Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10232001 Min · · · CONTINUED MEETING FROM OCTOBER 17, 2001 CITY OF PORT TOWNSEND PLANNING COMMISSION October 23, 2001 I. CALL TO ORDER Chair Larry Harbison called this continued meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers to consider Planning Commission deliberations of Comprehensive Plan Amendments #3, #4 and #5 and the public hearing for Amendment #2. II. ROLL CALL Other members answering roll were Jerry Spieckerman, Lyn Hersey, and Frank Benskin. Bernie Arthur was recused; Jim Irvin was excused AI!D present were BCD staff members Judy Surber and Jeff Randall and City Attorney John Watts. III. UNFINISHED BUSINESS Ms. Surber explained that testimony of the October 17th meeting was left open until close of the day today. The new exhibits contain that written testimony. NEW EXHIBITS PRESENTED AT THIS MEETING: Exhibit J-1 Dorgan, Replacement Testimony, October 19, 2001 (Reflecting actual, rather than her written, comments from October J 7th hearing) Exhibit J-2 Dorgan, Re: Marine-Related Uses, October 22,2001 (In reference marine-related industrial uses at Point Hudson in Amendment #5. Comments are now moot due to new information from Mr. Randall.) Exhibit J-3 Dorgan, Re: Preferred Alternative, October 22,2001 (In response to Mr. Lindsay's testimony.) Exhibit J-4 Dorgan, 6/18 Packet Materials, October 22,2001 (Submitted to City Council as part of docketing including information on the Community Vitality Plan and various e-mails to City Council.) Exhibit J-5 Harbor Development Services, ILC, Amendments #3, #4, #5, October 22,2001 (Regarding Mr. Lindsay's written testimony in opposition to changing Comprehensive Plan FUGA language.) Exhibit J-6 Evans, Amendments #4 and #5, October 23,2001 (Written testimony from Mr. John Evans, Glen Cove Property Owner.) Ms. Surber noted the other new item was Suggested Amendments to Title 17, delete GIV regional commercial zoning, already proposed for deletion in Comp Plan (Amendment #5). She noted the numbering system according to individuå workshops. Chair Harbison declared the public hearing on Amendments #3, #4 and #5 closed. He then called for Planning Commission deliberation. PLANNING COMMISSION DELIBERATION ON TEXT AMENDMENTS: Exhibit 1-4 (P) -- Excerpts from Comprehensive Plan relating to Final Urban Growth Area (FUGA) and MID Policies (Amendment #5) Changes to Staff Recommendations, Amendment #5 (Exhibits P & T) Section 1. Pafle IV-2. Comprehensive Plan (Exhibit P) (Page 1, Line 18) Comments: Mr. Randall: Answered Ms. Hersey, this was to make it more consistent with the current Jefferson County PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES October 23,2001 -1- · · · proposal. In response to Mr. Spieckerman, Mr. Randall gave the status saying events are rapidly changing but he understood a sub-area planning group is being established with the lbdlock area with the stated goal of establishing an urban growth area for the HadlocklIrondale area. He referred to the Glen Cove Land Use Options, Strategic Analysis, prepared and submitted to the County 2001 by Earth Tech outlining several different optons for the Glen Cove area including a UGA attached to Port Townsend, a standalone UGA, a Limited Area of More Intense Rural Development (LAMIRD), urban reserve options. Recommendation from Earth Tech to the County was not to designate Glen Cove as either an attached UGA to the City, or a UGA on its own, but rather as a LAMIRD, consideration of expanding that LAMIRD designation from the current designation. He indicated it didrlt go so far as to give boundary definitions, but felt the LAMIRD designation best fit Glen Cove's uses and would be the most expedient option for the County to pursue so they can proceed with their planning goals. No formal action has been taken by the County Commissioners. The report also discusses options including designationof those lands as urban reserve that would keep options for the County in the case a UGA designation is felt to be appropriate. Ms. Hersey: Ifwe adopted this and included a LAMIRD, and they decided not do that? Mr. Randall: Thought the language he has included basically encourages the County to look at that option and provides support for it. That land is in the county. It is the County's jurisdiction to designate whether or not it is an urban growth area, a LAMIRD, or neither of them. Growth Man¡gement talks about a linkage between adjacent jurisdictions and their plans being as consistent as possible, and he felt it appropriate to discuss Glen Cove, especially when the current Comp Plan quite directly talks about Glen