preclude timeshare or transient use. Jefferson County Code does allow transient use of Single Family Residences, JCC 18.20.210 identifies hospitality establishments (bed and breakfasts and the like- a use for single family residents). Time-share is not spelled out however in Jefferson County. For Port Ludlow, development standards are controlled by the Port Ludlow Development Agreement and the only way that can be amended is through consent by the parties of the agreement (i.e. PLA and the County). I think that PLA could have more correctly stated that Tract E is currently zoned as Single Family Resident 4:1 but that the amendment proposes to change the development standards (controlled by the Development Agreement) for Tract E. My two cents. Barbara Nightingale M.MA, MAS. Associate Planner Port Ludlow Master Planned Resort Jefferson County Dept. of Community Development (360) 379-4472 bnigbUDgale@co. ieffersoD-,-yt_~. us From: LewisHale@aol.com [mailto:LewisHale@aol.com] Sent: Monday, July 31, 2006 10:03 PM To: Barbara Nightingale Subject: Ludlow Cove II Dev Agg Amendment Hi Barbara, I've got a quick question. I just down loaded the latest issue of the Port Ludlow Voice. PLA has in their "Developer's Report" comments on why they are doing an amendment to the development agreement and not an amendment to the comprehensive plan. They make the point they are not requesting a zoning change and that Tract E is zoned multi-family (MPR-SF). I thought this area was zoned single family?? Further, my lay understanding is that zoning really controls "use" and certainly time share is not an approved use i.e. it is not allowed in the zoning. To me this is what conditional use approvals are for, but then they have already been down that road. They make comments or arguments that make no sense to me: "Under a Development Agreement, development regulations (like the MPR zoning code) may be modified by the development standards that are described in the agreement. A Development Agreement does not actually amend the zoning code or other development regulations. Instead, it changes how those regulations are applied to specific property. In PLA's proposed amendment to the Port Ludlow Development Agreement, PLA is aking the county to authorize timeshare use within Tract E. " Thi~ ~ounds like convoluted nonsense to me, but I'm not a land use person, so can you \.~I"fEMt on their position. # ( 3 ~ Page i of 9/13/2006 . -- Page 2 of2 1. It seems they are saying the MPR zoning is a "development regulation" and therefore can be changed by amending the development agreement, but yet my understanding is this requires a comp plan amendment. It's like they are trying to argue a cat is just an animal and since a dog is also an animal they can have a dog in their apartment (I know, bad analogy:-) 2. To the extent my assumption that zoning controls use, how can the county authorize "time share use" without amending the zoning. It seems to me Galt beat this issue to death for good reason and it's pretty clear. As AI will tell you, I often get confused and show up for education, so I'd appreciate some help understanding what PLA is saying and how it fits with reality. If you want I can fax you a copy or you can go to the following site, then the August Voice. This is on page 31. httrUlQ!Y~. org/p-lvotQ~J:ltm Thanks, Lewis LOG ITEM # /1'& Page -1- of 9/13/2006