Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutLog260 Page 1 of 1 .,. . Michelle Farfan From: AI Scalf Sent: Tuesday, November 01, 2005 2:55 PM To: Michelle Farfan Subject: FW: Port Ludlow Resort Build out A comment letter for review AI -----Original Message----- From: kaysins@wellsfargo.com [mailto:kaysins@wellsfargo.com] Sent: Tuesday, November 01,2005 1:40 PM To: AI Scalf Cc: kaysins@wellsfargo.com Subject: Port Ludlow Resort Build out Attached is my written response in accoradance with your Public Notice regarding the Port Ludlow Build Out review on December 6, 2005. Susan and Gary Kaysinger 46 Heron Rd. Port Ludlow (360) 907-0677 LOG ITEM . #_gfeQ Pag~1 L Of3 ',..''':...._''......._~ ..- - 11/2/2005 OCTOBER 30, 2005 JEFFERSON COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DNISION 621 SHERIDAN STREET PORT TOWNSEND, W A. 98368 Dear Mr. Scalf We wish to make written comments in accordance with your Public Notice regarding the Port Ludlow Resort Build-out and Marina Expansion. Gary and I strongly oppose the density ofthe project. We believe it will not only substantially lower the property value of our town home located at 46 Heron Rd., it will place a significant strain on the existing infrastructure. We believe you cannot build out over the pond, as that is a recognized wetland supporting various forms of aquatic wildlife. As such, all buildings must be constructed with a 30' set back from the shoreline of the pond. If the 12' (condo) garage setbacks from the road are complied with, the footprint for any buildings around the pond will be substantially reduced, and will be more in keeping with what the plat can absorb. It is also our position that you cannot replat the plat, without each and every owner's permission. You may use the term "boundary line adjustment", but in fact it is a replat, which will require every townhome owner to approve such a replat, a virtual impossibility. In addition, Heron Road does not meet the County minimum right away requirements as stated in the conditions for the original development, thus it cannot support anywhere near the proposed density not to mention the concern we have with the fact that our garage does not have the correct setback from the road way creating a potential health hazard. Earlier this year we experienced a near accident when we had a family member visiting with a small child. The child ran directly into the road in front of the car and barely missed being hit. This would have been a very tragic situation and in our opinion very avoidable if the county would have ensured that PLA build the road setbacks to code. We have viewed three separate copies of the original plans signed and approved by the county. None ofthese plans had an approved site plan signed offby the county even though they were listed on the index. This, in retrospect is evident that the site plans L()G ITEM # ~\eO- Page~,_b.O~ . ~ were intentionally not included and PLA intentionally built over the set backs with the counties knowledge. The proposed revision to the parking plan as it applies to the town homes and the Inn, is inadequate as it does not allow for any guest parking or vendor parking, such as service trucks working on various components ofthe town homes. Further, it would be a traffic jam if more than one emergency vehicle needed to respond to the southern most town homes. We also wish to point out that for several years the County tax assessor has ruled that the lots along the pond that extend out over the water are un-buildable, and has taxed them accordingly As Port Ludlow Associates was aware ofthis and never attempted to refute the assessors ruling, but paid the reduced amount of taxes, it is a tacit acknowledgement and a validation of this ruling by the County assessor. They cannot pay lower taxes because the County has deemed the lots are un-buildable, and then turn around and have the County allow them to build on them. How can the County change their position so easily at the whim ofPLA? The failure of the developer to comply with the 51 conditions the county commissioners imposed in 1991, the building of three buildings after the substantial shoreline permit had long expired, the construction of one ofthe buildings within 30' ofthe Port Ludlow harbor shoreline, and general non compliance with county regulations and codes is evidence of a developer out of control who has and will continue to thumb their nose at the county ordinances. PLA will complete the build out of Port Ludlow within the next five years and leave. They are here purely for the profit and they are not taking into consideration any long range plans that have already been developed to ensure that Port Ludlow remains one ofthe pristine destination points on the peninsula and the Northwest. It is our opinion that they need to be required to follow the codes established by the county and state and the CDC needs to be the governing body that takes responsibility for ensuring that those codes are enforced. We also have other concerns that extend from the present build-out, as well as the fact the County in 1993 previously denied the request for 90 residential units to be built in the resort core. The basis for this denial was: density! Nothing has changed in the intervening years that require an upward revision of the 58 units that were approved and platted. On the other hand, in view of the fact they cannot build out over water, requires a downward revision. This would be in keeping with the sanctions that should be imposed by the County for flagrantly ignoring County codes and ordinances. Sincerely, Sue and Gary Kaysinger 46 Heron Rd. Port Ludlow, W A.98365 437-8104 LOG ITEM #-J.Ceo Page-3-_.of S