HomeMy WebLinkAboutLog268
(
, t
1< ".
Page 1 of2
Michelle Farfan
From: AI Scalf
Sent: Wednesday, November 02, 20054:06 PM
To: Michelle Farfan
Subject: FW: PLA development at Port Ludlow
A comment letter
AI
-----Original Message-----
From: Carol Shamhart [mailto:shamhart@cablespeed.com]
Sent: Wednesday, November 02, 2005 4:03 PM
To: AI Scalf
Subject: PLA development at Port Ludlow
Dear Mr. Scalf,
My husband and I have lived in Port Ludlow for almost 15 years. During these years, we have witnessed various
attempts, first by Pope Resources and now by PLA, to turn the area located about the Burner Point Spit, the lagoon near
the Harborview Restaurant and our few remaining open spaces in those areas into a congested mess that will ultimately
impact the property values of the current residents. A few of my concerns are as follows:
· In 1993 Jefferson County accepted Pope Resources plan to build a 36 room hotel and 58 residences consisting of
townhouses in the area described above. Now PLA wants to increase the density 56% by building 191 units
(stacked condos, single family homes, etc.). Creating a third homeowners association (we already have LMC for
North Bay and SBCA for South Bay), would further split the community. In addition, if the current townhome
residents of Ludlow Bay Village are forced to withdraw from LMC, the financial impact to LMC will be great.
. The proposed increased density will have a serious impact on the barely adequate roads in and around this area.
As it is now, the Ludlow Bay Village townhomes are jammed in around the Herron Inn with very little room to
maneuver. So em of the townhomes have barely two feet from their garage doors to the street. It was my
understand there was suppose to be a 12 foot set back! Local Fire Chief Wilkerson said he has serious concerns
about the accessability for emergency vehicles in an emergency situation. To date, a traffic study has not been
done.
. I do not oppose completion of the resort, but I do believe any developer should obey current laws, and live up to
their expressed and often loosely implied promises of amenities for the resort. To date, PLA has not really done
anything they told the community they would do. For example, the golf pro shop was to be demolished 10101 lOS,
with a new building to be built. We are now told the date has been pushed back 6 months. To protect our
community, PLA should not be allowed to proceed without bonding. This company has a history of not paying their
bills on time and bonding would give the community some protection.
· In 1993 when the County approved the plan for the hotel and 58 townhomes, I believe there were some 51
conditions imposed by the County. To date, many of these conditions have not been met. Why not?
. I realize this is a very complex issue concerning such items as boundary line adjustments, CC&R's considerations,
environmental concerns, etc., but I would hope the County would not burden Port Ludlow with the current request
on the table from PLA.
The residents of Port Ludlow are not opposed to completion of the resort. What we object to is the brazen, money-
grubbing manner the developer (PLA) has chosen to use every bit of open space to clog our community with stack
condos, etc. Please do not allow PLA to destroy what is left of Burner Point, the Lagoon and the area around the Marina.
I will plan to attend the hearing in early December and pray you will do what is best for Port Ludlow and its citizens.
Thank you for your consideration.
11/2/2005
LOG ITEM
# ~~~,
Page~ot,~