The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About03271996 Min . . . , ø PLANNING COMMISSION SPECIAL PUBLIC HEARING ON TIIE DRAFT COMPREHENSIVE PLAN HOUSING AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ELEMENT Continuation March 27, 1996 The Planning Commission met March 27, 1996, 7:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers for a continuation of the special public hearing on the Housing and Economic Development Elen\ents of the Draft Comprehensive Plan. Planning Commission Members present: Karen Erickson, John Boles, Lisa Enarson, Mark Welch, Lois Sherwood, Cindy Thayer, Linda Clifton Staff present were Dave ~~bison and Eric Toews. OVERVIEW Mr. Toews stated Commission packets contained various correspondence received since the last hearing and the minutes for the Land Use Hearing. He noted documents which set the criteria for land use upzones and the process used to identify point values for the most and least desirable upzones. He said there were 11 criteria which were used in determining the suitability of land for multi-family upzones. He named the four key criteria which received a higher weighting than the others: · Proximity to community commercial retail services · Close to schools, medical facilities, other community centers · Close to open space land and parks · Located near existing or potential employment areas .The seven lesser weighted criteria were: · Proximity to recreational facilities like golf course and play fields; water, mountain and territorial views · Lack of pollution, i.e., avoiding the mill plume · On or near arterials or collector streets · Absence of environmental limitations to development, environmentally sensitive areas · Availability of adequate public facilities and services; water, sewer and roads · Whether the proposed home would create more than 50 percent non-conforming uses within the limits of the proposed zone · Planned availability and whether or not the proposed upzone areas were in large parcels or contiguous lots in common ownership so that they would be suitable for development Copied to PCOMM 4 /~4/"L · He noted they a document was a1so provided that assesses the development potential of these proposed upzoned areas; in particular the proposed zones that have limited potential for redevelopment. These are parcels within the limits of a proposed zone that have existing development on them, and because of the value of the land and improvements are unlikely to redevelop any time in the near future. He emphasized that this analysis was very coarse, very generalized, and intended only to provide some measure of redevelopment potential. He pointed out that as the Commissioners go through the material they are free to suggest changes, and the criteria could be changed to reach a different result. He said through the exercise they can identify areas where they may want to revise boundaries of the proposed zones, perhaps eliminate some of the multi-family zones, or as suggested the week before, create a new zone designation that offers more flexibility in that it would allow single family development and would set no minimum density as do the current R-3 and R-4 designations. A map was also attached tl1~t identifies all the areas proposed for upzones. The numbers assigned to each of those zones correlates with the matrix; a blank matrix was also included for their personal use to assign their own use to. assign their own point valuation. Commissioner Thayer recommend taking the material home, correlating it with the big map and revisiting the matter later. · The chair opened the meeting for public testimony on the Economic Development Element.. PUBLIC TESTIMONY Forrest Rambo: Port Townsend resident and Chairman of the Chamber of Commerce Tourism and Future Development Committee. Noted the Chamber is having discussions for the next several days regarding adopting certain elements of the Economic Development Plan and will take a position on areas to be emphasized. That will be forthcoming. .Dr. Philip Speser: President, Foresight Science & Technology, their small Port Townsend corporate headquarters for the past 6 years. He handed out materials outlining his needs for a proposed land use category ofC-I(P) - Professional Zones, and sufficient land to accommodate it. The product is software and CD ROMs which are distributed over the Internet. The customer base on the research side is the Federal Government, National Science Foundation, Public Education, large companies and non-profit organizations. · He spoke about the obstacles in running a company in Port Townsend. He addressed the issues that relate to his business, pointing out Policy 4.6 on page IX-22 ofthe Comprehensive Plan. He noted the impact to the City from loss of small companies like his; lost work, people underemployed, people who can't sell houses - multi-family housing and low cost housing, not because $80,000 - 2 . . . $100,000 is expensive housing by national standards, but because Port Townsend doesn't have the wage structure that supports people at family wage jobs where they can buy those kinds of houses. Dr. Speser quoted the No.1 Implementation measure, Page IX-30, "Designate and zone a sufficient amount of land to support small scale "clean" manufacturing. Completion Deadline: Concurrent adoption with this plan." He said