HomeMy WebLinkAbout09202001 Min Ag
.
CITY OF PORT TOWNSEND
PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA
WORKSHOP
City Council Chambers, 7:00pm
September 20,2001
1. Call to Order
II. Roll Call
III. Acceptance of Agenda
IV. New Business
Glen Cove FUGA Workshop
Proposed Comp Plan Amendment #4, Remove FUGA Language from Comp Plan
Proposed Comp Plan Amendment #5, Review & Amend FUGA Language in
Comp Plan
BCD Staff Presentation
Jeff Randall, Judy Surber, Randy Kline of Jefferson County DCD
. V. Old Business
VI. Upcoming Meeting:
VII. Communications
VIII. Adjournment
September 27,2001, Comprehensive Plan Workshop
.
.
.
.
CITY OF PORT TOWNSEND
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
September 20, 2001
I.
CALL TO ORDER
At 7:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers Chairman Larry Harbison called to order the
September 20th meeting which was postponed from September 13,2001.
II. ROLL CALL
Other members answering roll were Jim Irvin, Frank Benskin and Lyn Hersey; Jerry Spieckerman
arrived at 7: 10 p.m. Bernie Arthur was unexcused. Also present were BCD staff members Jeff Randall,
and Judy Surber. Mr. Randy Kline, County Planner, represented and spoke for Jefferson County.
III. ACCEPTANCE OF AGENDA
The agenda was followed as presented.
IV. NEW BUSINESS - Workshop
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENTS
#4 -- Remove FUGA Language
#5 -- Review & Amend FUGA Language
Chairman Harbison welcomed people to the workshop and stated if time allowed at the
conclusion of Commission discussion there would be opportunity for public comment. He turned the
discussion over to Mr. Randall.
BCD Director Jeff Randall
Mr. Randall explained the purpose of this workshop is to consider proposed amendments to the
Comprehensive Plan regarding Glen Cove. He indicated the amendments from the People for a Liveable
Community (PLC) are very specific. He felt it very important to remember that as suggested and
docketed amendments, one brought forward by PLC and one from Staff, they both are now in City
ownership and are City amendments. Questions of ownership, that they are not respecting the intent of
the author, would be irrelevant. Now as City amendments, it is basically for the City to do as they feel is
. appropriate.
He noted some things had changed since going through the docketing process, that the County
has been proceeding with their special studies. He distributed copies to the Commission of "Glen Cove
Land Use Options: A Strategic Analysis." He had initially been opposed to the PLC amendment being
docketed because he felt it was premature, that the studies had not been concluded for them to know
whether or not Glen Cove should be designated as a UGA. He indicated the County has been rapidly
proceeding with their special study process, and that the consultant on this study basically makes a
recommendation that at this time Glen Cove not be designated a UGA by the County. Mr. Randall said
with those things happening, it is more appropriate now, that he will again review the amendment and is
in agreement with what he feels is approximately 80 percent of the language in the PLC proposed
amendment.
Mr. Randall said, however, he wanted to make a distinction on pages 1 - 3 of the "2001 PLC
Comprehensive Plan Amendment" dated May 1,2001, in that it refers considerably to what happened in
the past, i.e., procedures of 1996 and happenings of 1999. He declared that since there were appeal dates
with those actions, and they were not appealed, this Comp Plan is valid. He thought some of the history
Planning Commission Minutes Page 1 September 20, 2001
.
.
e
brought forward by the PLC might be somewhat relevant to the Comp Plan amendment criteria, "Does
the proposed amendment reflect current widely held community values?" He suggested to the
Commission, however, that for the most part they disregard a lot of that history, that what they are talking
about is should they amend the Comp Plan in the way it is being suggested.
He introduced Mr. Randy Kline to give a brief history of how the County got to where it currently
is, the studies that have been conducted, and County perspectives regarding them. Mr. Randall replied to
Mr. Irvin the purpose for this meeting is to be informational, totally for the benefit of the Commission in
preparation of the public hearing. The public hearing should be the place where changes to the
amendment are being suggested, taking testimony, and hard questions are being asked. He explained
tonight is the background; Commission does not have to make any decisions tonight. Ms. Hersey asked
Staffhow long they had been in Port Townsend. (Mr. Randall since 1997; Ms. Surber, 7 years ago.)
Mr. Randy Kline. Jefferson County Planner
Mr. Kline stated he had been with the County Planning Staff for 4 years. He gave the history of
what the Tri Area/Glen Cove study is and what it has become, that it started in 1994 with the County
attempt to designate UGAs in .Port Ludlow and the Tri Area that was successfully appealed by the City of
Port Townsend and others. He said basically the outcome of the negotiations involved in that appeal
turned into this special study. Essentially the Hearings Board said to Jefferson County that before they
could designate any Urban Growth Area, they needed to look at population numbers, look at the amount
of commercial land needed, and do comprehensive land use studies. The City of Port Townsend and
Jefferson County developed a scope of work, and that is what essentially became the Tri Area Study.
Work to date involves--
1997 and ongoing:
Land Use inventory of all commercial and industrial land available in the City and County;
Projection by an economist attempting to estimate the amount of commercial land needed lß
Jefferson County based on population projections;
Final supplemental environmental impact statement for environmental concerns related to the
designation of the two UGAs at Glen Cove and the Tri Area.
Focus after initial County Comp Plan adoption:
County Unified Development Code;
Implementing Regulations.
Focus now:
Tri Area/Glen Cove Study.
Mr. Kline pointed out on a map the two provisional UGAs County Commissioners endorsed in
October 2000 -- 1) the Glen Cove provisional UGA, and 2) Tri Area. Work following included the Final
Decision Document, a narrative form of intent, and the Board's reasoning that the two areas should be
UGAs.
The Tri Area/Glen Cove Study had six distinct tasks; 5.5 have been completed.
Components remaining: .
Detailed sub area planning for Glen Cove and Tri Area;
Detailed capital facilities analysis for Tri Area and Glen Cove.
Mr. Kline said the Board of County Commissioners wanted the work done on a very tight
timeframe. Attempting to get that accomplished as quickly and sufficiently as possible, they began
putting in a UGA at Glen Cove. He said they began to question designating one UGA concurrently with
another UGA.
He indicated the City of Port Townsend Comp Plan talks about some manner of expansion at a
future date. The bottom line is, for Jefferson County to designate an urban growth area on the border of
Port Townsend, by statute and just to make sense, there would need to be a great deal of coordination
Planning Commission Minutes Page 2 September 20, 2001
.
.
.
between the City and County. The timeline the Commissioners are talking about wouldn't allow for in-
depth analysis that would need to be done by both the City and County, and, therefore, they have
suggested to the County Commissioners that they move forward with what is called a Limited Area of
More Intensive Rural Development (LAMRlD). The Growth Management Act (GMA) essentially
divides lands into urban lands, rural lands and resource lands. This is a rural area.
The 1997 amendments to the GMA gave the County the ability to designate
commerciaVindustrial areas outside of UGAs based primarily on what they define as the 1990-built
environment. Basically, that allows the County to recognize areas that were existing at the time the GMA
was passed but requires they draw a boundary around the areas to assure those areas are not going to
continue growing and promote urban sprawl. Also they require that to some degree they protect the rural
character, so they will be looking at building size and scale. Mr. Kline said they suggested to the Board
of County Commissioners (BOCC) they use those provisions in Glen Cove in order to expand on the
interim boundary; he pointed out on a map the 69 acre boundary.
The legislation for LAMRlDs is very new, and Jefferson County was one of the first counties to
utilize it. He said the original intent was to designate the boundaries conservatively so they would be able
to defend themselves before a board or in a court case, and then with the Tri Area/Glen Cove Study revisit
all of the rural commercial boundaries. The directive to do the Tri Area/Glen Cove Study before looking
at any expansion of their commercial areas came from the Superior Court.
At Ms. Hersey's request, Mr. Kline identified some of the area: Edensaw; Rainier Distributing
Company; Seton Road; Olympic Community Action Council offices. He said that is the current
boundary; they are looking for an expansion of that boundary. They have not begun to assess and analyze
where exactly they would expand the boundary, but they are looking to expand it both to the north and to
the south to Old Fort Townsend Road. Mr. Randall stated that right now it is called the tightline
boundary .
Mr. Kline indicated it is a temporary status. The big part is the County's decision as to what this
is going to be -- a UGA or a LAMRlD, which are two very different things. He explained they call it a
tightline (they are trying to avoid the term "tightline" now because it is constricting), or temporary, but
they drew that boundary very conservatively. In 1999, when they were trying to pass their Comp Plan, it
was an extremely turbulent time. One thing that helped them get the Comp Plan passed was the concept
tllat their boundaries were drawn conservatively so they could defend themselves in court, but they would
revisit the boundaries to make sure they made sense once they had elucidation from the courts and other
counties.
Mr. Randall noted that the County Commissioners received the report "Glen Cove Land Use
Options: A Strategic Analysis" Monday of this week. He said he personally saw the area as quite
industrial and connected more to Port Townsend's economy. He spoke of Port Townsend's marine
related industries, the Port Townsend Business Park and starter businesses, that the south side lacks
infrastructure, and that most of Port Townsend's businesses have 50 or fewer employees.
Mr. Randall indicated there are no plans for sewer expansion in Glen Cove, and he felt in light of
the infrastructure, a UGA designation in Glen Cove is premature. The area has been successful; it is
functioning as a light industrial area -- you don't see a lot of residential or retaiVcommercial. The
infrastructure is really limited. He pointed out that Port Townsend has quite a lot of undeveloped land,
and with the fact the City has so much vacant mixed light manufacturing/commercial land that still needs
infrastructure, he felt it premature to consider the Glen Cove area as an urban growth area. He said it
doesn't mean if Port Townsend starts booming and they start using up their land and cannot designate
additional commercial and light manufacturing land within the city limits, that they should not eventually
look at this Glen Cove area; that may become a very logical extension.
COMMISSION QUESTIONS AND COMMENT
Mr. Spieckerman: Asked what the rights, possibilities or zoning are with a LAMRlD versus a UGA?
Mr. Randall: LAMRlD, he did not know what they would call this, they are saying the uses would be
Planning Commission Minutes Page 3 September 20, 2001
.
.
.
light industrial and only commerciaVretail basically related to that business, i.e., if that business was
tractors, they could sell some tractors.
Mr. Kline: You are not going to see the infrastructure provided within a LAMRlD; you will see the
density of development you are going to see within a UGA. There are other jurisdictions that have
done things like industrial UGAs where they have no residential component. The main difference
you are going to see at Glen Cove is density in which individuals may be able to develop the land;
there are going to be constraints. He answered Mr. Spieckerman's question as to what is going to be
permitted, that they are not interested in changing the Use Table for Glen Cove at all.
Mr. Randall: LAM RID refers more to a boundary. You could have a LAMRlD that could be residential,
or one that could commercial. It really depends upon the type of uses that were established there
prior to 1990.
Mr. Kline: Answered Mr. Spieckerman that it is now zoned light industrial and related commercial. He
pointed out the area on the map. He also answered that the rest of the area they are proposing is
RuralIResidential 1-5; outside of that expanded LAMRlD boundary that they will draw, the original
area would still be RuraVResidentiall-5; the density would not change.
Mr. Spieckerman: Specifically in the proposed area, will the entire area remain light industrial?
Mr. Harbison: Clarified there is no proposed LAMRlD area; UGA is the area they are referring to.
Mr. Kline: The area is what the Board identified as a potential UGA. The criteria in the GMA will not
allow them to draw a LAMRlD boundary that large. You are not going to see something this large;
you are probably going to see something looking like expanding out to Glen Cove Road and perhaps
using the logical boundary of Old Fort Townsend Road.
Mr. Spieckerman: What are the criteria for choosing the sides of those boundaries?
Mr. Kline: The LAMRlD needs to be based on and defined· primarily by the 1990 built environment.
Based on some recent appropriate GMA Hearings Board decisions, that refers to any man-made
improvements above or below ground that existed on July I, 1990, which can be used to define that
boundary .
Mr. Randall: What justifies a LAMRlD or a UGA is covered in great detail in the report. He said what
the County is talking about now is not including heavy industrial/regional commercial in the
LAMRlD, really only applying it to light industrial and directly related commercial uses. It really
narrows the scope tremendously from what our Comp Plan and some of the previous special studies
talked about. It is rather like some of the pressure has been taken off Port Townsend and Glen Cove
to absorb all of the County's growth because they have proceeded rather quickly with considering the
Tri Area as a legitimate UGA and are going on a rather direct course to make it so. He thought a lot
of the pressure had come from having Jefferson County employment growth that couldn't go
anywhere else other than a rather large proposed UGA, into Port Townsend or adjacent to it, and is
why the City referred to in the Port Townsend Comp Plan. In 1996 when the City adopted their
Comp Plan, there was no such thing as a LAMRlD; the only place for urban development was UGAs.
The City at that time felt very strongly that the City was and should continue to be the urban growth
area in the County; we were the main economic focal point in the County. The Comp Plan referred to
needing regional commercial, heavy industrial; it should all go near us or in us. Now, there has been
a bit of a change in politics, and the County is living in the strategy of spreading out, e.g. Brinnon and
the Tri Area. The market in large part will dictate where things go; the market is not going to put
everything in Port Townsend. He thought they were trying to recognize and accommodate that; it
takes the pressure off Glen Cove and Port Townsend to try to justify, build the entire infrastructure
and do everything for that growth.
Ms. Hersey: 1) How in the big picture would MIDs affect if at all to take off the pressure; 2) has there
been any talk about what would happen if the mill closed?
Mr. Randall: MIDs are not referred to in the City's Comp Plan; they did not exist at that time. There is a
very interesting Countywide planning policy, however, that almost defines an MID without naming it
-- what happens if something really big comes through here. He thought the MID discussion belongs
in here and that you will see staff take the suggested amendment, add some language to an alternate
Planning Commission Minutes Page 4 September 20, 2001
.
.
.
one basically concurring with the amendment and suggesting going forward with it, but he thinks they
should add a section indicating we are working with the County to develop a process for MIDs. He
did not think MIDs are really considered as taking a portion of this employment growth, because
basically they are something of a wild card. The County doesn't know if they are going to come, nor
does the City -- like a Port Townsend Paper Mill, but something different; a company that is so large
nobody could have foreseen it coming to the county, that has enough money to basically supply all
their own urban infrastructure, all their own transportation -- design and build it all; and we can't fit
them in our city or our UGA. He does not foresee it, that it is there in case a business comes along;
that it is not seen as taking the projected employment. 2) Mill closure would be a fear of any
community, especially a natural resource based business. He feels Port Townsend is diversifying,
e.g., growth in the marine trades which are extremely strong and the small interrelated businesses;
investments in infrastructure with such things as the heavy haul out at the Port that makes them a
premier facility; small businesses -- the Yurt Company, home based businesses. He said this
diversification is slowly impacting the economy. Realistically we have to consider a mill closure.
