HomeMy WebLinkAboutLog299
AI Scalf
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Barbara Wagner-Jauregg [bwagnerj@olympus.net]
Friday, November 04, 2005 3:30 PM
AI Scalf
Ludlow Resort Core / Ludlow Bay Village Comments
CoLetter-Resort.do
c
Dear Al:
Attached is a letter in MS-Word for consideration by your staff as you
complete your staff report.
Thank you.
Barbara Wagner-Jauregg
LOG ITEM
#d-.qq
Page-Lof+
1
Barbara Wagner-Jauregg
171 Martingale Place
Port Ludlow, W A 98365
November 4, 2005
Jefferson County Department of Community Development
621 Sheridan Street
Port Townsend, W A 98368
Attention: Al Scalf, DCD Manager
I feel very strongly that Port Ludlow Associates (PLA), as the owner of our community's
Resort area, has the right to complete that development. However, when the proposed
development destroys the very epicenter of our community, essentially turns its back on
those of us who have purchased homes here through the years, and most importantly
abuses the rights of the owners of the 25 existing townhomes, I must cry foul.
I have lived in Port Ludlow for over 10 years. The Resort Plan had been approved when
we purchased here. We were enthusiastic about a Resort, and chose Port Ludlow for its
beauty, marine setting and Resort amenities. Perhaps being naYve, it only became clear to
us over time that promises made are not necessarily promises kept-although I
acknowledge that any Developer must alter their business plan as economics dictate.
Ludlow Bay Village (LBV) is platted for 53 townhomes and 5 private residences. PLA's
proposal proposes an increase in density of approximately 57% through the substitution
of stacked-flat condominiums for many of the un-built townhomes. Ludlow Bay Village
townhome owners bought with the understanding that LBV Ludlow Bay Village would
be developed in accordance with their CC&R Declaration. Nothing in those CC&Rs
allowed for the substitution of condominiums.
I would like to see LBV completed, but only at the density approved in the early 90s.
Any additional density will create problems with traffic, safety for pedestrians, as well as
parking. Certainly the aesthetics and character of the Resort area can be expected to
change with development but this excessive density will be detrimental to the entire
Master Planned Resort (MPR) community. Many of us left urban areas and found
LOG ITEM
#J.Cf1
Page d.... of-U-
paradise in Port Ludlow. We intentionally purchased in a beautiful, quiet location
enhanced by a Marina and Golf Course known for its pristine beauty. A 57% increase in
Resort area density will rob us of that benefit.
The Final Environmental Impact Statement 3.4.4 states: Build-out of the Resort will
result in more intense development of the project area. Increased development and use of
the area will result in increased activity levels, vehicular traffic, noise, light, and glare;
this increased intensity of use will be noticeable to existing users and residents within the
Resort. I contend it affects everyone within the MPR.
PLA's proposal calls for demolishing the Harbormaster restaurant and building
residential units at that location. Although I personally cherish the gorgeous view from
the Harbormaster's upstairs dining room as well as the sunny patio area, I concede that
additional residential is appropriate there-as long as the rights of the LBV Homeowners
Association are assured and they have an opportunity to vote on such changes to the
property. Further, the community should be guaranteed that the new Marina restaurant is
completed and operational before the Harbormaster is closed and demolished. Therefore I
agree with those who have proposed a performance bond to guarantee that we will not
lose our restaurant.
In addition, despite the Department of Ecology's ruling on over-the-water construction,
PLA is trying to have that decision put aside. The cover story of the July 2005 Port
Ludlow Voice pictured the pond as it was in the 1970s-the center of the community. In
fact, the spit leading to Burner Point-where the 25 townhomes and the Inn at Port
Ludlow are located-was the scene of many memorable Port Ludlow events. PLA's
proposal further revises the Resort Core and eliminates amenities that could be used by
the entire MPR community. To build over the pond totally eliminates any gathering area
for the community.
To elaborate on traffic and parking concerns: No internal traffic study has been
conducted for the Resort. Traffic flow and pedestrian safety has not been addressed. The
parking study appears to not consider the Marina, Restaurant and Yacht Club needs.
Relocation of Marina parking will require a significant walking distance of several
LOG ITEM
p~g~~. oC.\:t-
blocks. This is the Pacific Northwest, where rain and wind are not uncommon. Walking
several blocks, be it to dinner, a Yacht Club function or to one's boat, is impractical
many months of the year, particularly when it is dark and stormy. No pathways or
sidewalks are provided within the Resort area where considerable car traffic is expected.
Pedestrian traffic should be separated from automotive and truck traffic.
PLA should be allowed to complete the Resort at the density approved in the 90s, not
violate the rights of the LBV townhome owners, put up a bond to show they intend to
complete all new facilities at the Marina location as proposed, and provide Port Ludlow
with an amenity that is open to all members of the community-such as wooded parkland
or a community meeting place.
Thank you for taking these comments into consideration.
Signed:
Barbara Wagner-Jauregg
LOG ITEM
p~~~~ oU~_