that is why he was making his presentation, stating the Manufacturing Land Use categories were limited to only two, M (Marine), or M/C (mixed manufacturing or retail, (Page V-19)). He quoted Page V-19, "No areas of town are currently proposed to receive this [M-l, Light Manufacturing] designation although it may be appropriate for portions of the Glen Cove area. . ." He pointed out M-l does not fit him because he does not manufacture anything; however it does fit others, e.g. Thermionics, etc. He referenced C-l, Neighborhood Commercial which focused on local or city-wide markets, which again does not fit him. He does not sell anything locally, but internationally and nationally. He then proposed criteria for establishing a new zoning category C-I(P) -- Professional Zones. He said this meets the goals ,stated in the Comprehensive Plan of providing professional and legal offices, corporate headquå.rters, technology business, small-scale shipping, expanding home occupations and telecommunications businesses. He likened his business to bed and breakfasts which he implied are really commercial designated residential and noted synergy that could exist among facilities like his, bed & breakfasts, churches, school and government buildings with shared parking, etc. He then showed his maps designating his proposals. He pointed out what he called the "smell zone" and an area outside that area he said there is a lot of industrial activity already going there and is the logical place to put the L-l (light manufacturing), but said unfortunately it was not indicated on the legend. He stated an L-l area would be necessary for places for people to work when the mill downsizes; they won't be able to work because there are not places for them to work. He noted there are several factors in the Economic Development Element that he said pointed to the L-l Designation on his map, and highlighted the following: · POLICY 9.1 . POLICY 9.2: He said we don't have that now. He pointed out the noise factor and said some activities will not fit in a mixed use industrial business park with retail activity going on. But there is no other place for it, unless you're marine trades. Marine trades is not a growth industry; we're trying to stabilize it. · POLICY 9.8 He then pointed to the C-IP Designation, and highlighted the following: . San Juan, Lawrence, Washington - existing activity, nothing new being brought in. He pointed out an area across from the school that he said will not be a highly desirable residential area in the future because it is across from the school. It is very attractive to corporations because there is a 3 . . . . ' U.S. West high speed fibre optrcs installation linked to the school, some of the best public telecommunications in town. It's an incredibly valuable parcel for business activity. For companies like his, it is very attractive because they do a lot of scientific work and would find it interesting to interact with teachers and students. Policies that support this C-IP designation: . POLICY 9.1: Supports corporate headquarters . POLICY 9.3: Putting on major street, putting where the major activity is · POLICY 9.9: He said these are very minor modifications. Now it is forcing people to operate illegally or get out of town. This is the kind of activity you want to encourage because companies like his, and several others, are not going to be in Port Townsend, we are not going to be generating for our friends and our neighbors whom we know unless there is a place to work out of So we urge you, bring in an L-l designation where you have already agreed is should in your plan, go ahead and do it. And just modify it slightly for professional offices and corporate headquarters, because somewhere in the discussions these areas became only locally focused and there is not place for those of us who are not locally focused, but nQ~etheless bring money into the community. Clifton: Do you think taking out the words "locally focused" would help? Speser: That is part of the problem; the other problem is the location of some of those locally focused parcels is not going to be sufficient for their needs. He would really like to find a fairly substantial house, like a bed & breakfast. He has approximately 10 phone lines coming into his business and needs a fairly good infrastructure. In some of those areas the cost of bringing the infrastructure doesn't make sense. He also said when you are going to do something new, you do a small scale experiment and make sure it works. He pointed out areas on his map and said in those locations he is comfortable that things are consistent with things that are going on. He said there are a lots of houses for sale there. If all these things build up we could come back to the Planning Commission and Council and say this has worked out very well. Enarson: You are seeking high quality, esthetically pleasing, healthy office space with transit, urban services, low cost access to high speed telecommunications, and you want to pay your help very well, but you want it to be affordable. If you can't afford to pay those rents, who can? Speser: To understand what affordable means; he defined it as ..... Mercer Islaqd. He noted many of those houses in those areas he pointed out are affordable, and the cost of running the .telecommunications lines affordable; the