Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutExhibit265 Lewis J. Hale 10552-15th Avenue Northwest Seattle, Washington 98177 (And 28 Heron Rd., Port Ludlow) 206-365-1072 206-226-4947 Only Submitted Electronically by email January 24, 2008 RECEfVED J~N Z S 2UU9 JtH~R~U~ ~U"~l'i DtD Mr. Phil Olbrechts Jefferson County Appeal Hearing Examiner Clo Jefferson County DCD 620 Sheridan Street Port Townsend, W A 98368 Dear Mr. Olbrechts: Re: Motion for Reconsideration Port Ludlow Resort Build-Out and Marina Expansion Project Hearing Examiner Decision ("Decision") Port Ludlow Resort Build-Out and Marina Expansion Project Hearing Examiner Reconsideration Reference File No. MLA05-00407 (Major Resort Plan Revision, ZON03-00044; Shoreline Substantial Development Permit, SDP05-00019; Boundary Line Adjustment [BLA], SUB05-00030; and Administrative Code Interpretation, ZON05-00035) Date of Decision: February 7, 2007 Date of Reconsideration: March 14,2007 Date of Appeal Decision: January 7, 2008 I respectfully submit Item I below for reconsideration and Item 2 as comments in response to PLA' s motion for reconsideration. 1. Item 14 Heron Road Safety issues: The Inn will be connected to Heron Road. Conclusion 14 states: If the proposed revision results in an increase in traffic along Heron Road or increases conflicts in turning movements the project could be found to exacerbate safety issues along the road. [Footnote omitted]. However, the major revision actually serves to reduce traffic along the eastern leg of Heron Road (where most LOG ITEM # J-'c) page.---L. of---"--. Phil Olbrechts January 24,2008 Page 2 of6 ofthe safety issues are present) by eliminating the connection of Heron Road to the Inn. You base this conclusion on page 59-60 of the January 16, 2006 staff report, which concludes that removal of the connection will remove vehicular traffic from Heron Road and will separate Inn traffic from residential traffic. However, the revision does not propose to eliminate the connection to Heron Road. See, PLA's revised letter proposal of September 2006 (Exhibit 121), which was the proposal before Mr. Berteig. The major revision and the approximately 25 car parking lot situated across from our town home will increase residential and resort traffic on Heron Road in the following ways: . The revision transfers the focus of the resort core to the Inn and waterfront rather than at a hotel/resort complex located above and across the lagoon. . As shown on PLA's revised letter proposal of September 2006 (Exhibit 121), the main access to the Inn will be Heron Road. . Inn/resort parking is being expanded into an area designated on the original MPR as a small open space across from building 400. . The current Harbormaster restaurant has a separate uphill parking area that does not impact traffic in the town home area. The new plan moves the restaurant to the waterfront and so both the new parking lot and Heron Road will experience increased traffic. In addition to increased volume, we will see an increase in drivers who have been drinking. . As noted in PLA's testimony, the intent for this proposal is to change the focus from a destination resort to a resort for the travelling public. Therefore, there will be an increase in traffic as people come and go rather than coming to spend several days. . Heron Rd is the main delivery route for delivery and servicing of the Inn. This includes large tractor-trailer (semi) trucks. In footnote 4 you suggest that the baseline that should be used in determining whether the proposal would exacerbate safety issues may be the build out of the MPR as originally approved. If one uses the original MPR as the baseline, the following assumptions must be employed: . Heron Road was required to be 24 feet wide. . The building permits for the town homes in buildings 400 and 700 along Heron Road required a setback of20 feet from the right-of-way. This setback, of course, is consistent with your determination that town homes are a single-family use. . There was very limited residential development contemplated in the MPR as noted in MPR 3.901. Our town home building (400) was planned, but building 700, in which Mr. Powers has a home, was not, nor was the duplex below the beach club. # Page LOG ITEM US ~ of Phil Olbrechts January 24, 2008 Page 3 of6 . The area across from building 400, which is currently an ad hoc gravel parking lot, was to be open space leading to an outdoor amphitheater. . The area between building 400 and the beach club, now occupied by building 700 and the duplex, was to be open space. . The focus of development was to be a hotel and conference center above the lagoon and marina. This resort complex was to be located on the shore side of the lagoon and above what is now the marina parking lot. So, if one uses the original MPR as the baseline, the comparison would be the traffic generated by the entire MPR with a wider Heron Road, no building 700, no duplex, and all planned town homes setback 20 feet. I submit that had the original plan actually been constructed, we would not now have a safety problem. Thus, regardless of which baseline is used - today's conditions or the original MPR- the current proposal exacerbates the safety problem. I am not asking you to require correction of the past errors which resulted in a substandard road and substandard setbacks. I am asking that you require mitigation for the increased safety impact the revision will engender. The parking and other uses proposed across the road can be modified so that the road can be expanded to provide a safer environment for traffic, pedestrians and garage access and egress. 