The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutLog130 '. 9-'! ,..--......-. MICHAEL CARN MD HILDA CARN 104 Wells Ridge Ct. Port Ludlow, W A 98365 ;;e: (:) (r) ffi u..:: 4.. W ~ May 25,2004 ",t.:. ~ << . ~ ~l ! ;!If;. I;':.!;~ -.._.. it.... , ~ 0 ~ Jefferson County Dept. of Community Development 621 Sheridan St. Port Townsend, W A 98368 Dear Sirs: We are writing regarding Port Ludlow Associates' plans to expand their building of residential units within the Port Ludlow Resort area. We have become aware of information which distresses us to the point of emotion, and which should distress you. We believe that their current plans violate current county codes and laws, as well as state laws. We believe, that their DSEIS is faulty, vague, and incomplete. Review of their plans raises our concerns about fire hazards, water runoff and drainage, parking capacities and traffic patterns, ecology laws, existing property values, and current codes currently included in our CC&R's and 20 year plan. Their DSEIS does not detail the impact on the fire risks. The proposed roads are narrow dead ends with no turn around space. It is our understanding that our fire district-3 fire chief and commissioners have not been consulted. It is our belief that they would require through-roads. With our aged population, medical and fire apparatus calls are frequent, and require easy access to buildings. The fire chief;iwe are sure; would thus ban parking in those narrow streets,. parking spaces which, we believe; are counted by PLA in their DSEIS. Furthetmore;2 propane. storages are planned, with no supporting safety or fire analysis or locations detailed. In out wooded area and our dry summers, fires area major concern to our entire community as well as to the entire county. PLA has not consulted our Drainage District commissioners regarding water run-off, impervious area, water pressure impact in view of their increased density proposal, etc. Weare aware of water run-off problems affecting the current occupants of residential units in the area, even before changes to the impervious area is altered for the worse. Thus, the impact of their plans has not been studied, or if it has been studied, has not been reported. Water run-off has been a problem in this area of Port Ludlow for many years. Parking in the area is often a problem even today. The marina lots are often full, and there are plans to enlarge the number of marina slips by 50%. PLA's plans for increased recreation facilities, yacht club buildings, etc., in addition to the proposed new residential units, will overwhelm the parking capacity. Current codes specify minimal parking per employee in these businesses. Weare unaware that these codes have been specifically included in the DSEIS. Furthermore, we suspect that some parking spaces have been figured more than once in calculating parking space for various functions. That is, marina spaces 'may have been calculated as overflowresideI1tial parking? It shoulcl.also be noted that these units will have one car garages for residents owning 2 vehicles, thus assuming that the 2nd vehicle must be parked in the driveway. However,. the driveways will be so LOG ITEM # {3 0 Page_ 1......"of.L "I '""\, short that these vehicles will stick out into the street. Parking in the street will be extremely limited because of the huge number of driveways, if not completely banned by fire code. We feel that these narrow, poorly planned streets will create an undue danger to pedestrians and bicyclers. Weare additionally concerned about the impact of the proposals on the ecology, aesthetics, and current codes in the area. We have been advised that the plans call for some residential units to be built so that at least 50% of the structure is over water; water which has been designated wetlands. It is our understanding that this grossly violates state ecology law. We have been advised that PLA and their predecessors have not encouraged eel grass and wildlife in this wetlands area as prescribed by law. We have also been advised that eagles nest in adjacent trees, and may be impacted by the proposed plans. Prior plans had called for fish to be encouraged in the existing wetland, and the negative impact of the PLA proposals on this edict has been ignored. Current agreements call for easy access to the Ludlow Beach. This access will be impaired by the current PLA plans. Current residents in this area complain that their open spaces, recreational spaces (for walking, hiking, biking, etc.) will be obliterated. Likewise, their views will be altered from the current green hills to dense, low quality housing, a situation negating promises made when they purchased their residences. Furthermore, property values for these residents, as well as for all Port Ludlow residents, will decline as a result of new construction which is incompatible with existing Port Ludlow value. The proposed plans will violate the 20 year plan accepted by the county which calls for the maintenance of our green belts and open spaces, and for the preservation of our image as the resort in the woods by the bay. Thus the aesthetics of our community will be forever changed for the worse. Finally, we interpret as illegal, the PLA plans to build a new and separate recreational facility for these new residences only, bypassing current CC&Rs which require membership in the LMC for all North Port Ludlow residents. This not only violates current code, but instills bad faith between the parties involved. It dilutes the funds of the separate entities, destabilizing each one. While destabilization may not be illegal, it should be frowned upon. The PLA plans add a great deal of ill will by the current Port Ludlow residents who have witnessed broken promises, past and present. We recommend and hope that a TBD plan can be negotiated with the county and the developer which is acceptable and beneficial to all parties. We recommend that the Jefferson County commissioners and departments thoroughly investigate the proposed plans, and that they meticulously demand compliance with all local, county, state, and federal laws and understandings. We recommend that all plans be approved by the appropriate fire, drainage, ecology, etc. entities. We recommend that the plans be submitted in the greatest detail, and that they include exhaustive impact statements on all ofthe above issues. We recommend that the plans and DSEIS be evaluated based on current facts and not on past studies which may be outdated. Finally, we recommend that the plans be presented to the Port Ludlow Village Council and to the Port Ludlow residents prior to final approval. We hope that our thoughts and recommendations will LOG ITEM # (:'30 Page 1.- of g .., -........ f receive serious consideration. We impress upon the county our voting power and political involvement. Yours truly, z//If~; '. d../. ~ (\ \ _ /../. . i /' ;; ~ / ~fvtJLt:;/ ~ ~ -..... ~~Q~ ~"^- Michael Cahn MD Hilda Cahn LOG !TEM # (~O Oage--3_of3- l'1I , ... t:1...5: ! ~1~~ ~~~ ~ I 1':,:"1'" r.. lAo.f ~.... f'rj ~ .,."" t;',l ~ I: '" .c:: ., III 0 U 'l' III - 1::'" * s; '5u" ~;: ~,!l.~ lo) ~.3 .,;'l!fi- Q:;~ r p~ (/ _J '7 3 c:t ~ Jt: ~\ ~ V 1 J') ..~ Jf j J v1 h l ~ t1~ rJ rI [J/ ~ .~ J j~. //j ~.t ~~9 , '\ i ,\ i;I 0J (fJ l>o cJ ~ (~ .t.~ ].:--~~ cr:'d z' C...:> G,"7i t:C u-\ iJ- :,j.... ~.!.l --- - - ......... ..... - . . - ::::: - - - - ....... - - - - - . - - - ~ ~ ~ ~ .t IG ~ i') it! fI