infrastructure is there. Parking is not a problem for a 5 to 6 person operation, and again he likened it to a bed & breakfast operation. Thayer: I am understanding you to say you would not have a parking problem. I am thinking you are unique, that other businesses coming into that zone might have need for 10 cars, and that is a concern. Speser: The criteria are the same for bed & breakfasts. Why not let consulting firms, small company headquarters, or a special services manufacturing software go anywhere bed & breakfasts are? He noted his business supports the local economy more than bed & breakfasts, and asked to be under the same exemption. Welch: Would it work to have it as a bed & breakfast and have a conditional use permit? If it's in the historical district, it's not going to work. 4 . . . Speser: I don't have a problem With that. You can zone an area so you can get economy on infrastructure. Erickson: Compared to Kent, what is affordable rent for commercial? What are you looking at? Speser: $17 to $18 a square foot for office space here. Thayer: I think you can buy a house as cheap. Speser: That's right, and have the space to be productive. There are a lot of structures that could be bought and let people buy the other houses. Sherwood: One thing I would like to point out is the Glen Cove area is kind of a never-never land because of the County. Speser: Although I will not put my office down here, we need some place where working class people can go and engage in labor with dignity and pride and make beautiful things. We don't have that. We have that in the marine trades, but that is the only place. Ian Keith: Can you explain where that cable is laid out? Joe Breskin: U.S. West put it in and Public Works permitted it. They are very secretive about it. David Peterson: Spoke of the need for more space downtown. Said he does not want to be out in a business park. Ande Grahn: Said she has also been looking for new office space. Downtown there is no parking; the upstairs areas do not have adequate electricity. To support small businesses, one of the most important things is heavy infrastructure. She said if you have land uses you think you have a need for in the City, e.g. multi-family housing and all land uses, you have to locate them in places where there is existing land available and existing infrastructure. If you have weighted criteria, things you really want to see happen, you need to weight availability of urban infrastructure, as a top priority. Thayer: You need to recognize this is a plan for 20 years, and even though there isn't infrastructure in a certain area now, it very could be within the 20 year period. That is what we are working toward. Just because we put it on the map, doesn't mean it will happen tomorrow. Grahn: I realize it won't happen tomorrow. My concern is where you have ne~ds tomorrow, on a 6-year horizon, you need to make sure that you have land where there is already infrastructure and ·there is adequate vacant land. Said she has been working with the City of Sequim and the Planning Commission there chose to have a 50 percent market factor to guarantee affordability. They wanted to zone half as much land again, so it wouldn't be too expensive. That is what Phil wants; that's why he wants to see the zone increased. You have to have some options to make it affordable. GENERAL COMMENTS Toews: Addressed the market factor as it relates to the proposed multi-family upzones. This is the reason why the Housing workgroup recommended that at least 125 acres of suitably sited vacant land in proximity to infrastructure be upzoned for multi-family use. In the Housing Needs Assessment in Chapter VI of the draft plan, there was a table that suggested to maintain existing 5 · · · ratio of different housing types including multi-family, we would need only approximately 30 acres for to satisfy the population projected for the 20 year planning period. Instead the proposal is approximately 300 acres for upzoning and our preliminary analysis reveals that about 170 to 175 acres are either undeveloped or have a high potential for redevelopment. Robison: The Land Use Committee did look at some of the zones as we went through the workgroup process. In looking at the C-l and C-2, C-2 is a zone that could accommodate professional offices, it doesn't have to be locally, the C-2 is changing now to C-3 along SR-20 (the smell zone). Some professional offices will not want to locate there. There was discussion in the Land Use workgroup on trying to take Lawrence Street down as more of a mixed-use professional office area. The committee recommended that not be taken all the way down to Kearney Street. I think that is a real viable option. The discussion along San Juan Avenue was, the school is up there, it's going to be an arterial and they didn't really want to increase more trips along there, particularly across from the school. Whether or not that is a good idea needs to be reexamined. One reason you don't see bed and breakfasts on Washington Street, eßpecially on the bluff side, is because of parking constr¢nts, and primarily stormwater constraints. Feeding stormwater along Washington Street is very problematic and ultimately would be very expensive for the City as well as the construction of a sidewalk, and parking for some of those properties trying to accommodate