Natural resource industries are under a lot of stress; it is an incredibly competitive market. We need
to look at our zoning districts so these smaller businesses that interact in and contribute to. our
economy can stay, survive and grow.
Mr. Irvin: Regarding process -- there are two recommendations that have been docketed, and as pointed
out the City owns those. He presumed that there has been a decision to go forward with a revision.
Mr. Randall: They are both docketed and go forward. We will hold public hearings on both of them; the
Planning Commission will make recommendations on both; the City will consider those
recommendations at a public hearing, will accept, reject, change, or whatever, those suggested
amendments. He felt after having reviewed the documents in detail, that Staff would prepare.
Mr. Irvin: Have you been chartered with preparing essentially a joint resolution?
Mr. Randall: Said he has not been chartered with anything; it is basically his own decision. Staff will
prepare draft findings and conclusions in support of much of what is there and a Staff
recommendation to proceed with most of this language. They will probably have suggested
modifications like adding references to MIDs; that it is logical for Glen Cove to be a LAMRlD,
working cooperatively with the County on issues like that; updates on our infrastructure and water
system there. He thought it is good that this amendment says there has been a realization that we
need to focus on our town and that certain types of development can really detract from town. He
sees if they proceeded with Glen Cove the City could be stretching itself too thin rather than focusing
on things it should do first like getting infrastructure to areas in town. We do a Comp Plan process
every year; we can add lands if we need to on an annual basis. His recommendation would be to add
language stating the City would focus on building out areas already zoned and then look at expanding
areas in town if needed before possibly extending UGAs into the County. Staff would have the
detailed language for the Commission; there would be opportunity for the public to review what Staff
suggests, to review what was initially submitted and docketed, and opportunity for public testimony.
There was discussion as to Staff preparing the material so if there are overlaps the Commission
will be able to recognize them and not have to debate them again. Mr. Randall assured them that would
be done. He thought the only things in the PLC docketed amendment are things that relate to the
LAMRlD, that relate to how should we grow within our own City Limits -- first develop what we have
then look to how to expand within our own city limits. He explained that there are some other things,
e.g., that in some areas there are suggestions to delete language that referred to the County-Wide Planning
Policy. He was not able to determine whether or not he supported those deletions. He thinks what Staff
will recommend is one action that would cover both docketed items.
Chair Harbison pointed out he could see there could be concern by people submitting the
amendment by lumping those things together how all of the issues would be treated. He said he would
like for that not to be part of the public meeting, but that we really are dealing with the issues themselves.
Ms. Surber suggested Staff recommendations would likely be:
Planning Commission Minutes Page 5 September 20,2001
.
.
.
#4 = Remove FUGA Language from the Comprehensive Plan -- Staff Recommendation is not to
accept the amendment as written in the original application.
#5 = Review and Amend FUGA Language in the Comprehensive Plan -- Staff Recommendation is
(underline and then point out the percentage of what has been carried over into the Staff suggested
amendment).
There was discussion regarding the order in which the amendments would be taken, whether to take the
positive actions of #5 before #4. Chair Harbison expressed concern for proponents of #4; with their
amendment being addressed separately they not feel it's being diminished by overlapping or anything,
and that this discussion not become a part of that.
Chair Harbison called for any public participation as to whether or not there is preference as how
that amendment is addressed.
Ms. Nancy Dorgan:
Ms. Dorgan said as it is now there is no content, the PLC, the public has nothing until they get a
report prior to the hearing.
Mr. Randall pointed out the packet materials are due out the week prior to the public hearing.
Chair Harbison indicated his question is how these amendments are addressed; it is strictly a procedural
question, that he wants to take the discussion out of the public meeting and have it now.
Mr. John Lockwood:
Mr. Lockwood pointed out the City always has the right to add things to any suggested
amendment. From their [PLC] standpoint -- as long as you hold public comment on both of these
amendments. If you don't you will have been taking an action before you have heard.
It was determined Commission was comfortable with the information and for Staff to go forward.
Mr. Randall reiterated the order:
Both amendment items -- PLC amendment unchanged;
Staff recommendation;
Staff Report -- covers both amendments;
Comment period -- covers both amendments;
Planning Commission deliberations on options.
Ms. Surber pointed out the two amendments are very close together. They had the concern that if
it wasn't absolutely clear Staff has the ability to modify, the PLC amendment might be taken at face value
and not docketed, so Staff thought it better to put in another amendment.
Chair Harbison opened the meeting for further public comment:
Mr. John Lockwood
He agreed completely with Mr. Randall -- their reason for bringing up 8.9 and 16.2.1 was not to
dredge around in the past, but partly because it was new information. He referred to a Leader article he
said Staff presented tonight, that he wanted to present some new information the Leader did not look at
when they were writing that article which is part of the public record that led up to their concerns for 8.9
and 16.2.1.
Chair Harbison asked for relevance to the amendments. Mr. Lockwood stated that apparently
Staff felt it relevant enough to present the article tonight. Chair Harbison stated he had brought that
newspaper article, that Staff did not have that as part of their submission to the Commission. Mr.
Lockwood indicated Mr. Randall had referred to the article and he thought it would be a mistake for the
Commission to go forward to public hearing with misinformation. Chair Harbison asked Mr. Lockwood
to identify the infoID1ation in question. Chair Harbison stated his concern with that issue is whether those
were appropriate decisions made at that time, and said he was not sure whether or not that affects the
deliberations of this Commission whose primary concern is how they address the urban growth language
in the Comp Plan for amendment at this point.
Planning Commission Minutes Page 6 September 20, 2001
.
.
.
Mr. Lockwood asserted that if all Commissioners agree that all of their deliberations and thoughts
about the PLC amendments, how it was brought forward, what actions they will take, and all agree that
this newspaper article was immaterial and will affect them in no way -- if they feel the statement that
questioned whether or not the public record supported their claims about those two things is of no interest
and of no bearing upon their deliberation, he agreed they shouldn't let him make his statements. He
indicated that if they think they are of any bearing at all, because they were part of their submission and a
part of the public record, he has something now that is very abbreviated; they will submit a longer letter
with detail that comes from this document that is a public City Council workshop that occurred on July 9,
1996, a week before the City Council made its final vote to adopt the Comprehensive Plan, history that is
public record.
Chair Harbison stated if he understands correctly those things are in the Comprehensive Plan, and
it's a valid piece (there was a period of appeal -- it was not appealed) in the Comprehensive Plan. Mr.
Lockwood concurred. Chair Harbison again asked Mr. Lockwood if the events from 1996 were not an
issue for someone, would he still have concerns about what is happening here? Mr. Lockwood replied
they absolutely would. Chair Harbison asked Mr. Lockwood that this it is not just because of those issues
around whatever happened in 1996 that he is bringing his concerns to the table and wants his point of
view to be heard in deliberation on the amendments? Mr. Lockwood indicated these concerns are a minor
issue, that a part of their requirement laid down in the Municipal Code is to come forward and show new
and changed information.
Chair Harbison replied that there should be a valid reason for having the amendment placed on
the docket, and said he felt they have recognized that as a valid issue and have placed the amendment on
the docket based on that information. Ms. Nancy Dorgan indicated that it is an adoption criterion, not a
docket criterion. Mr. Randall indicated the changed circumstances and other criteria are criteria to look at
in considering adoption of the amendment, and he explained that this is an informational workshop. Mr.
Lockwood reiterated his concern is that he does not want this to go forward with misinformation.
Not all of the Commissioners had thoroughly read the article. Mr. Spieckerman indicated his
personal feeling is that what is in the public record is more important than what people recall. Mr.
Lockwood replied that was absolutely right, and he referred to support of the public record. Mr.
Spieckerman felt he did not want to comment on that issue, but he believed the public record is what is
important. Mr. Lockwood again said it is very clear if you look at the public record. He said you have
the Leader article; they will prepare something in writing and submit it to the Commission before the
hearing that goes through the public record line by line and shows what actually occurred.
Mr. Lockwood agreed it should not become the focus of the public hearing; it has come up in the
newspaper and they are going to have to deal with it. Mr. Randall noted he is not going to dwell on it at
the hearing, and Ms. Surber stated Staff has always taken the standpoint the Comp Plan is valid. Chair
Harbison. added that with any changed circumstances, the Commission would still have the option on an
individual basis to see whether or not they felt the circumstances have been changed. He told Mr.
Lockwood he felt he had an effective presentation, initially, before the Commission that really raised
some questions, and as more information unfolds it is the Commission's responsibility to individually
make a decision whether or not the circumstances have changed. He indicated it does play into it, but he
thinks none of them want it to dominate the conversation because the things they are really concerned
about is what happens here.
Mr. Randall thought there were a lot of other affirmative findings that can be made in support of
the different criteria, i.e., changed circumstances, public opinion, and all the other assumptions that don't
relate to past processes but relate to events between 1996 and currently, e.g., urban growth studies, city
growth rates, etc. that support the amendment.
Mr. Barney Burke
He indicated he and John Lockwood had discussed providing a transcript of the July 9th meeting;
as soon as they have listened to that he will do a follow-up article. He noted that back in June they did an
article on the bigger issue, why for policy types of reasons this needs to be changed, and only mentioned
Planning Commission Minutes Page 7 September 20, 200 I
·
·
·
in passing the question raised about process. He spoke of having looked to see what the record proved
and indicated he wants to look at Mr. Lockwood's infoID1ation.
Mr. Lockwood answered Ms. Hersey's question of the tapes they were referring to were of the
Special Council Workshop where they went through the Comprehensive Plan section by section, line by
line, and there were almost 10 pages of changes. He referred to action taken at the October 2nd City
Council meeting to table the items and that they met again and approved those motions.
Mr. Randall referred to 2001 PLC Comprehensive Plan Amendment, Page 15 Amendment Text
Revision [VIII-16], #6. (Page 16) "Community Vitality Plan." He pointed out that #5 (Page 15) is an
existing policy, "Contract with the Main Street Program to develop a "Retail Plan" . . .. In looking at
these (the two items are very similar) Main Street is probably the organization locally that has the most
expertise and is most focused on developing local businesses, local economy, and a strong downtown that
relates to retail and is more tied into the history and culture of the town. He thought he would
recommend #5 "Contract with the Main Street Program or other qualified entities to develop a "Retail
Plan and a Community Vitality Plan" -- have the two broken out.
Mr. Randall asked for discussion and questions on the issue. Ms. Hersey indicated she hears
from retail shops outside the downtown Historical District that they do not get any representation
whatsoever, that the highest percentage of money going out from the city goes within the Historical
District area. Discussion included adding other types of businesses beside retail. Mr. Randall then
recommended that #5 be modified to be more inclusive and spoke of limited funds to do studies. Mr.
Spieckerman pointed out EDC is funded in part by the City to do economic studies.
Mr. Lockwood added neither he nor Ms. Dorgan are the ones who focused on this issue, but said
it envisions being an anchor point and did not intend to focus on old town Port Townsend. It intended to
put a hook in there so of the issues could be raised, how you support local businesses and the local
economy. He offered to get clarification from the person who worked on that part.
Ms. Hersey suggested if they are going to look at economic development they really need to look
at what is already in the Comp Plan and how it will be impacted. Mr. Randall concurred.
There was discussion and consensus of the upcoming schedule of meetings and public hearings.
There was no further new business.
V. UNFINISHED BUSINESS - There was no unfinished business.
VI. UPCOMING MEETINGS
September 27,2001, 7:00 p.m., Workshop -- Amendments #6, 7, 8, 3; Formal Amendment -
Northwest Maritime Center
October 11,2001,6:00 p.m., Public Hearing -- Amendments #4 & 5 Glen Cove; Amendment
#3 - MIDs
October 18,2001,6:00 p.m., Public Hearing -- Amendment #1 -- Dwelling Units
October 25,2001,6:00 p.m., Public Hearing - Site Specific Amendments #6, 7, 8; Formal
Amendment - Northwest Maritime Center
VII. COMMUNICATIONS -- There was none.
VIII. ADJOURNMENT
Motion to adjourn the meeting was made by Mr. Spieckerman and seconded byMr. Irvin. All
~in;~O: The meeting adjourned at 8:40 p.m. ~?7I~
~ ~ L'rry Harbison, Chairman
Sheila Avis, Minute Taker
Planning Commission Minutes Page 8 September 20, 2001
·
City of Port Townsend
Building & Community Development
Waterman & Katz Building
181 Quincy Street, Suite 30 I
Port Townsend, WA 98368
(360) 379-5084
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
SUBJ:
MEMORANDUM
September 6, 2001
Planning Commission
Judy Surber, Senior Plaoner~
Materials for Sept. 13 Workshop on Suggested Comprehensive Plan Amendments:
#4 - Remove FUGA Language from the Comprehensive Plan, &
#5 - Review and Amend FUGA Language in the Comprehensive Plan
The purpose of this workshop is to get familiar with the Glen Cove Final Urban Growth Area
(FUGA); it's history, current status, and options for the future. To prepare, may I suggest review
· of the following materials:
City of Port Townsend Comprehensive Plan - The Glen Cove FUGA has a long and sordid
past. In 1996, when our Comprehensive Plan was adopted, the future of Glen Cove was
uncçrtain. The city found it prudent to include goals and policies relating to Glen Cove. See the
following pages/goals & policies:
IV-2 & 3 "FUGA" and the associated Land Use Map
IV - 7 Commercial Designations (C- IV)
IV-1O C-IV, M/C, and M-I zoning and associated Tables IV-I, IV-2
IV -11 M - III zoning
IV-18 Policy 4.11
IV-19 Policy 8.9
IV-25 Policy 8.11.5
IV-26 Policy 9.7
IV-30 Policy 13.4.2
IV-32 Final Urban Growth Area, Goal 16
·
VII-2
VII-5
VII-8 &9
VII-14
VII -16
VII-72
Scope
Policy 2.4.2
Unincorporated FUGA
Policy 18.1 and 19.1
Policy 19.6.6
Capital Facilities Projects #3
VIII-2&3
VIII-16
IX-l
IX-2
IX-4
IX-6&7
IX-9
IX-IS
Summary of Major Economic Development Issues Facing PT, #4
&12
#5 "Retail Plan"
.
Goal # 1 Urban Growth & Goal #2 Reduce Sprawl
Goal #5 - Economic Development
Goal #8 - Natural Resource Industries
Policy #1 Policy to Implement RCW and #3 Policy on Joint County
and City Planning
Policy #7 Policy on County -Wide Economic Development
Policy #9 on Fiscal Impact Analysis
Policy #10 on Use, Monitoring, review and Amendment
(If you find additional language that is applicable, please let me know!)
County-Wide Planning Policy (CWPP) - You should have a copy of the County-wide Planning Policies;
please notify me if you need one.
