Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutLog279 Page 1 of2 <. f Michelle Farfan From: AI Scalf Sent: Thursday, November 03, 2005 1 :51 PM To: Michelle Farfan Subject: FW: Port Ludlow Resort Development A comment letter AI -----Original Message----- From: Bill Clark [mailto:btclark@cablespeed.com] Sent: Thursday, November 03, 2005 12:35 PM To: AI Scalf Subject: Port Ludlow Resort Development November 3, 2005 Al Scalf, Manager Jefferson County Department of Community Development Port Townsend, W A 98368 Dear Mr. Scalf This letter is in reference to the Port Ludlow Associates Application for Resort Development and Marina Expansion. It is our understanding that the Hearing Examiner will be reviewing this application in the near future and I would like to express some concerns regarding that expansion to be taken into consideration at that time. We look at this issue from several viewpoints; as a resident of Port Ludlow (North Bay); as a Port Ludlow Marina tenant; and as a close friend of a Port Ludlow Village town-home owner. . Density: The increase in density proposed by Port Ludlow Associates (PLA) is not only a substantial increase over the previously agreed to (by Port Ludlow residents) density, but is far too dense for the proposed area in terms of traffic safety (both vehicular and pedestrian), parking, emergency vehicle access and the general aesthetics and character of the area which directly affects my property value. · Condomininm Parking: The proposed parking for the condominium parking is to provide one space per condominium with parking for a second car in a 12 foot driveway. Most vehicles are considerably in excess of 12 feet which would mean that vehicles would then either extend into the street (illegal) or be forced to use parking allocated for the marina and restaurant which would result in inadequate number of spaces for those functions. · Boundary Line Adjustments: The current town-home owners purchased their homes with the understanding that the remainder of the properties in the area were platted to be town-homes similar to theirs, thus maintaining the character and value oftheir investment. The boundary line adjustment requested by PLA is in direct violation of that understanding and as such degrades the value of the existing town-homes. . Bonding: Given the history of Port Ludlow Associates (and its predecessor Pope Resources) both managed by the same individual, it is essential that any amenities or conditions agreed to or proposed by them must be supported by a bond, lest they be simply agreed to, then ignored, as in the past. Clearly, the developer (PLA) has the right to develop their property. However, it is absolutely essential that they develop the property in accordance with the previous agreement and that the Major Report Plan Revision -=tF t..oG iTEM 1113/2005 Ptl ~1 of ~ ~"~ . .. Page 2 of2 and the Boundary Line Adjustments be denied. Otherwise the increase in value of their property will be accomplished at the expense of every other property owner in Port Ludlow and we are vehemently opposed to such a subsidy to PLA. Sincerely, William L. and Theodora L. Clark 10 Trader Lane Port Ludlow W A, 98365 btclark@cablespeed.com (360) 437-2081 11/312005 LOG ITEM # ;A -;x::, Page~"".o{~.,.