Cove being a potential UGA. The fact they are saying we don't recommend it being a UGA now, he thinks they need to discuss alternatives; saying that ils a valid industrial area, that we consider it to be a valid LAMIRD is basically support for the County to pursue that. If they pursue the UGA option instead, what we are doing does not block that. He thinks the City has concerns that we cannot necessarily provide all the services now to warrant it being a UGA. There is some significant vacant land between the City Limits and the Glen Cove area the City would be concerned about being designated UGA now, especially with the vacant land in town that lacks services we should be focusing on. He thinks the City and the County are rather on the same page right now. Mr. Spieckerman: If this were eventually to become a UGA, the City would be required to bring the sewer and streets up to standards? Mr. Randall: The process of designating the UGA and then determining what are the appropriate development regulations and what are the appropriate levels of service of water, sewer, stormwater, etc., is something that would be worked out through interlocal agreements and joint planning. There is no set defmition of what those set levels have to be at this time, but the County-Wide Planning Policies (CWPP) and Growth Management say you go through a process of establishing that together. It is the County's jurisdiction to establish those until the City annexes that area. The CWPP says the City and County will cooperate to set standards that are compatible and consistent, only it's a UGA. If it's a LAMIRD, it is a different thing. Mr. Spieckerman: If it's a UGA or a developed area adjacent to the city, isn't there some requirement that they have development standards? Mr. Randall: Yes that is coming fi:om the CWPP. The State says that cities and counties shall engage in CWPPs, and one of them is joint planning for urban growth areas. That is as far as it goes. It is intended to have the County regulations be compatible with the City, so that when annexation occurs, the water lines work, the sewer lines, the zoning is similar. It doesn't say they have to be exactly the same, but they shall engage in a collaborative process. It is pretty open ended, but in the future, short-term or long-term, if it is decided that Glen Cove would be a UGA, one of the options that could be looked at would be applying Port Townsends industrial zoning code, if it seemed to be the one that fit. That is out ahead a ways. Ms. Surber: You may have also noticed in 1his Glen Cove land use option that Earth Tech points out the drawbacks to Glen Cove being a UGA, mainly due to the expense of extending the sewer. CONSENSUS: Eliminate: Chimacum (Page 1, Line 19) CONSENSUS: Change to read, ". . . more intensive rural development (LAMIRD) in the Glen Cove area;' Strike remainder. (Page 1, Line 26) Comments: Ms. Hersey: If you meet projected growth, "the city should seek to rezone land within the existing city limits before identifying areas outside the city limits. . ." Have you looked at anything that could be done with the possibility of rezoning, and why wasnt it rezoned during the Comprehensive Plan the first time? PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -2- October 23, 2001 · · · Mr. Harbison: Also asked Mr. Randall to talk about the survey in the context of this and whatthe intent is of that. Mr. Randall: In the original planning for the Comp Plan, they concluded that for the 20year planning cycle, Port Townsend clearly had plenty of residential land, a surplus of residential land (pointed out on the map). They didn't conclude how much commercial and manufacturing land was needed, basically lumped it in with the Glen Cove policies. You will see discussion about "additional study is needed to determine if we need additional commercial and manufacturing lands;' He was unsure if at the time of the 1996-1997 process additional land was zoned commercial and manufacturing. Looking at commercial lands in particular, the first place you look is along the business routes, arterials and collectors; Sims Way currently has conmercial all along it, Discovery Road also, although it is not built at its capacity. It is underbuilt now, classified as one of our higher standard streets. The land on the north side of Discovery Road may definitely qualify for some of that land. He atSwered Ms. Hersey that he is not sure where the water and sewer lines are in relation to Discover Road. During discussion a large area was pointed out on the map, probably well over 100 acres, and also some city owned property, basically city facility