Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutLog212 . . e e I~O~~ I UDliOty LUDLOW MAINTENANCE COMMISSION POST OFFICE BOX 65060 PORT LUDLOW, WASHINGTON 98365 (360) 437-9201 J~ IBif'BI\~EO c.= r 3 128U1i JftttH~'UN L'UUNfY ncn October 26, 2006 Stephen K Causseaux Jefferson County Hearing Examiner C/o Barbara Nightingale, Lead Planner Jefferson County Community Development Department 621 Sheridan Port Townsend, W A 98368 Re: Combined Application Amendment No 1 to Development Agreement and SSDP for Ludlow Cove II Dear Mr. Causseaux: The proposal by Port Ludlow Associates (PLA) to amend the MPR land use designation on property located within Ludlow Cove II to allow a timeshare operation in a single family residential zone raises a number of concerns to the Ludlow Maintenance Commission, LMC encompasses the northern development within the Master Planned Resort of Port Ludlow, We do not believe that the popularity of Trendwest among some residents should be a consideration in the decision on approval or disapproval of the proposed Amendment to the Development Agreement to allow timeshare units on Tract E of Ludlow Cove II, It should be based on County rules and regulations, on allowable zoning, on all of the provisions of the Development Agreement and upon court decisions reached in regard to the previous application for the Trendwest development. The LMC believes that past court decisions are violated by this proposed amendment; it is not consistent with County rules and regulations and it should be rej ected, About Ludlow Maintenance Commission As the Board of Trustees ofLMC we represent the home, lot and condominium owners of the North Bay area of the Port Ludlow MPR, totaling approximately 1100 households, LMC operates and maintains community owned recreation facilities including indoor pool and spa, an outdoor pool, a clubhouse with exercise facilities, conference and meeting rooms, catering kitchen and craft and gathering areas, In addition, LMC has four tennis courts, a neighborhood park of 4 acres equipped with children's play areas, walking paths, picnic area and restrooms, We are also responsible for many acres of Greenbelt located throughout the North Bay as well as beach property accessible to our owners and guests, Much of the trail system developed and used by Port Ludlow residents and guests is located on LMC Greenbelt land, iffJ 1 ~ e e IR IE{ 1!E[\rlE If) Trendwest Application for Ludlow Cove II C' :-~ ~ () J; /, '. -:,..: I \j J.. l.'.J~J At present, the property subject to PLA's application is zoned MPR-SF single-familU:tfJ~nW;<\lUUnlr.YUPO. The Amendment to the Development Agreement between Port Ludlow Associates, 'i1re dt!~ IV b and Jefferson County seeks to change the use ofthe parcel in question to allow a 120-unit private resort, In December of2005, ARE John Galt ruled on PLA's application that Trendwest's proposal for a 120-unit development is a transient accommodation resort, a commercial operation, not a multi-family residential development. Such a use is not allowed on this parcel under Galt's final ruling on this matter. That ruling must be implemented by Jefferson County, Request for Amendment to the Development Agreement We believe that seeking to change land use designations by way of an amendment to the Development Agreement is a misuse of the intended Flexibility Clause (Paragraph 3.13) of the Agreement. This change is essentially a back door, and we believe illegal, method of rezoning this land, Changes in zoning are provided for through the Comprehensive Plan amendment process and that is the channel within which this application should have been considered, There is no provision in 3.13 that allows changes to the Development Agreement which are not compliant with the Comprehensive Plan or MPR Zoning Code, which are exhibits to the Agreement. RCW 36, 70B.170(1) provides that the Development Agreement must be compliant with existing county codes and regulations. Paragraph 3.2 of the Agreement states that the planning goals adopted by Jefferson County in the Comprehensive plan shall be the policy guidance and foundation for all future development of Pope Property. Allowing the developer to affect rezoning through changes in the Development Agreement seriously weakens the ability of the County to manage land-planning goals here in all over Jefferson County, Allowing such a means to rezone properties under the MPR Development Agreement within greatly reduces the confidence of property owners in the MPR and their financing entities that the community will be developed as represented and within the guidance of the MPR Ordinance and the Comprehensive plan. Paragraph 4.13 of the Agreement states that the agreement is made for the sole protection and benefit of Pope