HomeMy WebLinkAbout40_Phasing Response_2024-0325County Comment:
The Project Narrative states, “The project is proposed to include two divisions (phases).” The cover
letter included with the preliminary plat application, however, indicates the PHMPR project will not
be phased. A phasing plan was agreed upon by PHMPR and approved by the County as an
amendment to the Development Agreement on July 22, 2019, following Kitsap County Superior
Court’s disapproval of the initial phasing plan in its March 28, 2019, decision in The Brinnon Group
v. Jefferson County, et al., No. 18-2-01758-18 (“the Court Order”). The Development Agreement (as
amended on July 22, 2019) contemplates but does not necessarily require phasing, stating in
Section 10.1 “Future development of the Pleasant Harbor MPR and all associate d infrastructure,
including roads and utilities, may be reviewed, permitted and constructed and/or bonded in phases
or sub -phases.”
Please clarify the proposed approach to phasing, including revising the applicable application
materials. This clarification should address, in particular, how PHMPR plans to sequence all
preliminary facilities, public amenities, and access listed in Sections 10.1, 10.2, and 10.3 of the
Development Agreement to achieve compliance with the Development Agreement (as amended on
July 20, 2019) and the Court Order. This clarification should also identify deviations from the
requirements in Sections 10.1, 10.2, and 10.3, such as the elimination of the LOSS system.
Applicant Response:
The refence to “phases” in the Project Narrative was a poor choice of words. The intent of the Project
Narrative was to explain general sequencing of development. It was not intended to propose a new
“phasing” plan. The attached revised Project Narrative removes the reference to phasing.
To be clear, the project is not being phased in the sense that the applicant has not applied for a
preliminary subdivision of a portion of the MPR and securing final plat, and developing the final
platted property before subdividing other portions of the MPR. Rather, the Applicant has opted to
secure preliminary subdivision approval of the entire MPR. The sequencing of development of
Preliminary Facilities, Public Amenities and other resort development will , however, continue to
comply with the requirements of the Development Agreement, state law, and the Jefferson County
Code.
Subdivision occurs in two steps: (1) preliminary subdivision and (2) final subdivision. Following
preliminary subdivision approval applicants generally have five years to complete the required
infrastructure improvements needed to achieve final plat approval. So, from a sequencing
standpoint, the applicant will begin constructing the essential infrastructure and the Section 10.2
“Preliminary Facilities” needed to service the lots and tracts first so it can secure final plat approval.
This includes constructing roads and utilities like water, sewer and stormwater.1 Additionally, the
applicant will begin the grading and construction work for the golf course after preliminary plat
approval.
1 The applicant may opt to apply for final plat approval for a portion of the larger preliminary plan of
subdivision however any partial request for final plat approval will follow the segregation of planned
development in the DA to allow for appropriate sequencing of development of the MPR.
Exhibit 40
Following final plat approval, sequencing of construction will generally follow the sequence
anticipated in the phasing plan. For example, the applicant will begin construction of the Recreation
and Conference Center complex which includes many of the minimum recreational amenities, 220
guest suites, conference rooms and associated parking structure. Construction of this structure will
be first because it includes all the minimum recreational amenities required by the DA except for the
golf course. Golf course construction will continue as the Recreation Conference Center Complex
is under construction.
The County inquired specifically about deviations from Section 10.1, 10.2. and 10.3. Deviations to
Section 10.1 (Phasing Plan) are described above. As noted in our cover letter, the applicant is
preserving Kettle B and is not constructing the LOSS as a temporary treatment facility to service
development while the WWTP is constructed. Additionally, some of the units described in 10.1 may
be renamed for marketing purposes and units reallocated to other buildings . Changing the building
name and unit allocation should be expected and does not generate impacts that have not been
assessed. The residential unit cap still applies as does the percentage that must be used for short -
term visitor accommodations as described in the DA. Section 10.2 describes preliminary facilities
needed for each phase. The preliminary facilities have not changed although we are not pursuing
phases. The applicant may seek final plat approval for a portion of the preliminary subdivision. If so,
there must be adequate preliminary facilities developed (or bonded) to service that final plat.
Section 10.3 lists the minimum recreational amenities that must be provided. The applicant does
not propose to change to this list.
The phasing issues addressed in the Court Order concern how the residential structures and public
amenities in the MPR are developed in relation to each other. The Court’s rational and decision is
laid out in Section 16 of the Cover Letter dated November 20, 2023 that was submitted with the
application and is not repeated here. The concerns raised by the Court are not applicable to the
subdivision of the property because the plan of subdivision merely lays out the lots and tracts for
development authorized by future permits. It does not authorize development or address the timing
of development. The subdivision reserves adequate land for the required Preliminary Facilities and
Amenities in Section 10.2 and 10.3 of the Development Agreement respectively.
Exhibit 40