property, and possible some could be used for parks. A lot of the areas have isolated wetlands, most is flat, pretty gentle topography. From Staff standpoint, what they are looking for in recommending policy, is they really doÌí have enough information. They will be getting some more information with the 2000 census. They haverlt seen a lot of growth and development of commercial and manufacturing lands since the Comp Plan; partly because the infrastructure is not there. He thought they have land they cm. look at to rezone. Mr. Spieckerman: He was really getting at, all that land would be a possibility of rezoning light manufacturing or commercial. Mr. Randall: It may not all be appropriate; some of it may too distant from transportation corridors. Commercial wants to be closer to higher density. Mr. Spieckerman: In other words there are several hundreds of acres in that area that would be available for appropriate zoning for light manufacturing, etc., so we are not really running out ofland. Mr. Randall: We have a lot ofland. He recommended that the City should focus on infrastructure needs to serve the land zoned and then look at growth rates and . . . Mr. Spieckerman: Apply infrastructure and zoning changes within the city first to absorb he growth where ifs necessary . City Attorney Watts: For the record -- there is a record being created; when people refer to "the map" or "area" it would be useful to be precise. Mr. Spieckerman was talking about the area on the far left side of town, right adjacent to the City Limits. Mr. Randall: On the official zoning map, it is referring to the area south of 20th Street, west of Spring Street and north of Discovery Road. Ms. Hersey: The R-II zone would be cut up 50 x IOO? Mr. Randall: A lot of that land is not platted, which can actually be an advantage for people that are trying to do manufacturing/ commercial projects. If properties are split into a lot of little pieces it is not overvalued in the sense there are all of these lots. It is easier to acquire big parcels and do something at a scale that would work. He noted an area appropriate for something like a satellite state college. We definitely have land that is available for a multitude of things including manufacturing and commercial raoning. NO CHANGE -- Discussion only. Section 2. Pa/le IV-3. Comprehensive Plan (Exhibit P) (Page 2, Line 35) Comments: Mr. Randall: Important to note-- Not in the text of the Plan, but the Land Use Map in the current Comp Plan shows a FUGA going outto Old Fort Fort Townsend Road. That reference on that map should be deleted because we are deleting all references to the FUGA; that diagrammatic reference should also be deleted from the Land Use Map. NO CHANGE - Discussion only Section 2. Pafle IV-3. Comprehensive Plan (Exhibit P) (Page 2, Line 45) Comments: Mr. Benskin: Thought part of that should be reinstated. FUGA could replaced with UGA. We are considering the uses at Glen Cove. Mr. Randall: Is the same as Amendment #4 and not something he dlanged. Language he suggested on Page 1, Lines 26 - 29 states, "If it is determined that additional land areas are needed for proiected growth. the city PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES October 23,2001 - 3- · · · should seek to rezone land within the existing city limits before identifying areas outside the cty limits for expansion of the city's UGA and potential annexation." You are right, we do talk about potential annexation and potential UGA. There is some discussion of it. CONSENSUS: Reinstate deletion. (Page 2, Line 46) Comments: (See above) CONSENSUS: Replace FUGA with UGA Section 3. Pa/le IV-7. Comprehensive Plan (Exhibit P) Comments: Mr. Randall: Identical to Amendment #4 NO CHANGE Section 4. Pafle IV-IO. Comprehensive Plan (Exhibit P) (Page 4, Line 1) Comments: Mr. Benskin: . . . Edensaw Woods, etc.) Some of those are inside the city limits and some are outside. Ms. Surber: That is something we are trying to attract, not necessarily claiming they are in. Mr. Harbison: So it's trying to identify the nature oflight manufacnring. Mr. Randall: Light manufacturing and commercial enterprises which have a dual function. Trying to give examples of things which dont fit solely under light manufacturing or commercial-- cross-over business that both make and sell their products. NO ACTION - Comment only (Page 4, Line 4) Comments: Mr. Benskin: Looking ahead to Glen Cove as a UGA, if the city plans, it would be consistent; change FUGA to UGA so it's compatible with Page 3, Lines 45, 46 & 47. Mr. Spieckerman: Was not clear why Mr. Benskin's was referring to Glen Cove in this area