and the County and their successors and successors in title and assigns. It further states that no other person shall have any right of action based upon any provision of the agreement. Trendwest is not a successor here, has not purchased property in the MPR, and has no standing to request the Amendment and should not be permitted to testify or provide information in this process or in any way be a party to the process. Effects of the Timeshare Project on neighboring properties and values LMC is further concerned about the results of such a timeshare venture on it's own common properties, The resulting 120-unit development will have no affiliation with the master homeowner's associations who essentially govern Port Ludlow. They will pay no dues to any of the associations yet will use many of our facilities. It will be an enclave within the community without CC&R's consistent with those of all other neighborhoods in the Resort and without any \~;;I 2:lc ~. 2 e e tie to the community. In the near-term visitors to the Trendwest location will put a burden on the amenities of neighboring areas, such as trails and beaches, which in Port Ludlow are supported and maintained by volunteer efforts and financial contributions, At present beaches, recreation facilities, parks and trails experience very low levels of damage or vandalism. If that changes due to more intensive use by transient users, Jefferson County must find means to increase Public Safety provisions to our area. No such improvement is contemplated in Jefferson County's budget for 2007 nor has any increase in coverage of the area been provided throughout the increasing build out of Port Ludlow thus far. Long-term, timeshare use may decline, causing disposition of the property by Trendwest for some presently unknowable purpose. Should that happen there are no assurances the property will meet the standards of regulation and maintenance of the rest of the MPR due to the lack of CC&R's recorded on the plat. Such uncertainty of future use will affect the value of all of the property in the area, such as LMC's North Bay owners. PLA has stated that it will construct approximately 54 single-family homes on Tract E of Ludlow Cove II if the Trendwest development is not allowed. The taxable value of 54 single-family homes will be at least $30,000,000 and may be as high as $45,000,000. PLA and Trendwest have stated that the property value of the Trendwest development will be approximately $16,000,000. The property tax for the County will be at least double and maybe triple if Trendwest is not approved and single-family homes are developed on the site. We believe that the County should approve developments that maximize its tax base, are consistent with its zoning regulations, are less likely to increase county public safety and fire and health protection costs, and protect the values of surrounding areas, Substantive Shoreline Development Permit (SSDP) The SSDP for the initial Trendwest application (SUB05-0004) was vacated by the State Shoreline Hearings Board, That SSDP was based on Trendwest being classified as a residential use. This use was rejected by ARE Galt and stands as the final action of Jefferson County. Galt found that Trendwest's activities were transient lodgings and commercial in nature. WAC 173- 26-241 Shoreline Management Laws and Rules set out different standards for residential and commercial uses of shore lands. Commercial uses that are nonwater-related are not favored (173-26-241 3(d). The Trendwest use is not a water-related activity, it is a transient lodging facility and should not be allowed according to the Shoreline Management Act. The Ludlow Cove II property is a fragile ecosystem and should be protected from human traffic. It is not suited to a transient lodging development such as proposed, In recognition of this the Developer proposes to fence the shoreline, preventing easy access to the shore and by default sending Trendwest users to the only other beaches accessible along Ludlow Bay, those under LMC ownership at the Beach Club and the Ludlow Bay Village Townhome plat at nearby Burner Point which are not a part of Ludlow Cove II. We believe the proposed use is not consistent with the Shoreline Management Act guidelines for such a location and should be denied, !R (E~ ~EI\rE r[P """ r?> r ,,'~ ~ \;~"',(i: .--'"--:i- '7{7- --?--. ('.- -"" ~ ,) ~ ~,~,..,~ ~~ ,~' ~ ~, J., iU~lJ ,ltHtHSUN GUUNrrUCO e Sincerely, LMC Board of Trustees Ian Feltham t'~t D~ Vau radshaw ~~ Bruce Pyles ,~ (d4J!fd/. ~~ E 'zabeth Van Zo eveld " e Cc County Administrator John Fischbach, County Commissions Pat Rodgers, Dave Sullivan, Phil Johnson lRlE(~EIVE[) r 0T :1 ~.:< -,1"'.''''''~... ,; ...' iJ.i L;..;;;J ,,fEfffRXlf~! ,:mrNn ur.n nfJ;~ , bl-y ~ 4