parking spaces for five employees or may be problematic. It could threaten some of the bluff stability on that by increased impervious surfaces, at least on the bluff side. It was discussed briefly at the staff level and dismissed for those reasons. Each of those zones could be reexamined. Kearney Street is designated as a mixed-use center that would allow professional offices. Toews: It needs to be made clear with C-2 and C-2 mixed use zones when makes reference to businesses which service a local or city-wide market, that is really referencing primarily retail that would generate a lot of traffic. He anticipates in the preparation of the use tables for the revised zoning code that offices would be allowed in a C-2 zone. Robison: A C-2 zone would probably be more expensive because it has a greater range of uses than a new zone that would accommodate the types of professional offices that have been proposed by Phil Speser. That is a great idea that is worthy of consideration. .Welch: Would it be appropriate to have a different category for professional offices, physician's office for example? Robison: Recently someone converted a single family house into a doctor's office, and there are a lot UBC requirements when you upgrade. We need to look at the ramifications of that. There are different fire safety issues, different access issue, etc. Erickson: Regarding light manufacturing that ship out but don't have any retail, would like to see them in the whole C-2 zone. Thayer: Concern regarding parking is more on Washington Street than Lawrence because of 6 . . . schools. Welch: Need consider the issue of being technologically friendly and looking for a certain kind of business to locate here that generally has certain esthetic standards too. There will be a lot of businesses in the next 10 years we haven't thought of yet. The Chair closed the hearing portion of the meeting. GOALS AND POLICIES LOW INCOME AND SPECIAL NEEDS POPULATION GoalS: To identify locations for and facilitate the development of housing opportunities for low income and special needs populations. , . Erickson, to Staff: Without knowing what is going to happen in the UGA it is really hard to know if we are having the right amount of land for manufacturing. How are we supposed to do this without knowing whether the UGA will ever exist? Toews: The concerted effort that was made by the Land Use workgroup was to identify as many areas within the City limits as possible that were suitable for commercial and manufacturing upzones. And those unfortunately lie within the smell zone, most of them in the southwest because that is the area where you typically find large undeveloped parcels that are in proximity to the Sims Way corridor. If you look in the Land Use element in the discussion of future Land Use needs, what you see is recurrent references to the fact that our analysis show we need this amount of land, we have only identified only X amount in the City, tofind additional areas for this type of district, we may need to look at Glen Cove. The references are clearly to Glen Cove to address that situation. Robison: Glen Cove issues include how much land will be designated, commercial, and manufacturing and retail uses. ,Toews: The area that is currently zoned by the County for light manufacturing and commercial is a very sizeable area, all the way down to Old Fort Townsend Road on either side of the highway, and it may be that once we do further homework and coordinate with the County that we find that amount ofland might not be necessary to meet our economic development needs over the next 20 years. Then the really tough issue that will have to be addressed will be whether the County the would necessarily be willing to consider downzoning certain of the areas currently identified for mixed manufacturing and commercial. Robison: It was identified in the Land Use element that within the City there aren't really suitable large parcels of land that are priced moderately enough for commercial or especially manufacturing uses. One of the problems in the City is a lot of environmentally sensitive areas, and the small 7 · · · fragmented ownership of most of the lands in the City, especially as you start getting away from the arterials, whether it's the future Howard Street or along SR20. Glen Cove does provide the best option for the City's economic base, but also for eastern Jefferson County, because of the proximity to infrastructure, the lack ofESAs, the major transportation routes, etc. Welch: Asked regarding the telecommunications lines Dr. Speser referred to, and if it is proprietary information. Robison: Replied he said he thought they need to call U.S. West to see if they can get information. Welch: There was some conversation lately that if you wanted to get an ISDA line in you had to be X amount of feet away from the exchange. Look at radiuses from that. He said that U.S. West has so many capital improvements right now that he is suspicious we would be quite a way down the line in their overall scheme. Toews: Policy 5.4, assisted living facilities. Thinks the implication there is one that may not have been intended by either the workgroup or staff. It would seem to imply larger scale facilities than were really contemplate~ and probably what they were trying to make reference to were shared living