2. Response to PLA's Motion for Reconsideration On p. 6 of its Motion, PLA argues that the MPR Code is ambiguous. It is not. JCC 17.1 0.030(3) clearly defines "single family attached:" For purposes of this title, "single-family attached" shall mean a townhouse style or side-by-side development, not stacked units. (Emphasis supplied). PLA continues to ignore this definition and reiterates arguments made unsuccessfully before. I address each of these repeated arguments briefly: (1) PLA again makes the argument that JCC 17.10.030(3) applies only to new subdivisions. As I explained in my response to PLA's Appeal Brief: Even if that were the case, it does not even remotely suggest that town homes in existing subdivisions are multi-family, which is the point PLA is trying to make. This section of the code lists the uses conditionally permitted in the MPR-MF zone. The pertinent sentence reads: Single-family attached units including duplexes, triplexes and fourplexes as part of a new subdivision, not to exceed a gross density of four dwelling units per acre.... LOG ITEM # U5 Page '3 of Phil Olbrechts January 24, 2008 Page 4 of6 It is my assumption that the reference to a new subdivision simply reflects the fact that if one wishes to construct more than one unit on one existing lot (i.e. duplex, triplex, or fourplex) then a subdivision is required. A subdivision is not required to construct one town home on an existing town home lot. However, even if that were not the case and PLA is correct that this section applies only to new subdivisions, the consequence would be that town homes are not permitted in existing lots in the SF zone. It would not transform town homes into multi-family units. To do so would be to give no meaning to the final sentence in this very section, which as I point out above, states that for purposes of this title townhomes are single-family attached units. (2) PLA argues that, if the single-family development standards were applied to them, the townhomes would have to be set back 10' from each other. PLA overlooks JCC 17.10.030(3) and JCC 17.10.050. The former provision explains that for single-family attached units: ... . Setbacks and impervious surface limits shall apply to the total lot or development parcel, not to the land allocated to any individual attached unit.... The latter provision similarly explains: For projects proposing single-family attached units, the requirement shall apply to the total lot, not to the land allocated to any individual attached unit. These provisions make clear that townhomes may be attached. (3) PLA again makes the argument that the Board of Commissioners could not have intended to that townhomes be considered a single-family use, but adds a new twist, now arguing that the townhomes would be "physically incompatible with the 13 town homes already constructed." PLA does not explain the purported incompatibility. Perhaps the purported incompatibility results from PLA's argument that the townhomes could not be attached. But, as shown above, PLA misreads the MPR Code. Perhaps the purported incompatibility results from the fact that an appropriate setback would be required from the street right-of-way. But this would improve compatibility and safety. Regardless, PLA has not shown any ambiguity in the MPR Code. (4) PLA repeats its contention that townhomes are traditionally regulated as multi- family structures. With respect, how other jurisdictions may regulate townhomes is immaterial in light of the clear definition in the MPR Code. I also note that there is no evidence in the record supporting PLA's contention and that, in my experience, townhomes are generally regulated as single-family attached dwellings. # Page LOG ITEM ~5 q of Phil Olbrechts January 24, 2008 Page 5 of6 (5) PLA finally observes that MPR Code ~ 3.302 authorizes "multi-family dwelling units including condominiums." With respect, so what? That section also authorizes "single- family attached (townhouse style) or detached dwelling units." MPR Code ~ 3.302 supports the Examiner's Decision, not PLA's position. PLA then asks you to revise your Decision to allow it to amend the PLDA "to resolve the ambiguity." There are three insurmountable hurdles to this request. First, there is no ambi2:uitv. Second, this issue was never raised before the Hearing Examiner and is not properly before you. Third, amending the PLDA will not accomplish PLA's goal of redefining townhomes as multifamily uses. It would also be entirely inconsistent with the PLDA itself. Amending the Development Agreement Is Not Sufficient The PLDA was adopted under chapter 36.70B RCW. Jefferson County Resolution 42- 00, (Resolution 42-00) Recital 4; PLDA, ~ 1.3.3. A development agreement must be consistent with the applicable County GMA development regulations and must specify the development standards to which the project is vested: A development agreement shall be consistent with the applicable development regulations adopted by a local government planning under chapter 36.70A RCW. (Emphasis added). RCW 36.70B.170.1 The permitted uses are set forth in the Port Ludlow MPR Zoning Code chapter of the Jefferson County Code. PLDA, ~ 3.1. As you have found, the MPR Zoning Code defines townhomes as a single family use. Amending the PLDA will not change this fact. Thus, for townhomes to be regulated as a multifamily use, the County must amend the many sections of the MPR Code which treat townhomes as a single family use. The language PLA asks you to add would also contravene many of the purposes of the PLDA. The PLDA repeatedly emphasizes the importance of planning and predictability not only to the parties to development agreement, but also the residents of Port Ludlow. I. One of the stated purposes of the PLDA is to further the public health, safety, and welfare by allowing development to take place in a predictable manner consistent with the Comp Plan and MPR Code. Resolution 42-00, ~ 1.0 (emphasis added). 2. Coordinated planning of the MPR provides unique opportunities for the benefit of the County and existing and future residents of the MPR. PLDA, ~ 1 The Board of Commissioner found that the PLDA was consistent with the County's applicable GMA regulations. Resolution 42-00, Recital 6. See also, PLDA ~ 1.3.11. # Page LOG ITEM ?.fo ~ 5 of Phil Olbrechts January 24, 2008 Page 6 of6 1.3.9 (emphasis added). 3. Section 1.3.13 is instructive: Build out of the Pope Property is expected to occur over the next ten to twenty years. Pope, Jefferson County, Port Ludlow community groups and members of the public at large will invest considerable time in the County permit and review process for the future build out of the Pope Property. A development agreement is an appropriate way of providing certainty over time with respect to permitted densities, uses, development standards and other aspects of the development review process. As an owner in Port Ludlow, I relied on these representations. For all of these reasons, I ask that the Appellate Hearing Examiner deny PLAts request to rewrite Section X.3 of your Decision. Respectfully Submitted Lewis J Hale LOG ITEM :ageL~f I.