Policy #1 Re: Urban Growth Areas
Policy #2 Re: Contiguous and Orderly Development
Policy #3 Re: Joint County & City Planning
Policy #7, (3) Re: UGAs and rural centers
(5) Re: Rural Centers
(6) Re: Existing industry in rural areas
e
Exhibits
I ) Year 2001 Suggested Comprehensive Plan Amendments RE: Glen Cove
2) 2001 PLC Comprehensive Plan Amendment
3) Jefferson County Viewpoint - Urban Growth Area Update
4) Excerpt from RCW Section 36.70A070 Re: Limited Areas of More Intensive Rural
Development (LAMIRDs)
5) Taking the Mystery Out of Economic Development
Randy Kline of the County Planning Department will be present to help us understand the history
of Glen Cove and County staff's current thoughts on the options (i.e., stand alone UGA, city
annex, LAMRID or none of the above?). What is a LAMIRD? Exhibit 4 gives a brief
description. I'll see if I can find more detail in a related decision by the Western Washington
Growth Management Hearings Board. An aerial photo of Glen Cove will be available for review
at the workshop. Representatives from People for a Liveable Community will also be available to
make a presentation. We have asked them to focus on the "Community Vitality Plan"mentioned
in their application (Exhibit 2).
Please give me a call if you can think of additional information, which would be useful in
preparation for the workshop.
Thanks - Judy
.
·
·
·
YEAR 2001 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENTS
RE: GLEN èOVE FUGA
4A.
Remove FUGA Lammaee from the Comprehensive Plan
a. Proponent:People for a Livable Community (PLC)
b. Description of the Suggested Amendment: Change the Comprehensive Plan to
more accurately reflect the City's 1996 community growth goals with respect
to commercial and industrial expansion into the Glen Cove area. Delete
obsolete Final Urban Growth Area (FUGA) language ffom the City's plan.
Reflect the accurate history of public input concerning Glen Cove. Ensure
that the Comprehensive Plan is in compliance with the State's Growth
Management Act. Adopt policy regarding development of a "Community
Vitality Plan". (Copy of original PLC application, attached hereto).
4B. Review and Amend FUGA Laneuaee in the Comprehensive Plan
a. Proponent: Port Townsend Planning Commission
b. Description of the Suggested Amendment - Review Jefferson County's
current UGA proposals and supporting analysis, identifY what the city's
policy position is, and amend the Comprehensive Plan to reflect that
position. Future planning for Glen Cove is important to the City.
Docketing the item gives the Planning Commission and Council the ability
to look at a range of alternatives, including the amendments proposed by
PLC.
EXHIBIT
, I
·
·
·
,;.
2001 PLC Comprehensive Plan Amendment
May j, 2001
City of Port Townsend
Suggested Comprehensive Plan Amendment Application
Applicant: People for a Uveable Community
Gft,;, of Port T ownG&nd
RECEiVED
~.~ 1\\1
('"I : ~ t
:f~'
1· "'"'~1
¿tit?
!2..t;ll: ~ (_.....,..,('..;:-f P>- ..' ~ ~ ~, I..... . .
:;}r.D'~i;¡m & lji":;:íGJÌiff šJ~\e.>i.,'~.Hn~m
gf ~;
Explain why the amendment is being proposed:
The deleted or amended text in this amendment application:
..
1. Changes the City's 1996 comprehensive plan to more accurately reflect
the City's1996 community growth goals with respect to commercial and
industrial expansion into the Glen Cove area.
2. Deletes obsolete FUGA language from the City's 1996 plan.
3. Reflects the accurate history of public input concerning Glen Cove.
4. Ensures that the City Comprehensive plan is in compliance with the .
State's Growth Management Act (GMA)
The City's Comprehensive Plan has numerous references to the possibility of
Glen Cove being included in the City's Final Urban Growth Area. However,
references to a theoretical expansion of the city limits to Old Fort Townsend
Road do not constitute adopted city policy.
In 1996, a few Glen Cove property owners may have wished to include Glen
Cove in the City, at a future date. However, a few people's wishes do not make a
community vision. The public planning record of public testimony in support of
UGA expansion into Glen Cove is almost silent. The Community Direction
Statement (resolution 93-73) is adopted city policy --- an expansion of the city,
annexing Glen Cove, is not.
When the adopted Comprehensive Plan was immediately challenged in 1996
and successfully defended before the Growth Management Hearings Board by
former City Attorney Timothy McMahan, he stated in the City's Response Brief:
"What is at issue before this Board is Port Townsend's Comprehensive
Plan, planning for growth within the City's existing municipal boundaries.
No Glen Cove UGA expansion is proposed." (Brief, p. 72)
- 1 -
J
2001 PLC Comprehensive Plan Amendment
Whil~ the County has the sole right to expand the urban growth boundaries of
Port Townsend, the Growth Management Act requires a formal public process to .
accomplish this end. City/County must:
1) Demonstrate a need for such an expansion.
a. Show that the existing UGA boundary has been adequately in-filled.
Fact: This has not been demonstrated. There is a large
amount of undeveloped land inside the City's UGA.
b. Demonstrate significant population growth since the 1996
establishment of Port Townsend's UGA boundaries.
F act: Port Townsend has been growing at le$s than 1 % a
year since 1996 and can still adequately accommodate its
existing and projected population within its boundaries.
2) Demonstrate broad public support for an expansion of the UGA.
F act: During the public process described below prior to the
adoption of the Comprehensive Plan, there was almost no
public support demonstrated for even a theoretical Glen Cove
expansion. This has also been the case during public process
for the Provisional UGA's selected as the Board of County
Commissioners' "Preferred Alternative" in March 2001.
3) Ensure compliance with the Growth Management Act
F act: The envisioned Glen Cove expansion is a classic case of
sprawl. The City has asserted that there is inadequate additional
land suitable for commercial development in Port Townsend,
despite the fact that a large amount of available land exists. The
City Council defines land suitable for commercial development
as land not "removed from existing regional transportation
corridors (i.e., S.R. 20/Sims Way)" (Comprehensive Plan,
Chapter 4, page 2). This desire to site all commercial land down
the major highways and byways of our State is exactly what the
GMA attempts to prevent.
In the 1996 GMA challenge Eldridge v City of Port Townsend, former City
Attorney Tim McMahan successfully argued to the Hearings Board that: "The City
has no responsibility under the law to plan for or designate the Glen Cove
UGA" (Response Brief,p.7). In creating its comprehensive plan the, City did not
specify a regional retail zone (C-IV), inside the City limits because,
"The City was mindful of the well documented damage done to small
towns and the social fabric of small communities by construction of "big
box" retailers." (Response Brief, p. 37). "Superstores typically disrupt local
downtown areas, causing them to cease to serve as the heart of the
community". (Response Brief, p. 38)
-2-
.
.
·
·
·
2001 PLC Comprehensive Plan Amendment
If the County tries to create a new commercial UGA on the main highway
adjacent to Port Townsend, it is clear that it is a de facto extension of the City's
commerciallindustrial zone. The Growth Management Act will not allow the
County to extend the City's commercial district down the main highway out of
town without the City's approval. The GMA will not allow the County to create a
separate ÙGA on the City's border without its approval. (RCW 36.70A.100)
(RCW 36.70A.210) (County Wide Planning Policies 3.4 & 3.5)
Approval Criteria .
1. Have circumstances related to the proposed amendment and/or
the area in which it is located changed substantially since
adoption of the Port Townsend Comprehensive Plan?
When Jefferson County opted into growth management planning, Port Townsend
under the GMA and County-Wide Planning Policy 1.3 automatically became a
municipal Urban Growth Area. Port Townsend's Final Urban Growth Area
(FUGA) was actually created with the passage of our City's Comprehensive Plan
in 1996 (see RCW 36.70A 110 (5): "Final urban qrowth areas shall be adopted at
the time of comprehensive plan adoption under this chapter. "
The adopted Comprehensive Plan included numerous references to a Final
Urban Growth Area. However, the term Final Urban Growth Area, or FUGA, is no
longer appropriate. It has actually been a moot issue since 1996 and should be
removed from the Compreh,ensive Plan, as proposed by this amendment. The
City limits now define the Port Townsend UGA.
Since the adoption of the Comprehensive Plan, public awareness of the negative
impacts of sprawl and big box retail on small towns has increased. There is now
broad public recognition that a 1.6-mile commercial strip development on the
main highway leading into Port Townsend will damage our existing downtown. It
is a classic case of rim development that has devastated small towns across
America.
-3-
2001 PlC Comprehensive Plan Amendment
.
2.
Are the assumptions upon which the Port Townsend.
Comprehensive Plan is based no longer valid, or is new
information available which was not considered during the
adoption process or any annual amendments of the Port
Townsend Comprehensive Plan?
On July 2,1996 the City Council voted unanimously to remove Policies 8.9 and
16.2.1 from the Draft Comprehensive Plan. These two deleted policies specified
that regional commercial retail centers would be located hi Glen Cove.
On July 9, 1996 BCD staff proposed a new motion to reinsert policies 8.9 and
16.2.1 back into the Draft Comprehensive Plan. Council voted unanimously to
table this motion. Nevertheless, this unadopted text was erroneously inserted into
the Draft Comprehensive Plan and inadvertently adopted by Council the following
week on July 15,1996.
3.
Does the proposed amendment reflect current widely held
community values?
.
The public process that the City conducted for the adoption of the
Comprehensive plan was extensive and admirable. The results of that public
process, however, do not support the conclusion that the citizens of Port
Townsend desire a Glen Cove UGA. There is also no text in the City's
Comprehensive Plan that actually states that the City has decided to expand into
the Glen Cove region. All that the deleted text pf the amendment reflects is a
possibility for Glen Cove, a proposed use for Glen Cove, and so forth. Here are
some examples:
. land Use Element, p. 2: "However, at the time of this writing, additional
information and analysis is needed to refine and modify the conceptual
FUGA boundary to ensure consistency with the planning goals and
principles of the GMA, as well as recent decisions by the Growth
Management Hearings Boards.
. land Use Element, p. 2; "Port Townsend has included portions of the Glen
Cove area beyond the present City limits within a conceptual final urban
growth area (FUGA). The area is located immediately adjacent and to the
southwest of the City, along the S.R. 20 corridor. The area is presently
unincorporated and falls under the jurisdiction of Jefferson County for
planning and land use permit administration. An expansion of the Port .
Townsend FUGA is being considered for a number of reasons... n
-4-
.
.
..
2001 PLC Comprehensive Plan Amendment
There is a header in the Introduction to the Draft Plan and EIS (p. 11-6) which
reads: "The Port Townsend Urban Growth Area - the Future City Limits?" Note
especially the question mark. The Draft Plan/EIS merely asked the question...it
did not answer it. The DraftPlanÆIS, as required, presented a range of growth
alternatives but it never suggested a preferred alternative. Those alternatives
were then discussed by assigned workgroups, and BCD staff drafted the
Comprehensive Plan goals and policies. The FEIS (Final Environmental Impact
Statement) which belatedly amalgamated several of the alternatives in the
DraftlEIS into a "Preferred Alternative" was not issued until July 3, 1996 after
public testimånÿ had concluded and only twelve days before the final adoption of
the Comprehensive Plan. Nowhere in the Comprehensive Plan, however, did the
City actually state that it had decided to support any of the potential Glen Cove
UGA's envisioned in the Draft Plan. That would have been premature given the
lack of analysis.
The tenuous language used in the FUGA sections of the Comprehensive Plan
never reflected the requisite broad public support for a change in Port
Townsend's UGA boundaries to include Glen Cove. The public record generated
during the creation of the City's Comprehensive Plan does not support the
conclusion that the City either needs or that citizens want to expand their City
limits into Glen Cove. The FUGA language is only a "top/down" planning concept.
There is so little in the public record to support a finding that the citizens of Port
Townsend support the FUGA that on several occasions, BCD staff noted on the
record that support was lacking:
· On May 11, 1995, the Planning Commission Minutes (p.6) relate that" Mr.
Robison noted that the primary frustration in the process to date has been the
lack of involvement by property owners, City or County (Quimper Area)
residents."
· During the May 23, 1996 Planning Commission deliberations on the Draft
Plan, Mr. Toews commented (Minutes, p. 15), "Just as another potential
issue, I don't think you received much testimony on the whole issue of Glen
Cove and an expanded UGA. Would you care to include anything in your
memorandum [to Council re Planning Commission's recommendations] regarding Glen
Cove ?n
· At the June 18, 1996 City Council Comprehensive Plan Special Public
Hearing, Cindy Thayer, a member of the Planning Commission (Minutes, p.5)
testified that II She knew there had been some concern on Council's part as
there had been on the Planning Commissicm's part at the end about public
participation, and the fact that with their Planning Commission meetings,
toward the end, they had very little public input."
-5-
2001 PLC Comprehensive Plan Amendment
Community Direction Statement
There was, however, extensive public support during the PT 2020 Study for .
another vision for Port Townsend. This vision became the Community Direction
Statement and was incorporated into the Comprehensive Plan. The 1992-93
PT2020 Study was officially accepted as the foundation of the goals and policies
of the Comprehensive Plan that were actually adopted. City Council resolution
(93-73) accepted the results of the study saying that those "results are
commended- to all city officials and others whenever decisions affecting the future
of Port Townsend are under consideration."
.
The only mention the PT 2020 Study has regarding expansion of the City limits
into Glen Cove is in a single staff-written statement in the background materials
that the coffee hour participants received:
liThe city must prepare itself to accommodate for future growth within an
established urban growth area. The limits of the UGA will include the land
within the city limits and possibly just beyond."
Despite receiving that information in their packets, in the 1,400 hours of citizen
discussion reported in the PT2020 report, there is no mention of or support for
Port Townsend commercial expansion into Glen Cove or annexation. Why then,
are references to a Final Urban Growth Area expanding into Glen Cove found
throughout the Comprehensive Plan? They were inserted into the Draft. e
Comprehensive Plan as a response to top/down actions from BCD staff and
pressure from the County, not as a result of anything from the PT 2020 process
or the public hearings that were later held. In some cases, FUGA concepts were
inserted as last minute additions right before final adoption.
None of the. FUGA concepts proposed for deletion in this amendment reflect the
growth intentions of the citizens of Port Townsend as already expressed in the
Community Direction Statement. [See attached]
In the City's Response Brief for Eldridge v City of Port Townsend, former City
Attorney Tim McMahan described the extensive public process that determined
the policies contained in the final adopted plan:
"With direction provided from the CWPP's, the City sought input from the
public regarding the kind of community vision Port Townsend's citizens
desired in implementing the mandates of the Growth Management Act.
The City sought innovative was to get the citizens to come together to
discuss these important community issues, and resolved to hold a series
of heavily advertised coffee hours. Over 80 citizens volunteered to host
the coffee hours, which occurred between March and May 1993, involving
over 1400 hours of citizen discussions in living rooms throughout Port
Townsend.
.
-6-
2001 PlC Comprehensive Plan Amendment
·
Two public, legislative workshops were held after the coffee hours results
were compiled. Upon completion of the process, a final report was
prepared, including a Port Townsend Draft Community Direction
Statement, prepared by Port Townsend citizens. During the "PT20-20"
process, Port Townsend's citizens discussed their many concerns
regarding strengthening and preserving the City's unique attributes and
environment, and ways to improve the character, growth, and
development of the community over the next 20 years.