arrangements, non-f~ily living arrangements so that elderly families or couples could continue to stay in their homes with the assistance of non-family persons residing with them. Erickson: Said there are several of them here. Thayer: This does open it to retirement Toews: It does open the gate wide. Several rewording suggestions were made. Mr. Toews said he thought Shared Living Resdences was the term used by Planning Advisory Services. He said the present code allows for six unrelated people, so it could be allowed today. He said it would not have to be defined as narrowly as he had stated originally in focusing on the elderly, just as an assisted living situation in a residence. JOBSlHOUSING BALANCE Goal 6: To promote a greater balance between housing and employment opportunities. Boles: Policy 6.2. Is that a general statement of what has been done on the màp already? ,Toews: Your statement is correct. Erickson: Policy 6.3. Is it the same? Implement? There is a lot to implement. Are we suggesting it or are we saying we are going to implement the Economic Development; there are a lot of "do's." Toews: You are right. It's in the draft plan already. Wheter we reference it in the Housing Element or not, the implementation strategy of the Economic Development Element suggests quite a few new priorities for City staff as well as other non-profits like the EDC. Robison: The sub/housing here for goal 6 is really for to correct the jobs/housing imbalance that we currently have. It's to provide more jobs to come in line with the great surplus of housing units that we have. It is just a better way to connect with the Economic Development Element; it is redundant in some respects. 8 · · · Toews: Policy 6.1. Perhaps the phrasing is backwards. Perhaps it should read, "Recognize that an adequate supply of affordable housing is directly linked to Economic Development." PHASING OF HOUSING GROWTH Goal 7: To encourage higher density residential development within the City limits with gradual phasing outward from the urban core. Enarson: It certainly addresses what we heard tonight about phasing outward from the urban core for infrastructure and services, etc. Clifton: I think that would be market driven anyway. PERMIT PROCESSINGIREGULATORY REFORM Gi>al 8: To facilitate pre<µctable and timely permit processing. Boles: Policy 8.3. Referenced page VIII-12 Capital Facilities & Utilities, Policy 16.1, the final paragraph concerning Water Supply System Performance and stated he was unclear how broadly this would be intetpreted and how to reconcile with to Goal 7 and Policy 8.3 of the Housing Element. Toews: There is more than one reference in the Capital Facilities Element. There are statements that suggest that where the City has not timed the availability of the infrastructure, that nothing precludes a private developer making those improvements on his or her own, but it clearly would not be a capital priority of the City of Port Townsend. I think the policies in the Housing Element are simply reinforcing that notion that we want to encourage higher density housing in areas with existing available infrastructure and then phase outward, following the tiering concept that's embodied within the Capital Facilities Element. Boles: Suppose someone comes to you and says, "I can put this in, but (referring now to Policy 8.3) I want the residential standards, and the stormwater and utility standards reduced." 'And all the other supporting infrastructure isn't in place either. Robison: Remember what we are trying to achieve here. We are trying to set the policy language .in documents, so under Housing we have permit processing and regulatory reform. Once we have our Housing strategy, our affordability housing strategy, we should go in and identify and eliminate the development standards which are contrary to our affordable housing goals, and housing strategies in general. Staff has begun working on with new development standards and design standards. Most people realize street standards cost too much. Some of our stormwater standards are very expensive for smaller lots, and so what we are trying to do is reexamine all our existing standards to better implement the goals contained in this element. Enarson: Policy 8.3. I have a real problem with this, because to me that whole phrase is a license for intetpretation by staff There is no prioritizing of all the goals and policies. To me it is a license to discriminate, and pick and choose whatever standards you want to. Toews: Perhaps this is an area where some clarifying language is in order, but these statements are 9 · · · replete throughout the draft plan and they are intended to provide direction to the Planning Commission, and Staff, and other Citizen advisory groups in preparation of revisions to the code. Erickson: So we are going to change the code so that we don't have 70 foot wide streets; we only have 20 foot wide streets, and that will be our job we don't have to plan 70 foot wide streets. Enarson: I am talking about weighing things. Under the Transportation Element we talk about our street standards. We are trying to layout a plan for the future. I still feel that you can back and pick and choose priorities override. Robison: Let me try again. Once we adopt the Comprehensive Plan, we ought to go through and prepare new development