The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutLog082 " . e JEFFERSON CO!NTY DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 621 Sheridan Street Port Townsend, WA 98368 AI Scalf, Director November 30,2001 Mr. Greg McCarry Port Ludlow Associates LLC 70 Breaker Ln Port Ludlow WA 98365 Dear Mr. McCarry: SUBJECT: PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO PORT LUDLOW DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT PER SECTION 4.6 OF SAID AGREEMENT The purpose of this letter is to propose a modification to the Port Ludlow Development Agreement ("Agreement") Section 3.12.1 pertaining specifically to the procedural mechanism by which the Jefferson County Department of Community Development ("DCD") reviews development applications proposed by Port Ludlow Associates ("PIA") for PLA Property. At the time of adoption of the Agreement, DCD processed development applications via the Land Use Procedures Ordinance ("LUPO"). LUPO is referenced in Section 3.12.1 of the Agreement as the mechanism, in combination with the Port Ludlow Master Planned Resort ("MPR") Zoning Ordinance, by which development applications on the former Pope Property (now PLA Property) would be reviewed for the duration of the Agreement. Since that time, Jefferson County has adopted a Unified Development Code ("UDC"), which in addition to development standards and other regulations, includes an integrated system for processing development applications that replaces the repealed LUPo. It is this procedural system, represented by Section 8 Permit Application and Review Procedures / SEPA Implementation and Section 10 Enforcement, that we propose to substitute for the LUPO in Section 3.12.1 of the Agreement. Please note that this proposal does not include any suggested modification to the substance of the development standards cited in the Agreement. The question is one of process and simplicity. Allow me to explain the reasoning behind our request. When DCD switched from previous ordinances to the UDC, we overhauled our permit information database (permit*Plan) to accommodate the new procedures of the UDC. This system includes specific forms that automatically print based on field inputs. The scope of permit review processes impacted by this system switch is broad, ranging from how we input cases to the appearance of the permits themselves to what appeal instructions are printed for distribution. We expended significant time and resources to complete the required modifications to Permit*Plan and to train staff in the new procedures. A new Planning Clerk will be joining the staff this month, She will be expected to learn the permit review procedures of the UDC and the associated workings of our Permit*Plan database. If we are Building Permits/ Insoections LQGtTEKif (360) 379-445<11 ~ v Development Review Division Long Range Planning FAX: (360)379-4451 ~.~ (, 3 - --- -"'t e e . " -2- November 30, 2001 required to maintain the procedures and forms required by the LUPO in order to process permits only for PLA Property, our budget will be affected, We would need to train the new Planning Clerk in a second set of procedures and maintain this second, outdated system in Permit*Plan, undoubtedly requiring support from Central Services, the County department that administers the County computer system. Allow me to present to you at least four benefits for you in agreeing to eliminate reference to the LUPO in our Agreement in favor of UDC Section 8 and Section 10. Per recent amendments to the Growth Management Act, we have incorporated into our State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) implementing regulations the "Optional DNS" process, an expedited and less expensive way to conduct SEPA review on routine projects for which we expect to issue a threshold Determination of Non-significance (DNS). Details on this process can be found at UDC 8.10.9. There may be other attractive aspects of the SEPA implementing regulations in the UDC, such as the "planned action" option explained at UDC 8.10.6.e. The second major benefit is the new Site Plan Approval Advance Determination (SPAAD) option available since the adoption of the UDe. I believe you are aware of this land use approval mechanism. Details are found at UDe 8.10.7. Buyers and sellers of property, as well as landowners who seek approval of site plans but are not yet ready to build, have used this tooL The SPAAD is valid for a period of five years, during which time a building permit can be issued in expedited and certain fashion based on the existing, approved site plan, The third benefit is that under the UDC, DCD now produces the Adjacent Property Owners (APO) list on behalf of the applicant. Under the LUPO, the applicant provides the APO list through a Tide Company doing business in Jefferson County and incurs the costs. associated with acquiring the list. The fourth benefit is the reduction in time and cost for shoreline permit exemptions. Under the LUPO, it was necessary to generate an APO list and to provide one-month notice in the newspaper for shoreline permit exemptions, a Type A permit. In the UDC, shoreline permit exemptions are a Type I permit. Type I permits do not require public notice (unless the proposal is not categorically exempt from SEPA) and are faster to process and less expensive than the LUPO Type A permit. I imagine there are other advantages, as well. Perhaps in your mind there are disadvantages. If there are, those particular points could be addressed in the amendment to the Agreement, so long as the procedural dilemma I describe above can still be solved, One thing is certain, the optional DNS, SPAAD opportunity, DCD-prepared APO list, and Type I shoreline permit exemption are unavailable to PLA for applications on PLA Property at this time due to the Agreement. There is another disadvantage to the status quo I feel I must relate to you now; As mentioned above, it is a budgetary issue to maintain the procedures and forms associated with the LUPO. Jefferson County as a whole is experiencing unprecedented budgetary challenges, In order to accommodate the requirement to process permits on PLA Property using the LUPO, we may need to charge a "LUPO Processing Fee." Please understand that LO~ ITEM # YJ~ Page )- Of.L e e -3- November 30, 2001 this is simply an issue of utilizing staff and database resources in the most efficient way possible and within the "fee for service" paradigm instituted by the County Administrator. The proposal outlined in this letter mirrors the amendments that were made to the MPR Code at the time of the adoption of the UDC. Although we intended the amendments to affect the whole of the territory governed by the MPR Code, we now realize that the amendments to the MPR Code that replace references to the LUPO with Sections 8 and 10 of the UDC are currendy only applicable to property within the Port Ludlow MPR that is not PLA Property, as defined in the Agreement, If you find this proposal acceptable, we will not be required to amend the MPR Code as it stands; we would simply amend the Agreement, The procedure for modifying the Agreement is outlined in Section 4.6 of the Agreement. If we reach agreement in writing on this matter, the County would provide public notice of the proposed amendments and hold a public hearing. The Board of County Commissioners would adopt the amendments via ordinance. There are some housekeeping issues regarding the Agreement that I bring to your attention at this time, We note that the contact information contained in Section 4.15 NOTICE contains your old Poulsbo address; we could also amend the Agreement to incorporate your address change if we proceed with this proposed Amendment. As another housekeeping task, we request that PLA assutI;le in writing the obligations of this Agreement, as is required by Section 4.2.3(b). We received notice of the property sale to you in a letter dated August 13, 2001. Refer generally to Sections 4.2.2 and 4.2.3 of the Agreement for guidance on the assignment of the interests, rights, and obligations under the Agreement from Pope to PLA. Thank you for your attention to this matter, . I hope that you react favorably to this proposal. I look forward to hearing from you. You can contact me at (360) 379-4493 or < ascalf@co.jefferson.wa.us>, Al Scalf Director of Community Development c: File Jerry Smith, Port Ludlow MPR Qualified Lead Planner Charles Saddler, County Administrator David Alvarez, Chief Civil Deputy Prosecuting Attorney Mark Dorsey, PLA Project Manager b1- ;.,;~~ 3~~n:L