HomeMy WebLinkAboutLog173
eJv-eJ
~f(q(()f
David W. Johnson
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
john march Uohncmarch@comcast.net]
Monday, June 14, 2004 11 :22 AM
David W. Johnson
DSEIS for Port Ludlow Resort Plan Revision
Attention:
Mr. Al Scalf
Director, Department of Community Development
Dear Mr. Scalf:
In reviewing the "Draft SEIS-Port Ludlow Resort Plan Revision"", we are concerned about
a plan which eliminates most of the open space and rural feeling which first drew people
to the area in the late 1960's- 1970's, and today.
We appear to be facing a high density issue in areas close to the waterfront of Port
Ludlow, with little or no attention given to open spaces, drainage, parking, and public
access to the beach.
With the additional condominium units in the proposed Admiralty III , the developer
implies that he is trading existing open space in and around the Conference center for
the open space lawn area below and adjacent to the Admiralty I & II condominiums. The lawn
area in question is private and belongs to the owners of Admiralty I & II. It is not open
space as the developer defines it.
The proposed "stacked" units of condos in Admiralty III are tightly packed, with little
thought to proper drainage. Drainage and seepage from the existing open space has caused
problems to the integrity of the paved parking lots in Admiralty II, resulting in
expensive repairs. Even with the proposed 3drainage pond2, the Admiralty III units will
create extensive water run off and cause us further problems. Because we are considered
an area of "Landslide Hazard-Medium Risk", adding more hard surface area above us for
water run off without proper drainage will create a greater risk of landslide for the
residents of Admiralty II near the shore.
We are also most concerned with a potential parking problem. The proposed Admiralty III
units will have space for two cars per unit; however, this will be tandem parking, one car
in front of another. Logic tells us that owners will not abide by such an arrangement and
will begin parking on the street. This, of course, will inhibit ingress and egress for
local traffic and emergency vehicles.
Although PLA does have a right to develop its property, it must be done responsibly
and with regard to the residents of Port Ludlow. A loss of community open space, possible
drainage problems, increased parking congestion, and inadequate beach access are not in
the best interests of residents Port Ludlow. The vision of PLA is no longer that of a
planned resort community, but instead, a subdivision of high density housing and limited
public access.
We suggest that PLA re-examine its current proposal to address these and the many other
issues brought forth by the residents of Port Ludlow.
Sincerely,
John & Lynne March (Owners since 1999)
322 Admiralty Lane
Port Ludlow
Admiralty II Condominiums
LOG ITEM
#.Jet
Page _otL,
1