regulations to implement the Comprehensive Plan. What this passage is trying to say is as we go through that next exercise and develop site specific development regulations, let's get the more burdensome ones out of the way and make it really implement the plan. We can scratch this one out, because we're going to do that. Enarson: On the Capital Facilities we spent hours developing goals and policies for the utilities standards, and now you're saying, "If we want to we can eliminate them because that's too expensive and difficult." Can you see where I'm coming from? Robison: Yes, this was wri't1:en before we got to the Utilities. There are utilities standards and there are design standards. " Thayer: It can be all encompassing, not specific to a certain applicant. I have a problem with that. Robison: This is really directed to the City. The next phase will be doing the development regulations, and then phase three will be doing the engineering standards. Enarson: From a different point, I just wish there were somewhere in here that stated very clearly that all standards will be consistent. We have heard too much public comment that the Planners have too much power in being able to pick and choose which standards they apply. I just wish there were language here that would make it clear we're trying our best to have something that's not contradictory from one policy to another. Boles: I concur. Welch: Perhaps it would be better if it said, "unnecessarily expensive or difficult" instead of "more expensive and difficult. " Erickson: We were going to change that word "eliminate" to "modify." Welch: I think that gets to the heart of it, that some of these things are unnecessarily burdensome for developers and for residents. " Erickson: Policy 8.4, Regulatory Reform. I don't know that we have a priority for permit ,processing. I know this was done prior to Regulatory Reform. Is that something that needs to be looked at, or is it possible that we could add that after we get through Regulatory Reform we will give incentives a priority? Robison: That's what that is intended to do. Toews: It's difficult to conceive of a situation where 120 days could be improved upon through the priority permit process. Erickson: But somebody coming in may look and see the goal here was to do this and want theirs done in 60 days. Toews: This was written, as were most of the permit processing sections, when all we had was the Governor's Task Force Recommendations on Regulatory Reform. We didn't have adopted State statutes. 10 · · · Robison: Under the Growth Management Act we are supposed to have a goal talking about permit processing. So we just included Regulatory Reform in that. Erickson: Policy 8.4. I still think this policy could be eliminated. Boles: Policy 4.2. I certainly can't relate 8.4 to 4.2. There needs to be a coherent bringing them together someway. The standards are not clear. Robison: So do we hear eliminating Policies 8.4 and 8.3? CONSENSUS: Poilcy 8.3 stands; Policy 8.4.a. and b. TO BE ELIMINATED. Toews: Is it helpful to add clarifying language on these policies that are intended to direct revisions to the code that we say «in reviewing and amending the municipal code." CONSENSUS: Yes. Boles: Speser's right Affordability is a cheap housing problem. It may not be a housing problem. Robison: Phil's right. A lot of our affordable housing problem is due to lack of good jobs and relatively high land prices for a small town like Port Townsend because of the existing platted lots. It has been so fragmented over the last several years. Erickson: Strategy 4. I question this too, of course it is a strategy. Robison: That goes back~Q Policy 4.2. Clifton: Questioned the difference between manufactured and modular homes, and the area across from the hospital. Toews: Some of the homes in there are not post BUD code manufactured homes. They are mobile homes prior to 1976. Robison: I think you will find four types in Port Townsend: one like Forrest Rambo discussed, homes on wheels, you will find a couple of those in Sea Breeze Park probably since the 40's, 50's, 60's; the type of mobile homes you find in the hospital district off Sheridan Street -- 60's and prior to 1971; manufactured homes found in Towne Pointe - those have their own federal standards, since 1976; and the modular home, according to the Uniform Building Code, half dozen around-- stick build home built usually in a panelized form and trucked to the site and assembled panels on site. Erickson: I encourage everyone to go through Towne Pointe. I was really impressed. Toews: Pointed out that there have been some successes building two story manufactured homes now in the mid-West. Rambo: Clarified that mobile homes are on wheels. ECONONUCDEVELOPMENT Enarson: Disputed the reference to fishing growth on page IX-I7. She also noted discussion that some people choose not to make much money. GOALS & POLICIES GENERAL Goal 1: To foster a balanced, diversified and sustainable local economy that contributes to Port 11 · · · Townsend's high quality oflife, tl1rough protection and enhancement of the community's natural, historical, and cultural amenities, and the improvement of the financial well-being of its residents. TRAJNæNGÆDUCATION Goal 2: To recognize the value of education as an important economic development tool and to train the