because it is not part of the city. Mr. Benskin: No, it's not. It's consideration for the future. Mr. Randall: Basically, this is talking about, this whole section under all these deoignations, zoning in the city as well as zoning in the unincorporated area. This is a suggestion to look at our zoning designations and make theirs like ours. He was not sure whether or not they wanted to say that now. Thought they were being strongelWith it when they were saying they defmitely see that as a potential UGA. He did not know that they shouldñt say it, but he questioned it. Ms. Hersey: What if we say UGA, MID or LAMIRD? Mr. Benskin: Whatever designation it comes down to for that area. Mr. Harbison: Refers to this district. Mr. Benskin concurred. Mr. Spieckerman: Suggested if they are going to do that, why not just strike out the part beginning with "if . . . to read, This district may also be appropriate for significant portions of the Glen Cove area. Strike the remainder. Don't try to them what it should be. Mr. Randall: The only thing is we won't be zoning it. Mr Spieckerman: We are making statements. Mr. Harbison: Ifpart of the intent is to inform the County .. . Ms. Surber: It is consistent with the overall goal here to support light manufacturing in a Glen Cove LAMIRD. Mr. Spieckerman: It is says where it is appropriate. Mr. Harbison: Did not see that as being inconsistent with what they are attempting b do with the document. Mr. Randall: Thought as long as it's understood this is a suggestion to the County, that zoning they apply to the property we are encouraging it to be like our M/C zoning. Mr. Harbison: Thought it reinforces to add this. Ms. Hersey: If we are going to change to M/C, if you look all the way through and completely strike regional commercial, the ending of each M/C, MI, M-III should be consistent -- end with area. (See also Lines 11, 19.) There is no sense putting it just once. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -4- October 23, 2001 · · · CONSENSUS: Reinstate to area. Eliminate remainder of sentence. (Page 4, Line 11) Comments: (See Comments for Line 4.) CONSENSUS: Reinstate to area. Eliminate remainder of sentence. Section 5. Pafle IV-II. Comprehensive Plan (Exhibit P) (Page 4, Line 18) Comments: (See comments for Line 4) Ms. Hersey: Questioned. Mr. Spieckerman: The other says, should we look at it. City Attorney Watts: Page 2 is "planning area"; Page 4 is into the designation. Chair Harbison: I don't see a need to change that; it would be inconsistent. Mr. Randall concurred Ms. Hersey: Since this is heavy manufacturing and some mention of the mill. . . . -- you are striking it? Chair Harbison: The mill is included in that sentence to describe something thatwe're striking. He did not understand why they need to describe the piece if they are not including it. Mr. Randall: To read, ... City limits, although it may be appropriate for portions of the Glen Cove area, including the Port Townsend Paper Mill. Ms. Surber: Page 18, Line 34 also refers to the Port Townsend Paper Mill. "Finally, the Plan recommends that the Port Townsend Paper Mill should be left outside of the City's UGA, and zoned for "resource-related" manufacturing uses. The Plan suggests thct compatible light manufacturing and commercial uses be located in the area west of the Glen Cove Mill site. . ." Ms. Hersey: Asked what the zone was on that. Mr. Randall: It is County zoning; thought they did have a heavy industrial zone. Ms. Hersey: Asked if it would be possible? Mr. Spieckerman: Only the mill's property is heavy industrial. Mr. Randall: Concurred. They mill land is zoned heavy industrial currently. Ms. Hersey: .. To be consistent. Mr. Harbison: Or delete it fi:om M-III. Mr. Randall: Or say, may be appropriate for portions west of the Glen Cove area which is. . . Audience: Why is M-III in there at all? Mr. Randall: Good question. Ms. Hersey: What if the city was going to take all of that area. It would become part ofthecity and then we would have uniform. . . Mr. Randall: Thought that it is exactly why it is there, because the Port Townsend Mill is adjacent to the city. It was put in there because you don't know what the future holds. Ms. Hersey: So we are going to leave Port Townsend Paper Mill on Line 19? Ms. Surber: Is that manufacturing defmition really resourcð-related? Mr. Benskin: It does not specify. Mr. Randall concurred. Ms. Hersey: It's not like it's going to change anything. Ifs just an example. The example exists. Mr. Benskin: Is all the mill property heavy manufacturing? Something like 450 acres. Mr. Randall: Was not certain. They have land that is west and vacant