From the PT2020 process, the overriding concern of Port Townsend's
citizens was the preservation of the city's small-town atmosphere,
balanced with providing better opportunities for growth and development
in a fashion which does not undermine the important community values of
Port Townsend citizens. At the conclusion of this truly "bottom up"
comprehensive planning exercise, the Port Townsend City Council
adopted a Community Direction Statement, reflecting the values of the
city's citizens andelected officials.
·
The Community Direction Statement constituted an important anchor and
point of reference in every stage of the City's planning process. While
Petitioner Eldridge bashes this important community vision and
corresponding Comprehensive Planning process, the City is well within its
discretion in basing its Comprehensive Plan on the citizens' Community
Direction Statement." (P. 10)
"Based upon the Community Direction Statement, citizen input, citizen
work group ,analysis, and the policy decisions of the Planning Commission
and the City Council, the City determined, in its discretion, that large-
scale, regional retail "superstores" were not suitable for location within
Port Townsend, andfhat smaller scale, medium-sized retail businesses
which serve the community's needs for goods and services and build well-
paying, family wage jobs, were preferable. In contrast to Mr. Edridqe's
panacea for all alleged economic development woes of Port Townsend.
sprawlinq superstores and the problems they qenerate were determined
not to be consistent with Port Townsend's community character and vision
for future development. " (P. 35) [Emphasis addedl
Recent Glen Cove Decisions
On August 24, 1999 at a meeting of the Joint Growth Management Steering
Committee, the City's representatives proposed a new Glen Cove UGA be
established. Armed only with the "potential" FUGA language in the Plan - which
this amendment proposes to delete-the City argued that their support for a Glen
Cove UGA is based on the City's Comprehensive Plan.
·
-7-
2001 PLC Comprehensive Plan Amendment
After extensively reviewing the public record, the applicants believe that the City
brought its proposal forward in violation of the Washington State Open Meetings
Act. We can find no place on the public record prior to August 24, 1999 where
the City's Glen Cove UGA proposal was discussed or decided upon.
The Port Townsend City Council asked the City Planning Commission to hold a
public hearing on their above proposal. A Public Hearing was held September
29, 1999. The City PlanningCom~issioners were very confused and upset and
repeatedly asked the City staff why this issue was being brought to them AFTER
the City's proposal had already been submitted and AFTER the County Planning
Commission had already made its decision and would not be able to process the
City Planning Commissions recommendations. "Whatever we do tonight isn't
going to affect the Council's resolution, that is already done, and even if it did
affect it, it couldn't get into the County process because that will be over by the
time it would get there." (City Planning Commission Minutes, Sept. 29, 1999)
·
The Port Townsend City Council held its first and only public hearing on their
Glen Cove UGA proposal on October 4th, the night before the BOCC made its
decision to declare the area a Provisional Urban Growth Area. At their hearing,
the City Council was not given the full minutes of the City Planning Commission's
prior hearing of September 29. Left out of the Council packet was all of the public
testimony given at the Planning Commission's September 29 hearing, which was
overwhelmingly against the proposed UGA.
Based on the City's August 24,1999 recommendation, the County is moving
forward to establish a new UGA in Glen Cove and sprawl the City's commercial
zone 1.6 miles down the highway. Unfortunately, there will be no other City-
sponsored public process prior to the County designating a Glen Cove UGA.
Even the Sub-Area Planning Group that will be formed to draft the required Sub-
Area Plan for Glen Cove will probably not include Port Townsend residents.
·
I·
Our Comprehensive Plan is our only voice at this point, and that voice has been
ignored and misinterpreted. This amendment is needed now to clarify the City's
position. It is not intended to amend existing policy as reflected in the adopted
Community Direction Statement.
·
-8-
·
·
·
2001 PlC Comprehensive Plan Amendment
Amendment Text Revisions:
[IV-2)
Fin31 Urb3n Growth Are3 (FUGA) .
Under the GMA, "urb3n growth" is defined ::!s growth th3t m3kes intensivo use of
bnd for tho loc3tion of buildings, structures, ::!nd impormo3ble surf::!ces. The Act
makes it clear that urban growth must occur only within designated urb3n grm~Jth
areas (UGh), and that counties, rather than cities, are responsible for
designating UGA boundarios.
Port Townsend has included portions of the Glen Cove are::! beyond the present
City limits within a conceptual final urb::!n grovJth area (FUGA). The 3re3 is
loc3ted immediately adjacent and to tho south\·..est of the City, 310ng the S.R. 20
corridor. The 3rea is presently unincorpor3ted 3nd blls under the jurisdiction of
Jefferson County for pbnning· and land use permit administration An exp::!nsion
of the Port T o'Nnsend FUGA is being considered for 3 number of re3sons:
o Decpite the in City upzones directed by this Plan, a short::!ge of bnd
avail3ble for commerci31 and manubcturing development still exists within the
City limits.
o Many of the p3rccls in town which are aV3ilable for commercial and
m::mubcturing development tend to be too small and fragmented to support the
economic development needed in the community.
o Parcels in the City which are 13rge enough to support commercial and
manubcturing development::!re in many instances um~uit3ble bec3use they:
I Encompass environmentally sensitive areas (ESAs) which
constrain development; and
I Tend to be located in ::!re::!s '.vhich are removed from exicting
regional tr3nsportation corridors (i.e., S.R. 20lSims V'/ay). .
o A signific3nt portion of the Glen Cove area is currently zoned for light
m3nuf3cturing and commercial uses under the County's zoning code. If urban
commercial and manufacturing growth is to continue in Glen Cove, then it should
be within the City's FUGA.
o Finally, exp3nsion of Port Townsend's FUGA into Glen Cove will 3ssist in
stemming the flow of retail sales leakage to neighboring areas like Silverdale and
Sequim, 3nd help promote a more b::!13nccd and vit31 economy in northe::!stern
Jefferson County.
In June of 1995, the Joint Grmvth Management Committee (an 3dvisory
committeo comprised of elected offici31s from both the County 3nd City)
recommended 3 "preferred" conooptu31 alternative for the unincorporated portion
of the Port Townsend FUGA. The Joint Gr(».vth Man::!gement Committee (JGMC)
directed that this 31tern3tive be included in the comprehensive plans of both the
County ::!nd City. This conceptu313lternati'lo envisions the designation of an
expanded "Community Serving UGA" encomp3ssing a portion of the Glen Cove
area. The goal of the alternative is to support current commercial 3nd
manufacturing enterprises in Glen Cove, 3nd provide exp::!nded opportunities for
ret3i1ing and appropriate m3nufacturing, consistent with the bro3dor community
-9-
2001 PlC Comprehensive Plan Amendment·
vision. This element includes goals and policies 'Nhich support the
recommendations of the JGMC. Additionally, the Land Use Map which .
accompanies this Plan depicts the possible future extent of the unincorporated
portion of the FUGA (see the map pocket at the back of this Plan).
In conformance '/lith the County 'Nlde Planning Policy for Jefferson County, the
County :md City are coordinating their pkmning efforts to collect and an:lIyze
data, :md determine an appropriate FUGA boundary. HovJCver, at the time of this
writing, additional information and analysis is needed to refine and modify the
conceptual FUGA boundary to ensure consi&tency with the planning goals a~d
principles of tho GMA, as well as rocent decisions by the Gro\Nth Management
Hoarings Boards. It is anticipated that Port Townsend's FUGA boundary will be
designated either at the tune Jefferson County adopts its G~J\ Comprehensive
Plan, or in a subsequent amendment to that Plan. Ultimately, this process is
likely to lead to the development of joint planning, management, and annexation
policies for the unincorporated portion of the FUGA.
[IV-3]
Land Use Map: Delete FUGA from Map
The land Use Map is also required by the GMA. The map represents the general
future land use patterns which are desired for the City of Port Townsend within
the 20 year planning period. The map is the City's "blueprint" for action and
graphically depicts where various land uses should be located. The goals and
policies found within this chapter support and implement the land use map. .
The Port Townsend Planning Area
The "planning area" includes all of the lands within the present City limits, aRå
portions of the Glen Cove area that have the potential to be included within the
City's FUGA, as discussed above.
[IV -7]
Commercial Designations:
Neighborhood Commercial: C-I
General Commercial: C-II
Hospital Commercial: C-II (H)
Historic Commercial: C-III
Regional Commercial: C IV
Marine-Related & Manufacturing Designations:
Mixed Light Manufacturing and Commercial M/C
Light Manufacturing: M-I
Marine-Related Uses: M-IIA (Boat Haven)
Marine-Related Uses M-IIB (Point Hudson)
Heavy Manufacturing: M-III
.
- 10-
·
·
·
2001 PlC Comprehensive Plan Amendment
[IV-10]
C IV Regional Commercial: The purpose of this designation is to provide areas
for diversified commercial activities which serve a broader regional clientele. The
uses generally attract traffic from a broader area than the general commercial
designation, and are usually larger in scale than in other commercial districts.
This designation accommodates large scale retail stores, shopping centers, and
specialty stores. The C IV designation has not boon applied to areas within the
present City limits, although it be could be applied to portions of the Glen Cove
area, if designated by Jefferson County within Port Townsend's Final Urban
Growth /\roa (FUG^).
[lV-10]
MfC - Mixed light Manufacturing & Commercial: This district accommodates
small scale manufacturing businesses along with associated and subordinate on-
site retailing. The purpose of this designation is to provide for manufacturing and
commercial enterprises which do not fit neatly under either the light
manufacturing or commercial label (e.g., Coyote Found Candles, Maizefield
Mantles, Edensaw Woods, etc.). Manufacturing to commercial floor area ratios
are necessary for this designation to ensure that certain uses do not dominate at
the expense of others. The MfC designation has been applied to areas south of
Sims Way, and west of Thomas Street. This district may also be appropriate for
significant portions of the Glen Co'.'û area if a FUGA larger than the present City
limits is deoignated.
[IV-10]
M-I - light Manufacturing: The M-I designation provides for light manufacturing,
processing, fabrication and assembly of products and materials, warehousing
and storage, and transportation facilities. The designation is appropriate for light
manufacturing uses similar to those proposed for the Port Townsend Business
Park. No areas of town are currently proposed to receive this designation,
although it may be appropriate for portions of the Glen Cove area if an expanded
Port Townsend FUGA is approved.
[IV-11]
M-III - Heavy Manufacturing: The M-III designation accommodates heavy
industrial activities including processing, fabrication, assembling of products or
materials, and bulk storage. This designation has not been applied to any areas
within the current City limits, although it may be appropriate for portions of the
Glen Cove area (c.g., the Port TO'.vnsend Paper Mill) should it be designated as
part of the City's FUGA.
[IV-12]
CM-PUD - Commercial/Manufacturing: This overlay designation applies only in
areas zoned for commercial or manufacturing development (i.e., C-I, C-II, C-HI,
G-N, MfC, M-I, M-IIA, and M-IIB and M-III). The designation allows business and
- 11 -
2001 PLC Comprehensive Plan Amendment
industrial park developments to vary from the prescriptive standards of the
zoning code.
.
[IV-13] TableIV-1: land Use Designations
C IV l:uge Scale Auto
Oriented Retailing,
Shopping Centers &
Mini Malls Not
Specified Maximum Lot
Coverage of 90% 45
[IV-14] TablelV-1 Continued
M-III Heavy Industrial Uses
& Bulk Storage Not
Specified 1 Square Foot of
Gross Floor Area Per
1 Square Foot of Lot 35
[IV-15] Table IV: land Use Map Acreage within each land Use Designation
M-I** 0 0
C IV** 0 0
M- ** 0 0
** These land use designations could be applied to portions of the Glen
Cove area, if a FUGA larger than the Port T o\\'nsend City limits is designated.
.
[IV-18]
Policy 4.11: Work with Jefferson County to identify future park and recreational
facility needs within the unincorporated portion of the Port Townsend Final Urban
Growth /\rea (FUGA).
[IV-19]
Policy 8.9: Cooperate with Jefferson County to study the possibility of allowing
regional commercial uses, along with the primary light manubcturing and
associated community serving commercial uses, in the unincorporated portion of
the Port Tovmsend Final Urban Gro¥lth Area (FUGA).
[IV-25] ..
Policy 8.11.5 Coordinate with Jefferson County to extend the open space buffer
from the City limits south along S.R. 20 to the southerly extent of
the potential unincorporated portion of the Port T mvnsend FUGl~..
[IV-26]
Policy 9.7: If additional land is needed to accommodate manufacturing uses or
provide capacity for projected manufacturing growth in Port Townsend, it should .
be located within tho unincorporated portion of the Port TO'JJnsend Final Urban
Grmvth Area (Le., the Glen Cove area).
- 12-
·
·
·
2001 PLC Comprehensive Plan Amendment
[IV-3D]
13.4.2 Ensure that any proposed amendments to the Plan which affect the
unincorporated lands adjacent to the City portion of tho Fin::!! Urban Growth Are3
(FUGA> are subject to separate public hearings before the Jefferson County and
Port Townsend planning commissions.
[IV-32]
Fin31 Urban Gro'Nth Area (FUGA) Nolo: In conform3nce with the County 'Nido
PlanninQ Policv for JefferE;on County, the County 3nd City 3re coordinating their
planning efforts to collect and analyze dat3, 3nd determine 3n 3ppropri3te FUGA
bound3ry. However, at the time of this writing, additional information and
anaIYE;iE; are needed to refine 3nd modify the conceptu31 FUGA bound3ry to
. enE;ure conE;iE;tency '.\lith the pbnning goalE; 3nd principles of the GMA, 3S well as
recent decisions by the Groylth Man3goment Hearings Boards. It iE; ::mticip3ted
th3t Port T ownsend'E; FUGA boundary will be deE;ignated either at the time
Jefferson County adopts its GMA ComprehenE;ive Pbn, or in 3 E;ubscquent
3mendment to that Pbn. This process iE; likely to lead to the development of joint
pbnning 3nd m3n3gement policies for the UGA It is acknowledged that ultimate
3uthority to en3ct 3n expanded FUGA boundary rests 'Nith the JcfferE;on County
B03rd of Commissioners.]
Goal 16: To establish an expanded "community serving" final urb3ngrowth are3
(FUGA) which is provided with 3dequ3te urb3n public f:Jcilities 3nd services.
Policy 16.1: Consider using Jefferson County's, existing light manufacturing and
commercial (M/C) zoning bound3ry in the Glen Cove are3 as the boundary for
the unincorpor3ted portion of the FUGA.
Policy 16.2: Support current commercial 3nd m3nufacturing enterpriE;cE; in the
Glen Cove are3, and provide expanded opportunities for ret3iling and :Jppropriate
m3nufacturing, consistent 'Nith the broader community vision.
16.2.1 Cooper3te with Jefferson County to study the possibility of allO'.ving up to
two locations (i.e., approximately 20 total acres) for region31 retail use within the
unincorporated portion of the FUGA.
