HomeMy WebLinkAboutLog281
. t>
Page 1 of2
.J
Mic;helle Farfan
From: AI Scalf
Sent: Thursday, November 03, 20054:28 PM
To: Michelle Farfan
Subject: FW: PLA application - Case #MLA05-00407
A comment letter
AI
-----Original Message-----
From: Clark Ruggles [mailto:c1ruggles@cablespeed.com]
Sent: Thursday, November 03,20054:13 PM
To: AI Scalf
Subject: PLA application - Case #MLA05-00407
PLA has filed a request for major resort plan revision(ZON03-00044). We object to many of these
revisions as they will significantly increase the density of development in what is the resort area of
this community. The increase in residences planned violates existing CC&R's as well as the earlier
development agreement with Jefferson County. Current residents bought in to the resort with the
understanding that the character of the resort would be maintained. Increased density will not do
that, and may well reduce the value of our property. Also, the plan does not afford adequate
parking and adequate access in case of fire or other emergency.
We also object to the Boundary Line Adjustment requested. We believe this is a violation of Sec.
3.903 of the MPR Code and would require a vote of current owners. We also believe the Jefferson
County UDC (Sec.7.2) prohibits such an adjustment as it would result in increased density.
Density should not be increased beyond the current permitted 58 units. An increase will result in
traffic flow problems as well as some resulting danger to pedestrians. It should be noted that an
increase would also require demands on police and fire protection provided by the county at
general taxpayer expense.
Another area of concern to us is the proposal to build over the water. DOE has ruled that such
construction is prohibited and has written to the County Department of Community Development
to that effect on Oct. 25,2004. Such construction also violates Jefferson County Shoreline
Management laws. We ask that you not make any administrative ruling to set aside those rules in
this instance.
We also ask that the request to build Admiralty III Condos be removed from the proposal as there
is insufficient site plan or preliminary plating and no EIS has been completed.
Although we can specifically cite many other objections, we are primarily concerned by the plans
to increase the density, lose the park like setting and the effort to completely change the property
which we thought we were investing in. The fact that the developer has not met all 51 conditions
which were included in the prior resort approval does not bode well for allowing such sweeping
changes. We would hope that any part of the plan which is approved will require bonding to
ensure compliance with state and county regulations and constraints.
11/512005
LOG ITEM
#d.<61
Page---L-of ~
Page 2 of2
.. to
I.{
Thank you for your consideration of these comments.
C~rk and Lois Ruggles
125 Seaway Place
Port Ludlow, Wa. 98365
360-437-1122
LOG ITEM
#;)<gL
Page ~ of';
-
11/5/2005