workforce to develop skills for new technologies and family-wage jobs. MARINE TRADES Goal 3: To strengthen the marine trades economy while protecting the natural environment and balancing public use of shoreline areas. Policy 3.1. Erickson: Proposed rezoning marine specified shoreline areas. She also mentioned expanding into office or light manufacturing. It was stated zone C-2M commercial is too restrictive. DIVERSIFIED MANUFACTURING & SMALL BUSINESS Goal 4: To support current commercial and manufacturing enterprises, and encourage the formation of small businesses and the relocation of small scale locally managed businesses as a vital part of Por Townsend's economy. COMMUNITY RETAIL Goal 5: To enhance and attract small and medium sized retail businesses which serve the community's needs for goods and services. . Policy 5.4. Enarson: Contradicts and looks unnecessary. Toews: Specify in the zoning code. Avoid down from becomming a visitor mecca. Welch: Impossible to implement. Consensus: Eliminate Policy 5.4. TOURISM Goal 6: To maintain and enchance year round opportunities for sustainable toursim based on the area's heritage, culture, recreational, and other strengths. 12 · · · Policy 6.3. Erickson: Questioned the word "Stakeholders." Policy 6.4. Rambo: Questioned "low impact." Thayer: Suggested eliminate "low impact." COMMERCIALIDSTORIC DISTRICT REVITALIZATION Goal 7: To strengthen, preserve and enhance Port Townsend's Commercial Historic District as an active and economically viable place to shop, conduct business and government, live, and enjoy cultural events. Policy 7.1. Policy 7.6. Enarson. Change "discourage" to "encourage." TELECO~CATIpNS Goal 8: To provide Port Townsend with state of the art telecommunications infrastructure for business, education, public affairs and consumer uses. COMMERCIAL & MANUFACTURING ZONING Goal 9: To ensure a sufficient amount of appropriately zoned land to support commercial and manufacturing development. Policy 9.1: Enarson. Duplicates Capital Facilities. Addresses what Phil said. PUBLIC FACILITIES & SERVICES Goal 10: To provide adequate public facilities and responsive and efficient publit services, in order .to attract and support commerical and manufacturing development. PERMIT PROCESSINGIREGULATORY REFORM Goal 11: To ensure responsive and efficient permit processing. Policy 11.3. Erickson. Policy 11.6. En8rson: Expressed concern for the Smell Zone referenced by Dr. Speser, whether it was snobbish or unhealthy. 13 · · · Erickson: Noted there is no office space at Glen Cove. Toews: Said you could create another zone; look at C-2. Erickson: Change home occupations. Welch: Spoke about quantifying. IMPLEMENTATION Rambo: Member of the small subcommittee, Tourism Advisory group, which just completed a marketing plan for Port Townsend. Oone of the recommendations is to tap into some reserve funding. In looking at the eight Tourism Implementation items, noted a majority are already in process or being actively promoted by either the Chamber of Commerce or the Tourism Advisory Group. Is not so sure that most of those items need to be in there. Thayer: Most of the deadlines are right now. Toews: What is the status/<;>fthe Marketing Plan? Rambo: Should be out within the next 10 days. That will be the first 12 pages, stragety, goals, etc. that will be presented to the City Council and copies made available throughout the community. Erickson: Questioned the deadlines included in the Implementation Section. Welch: Suggested setting prioritizing levels in the Implementations Section without using dates. Erickson: Suggested prioritizing before revisiting these items. Welch: The committee probably could give us some direction. Toews: The dates reflect their priorities. Erickson: There are several places throughout the document that speak about implementing the Point Hudson Maser Plan. Is it giong to come for adoption before the Planning Commission? Toews: Perhaps it is premature to recommend implementation of the Point Hudson Master Plan prior to the Planning Commission's having an opportunity to review and make a recommendation on it Robison: The goals of the draft Point Hudson Master Plan were adopted by a joint resolution of the City Council. That Master Plan itself was never adopted because it hadn't gope through a SEPA review, it hadn't gone through the PlaIining Commission, and it had to be incorporated into the Draft -Comprehensive Plan. Toews: In view of the fact it has not been incorporated into the Comprehensive Plan, what would you suggest, since we have policy that we should implement the Point Hudson Master Plan? Robison: I think we should it as an appendix to this Comprehensive Plan. Toews: So it needs to come before the Planning Commission as part of their review of the draft Comprehensive Plan? Robison: The other option the Planning Commission can choose is that next year we adopt the Master Plan as a Plan amendment and go through the process. One of the Port Commissioners had some concern over some of the design guidelines. CONSENSUS: Adopt the Draft Point Hudson Master Plan as a Comprehensive Plan amendment next year. 14 · · · MOTION: Commissioner Thayer inade a motion to adjourn which was seconded by Commissioner Enarson and passed unanimously. The meeting was adjourned at 9:40 p.m. Sheila Avis, Minute Taker I, 15 ~~.,- ~ ,~