16.2.2 Ensure that zoning deE;ignationE; '.\'ithin the unincorporated portion of the
FUGA support diversified manuf3cturing and sm311 businesseE; (e.g., E;m311 E;c3le
"clean" induE;try).
Policy 16.3: Limit ne'lI reE;identi31 useE; within the unincorpor::Jted portion of the
FUGA. (Note: Port T<YNnE;end haE; more th3n adequate land c3pacity to
accommodate projected population gro'Jlth oyer the 20 ye::lr planning period
additional reE;idential 3reas are unneccE;E;ary). .
Policy 1604: Ensure that adequate public facilitieE; and utilities 3re provided
within tho unincorporated portion of the FUGA. Implement the FUGA policies
cont3ined within the Capital F3cilitieE; & UtilitieE; Element of thiE; Plan.
-13-
2001 PlC Comprehensive Plan Amendment
Policy 16.5: Work '.,'ith Jefferson County and the Jofferson land Trust to
designate open spaoo and trail connections through the unincorporated portion of .
the FUGA (i.e., consistent with Chapter 36.701\.160 RCV"!).
16.5.1 Coordinate 'lJith Jefferson County to extend a 50 to 100 foot open space
buffer along S.R. 20 from the City limits to the southerly extent of the
potential unincorporated portion of the Port Townsend FUGA.
[VII-2]
The scope of_th]s plan primarily addresses land within the existing City limits-:;
although policies for the potential future unincorporated portion of the Port
TO'Jlnsend Final Urban Gro'Nth Area (FUGA) have boon included. This plan
element covers all public capital facilities of the City of Port T o'Nnsend, consistent
with the County \Nide Planninç¡ Policy for Jefferson County (C\lVPP 1f1). This
element also addresses essential public facilities.
[V-II-5]
. Policy 2.4.2 Designate areas currently provided with limited public infrastructure
which are designated for commercial, manufacturing, or higher density residential
development, as "Tier 2" areas. (Note: This 'Nould inolude the unincorporated
portions of the final urban growth area (FUGA) if designated
[V1I-8,9]
Unincorporated Final Urban Growth Area (FUGA) UGA's < .
Goal 8: To ensure that adequate public facilities and utilities are provided within
the unincorporated portion of the FUGA.
Policy 8.1: Cooperate with Jefferson County to develop "mirror image" plans,
regubtions and design st~mdards for the unincorporated portion of
the FUGA. Assure that levels of service for public facilities in the
unincorporated portion of the FUGA are consistent with or identioal
to tho City's level of service standards.
Policy 8.2: Adopt interlocal agreements which identify the appropriate provider
of public facilities and services within the unincorporated portion of the FUG/\.
Policy 8.3:. Coordinate 'Nith Jofferson County and other appropriate 3gencies
and entities to gradually phase the provision of facilities, services
and utilities in the unincorporated portion of the FUGA
Policy 8.1: Coordin3te joint planning and permit reviS'^, with Jefferson County.
If necessary, est3blish joint planning and permit processing
3greoments with Jefferson County.
Policy 8.5: . Establish interlocal agreements with Jefferson County regarding the
provision of urban water, wastewater, storrroJater 3nd
transportation services to the unincorporated portions of the FUGA.
.
- 14 -:
2001 PLC Comprehensive Plan Amendment
·
Policy 8.6: Cooperate with Jefferson County to contain urban growth within
appropriately designated UGAs, ensuring that commercial and
manufacturing areas outside of UGAs:
a. Are rural in character, scale and intensity;
b. Are served at a rural level of service; and
c. Do not accommodate businesses and services that directly
compete with uses within UGAs.
[V1I-14]
Policy 18.1: Ensure that all existing and new development within the Port
Townsend Fffiat-Urban Growth Area (FUGA) is supplied with
adequate wastewater collection and treatment facilities.
Policy 19.1: Encourage infill development and the gradual, phased expansion
within the Port Townsend Fffiat-Urban Growth Area (FUGA).
[V11-16]
Policy 19.6.6 Design treatment plants using a minimum of a 20 year growth
projection, with planned expansion capable of serving the 50 year growth
projection of the Port Townsend fffiat Urban Growth Area (FUGA).
Policy 20.2: Do not extend the wastewater system into areas outside the Port
Townsend Final Urban Growth Area (FUG^).
·
[V1I-72]
3. Cooperate with Jefferson County to study the capital facilities needs of the
potential unincorporated portion of the Port Townsend Final Urban Growth
Area (FUGA). If a FUGA larger than the City's incorporated boundary is
designated, develop agreements with Jefferson County to coordinate the
planning and development of capital facilities within the unincorporated
portion of the FUGA.··
[V1II-2]
4. Is there enough commercial and manufacturing land designated to meet
the community's economic objectives?
12. How wíll the future urban growth area boundaries affect the economic
health of the City? Specifically, what role should the Glen Cove area play in the
City's economic future?
[V1II-16]
5. Contract with the Main Street Program to develop a "Retail Plan" to protect
and enhance retailing in Port Townsend's Commercial Historic District. The plan
should examine the likely impacts of large scale regional commercial
development in the Glen Cove area on Port Townsend's Commercial Historic
District. Additionally, the Plan should recommend potential land use and zoning
·
- 15-
2001 PLC Comprehensive Plan Amendment
techniques which. might be used to minimize the adverse effects of regional
commercial development on Commercial Historic District retailers.
·
6. Develop a "Community Vitality Plan" to protect and enhance the local
economy and the inherent social value of locallv owned businesses. The
Community Vitality Plan shall recommend techniQues and leQislation to
strenQthen local businesses and minimize the adverse effects of corporate
businesses headQuartered outside the community. .
[IX-1]
Goal #1 - Urban Growth
The Plan contemplates the potential designation of a final urban growth area
(FUGA) larger than tho current City limits. The Plan proposes a "conceptual
FUGA" for further review and ::malysis that comprises approximately 600 acres of
the Glen Cove area in unincorporated Jefferson County. If designated, Jefferson
County and the City of Port Townsend would cooperate to provide the full range
of urban public services within a 20 year planning horizon. Outside the FUGA
boundary within the County's sole jurisdiction, infrastructure would be provided at
a "rural" level of servico, and development densities would be "rural" in character.
The Plan contains goals, policies and implementation strategies that ericourage
compact, efficient urban growth, and the phasing of growth within Port
Townsend, and the potential unincorporated portion of the City's FUGA, through
the use of "growth tiers."
·
Goal #2- Reduce Sprawl
The Plan contains goals, policies and implementation strategies that encourage
compact, efficient urban growth, and the phasing of growth within Port
Townsend, and the potential unincorporated portion of the City's FUGA, through
the use of "growth tiers."
[IX- 1,2]
Goal #5 - Economic Development.
Encourage economic development throughout the state that is consistent with
adopted Comprehensive Plans; promote economic opportunity for all citizens of
this state, especially for unemployed and for disadvantaged persons; and
encourage growth, all within the capacities of the state's natural resources, public
services, and pub lie facilities.
The Plan designates significant areas within the City limits for commercial and
manufacturing development, and anticipates the designation of additional
commercial and manufacturing land within the potential future unincorporated
portion of the FUGA. Many of these areas are already provided with a full range
of urban services to facilitate development, or would be provided with these
facilities within the 20 year planning horizon.
·
- 16-
·
·
·
2001 PLC Comprehensive Plan Amendment
[IX-4]
Goal 8 - Natural Resource Industries
Finally, the Plan recommends that the Port Tov:nsend P3per Mill should be left
outside of the City's potential future FUGA, 3nd zoned for "resource related"
manufacturing uses. Tho PI3n suggests th3t compatible light m3nuf3cturing and
commercial uses be located in the are3 'Nost of the Glen Covo Mill site, inside the
potential unincorporated portion of the FUGA.
[IX-6,7}
Policy #1. Policy to Implement RCW 36. 70A.11 0 - Urban Growth Areas.
By mutual agreement, the County and City have prepared and adopted a Joint Population
Forecast and Allocation for use in Growth Management planning. The land capacity analysis
conducted for the Plan concluded that Port Townsend's current corporate limits contain enough
undeveloped land suitable for residential uses to accommodate 100% of the population allocate
to the City under the adopted population forecast (i.e., 5,510). Although Port Townsend contain
enough vacant residential land to accommodate the projected 20 year population increase., a
shortage of land suitable for commercial and manufacturing development still exists within the C
limits. Consequently, the Plan includes portions of the adjacent and unincorporated Glen Cove
area within the City's conceptual fin31 urban growth area (FUGA).
Located immediately adj3cent and to the southwest of the City, along the S.R. 20
corridor, the area presently falls under the jurisdiction of Jefferson County for
planning and land use permit administration. If designated, Jefferson County and
the City of Port TO'...,nsend 'Nould cooperate to provide the full range of urban
public services within a 20 year planning horizon. Outside the FUGA boundary
within the County's sole jurisdiction, infrastructure would be provided at a "rural"
level of service, and development densities INould be "rural" in character. No
undeveloped residential areas are proposed for inclusion in the unincorporated
portion of the FUGA Instead; this portion of the proposed FUGA is intended to
provide sufficient developable land for commercial and manufacturing uses to
sustain a healthy local economy.
Policy #3. Policy on Joint County and City Planning within Urban Growth Areas.
Pkmning for the potential unincorporated portion of the Port T o\\'nsend FUGA is
still in its form3tive stages, 3nd much work rem3ins to be done. HO'lJever, the
City's Plan does contain policies '....hich specifically address the unincorporated
portion of the FUGA In particular, 3 policy subsection h3s beon included within
Chapter VII "The Capit31 Facilities & Utilities Element, n which is intended to
ensure that adequate public f3cilities and utilities 'I.-ill be provided within the
unincorpor3ted portion of the FUGA, if design3ted. This subsection establishes
framework policies for joint planning 3nd permit 3dministr3tion,including
environment31 review (i.e., SEPA) 3nd decision making authority for
unincorpor3ted lands loc3ted within the Port Townsend FUGA.
. - 17-
2001 PLC Comprehensive Plan Amendment
[IX-9]
Policy #7- Policy on County-Wide Economic Development and Employment .
Chapter IV ''The Land. Use Element," suggests that Port Toy.~send's FUGA .
should include commercial :md m::mufacturing zoned lands in tho unincorporated
Glen Cove am3. 'Nhen provided '.vith adequate public infKtstructure, this area
could pro':ide sufficient land for tho commercial, retail, and manuf3cturing
development needod in northo3stern Jefferson Count}'. Because of Port
T mvnsend's St3tUS 3S a UGA 3nd region31 service and retail conter, it is
anticipated th3t the unincorpor3ted portion of the FUGA 'NiII include some bnd
zoned for larger sC31e "region31" retail uses.
[IX-9]
Policy 9- Policy on Fiscal Impact Analysis
Fin3l1y, it is 3nticipated that Jefferson County and the City of Port TO'.vnsend will
be developing inferlorol agreements to 3ddress the issues of t3x revenue sh3ring
and the provision of rogional services vlithin the potential unincorpor3ted portions
of the Port Townsend FUGA.
[IX-15]
Policy #10. Policy on Use, Monitoring, Review and Amendment.
The County-Wide Planning Policy for Jefferson County has been used
consistently in the development of the Port Townsend Comprehensive Plan.
Additionally, the Joint Growth Management Committee has served as the
regional oversight body during the development of the Comprehensive Plan~ .
h3s reviewed 3nd provided 3dvisory recommendations on the shape 3nd
substance of Port Townsend's proposed FUGA.
.
-18 -
·
·
·
III. COMMUNITY DIRECTION STATEMENT
"The future of Port Townsend depends on the actions and plans of its citizens today. It is
important, therefore, to understand what Port Townsend citizens want their city to he like in
20 years and beyond, what they want to preserve, and what they want to change. "
(fiom Port Townsend 2020: Getting Together, Final Report)
Port Townsend is our legacy 'for the future.
Each generation makes its contribution. This Comprehensive Plan is today's attempt to define and refme our legacy
to Port Townsend. Our dream of how Port Townsend should be and could be for generations to come is presented in
this Plan. Such a plan is a statement of confidence, optimism and belief in ourselves, a statement that our community
can change without los!ng_ its essential character.
This Direction Statement sets forth the fiamework for carrying out this planning effort. In the future, the Direction
Statement wiII be referred to when the Plan is interpreted or amended to ensure that the basic values it embodies are
not lost. The Direction Statement is in the present tense, as if we were speaking of Port Townsend today. While our
vision is to protect most characteristics of today's town, the vision should be read as describing the community we
wish Port Townsend to become in the next 20 years.
We envision Port Townsend as eastern Jefferson County's economic and cultural center,
Port Townsend is the County seat, and the center of eastern Jefferson County's economy and employment. A
diversity of commercial and industrial activities flourish and provide meaningful employment opportunities for
residents. The area accommodates a strong retail center catering to residents and tourists alike. Tourism is
integrated into the local economy, while at the same time, the affordability of housing, goods and services is
maintained for residents, and the livability of the community endures.
Cottage based industries and low impact light manufacturing have a strong presence in the community. An important
concentration of incubator industries is also found here_ The urban waterrront along Port Townsend Bay is anchored
at either end by marinas and port areas devoted to the City's marine-related commerce and industry. These areas are
essential to the character of Port Townsend as a working waterrront town.
A regional center of culture and learning, Port Townsend provides its citizens with quality elementary and secondary
instruction, as well as career training and college education needed for success and personal enrichment. The City
offers world class arts and entertairunent and continually celebrates its cultural and historical assets by hosting many
exciting festivals and events. Anywhere in town, we are only a convenient bike ride or walk rrom work, classes,
dining, entertainment and home_ This closeness reinforces the tie between Port Townsend's economy, culture and a
large residential community. People live here because they enjoy being in the midst of the natural beauty and
cultural amenities of Port Townsend_
a community with a sense of history and place,
Founded in I 85 I, the City harbors a National Historic District and a wealth of superb Victorian era homes
recognized on the National Historic Register. These historic buildings provide a magnificent backdrop and preserve
a tangible link to Port Townsend's vanished dreams of being the preeminent city of the Puget Sound region.
Structures and places of historical importance are surrounded by new compatible development. Following the
Highway 20/Sims Way Corridor, a procession of distinctive buildings have been added to Port Townsend's
architectural heritage.
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
JULY, 1996
COMMUNITY DIRECTION
STATEMENT
111- I
Port Townsend is a vital and active place that retains a small town atmosphere and a strong sense of community. In
its retail districts, sidewalks are lined with busy shops that cater to residents as well as visitors. Historic commercial
buildings, long established residential aJ"eas, and parks, town squares and streets lined with trees give the City an
atmosphere of relaxed permanence. Parks, gateways and walkways are rich with historical monuments and public .
art. Buses, trails and bikeways provide useful transportation options for workers, shoppers and visitors and
dependence upon the automobile is diminished.
