HomeMy WebLinkAboutLog273
Blahk
"
Page 1 of2
~
Michelle Farfan
..
From: AI Scalf
Sent: Thursday, November 03, 2005 8:09 AM
To: Michelle Farfan
Subject: FW: Port Ludlow Associates Hearing
A comment letter
AI
-----Original Message-----
From: Ron and Diane Campo [mailto:ron_diane@cablespeed.com]
Sent: Wednesday, November 02,20058:50 PM
To: AI Scalf
Subject: Port Ludlow Associates Hearing
Al Scalf
Department of Community Development Manager
November 2, 2005
We have lived in Port Ludlow for five years and appreciate the opportunity to voice opinions about the
proposal for development of Ludlow Bay Village. We are in favor of continued development by PLA and
many of their ideas, which will improve our community. However we do have some concerns, which we
wish to be considered.
When we moved to Port Ludlow in 2000, it was clear to us that the area would continue to grow and that the
Marina and the surrounding area would be further developed. We were careful to review the CC&R's to
understand what we should expect both in the Marina area and in the neighborhood where we were
purchasing our home. We believe that the purposed increase to the residential density of the resort area will
seriously alter the life style guaranteed by the CC&R"s. We do not object to the density ofthe original
plan.
In addition, the marina was our main attraction for moving to Port Ludlow. We expected a reasonable
expansion to the number of slips. However please note that the current marina capacity causes the parking
lot to overflow onto the grass on the busier weekends. It does not seem logical that the proposed expansion
ofthe number of Marina boat slips would be accompanied by placing three additional facilities in the
existing parking area. We can only imagine the problems of the boat owners trying to load or unload their
equipment while customers for the proposed general store, restaurant, and private health club are also trying
to park. Locating additional limited parking up a steep hill and a considerable distance away seems to fall
short of the objective to supply reasonable parking.
We also wish to point out the PLA has failed to deliver on previous commitments to the community. This
has had a negative effect on the relationship, which is unfortunate.
In summary our primary objections to the proposed development plan are as follows:
1, Residential density (and type of residences) proposed is not supported by available space. PLA
should stay within the intent of the original approved plan and the existing CC&R"s.
2, Marina Expansion should be limited to 60 rather than 1 00 additional slips.
3, Proposed parking in the Marina area is inadequate for the amount of potential traffic, which would
result from increased slips, plus three new facilities.
4. There should be bonding required of the developer to ensure follow through on previous and new
LOG ITEM
#_273
l of ~
",.><.,,,,,,,,...&\0,,.,,,,,,--...
11/3/2005
Blank
. ~
Page 2 of2
.'
commitments.
Thank you for consideration of our concerns.
Sincerely,
Ron and Diane Campo
81 Gamble Lane
Port Ludlow, W A 98365
11/3/2005
LOG ITEM
#.273
Page_, ~ of ~