HomeMy WebLinkAboutLog108
Page 1 of2
,1. ..
.
Michelle Farfan
From: David W. Johnson
Sent: Friday, May 21, 2004 10:19 AM
To: Michelle Farfan; AI Scalf
Subject: FW: Subject DSEIS Port Ludlow
LOG ITEM
# lOb
Page_ , of ~
From: kaysins@wellsfargo.com [mailto:kaysins@wellsfargo.com]
Sent: Friday, May 21, 20049:03 AM
To: David W. Johnson
Cc: kaysins@wellsfargo.com
Subject: FW: Subject DSEIS Port Ludlow
Attention: Michelle Farfan and AI Scalf
From:
Home Owners: Gary & Susan Kaysinger
(Primary) 46 Heron Dr.
Port Ludlow, Wa.
(Secondary) 10 Olympic Way
Port Ludlow, Wa.
We are in total disagreement with the current DSEIS proposal that includes a significant increase in the number of
town homes/condominiums around the pond in Port Ludlow for the following reasons:
-The population density with the hotel and the existing town homes is already at maximum and by adding
the additional condominiums this will stress the entire area.
There is already an issue with the number of parking spaces available for the hotel guests and our
guests.
There is a huge problem with the traffic that goes to the hotel and that will increase with the new
condominiums.
-The pond is one of the most scenic places in Port Ludlow and this will take away from the entire
ambience and quaintness of the marina area.
This plan will have a significant impact on the wildlife who consider the pond their home; i.e. river otters,
Canadian geese, blue heron, golden eagles and various other species.
-People in the Port Ludlow Community did not move to Port Ludlow to live in a "California" style
development with California attitudes about managing the environment.
Port Ludlow Real Estate Agencies (John L. Scott to be specific) consistently advertises that Port Ludlow
is a protected "Planned Community" with a well thought out and executed plan that was developed years
ago and one of their marketing ploys is "Hurry and buy" because when the defined plan is completed
there will be no more opportunities to build in Port Ludlow". I have seen similar advertising in the Alaska
Airlines Magazine and Coastal Living. PLA seems to be saying one
thing but doing something completely different.
.PLA is not partnering with the community. They have one goal and that is to improve their cash flow and
they have a tendency to take the position that it's "Their way or the highway".
There is example after example that supports this comment. The most recent one was when PLA
demanded all of the Admiralty I homeowners who were
participating in the rental program to either re-model their condo's to the PLA specification or they would
not be allowed to participate in the program.
5/21/2004
Page 2 of2
, . "1'
"
Most the owners opted out and so PLA had to disband the rental program. PLA has now lost the ability to
have enough room availability to attract the
conferences and business groups required to make it a profitable business venture so PLA is now
proposing to build high density condominiums which will allow them to increase their daily room
numbers. This plan will impact the marina adversely and stress the area significantly. .
The real issue is the impact from high density housing in such a small area. This is a planned
community with the approved plan in place since 1993. Stick to the plan 1993 plan!
If you have any questions please call us at (360) 437-8104
\..i\..,',,;:
"
oj!
" LQ'~'__"","__'~'M'
~ ~....
5/21/2004