The City is pedestrian oriented, and neighbors greet one another as they walk by for work, play or exercise. The
City's tree-lined walks, trails and streets provide shade and habitat and reinforce Port Townsend's network of green
spaces. Open spaces offering an opportunity for rest, views, contemplation and enjoyment of the natural
environment are found throughout the City. These public spaces are fTee of litter, well maintained and richly planted
with flora that blends \Yiíl! the native vegetation.
a place tbat prizes its natural setting,
The natural setting of this "Key City" of the Peninsula is accentuated with buildings and green spaces that combine
with the lower Olympics, the Cascades and marine vistas to create a dramatic backdrop for an attractive and
memorable place. By feny, the City is the gateway to the Olympic Peninsula's natural wonders. The air is fresh and
the adjacent waters of Port Townsend Bay, Admiralty Inlet and the Strait of Juan de Fuca are clean, full of marine
life, and easily accessible. The downtown waterfTont is an attraction that offers cultural, educational and social
opportunities that reinforce the City's natural setting.
The Waterwalk provides people a pedestrian path along the shore of Port Townsend Bay, tying the City's shoreline
together fTom the Olympic Discovery Trail to Fort Worden State Park and North Beach. The walk connects the
waterfTont with a larger network of trails that lead to surrounding districts and residential neighborhoods. This loop
also unites an extensive system of parks and open spaces, including many environmentally sensitive areas that
provide significant wildlife habitat.
The City's urban wildlife corridors provide vital links between critical wetland habitats, drainage corridors and other
protected areas. These corridors connect with a larger network of wildlife movement routes that extend beyond the .
City and into the County, ultimately leading to the Olympic National Forest and Park.
a great place to live,
A wide choice of housing types and prices is available for a diversity of lifestyles and incomes. Residential
development is centered in distinct neighborhoods that are safe, secure, and have identities and characters of their
own. Opportunities for socializing, recre~tion, quiet and solitude are all close at hand, as are facilities and events
that enrich the body, mind and spirit.
a town that cares,
Social and health,services are available and provide dignified care to dependent residents. The community offers
training and support for those able· to become more independent. Port Townsend's elderly and special needs
populations are appreciated for making valuable contributions to the life of the community and are afforded
convenient access to transportation and other human services.
Volunteerism remains essential to the fabric of the community. Citizen volunteers enrich the community by donating
their time and services to a wide variety of community organizations, artistic and cultural endeavors, environmental
protection and enhancement efforts, and efforts that aid disadvantaged segments of the population.
The youth of Port Townsend are recognized as an important part of the community. The City cultivates
opportunities for the youth of our town to play, socialize, fmd entertainment, work, and be involved in extra-
curricular experiences.
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
JULY, 1996
III-2
COMMUNITY DIRECTION
STATEMENT
.
,.I
·
·
·
where we work together.
The public and private sectors work together pursuing the continued strength and growth of Port Townsend's
economy, diverse employment base, and cultural and educational opportunities. City government is open and
accessible. It provides leadership in promoting and implementing public policy. Government is willing and able to
respond quickly, creatively, and efficiently to provide innovative ways of meeting the chaJlenges facing the
community. City and County governments cooperate to solve common problems. The private sector participates in
the success of government by actively helping in decision-making and adding its talents to help solve community
problems.
Regulations, laws and policies are enforced with equity and justice. Development is orderly and predictable. The
inhabitants of Port Townsend feel, and are, safe. The City's residents respect the opinions, as well as the cultural and
ethnic diversity of their fellow citizens. While discussion of civic issues remains robust, residents communicate with
one another and elected officials' in a considerate manner.
Business supports the cultural and educational life of Port Townsend. Government encourages business, civic and
neighborhood organizations to participate in decision-making and in helping it honestly evaluate its successes and
failures.
Above all, our hope for the future becomes the City's promise to maintain and enhance
Port Townsend's special character and smalltown atmosphere!
c:\gmaplan\6naJ\cbaptJ.1io
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
JULY, 1996
COMMUNITY DlRECTJON
STATEMENT
111-3
-
·
Your Com.munity...
...Plan On It
Jefferson County
Viewpoint
~,~--" ~~.....~ ''<">:':'" ¡' ~,--,,' ~·-i1~"'~i-.?t,!'L4·;Þ ;;~';;~'..f,.",;<~-~-:.;../...(\~..,...,~>- ~,~~>:1'..~,,--::: -~~,--< --Y<"'<'--< ,,- <..~ "'~!;' ..,}.. -~. " ',_~.;'.- _ ~
f!~' ': '" ,: :-L: ..{?;c .\,' ·;:.ê·®~~~~íe1t'é:tt;.Xø:ø~~ttf;~,~G):~~&1!¡r~{rá¡[¡(à~~mì~8~lBtª~ll1mJrITg¡-~~:::"::·;..' ,:,:;.":"' ,-,:',' ',':-'
~Jtb:~to.t:J-e'r;~Z0®:0P:·~ ':;;~ "_,,:;'(.fP:1iJ õ ~é>¿fi6~1tHê}IÐ!:;R.¥rtirrJ~ìì1¿0fl~tmrlm:ua~ltJj GXêie,lþp'iid:;'mtt;· ;, ·'\:·;~QdlÍ,¡mgj·.ßJí:J~]ber, 1.;
:;-f~~~,,~:';;"'(~·i_,f::"'~"""_5.;(¡~::_~"'~:~~~1~;:-/;.:",,",_.l~6.:~;';i~r1-;:;;~-""";":::;~'-'~~..,~"",,,, ..':,;':; "':C:":::t '",d.=:~",'~~; ,::..-",'-1--'~J~:--..."~~. _"~-.:......' ,,- ~;'::.~ .1.,":"'-- ~~:. ~"-
County Commissioners
. .
RichardWòí~Chairm~
. ..DànHarpole
Glen Hûnrlngf<>rd
County Administrator
Charles Saddler
·
Department of
Community
Development
AI Scalf, Director
Warren Hart, AICP
Planning Manager
Long Range Planning
Randy Kline
Development Review
Jerry Smith
Michelle Farfan
.Kevin Russell
Josh Petm
Planning Çommission.·
TomMcNemey, Chairman
PhilAndms
Stanley Kadesh
. . David Whipple
Michelle Sandoval
PatRodgen
. Todd McGuire.
Colette Kostelec
Derek Stacey Thompson
·
UrbanGro~hArealJpâate
Tri-Area&GlenCové
t~___~_
-
County Administrator's
Message
I am pleased to announce the first in
a series of newsletters from the D e-
partment of Community Development
to educate and inform the residents of
Jefferson County on the issues of
growth and development.
Jefferson County has been working on
managing growth under the Growth
Management Act (GMA) since it
passed the legjslature in 1 990. The
Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan,
the County's first GMA Plan, was
adopted in 1998. After a senes of legal
challenges, it was brought into full
compliance with the GMA in 2000.
Now the County is being challenged
on its land use dècisions. The Board of
County Commissioners has received a
growth management hearings board
petition contesting several of the a p-
provals it gave during the year 2000
Comprehensive Plan amendment process.
The subject of this first newsletter is
urban growth. The County has been
actively engaged in planning for Glen
Cove and the Tri-Area for many years.
Much of the planning that went into
these two areas were done prior to the
adoption of the County's Comprehensive
Plan and unfortunately did not meet
the mandates of Waslùngton State's
(Contin1led on page 8)
-
What is an Urban
Growth Area?
In 1990, the Waslùngton State Legis-
lature passed the Growth Manage-
ment Act (GMA). The intent of the
GMA is to balance the need for eco-
nomic development and enviro n-
mental preservation. The GMA calls
for "urban growth areas" where
growth will be encouraged and can be
supported with adequate facilities,
such as sewer and water. UGA's are
created, in large parr, to accommodate
growth in a cost effective manner.
Concentrating development into one
or more UGA's works toward pre-
venting sprawl. At the same time the
GMA encourages setting aside other
areas for rural uses and resource pro-
tection. Establishing a UGA is a major
step local communities take in manag-
ing growth. Urban growth areas are
designed to accommodate expected
growth for the next generations. A
UGA is not just about creating com-
mercial areas. It's about livable com-
munities with a. mix of land uses where
people work and live.
Many people equate an UGA with a
large _ metropolitan area or city along
with its traffic jams, high rises, crime
and other trappings.
EXHIBIT
I 3
Nine Principles of
Development
1. The rural character and
small . town atmosphere of
Jefferson. County must be
maintained. .
2. New urban growth should
be channeled into· areas that.
are already· characterized by
urban growth.
3. CapiciI facilities (e.g. sewer
and Water) must be scaled to·
need and the ability of busi-
nesses, homeowners, workers,.
and the public to finance
tliem.
4. . Affordable housing is a
significant issue and an over-
riding goal.
5. Urban growth areas will be
used where· urban services are
necessary to support higher
density residential and com-
mercial growth.
6. Expansion of existing com-
mercial zoning. district
boundaries will be used where
rural levels of service (e.g.
septic systems and wells) are
sufficient to. support e:ãsting
development patterns.
7. The Tri-Area must be al-
lowed to develop as a com-
munity with or without the
designation of an UGA. Areas
outside a UGA can still be
part of the "community."
8. . Businesses must be pro-
tected and allowed to thrive,
whether they are .located in-,
side or outside of a UGA, or
an existing commercial zoning
district.
9. Whatever solutions are
found for the unincotporared
study area, there should be no
harm done to the aspirations
of Port Townsend or the
South County region in terms
of how each wishes to grow.
t_
-
County Commissioners
Create Provisiona I
Urban Growth Areas
On October 5, 1999'the Board of
. County COIDßÚssioners created
two "provisional urban growth ar-
eas" (pUGA). One m the Tri-Area and
one m Glen Cove. (.ree mtrp.r on page¡ jive
and .fix of thi.r new.rletter). Smce then, di~-
cussion by the Board and the public
has focused on what provisional urban
growth areas really are. A PUGA is a
"planning" term only. The Board has
not officially created a final urban
growth area. That can only be acco m-
plished through a change to the
County's Comprehensive Plan. Webster
defmes "provisional" as "pending fur-
ther arrangements." Until an UGA is
officially designated, the County will
continue to regulate these areas as ru-
ral.
While the Board has only created a
provisional UGA, the decision, none-
theless is significant. The Board has
officially stated its "mtent" to create
two "urban growth areas" (DCA's)
within Jefferson County. All of the
conditions are present, as required by
. the Growth Management At! and the
County's own policies, to create a liv-
able community that can be served by
public sewer and water at a higher
density then the surrounding rural
zoning districts (rural zoning districts
have minimum lot sizes of 5, 10 and
20 acres).
Basis for Decision
Deliberative and thorough analysis,
mc1uding extensive public review, en-
vironmental analysis on several alter-
native options, comments from state
agencies, and deliberation from the
Jefferson County Plaruúng Commis-
sion, have lead the Board to its deci-
sion for the following reasons:
1)
Several of the planning studies
necessary. for designation of a
UGA are now complete;
~
.
2)
The decision is consistent with
the· "nine principles of develop-
mént" as. adopted by the Board
during the development of this
project and these principles will
continue to guide the decisions 0 f
the final UGA designations. (see
sidebar to the left);
The decision is consistent with
the County-wide Planning Pofiry;
The two areas are already charac-
terized by urban development, so
a long term view must be taken;
The several studies prepared for
this project found the need for as
much as an additional 280 acres .
of commercial/industrial land to
serve the County's growing
population over the next twenty
years;
The size of the FUGA boundaries
were chosen to accommodate the
projected population growth of
the county;
It's feasible to provide urban lev-
els of services withiri these
boundaries;
The PUGA boundaries designa-
tions are consistent with the
UGA guidelines found in the
Growth Management Act.
.
3)
4)
5)
6)
7)
8)
Next Steps
The Board recognizes that while sig-
nificant public' input opportunities
have been afforded to residents of the
County, there must be a continued
effort to involve the Tri-Area and
Glen Cove· communities in the next
steps of the project.
Based upon the studies conducted to
date (.ree side bar on page four), and the
Board's acceptance of the conclusions
--
(Ctm/in1led on page J) ,
Page 2
n~
· Typical Elementsofa
Sub-Area Plan for an
Urban Growth Area
1. Introduction
Planning History
Public Involvement
Organization and Content
2. Description of Plan-
ningArea
Location
Existing Environment
Existing Land Use
Population and Housing
Characteristics
Existing Public Serv:icesand .
Facilities
3. Final Urbån Growth
Area BmUldary
Designation Criteria
Boundary Description
· 4. Land Use Plan
Community Vision
Planning Objectives
Land Supply Analysis
Land Use Designations
(Including Open Space and
Natural Features)
5. Services and Trans-
ponation Plan
Levels of Service
Roadway Improvements
Water and Wastewater Im~
provements.
Implementation Schedule
Funding Medw1Îsms
6. State aDd Local Com:'
pliance
Compliance with GMA.
Compliance with Cotm!1-Witle
PlaJming Polify and C01llJ»'hett- .
· nÌJePIan
¡.......-..uoœ;or......-.---...
-.i!II1I~"¡¡
of thos~ studies, the next step in the
UGA process is a focused discussion
on the key issues that may ultimately
result in the designation of a final
UGA, which would require amend-
ment of the County's Comprehensive
Plan.
Tri-Area and Glen Cove
Planning Efforts
Planning efforts undertaken over the
last five years have resulted in signifi-
cant analysis of the Tri-Area and Glen
Cove. The BoCC recognizes that
planning for the Tri-Area is much fur-
ther along than Glen Cove.
The Tri-Area participated in a commu-
nity visioning process during the
preparation of the 1995 Communi!J
Plan prepared by Olsen & Greeves.
The next steps for the Tri-Area will be
to form a community planning group
to assist in designating land use zones
within the PUGA boundary. The TÌ:i-
Area is envisioned as a UGA with a
mix of residential, commercial and
light industrial lands. While a Glen
Cove UGA would primarily be desig-
nated for commercial and light indu s-
trial lands.
These important planning· studies al-
low the County and the community to
build upon what is already known.
This is a process of moving forward,
not starting over again. For instance,
the sub-area plan (see side bar to the !efl)
is largely complete for the Tri-Area.
Conversely, the studies prepared for
Glen Cove have never included. a
community planning group and as a
result. the PUGA boundary for Glen
Cove is not final. The final location of
the Glen Cove PUGA boundary will
be based upon a more detailed analysis
of existing commercial and industrial
properties and future land needs.
The County's recent planning analysis,
known as the Special St1It/y, had six ma-
jor taSks (I-VI) of which four have
been completed.
Community Planning
Groups
It is the intent of tþe Board that
final UGA's will be determined
through a sub-area planning proc-
ess which will include:
1) The formation of two commu-
nity planning groups appointed by
the BoCC as representative of the
Tri-Area and Glen Cove communi-
ties. The purpose of a community
planning group is to assist in the
preparation of final plans, especially
the location of land uses within the
PUGA boundaries. It's a chance for
the community to take a look at its
self and decide how and where it
best wants to grow. These groups
will also be guided by the same nine
principles of development used by
the BoCC (see sidebar on page 2);
2) Completion of Tasks V & VI of
the Special Stucfy, to include: prepara-
tion of two sub-area planning docu-
ments, including a detailed engi-
neering plan for sewer and water;
mapping the location of the res i-
dential, commercial and industrial
zoning districts; negotiating inter-
local agreements with the service
providers (pUD, City of Pòrt
Townsend, or others); ensuring
compliance with the GMA and the
Coun!J-wide Planning Poliry; a public
participation process for amend-
ment of the Comprehensive PIdn;' and
amendment of the Unified Develop-
ment Code to provide for specific
zoning regulations within the
UGA's.
