HomeMy WebLinkAboutLog192
'~t'
P-" . _..... .~
Page 1 of2
David W. Johnson
From: Pat Pearson [pearsonp@wsu.edu]
Sent: Monday, June 14, 2004 10:46 PM
To: David W. Johnson
Subject: pt. Ludlow DSEIS
Dear Department of Community Development,
This letter is to express my strong feelings about the proposed changes to the Port Ludlow Resort.
According to the DSEIS, the proposed changes would increase the residential units from 122 units to
190 units, and change the units allowed in Ludlow Bay Village from 58 to 88 -- increasing the
residential density by 56%.
Although all of us Ludlow residents (we live across the bay from the resort) want the resort to be
economically successful, I don't feel that these proposed changes are either an economic necessity nor
beneficial to the Pt. Ludlow Resort community as a whole. A Master Planned Resort is just that ---- it
includes a Master Plan for development that was carefully thought out, created a long range plan for the
benefit of the developers AND for the benefit of members purchasing homes and condos within the
development. Both knew what they were investing in.
My concerns are five fold:
1) that these changes will actually change the character, feel, and day by day 'liveability' for the
hundreds of residents who have already committed to living in this community as originally reviewed
and planned.
2) that building residential units next to and over the present lagoon takes away the 'commons' and
creates issues such as 'is this buildable land, has it been taxed as such, what are the ramifications of
building on/over this water body?"
3) As we know more about surface water and stormwater issues, can we in good faith cover more of the
natural drainage without impacting the natural drainage and filtration systems? This did not appear to be
addressed in the DSEIS. How are the stormwater impacts going to be mitigated and at what costs?
4) The proposed changes would increase the traffic, parking, and density within the resort boundaries in
ways that appear to be incompatible with safety and residential living.
5) This is a matter of trust for the community. The residents have invested long term in their homes and
committed to living their lives in this resort area. The resort changes hands, and is concerned with short
term investment and profit. The residents expect that the Jefferson County planners and commissioners
will honor the original agreements.
Why should these proposed changes be allowed at this point? Simply for increased economic 'viability'?
It is the current residents who will bear the brunt of these changes, and continue to bear them for the
remainder of their life in this community.
6/1512004
LOG ITEM
#-1q~
Page~_of ~
Respectively,
, ..,
.~<
, -
Page 2 of2
Pat Pearson
1201 Ludlow Bay Road, Pt Ludlow.
LOG ITEM
#J9~
Page d.... , of ~.
6/15/2004