HomeMy WebLinkAboutLog231
February 21,2005
[5) fE ~ lE H7 lE ~il
lfIll fEB 23 2005 ~0
l ,---..---
1~'F;:cR~a~~ CrV)r{TY
11"1" t:PT 0" ~ j "',u';',,:,,, '(:;, T i nl'
t,!;,.,. ....;' \.i '..::":'-';", ,',}: ,-', ' 1 ...:'....- ,. ',- \.,.-
'-----,,--'-,,""" .-...
Mr. Dwayne Wilcox
President
Port Ludlow Village Council
P.O. Box 65012
Port Ludlow W A 98365
Re: Amenities Discussion
Dear Mr. Wilcox:
Your letter to Mr. Al Scalf, together with discussions that have occurred at PL VC
meetings indicate that at least some PL VC Directors believe that the Development
Agreement between Pope Resources and Jefferson County (dated May 1, 2000) binds the
Developer to build a specific list of amenities. This letter is to share my view on the
subject.
Development Agreements (DA) are authorized in the Growth Management Act under
RCW 36.70B.170. The DA sets forth the development standards that shall apply to and
govern and vest the development. The legislative intent indicates, "the legislature finds
that the lack of certainty in the approval of development projects can result in a waste of
public and private resources. . ." ".. . the project may proceed in accordance with existing
policies and regulation.. .". The DA vested the developer to a set of regulations that are
referenced in the Agreement including, 1) the MPR Code, 2) the Storm Water Ordinance,
3) the Critical Areas Ordinance, 4) the Land Use Procedures Ordinance, 5) the 1992
Subdivision Ordinance, and 6) the Shoreline Master Program. The County may not
unilaterally change any of these listed regulations unless the developer bilaterally agrees
to a proposed change.
An example of a change in regulation is the implementation of the Uniform Development
Code (UDC) in January 2001. By adoption, the UDC changes the development
regulations and binds all landowners in Jefferson County to the new rules except
developers vested to other regulation under a DA, such as Port Ludlow Associates. The
UDC does not apply to land owned by PLA in Port Ludlow but it does apply to other
owners in the MPR.
The DA only established rules for development and protects the developer against
unilateral changes in regulation. It does not define amenities. The only discussion of
improvements (or amenities as you describe them) is found in the MPR Code.
LOG ITEM
# 02.3 I
Page I of -<
70 BREAKER LANE
PORT LUDLOW, WA 98365
(360)437-2101- FAX(360)437-2522
WWW.PORTLUDLOWASSOCIATES.COM
"
, "^'-'-_""_", "_0'.___.._..____......_
On the face of the MPR Code the document is referred to as the "Development
Regulations for the Port Ludlow Master Planned Resort". Section 3.40 of the MPR Code
identifies "Permitted and Conditional Uses" within the resort zone (MPR-RC/CF).
Section 3.90 sets forth limitations in the resort zone together rules for permit processing
and criteria for major and minor revisions to plans for the resort zone. The MPR Code
describes allowable uses. It does not refer to required uses nor does it state that allowed
uses are required.
It appears that you and other PL VC Directors assume that a list of allowable uses is a list
of required uses. Ifthat were the case, then Section 3.90 would not have provided the
phrase". . . sets out a required environmental review process for reviewing major and
minor revisions to the Resort Plan." Section 3.905 states that "Proposed revisions to the
Resort Plan shall be submitted to the Department of Community Development and the
DCD Director will determine whether the proposal constitutes a major or minor
revision". Surely such a provision to process changes to the plan would not have been
included if the list represented a set of required uses. Currently, PLA's application is
being processed under the major revision process under Section 3.906. The elements of
the major revision are found in the table of allowable uses in Section 3.402
In summary, the DA simply vests the Developer to development standards while the table
of allowed uses in Section 3.402 identifies what elements may be included in the resort
zone. Section 3.901 describes a "shall not exceed" scope of development in the zone.
All ofPLA's proposed uses are found in the allowed use table. As a point of common
sense, what jurisdiction can force a developer to maintain a business if the developer
judges the business to be unfeasible?
I hope that this letter facilitates a better understanding ofthe resort plan issues. If you
wish to discuss the matter further please feel free to contact me.
~
Copy to:
Mr. AI Scalf, JeffersonCountyDCD
Ms, Faith Lumsden
LOG ITEM
#~3(
Page ~ of ~