How Much Will it Cost?
How much will it cost to provide
services to an urban growth area
and who pays for these costs? A
planning level analysis of the costs
to prmride public facili ties (roads,
sewer, water, stonnwater, parks)
were prepared for the County in the
(Continued on page 4)
Page 3
~
-.....
Studies Prepared for
Tri-Area and Glen Cove
1. Tri-keaWa~and WastC~
water Systems Capital Facility
Requirements, HenderSon &
Young (Janwuy 15. 1995)
2. Tri-Area -PlånningArea
#4 ExistingLot Capacity
Analysis (FebJ:Uaíy2. .1995)
3. Existing LoiBuild out - .
Tri-Area Planning Area ..
(February 13; 1995) .
4. Tri-Area Urban GroWth
Analysis (May 3, 1995)
5. CommWûty Plan for the
Towns ofC1úmacum, IroÌ1-
dale and Port Hadlock, Olsen.
& Greèves (Júly 18,1995)
6. Revised Community Plan
for the Towns of Chimacum,
IrondaIe and Port Hadlock,
Planning. Commission
(October 1, 1995)
7. Tri-Area & Glen Cove Spe-
cial Study: Scope of Services
. (September 10, 1997)
8; Draft Supplemental EIS:
Jefferson CoUnty Compre-
hensive Plan Í999 Amend-
ments (commonly referred·tö
as the Special Study)
Gune 1999)
9. FinalSupplemetÏialEIS: .
]effersonCounty COmpre-
hensive Plan 1999 Amend-
ments (Special Study) .
(August 1999)
10.Glen Cove/Tri-.;~reaSpe-
cial Study: Draft Decision
pocmnent, For Discussion
9nly (Sept. 1;1999)
. .
.1 LGlen Cove/Tri,.Area Spe-
cial Study:PraEt FInal Deci-
sion DOcûment, ForPiscus-
$ion Only (Oètobe!22; 1999)
¡...å..=.........-__,
~.
·
June 11, 1979
Chronology of Land Use Planning and Urban Growth Activities
August 9,1982
Jefferson County adopts &stComprehm.rivt Plan.
,
BoCC adopts Tri·Area Community Development Plan.
July 1990
House Bill 2929: Growth Management Ace. County begils GMA
planning process.
November 1991
Jefferson 2000 Public Opinion Survey.
DeCember 21,1992
Ú»Inty-wide Planning Polify: A policy framework to guide the deveJq>-
ment of comprehensive plans.
January 10, 1994
County creates Interim Urban Growth Areas in Tri-Areaand Port
Ludlow.
June 13, 1994
BoCC adopts C01117111lnitJ Planning Gllideliner (Blue Book) and fonnalizes
Community Planning Groups.
August 1994
State Hearings Board issues Final Order: Oey ofPT, OBC, 1000
FOW v. ]effco. Couney must eliminate any interim urban growth
area designations and adopt appropriate rural densiries.
September 6, 1995
State Hearings Board invalidates Pon Ludlow Interim Urban
Growth Area.
February 14, 1996
August 28,1998
Adoption of Jefferson County GrolVlh Strdtegy Ordint1f1a! (IGSO).
Jefferson County adopts first GMA compliantConpn'hemiv< Plan tmd
Emergeng Interim Control Ordinance.
March 1998
Contract with Shockey-Brent forSpeciol Study and EIS.
·
October 4, 1999
Adoption of Port Ludlow Master Planned Resort Ordinance.
October 5, 1999
BoCC decision to create Provisional Urban Growth Areas for Tn.
Area and Glen Cove.
February 2000
Board completes first amendments to 1998 Conpn'hemioe Plan.
May 2000
Boatd hires consultant to prepare final devefopment regulations cO
be known as the Unified Development Cotk.
June 2000
Board receives Growth Management Hearings Board petition chà-
lenging decisions of the BoCC to amend the Comprehensive Plan.
Special Stu4J (see number 8 in the side bar
to the 1eJt). The Special Stutfy discussed
several options for providing public
facilities and utilities, the most signifi-
cant being public sewer and water.
Under GMA guidelines, the County
must prepare a detailed capital facility
pJan for the first six years of a 20 year
planning period.
According to the Special Stu4J, the cost
for providing infrastructure (seWer and
water) for the six year period is $9.0
million in the Glen Cove PUGA, and
$8.3 million in the Tri-Area PUGA.
The cost to install infrastructure to
accommodate the first six years of
growth within the PUGA's -, are
$106,816 per business acre in Glen
Cove and $49,318 per business acre in
the Tri-Area. The cost per housèhold
in the Tri-Area wolIld - be $3,900 or
about $54.00 per month.
How would these costs be paid by a
homeowner? A likely scenario of de-
velopment within the UGA's woúld
be the formation of improvement dis-
tricts. A homeowner would typically
pay for these services through
·
(ContŽ1",ed on page 7)
Page 4
Tri-Area
Provisional UGA
1000
o
1000
2000 Feet
Provisional UGA Boundary
Existing Commercial Districts
,()
o-? .
r}';
o~
1-1S'~
1-<)
¿f-<¡J-
~;
.
---'----..,....i..
¡
I
-"~"
!
i
ì
-I
i
\
\.
\
I I ,
k-L !
! "í
I '----i
I
,
.,
\
\lap by Jefferson County IDMS. September 2000 h:\a~m\avplpuga_apr
diF."8'. ·
·
'-
¡
j ,
l---.J
·
i
fl
r¡ I
I I
!
¡
i
i
L
¡J~J~
This map is for planning rposes only
and does not represent a undary that
has been adopted by Je rson County
for purposes of land use .Jegulations or
zoning. I
I
I
I
·
I
j
j
¡
¡
j
~'.~~:_~!.;:~......:" ~~ ¡'~.~£;'~~
Map by Jefferson County IOMS. September 2000 11:Ia\jmlavplpuga.apr
I.,.." ....... .__
·
Public Participation
Opportunities During the
Trl-Area/G/en Cove
. Special Study
Meetings Held by the
Joint Growth Management
Steering Committee
April 7, 1999
JuneZ3,1999
August 9,1999
Public Interest Group
Meetings
Chambers of Commerce
(POIt Townsend, Tri-Area)
Quimper Planning Group
Jefferson County
Home Builders Association
Tri-Area Community Club
Port of Port Townsend
·
Jefferson County Economic
Development Council
Workshop/Open House
Held by Public Works
July 21,1999
Workshops and Public
Hearings Held by the
Planning Commission
September 15, 1999
September 22, 1999
September 29, 1999
Public Hearing Held by
County Commissioners
October 5, 1999
Workshops Held by
Department of Community
Development
October 22, 1999
November 2, 1999
·
~,..--
monthly utility bills fot sewer and wa-
ter.
As an example, the cost of improve-
ments to the existing Tri-Area water
system and new installation of co m-
munity drainfields to handle sewage,
would be equitably divided between
those people within the utility district
Only properties within the UGA
would be responsible for paying for
these urban services.
There will also be long range planning
costs associated with completion of
tasks V & VI of the Special S/1/tfy. It is
conservatively estimated that an addi-
tional $150,000 of taxpayer funds will
be necessary to designate final UGA's.
What Might UGA's Look Like
A Tri-Area UGA will for all practical
purposes look the same as it does
now. It will have a mix of residential
and commercial land uses. Irondale
does and will continue to have the
higher density residenrial lots, while
Port Hadlock will have a mix of resi-
dential and commercial land uses.
There are also institutional uses inter-
spersed throughout the community,
such as the school, library, and county
maintenance facility.
The installation of public sewer and
water will provide new opportunities
for affordable housing, such as multi-
family dwellings and apartment co m-
plexes. Additional commercial areas
may be considered to accommodate
forecasted population and job growth.
New recreational opportunities, such
as the preservation of Chimacum
Creek and the purchase of the old log
dump will enhance the livability of the
community. The Tri-Area must be
prepared to receive the population
growth projected for the future. What
is important to remember is that the
Community Planning Group will help
to determine where these land uses
will be appropriate.
A Glen Cove UGA would be desig-
nated for commercial and light indu s-
trial land uses recognizing. that there
are some pre-existing residential prop-
erties. It will be specifically sized to
accommodate the growth needs of the
County based upon detailed studies.
The residents of the QuimperPenin-
sula expressed concerns during. the
Special StHtfy about the visual buffering
of Glen Cove. Oearly the concerns
for the types of uses within this UGA
and how it would impact the SR20
gateway to the City will receive a high
priority.
As an example, the U GA designation
could include a corridor managemen~
plan for the protection of SR20. A
corridor plan might include: large
building setbacks from the highway;
preservation of the tree canopy
through landscaping performance
standards; controlled access to SR20 at
major intersections instead of direct
access with multiple driveways; and
site design standards.
While these are the core issues that the
public typically equates with sprawl,
they are rather visUal impediments
more appropria~ely mitigated through
quality site design. A successful corrj-
dor plan could effectively screen the
Glen Cove UGA from the traveling
public and local residents alike.
As to future land uses within Glen
Cove, the County's Comprehensive Plan
dictates commercial and light indu s-
trial uses, not retail sales. . A final
UGA would be designated by the
County to implement these . policies.
Should the property owners of Glen
Cove one day choose to be annexed
by the City of Port Townsend, jt will
be up ~o the City Council to conduct
the land use planning studies necessary
to desigruite zoning districts based
upon the City's Comprehensive Plan. Op-
portunities for public input and debate
will continue to be afforded through-·
out these important community deci-
sions. _
Page 7
UnifledDevelopmeilt
Code (UDC)
. .
. ". '.'
>, . ....-, - .....'.
. . .
". '. ' .
~o~t~i~ ;::¡
sultant . (E~ Téch). to; Work:
with .. the· PJannfug Conunis.-'
sion 1Uld Long Range Plan;:;
qing Staffof:.thê:· J?epiuttneÌ:tt ¡
of (:omm'µnity.DeveJopmentj
to ·tipdate -the· Cow1Ì:y's:
"inti:rim developmentregula~:
tions." .
These .Dew de"';¿opmènt regu-:
lations will be known as the:
Jefferson County Unified:
Development Çode (UDq.
The general purposes of the;
UDCUt::
· To protect the general.
public health; safety.and!
welfare; ,
· To implement the Com-'
p"hensive Plan goals and
policies through land-use
and other regulations;
· To provide consistency
with· the . Growth Mì:Znage- :
ment Ad.
· To provide for the or-
derl}' . development of
compatible land uses;
. .
· To minimize adverse .
. environmental impacts; :
The fitst threê chapters of the :
UDChave already been sub-
mitted to· the Planning COID-:
mission and are available on
the County'sweb page for the .
public to review. .
The target dite- for adoption:
of the UDÇ is Décember of
2000: A speCial publk partici~
pation program haS·' Deen·. de~ : .
signed for this· project.
LOOk·for it on the County's
websit£ at http://
. .
Www;co.jeffetsott.wa.us
I,;¡.§
-~",:,,_.
",..-..coo
-III
(Continued) Administrator's Message
Growth Management Act. Planning
for growth and development are
lengthy 1Uld complex issues with no
right or wrong answers. These plan-
ning efforts and products have been of
great service to those commwúties
and the dedication of those involved is
. greatly appreciated. The decisions we
make now are made for 20 years in the
furore. There are also strong opinions
in the commwúty on these issues.
The bottom line is the Board of
County Commissioners has an obliga-
tion to make sure that land use plan-
ning is done responsibly. Additionally,
it is imperative to proactively address
the growth pressures in the Tri-Area
and Glen Cove. To simply react to the
issues of growt.h and its corresponding
cost to the larger community is irre-
sponsible.
While urban growth area planning is
important, the Board of County Com-
missioners has prioritized the prepara-
tion of "final development regula-
tions" for adoption by the end of the
year (see sidebar on lift). To provide the
best possible service to the public
within the resources that are available
is a challenge. However,. these costs
are miniscule compared to the cost of
ignoring the situation.
In October of 1999, the County fin-
ished a detailed growth study and en-
vironmental review, known as the Spe-
cial Shufy, that will be used by the
County to take this project toward
ultimate completion.
Until final decisions are made on the
location of urban growth areas, the
County is still in a flexible position.
Development in Tri-Area and Glen
Cove is still possible, within existing
commercial and industrial zoning di s-
tricts, without the designation of an
urban growth area. The unresolved
issue is how much, how big and
where. II
(Continued) What is an UGA?
.
In Jefferson County· there is currently
one UGA. The City of Port Townsend
was designated under the GMA as an
UGA because it was already an incor-
porated City. Ask a resident of the
City of Port Townsend if they like Ii v-
ing there. You may hear that it is more
like a small town than a city.
Future urban growth areas in Jefferson
County may. be more appropriately
called "Villages" or "Towns". In ei-
ther case, the impacts of creating an
urban growth area typically focuses
on:
1. "density" (number of houses and
businesses per acre of land); and
2. "urban levels of service" (public
water and sewer);
3. "costs" (the ability of each property
owner to pay for services); and
4. "what it will look like" and "how it
will affect property."
.
The creation of a UGA does not nec-
essarily mean the degradation of the
natural environment. UGA's can still
have the appearance and feel of a
small town or village. Open spaces for
recreation such as parks and streams
are not only encouraged within an
UGA but are required under the
GMA.
For those who are interested in more
information on UGA's, this newslet-
ter, or general information concerning
land use planning in the County, con"
tact Warren Hart, AlCP, Planning
Marulger of thè Department of Com-
munity Development at (360) 379-
4450 or whart@co.jefferson.wa.us. _
J
e
Page 8
·
·
·
EXCERPT from RCW Section 36.70A070-
Growth Management Statutes
(5) Rural element. Counties shall include a rural element including lands that are not
designated for urban growth, agriculture, forest, or mineral resources. The following
provisions shall apply to the rural element:
(a) Growth management act goals and local circumstances. Because circumstances
vary from county to county, in establishing patterns of rural densities and uses, a county
may consider local circumstances, but shall develop a written record explaining how the
rural element harmonizes the planning goals in RCW 36.70A.020 and meets the
requirements of this chapter.
(b) Rural development. The rural element shall permit rural development, forestry,
and agriculture in rural areas. The rural element shall provide for a variety of rural
densities, uses, essential public facilities, and rural governmental services needed to serve
the permitted densities and uses. In order to achieve a variety of rural densities and uses,
counties may provide for clustering, density transfer, design guidelines, conservation
easements, and other innovative techniques that will accommodate appropriate rural
densities and uses that are not characterized by urban growth and that are consistent with
rural character.
(c) Measures governing rural development. The rural element shall include measures
that apply to rural development and protect the rural character of the area, as established
by the county, by:
(i) Containing or otherwise controlling rural development;
(ii) Assuring visual compatibility of rural development with the surrounding rural
area;
(iii) Reducing the inappropriate conversion of undeveloped land into sprawling, low-
density development in the rural area;
(iv) Protecting critical areas, as provided in RCW 36.70A060, and surface water and
ground water resources; and
(v) Protecting against conflicts with the use of agricultural, forest, and mineral
resource lands designated under RCW 36.70A.170.
..1&-
p~ç~~§IY:pµº1~pfª-pmtt~$~nºpµ1;i'lJç?$~llç~~:t:º:§~I~~p.~:nmì~~q:·I~:ª~îqJ~gl§':~
EXHIBIT
14-
·
·
·
'.
·
·
·
...·.....·......(IJ...lq·:tlj~.·.ª~t~...ìii..99µP~y·.l;çpì~ª':·ª:.í~lmt!9P...I1ª~f.!~º~:·~~i.7~~i~lgJ.~...I:..i
999P~¥.îhil·1,§..pjî.iimgg...i1ªI1..ªu.....9.~.tí~...prq¥!m.çg~..:it.tli..:liipìtiiY!lidgçW
aIWlúAH1dt.örg}; or
. ............."....
........(@J.gn:~þ~·ª~î~·tij!.:9Iši::9~lñª'nš1i~..mª9.ªg~miÂî:.:š~llli§·.íiji:.ç9Yim~.·.ÌI.mgi.:!~
(¢)Ex¢êpH8mæms.šûBsêBHB.ñšhmlMöt:l)~mtêfPtiii.d..tø:p~iEtn...th¡...mi.iEif:lii.¡
mãjqìt~~µ~tti~t~li~ÞÞm~~þt~w~~~rþt~I~~·:t~~þ.m··g~!~~~~lj~I~~%.·~Iþ.I~i!~Y·
p~rtmt~窵ñª~rt{@&:V~~·7q;.tj$~~Mªª§·;îºi,ª§~
FEATURE
.
Taking the Mystery Out of Economic
Development
Economic development can be a
high-stakes emotional game. But it
needn't be confusing. And you can
do many things to put your plan-
ning commission at the center of eco-
nomic development activities for your
community.
ou've ever felt that dealing
h economic development pro-
jects was difficult, consider this.
Hodding Carter Jr., was a Pulitzer
prizewinning editor in Mississippi in the
1950s and 1960s who wrote editorials
favoring civil rights. For that, he lived
under constant political attack and, from
time to time, threats of physical attack.
Yet for all his courage, there was one
subject, Carter said, that he dared not
aite about: Any suggestion that his
~metown, Greenville, Mississippi,
wasn't the best place to locate a business.
That's the way it is in many places.
Economic development is a form of local
patriotism, a source of new jobs and,
potentially, a great deal of money for
some in your community. No wonder it's
such a difficult subject.
But it need not be a mystery. In
essence, economic development is about
three things: companies moving to your
community, companies starting in your
community, and companies expanding in
your community
What makes economic development
mysterious - and difficult for planning
commissions -·is that all the attention is
focused on only one of the three, compa-
nies that move to your community_
Why? Because "relocations" tend to
make a big splash. The news media pay
attention, chamber of commerce execu-
Aes get bonuses, and politicians cut rib-
~ns when a new plant comes to town.
Nobody notices when a new company is
by Otis White
created - and few pay attention when an
existing company adds more jobs.
But it's important for you, as a plan-
ning commissioner, to keep the other
two in mind. First, new and expanding
businesses provide many more and,
often, better jobs than relocations do.
Second, they don't cause nearly the plan-
ning headaches.
THE HEADACHE OF RElOCATIONS
The reason relocations are difficult is
because frequently they require rezoning.
This isn't always the case - some compa-
nies want to be in your community's
industrial park or an older, industrial
part of town - but many don't. They want
to be on the edge of town, in an undevel-
oped section. And the neighbors often
aren't happy
Why do manufacturing and distribu-
tion companies, in particular, want these
"greenfield" locations? For one thing.
land assemblage is usually easier on the
edge of town than in already developed
areas. But more important, they want
speed. Much of American industry today
is built for speed - speed in bringing in
parts, speed in assembling products,
speed in delivering the finished goods to
the customer - and greenfield locations
offer greater opportunities for designing
a plant around speed.
How intense is this need for speed?
An executive told me that his company
decides where to locate based, in part, on
"gear downs." Every time a driver gears
down his truck for traffic or stop signs,
he explained, it costs his company
money So he was interested only in sites
directly on interstate highways and in
uncongested areas.
There are three lessons plannin
commissions and economic develope
should draw from the growing impor-
tance of speed. First, transportation and
land use planners must work closely
with economic developers because each
controls a vital element of satisfying the
need for speed - and successful econom-
ic development.
Second, if you want to redevelop
older industrial areas, you must have
land that is as easily assembled - and
accessed - as locations on the outskirts of
town.
Finally, you should identify the sub-
urban locations that are most attractive
to industry and prepare them for eco-
nomic development. That means appro-
priate zoning, but it also means upgraded
transportation access and sewers. And it
means keeping residential and retail
continued inside on page 18
In Coming Issues of the
PLANNING
COMMISSIONERS
. neighborhoods:
:'uality of life
a changing
'faphics
-~'
-'(1 local sewer
ordinance
city planning
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS JOURNAL I NUMBE I 5
IIIIIIIIII!III
On-Line
Comments
"A specific role for the plan
commission is to ensure, through the compre-
hensive planning process, an adequate supply
of available land for economic development.
When a rezoning or annexation agreement is
needed, we try to have study sessions with our
plan commission prior to the public hearing,
in an effort to identify questions that may
come up and hopefully reduce the review
time.
White's comments on retail are right on.
Retail jobs and opportunities will come with a
Thanks!
Our thanks to the following participants
on our informal on-line editorial review
group for commenting on articles
appearing in this issue:
Pat Bales, Lanier Blum, Lorn Clement, David
S. Collins, Larry Frey, Steve Fumivall, Silvia
M. Gagnon, Scott Greenberg, Rob Hammons,
Sam Haymart, Kent E. Holm, RobertJones,
Carl Kahn, Son Cheong Kuan, Gail Lawson,
strong local economy, and they will undoubt-
edly redistribute spending dollars which
already exist in town. Champaign .provides
zero incentives for new retail.
Plan commissions [should seek to] pro-
vide flexibility in development regulations,
particularly for home businesses and incuba-
tor type (commerciallindustrial) facilities. As
we all know, our economy is changing. Gone
for the most part are the "home-run" type
plant openings - auto plants and other heavy
manufacturing facilities. More focus needs to
be placed in keeping and fostering the compa-
nies that already exist in our towns."
- Matt Flynn, AICp, Champaign, Illinois
Visit our online
Sprawl Guide
Our free online Sprawl Guide is
designed to familiarize you with key
issues associated with sprawl, and
direct you to some of the wealth of
information available on the Web. .
The Sprawl Guide is clearly orga-
nized, with sections focusing on:
· the roots of sprawl;
· problems caused by sprawl; and
· strategies for dealing with sprawl
The Guide can serve as your start-
ing point for exploring the impacts of
sprawl, and for seeing how states and
communities have begun to deal with
this important issue.
www.plannersweb.com
Christopher Leo, King Leonard, John Lewis,
Jerome Mapp, Slade McCalip, Lisa Nisenson,
Nathan R. Norris, Mary O'Donnell, Denny
Rafael, Barbara Sweet, Chris Mueller; Larry S.
Pflueger;Jim Segedy, Kristine Vernier; Ilene
Watson, Barbara Wells, Lindsley Williams,
Roger Williams, Paul Zykofsky
If you would like to assist us by reviewing
draft articles, complete the sign up fonn at
our PlannersWeb site:
www.plannersweb.comlupdates.html
Taking the Mystery Out...
continued from back cover
developers away from prime industrial
locations.
RETAIL VS. INDUSTRIAL
AND OFFICE DEVELOPMENT
This brings us to an important ques-
tion - what is economic development?
Does it include stores and restaurants or
just factories? What about offices?
Obviously, the answer depends on
your objectives, but in general I'd argue
that your efforts should be directed at
industrial and office developments, not
retail. Three reasons: Retail is one of the
lowest paying industries around. It natu-
rally follows markets, so there's little rea-
son (outside of depressed markets or
special cases, like downtowns) to spend
limited resources pursuing it. Most
important, retail brings little money into
an area; it merely circulates what's already
there.
The heart of your community's eco-
nomic development program ought to be
directed at jobs that bring new money to
your region - what economists call "trad-
ed jobs." These are the jobs that truly
enrich a community - a factory that
builds export products, a regional insur-
ance claims office, a statewide distribu-
tion center, a metropolitan sales office
and so on. These are what your commu-
nity should be targeting.
NEW COMPANIES AND OLD
The great temptation in your commu-
nity will be to spend all your resources
chasing a handful of relocations and miss
the greatest resource you have: older
companies expanding and new ones
starting up.
Entrepreneurs need many of the same
things other businesses do, but they have
special needs. )Q Whal Businesses Look FOT.
SOme are outside your control - such as
access_to_capital and specialized business
services - but others can be influenced by
land-use decisions. Most important is
space needs. Entrepreneurs start out,
well, small. A new company rarely builds
its own plants or office buildings. They
rent - or they start out in the garage or at
the kitchen table.
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS JOURNAL I NUMBER 43 I SUMMER 2001
m
Point is: If you want entrepreneurs,
you need zoning that will accommodate
speculative industrial and office space as
well as home offices. And if you can con-
centrate these activities in one part of
town, all the better. Entrepreneurs need
each other - and certain business ser-
vices, like quick copy shops, office sup-
ply stores, temporary help offices.
Delray Beach, Florida, recognized
this need to congregate several years
ago, when it rezoned a neighborhood
near its downtown for artists to live,
work and sell from. The result: Many old
houses have been made over into studios
and galleries (wi th artists sleeping
upstairs), and the result was a new arts-
related economy for the resort city.
Expansions of existing businesses
rarely cause the land-use headaches of
other kinds of economic development.
They have a different problem. Existing
businesses are the "May tag repairmen"
of your community - ignored and feel-
ing a bit hurt.
One of the most cost-efficient ways
of building your local economy is to
encourage your chamber to create an
"existing industries council" that meets
once a quarter with local government
officials - including planners. Let these
businesses tell you the obstacles they are
facing, and let local officials brainstorm
about how to overcome the obstacles.
You'll solve a lot of problems, send a
powerful signal to existing employers
and almost certainly bring more jobs to
your community than the most expen-
sive recruitment campaign imaginable.
And all it costs is the price of lunch four
times a year. .
Otis White is president
of Civic Strategies, Inc., a
research and consulting
firm specializing in civic
leadership issues. He is
also a past contributor to
the Planning Commission-
ers Journal, having
authored a three-part
series on community leadership (in PC] #16-18)
and, most recently, "Should Your Run?" (in PC]
#33). Civic Strategies' website is at: www.civic-
strategies.com
" What Businesses
p Look For
Every business has a list of
things it needs from a community. Some
companies use a lot of water, others need
nearby research universities, others need
sophisticated financial services. But there
are six factors nearly every business
requires.
Workforce: This is the most serious
problem businesses face today - finding
dependable skilled workers. Partly it's
because of the full-employment eco:µomy
we have today, but it goes much deeper.
Our high-quality, high-productivity econo-
my is outstripping the ability of education-
al institutions to turn out the workers
businesses need. The most important eco-
nomic development action your commu-
nity can take, then, is to improve local
work skills.
Transportation: This is a major con-
sideration for all businesses, and critical
for many. There are many businesses that
must have quick access to highways, rail,
ports and airports in order to serve their
markets. Anything your community - and
commission - can do to improve that
access will greatly bolster economic devel-
opment.
Other infrastructure: Let's be specific:
No sewers, no industry. Businesses larger
than a convenience store have problems
operating off septic tanks. As a result, sew-
ers may be the single greatest planning
tool a community has - far more effective
than zoning in directing where industry
will locate. I sometimes tell communities
that zoning is the power of "no," but sew-
ers are the power of "yes" - and "yes" is
far more decisive than "no." (Translation:
Zoning tells businesses where they can't
go, but sewers tell them where they can.)
There are other forms of infrastructure
that affect economic development: Fiber
optic networks and civic centers, for
example, can be critical for data process-
ing companies and convention industries.
Quality of life: This is a category that,
as a planning commissioner, you can have
great influence over. It means, in a sense,
the "curb appeal" of your community-
the look and feel of your downtown, the
variety and vitality of neighborhoods, the
convenience and quality of retail. This is
important to businesses for three reasons.
First, companies that relocate are making
20- to 50-year bets on a place. They want
to know that a community has the long-
term leadership to make it a good bet -
and the look and feel of a place is the a
tangible sign of civic leadership. Seco~
an attractive community makes it much
easier for companies to attract executives
and workers to relocate for work. Third, a
welcoming place retains its people. As
Harvard business professor Rosabeth Moss
Kanter puts it, successful cities need both
"magnets" and "glue" - things that attract
new people and things that hold them
there. Quality of life can be both.
Community will: Basically, this refers
to what the community wants to be. As I
mentioned above, companies make 20- to
50-year bets on places they locate. They
don't want to go where they're not wel-
comed. The more specific and united the
community can be about which industries
and jobs it wants - and which it doesn't -
the more successful its economic deve1op-
ment program will be. Obviously, you
need to temper your dreams with reality. If
you have no high-tech jobs, dreaming of
becoming another Silicon Valley will get
your community nowhere. One way or.
framing your economic desires is by as
ing this question: What jobs do we
presently have that we'd like more of?
That way, you're building from established
successes.
Cooperation: This means just what it
says - how willing people are to work
together. This is a factor that's rising in
importance. Reason: In a networked econ;
omy, having a high degree of local trust
and cooperation is valuable. In fact, it may
be the single greatest factor in entrepre-
neurship. Places where people do not
cooperate - among businesses, between
government and business, and among
non-profits, businesses and governments -
do not tend to give birth to many new
companies. But it is also important to
expanding and relocating companies. How
do you-Ieärn to cooperate? By offering as
many venues for discussing local problems'
and opportunities as possible - and then
acting on the consensus. In a sense, then,
the community that works together, gro.
together.
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS JOURNAL I NUMBER 43 I SUMMER 2001
.
.
.
GUEST LIST
Meeting of: Port Townsend Planning Commission
Purpose: Workshop Meeting -Proposed Comp Plan
Amendments: #4. Remove FUGA language: #5. Review & Amend
FUGA language
Date: September 20. 2001
Name (please print) Address Testimony?
Yes No
No...... ('-' (J"'c.,C4.... ;)./3) W" 51,,'...... {.._ ""'7 ~
I ~