that runs up against up against Old Fort Townsend Road he believed was not zoned heavy industrial and was developed land. They have some land thafs also north of the mill he thought to be vacant and undeveloped. Mr. Harbison: Ifpart of the issue is consistency, it seemed the language on Page 18 should be included, it would be appropriate for portions west of the Glen Cove Mill site Mr. Randall: Although it may be appropriate for lands west of the Glen Cove, or for Glen Cove and portions to the west. Mr. Harbison: Was not sure that was accurate. Chair Harbison called for consensus -- although it may be appropriate for portions of the Glen Cove area. He asked Is it necessary to have the description? Ms. Hersey: Said she would like it. Mr. Spieckerman: Thought it should be left as it is. Mr. Harbison: . . . portions west of the Glen Cove area. The rest of the sentence is deleted PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES October 23, 2001 - 5- · · · Mr. Randall: So, you're deleting the paper mill? Mr. Harbison affIrmed. Ms. Hersey: So, if any other examples come through we should think about consistency. Mr. Harbison: Examples if they are appropriate; Edensaw Wood is an appropriate example. Ms. Hersey: If that is an appropriate example, why isn't the mill under heavy manufacturing? Some of those were inside and outside; that's an inconsistency. Either you leave examples in or you leave them out. Edensaw may move so they can expand, so these examples may not even be a necessity; in 20 years they may be gone. Ms. Surber: Suggested with the Mixed Light Manufacturing & Commercial, that these are good examples versus the heavy manufacturing. Ms. Hersey: You are giving examples. . . of light manufacturing, and then over here heavy manufacturing and examples are Port Townsend Paper Mill. Mr. Harbison: Objected saying the examples are the industrial activities including processing fabrication and assembling of products and materials that involve storage (the description). Ms. Hersey: Page 3, Line 51 examples. Mr. Randall: Do you feel it is important to have Port Townsend Paper Mill? Mr. Hersey: No, it is important to have consistency. Mr. Spieckerman: We don't have any example oflight manufacturing. Ms. Hersey: So it's inconsistent. Chair Harbison said that if they need to move this along by voting on it, lets vote on it. For consensus, no motion is needed -- leave the Port Townsend Paper Mill as an example in M-III heavy manufacturing? There was no consensus. Mr. Harbison: Felt it appropriate to leave Edensaw Wood and Maizefield Mantles; those are good descriptions of what those pieces are, in addition to the description, a part of Line 48 on. He did see the necessity to add Port Townsend Paper Mill. Mr. Benskin: We are going to move on and think about it. Ms. Hersey: Page 4, Line 32 the example has been left in again (e.g., 10 acres). Mr. Harbison: That is giving a measurement size in his reading-- not in the same sense. Ms. Hersey: If you are giving examples throughout. Mr. Harbison: 10 acres is not an example; it's a description ofa size. Mr. Randall: Ifit helps at all, when we have something that dœsn't yet exist and examples like that are provided, it is helpful to clarify the intent; it doesn't bind us to follow those examples, but it does give direction and intent that can be helpful in drafting later ordinances that would implement city code. Ibes not consider it, either have examples or not, but look at it in context of is it cousistent with the intent of that section; if it is, leave it in. Mr. Harbison: Concurred. Mr. Spieckerman: A useful description. . . Mr. Randall: Actually, that may define it pretty narrowly, that ifits not this big, it shouldn't be heavy manufacturing. You could have metal related, processing things where they are electroplating or doing things that could be considered fairly toxic, or manufacturing light otherthings that could be fairly small scale compared to the mill. Mr. Spieckerman: The mill is the most limited. Ms. Hersey: What you are trying to do is . . . Mr. Randall: Thought Mr. Spieckerman was saying if you have the paper mill as the only referencl; it may imply that heavy manufacturing is limited that narrowly, and what he is saying is there could be more uses than that. It is being more flexible rather than saying it has to be a big, huge massive 20acre, 500 employee businesses. Ms. Hersey: Did not mean to take so much time, but thought if they were going to use examples of different businesses for each one, then . . . Mr. Harbison: It seems that examples need to be consistent and appropriate within each description, that fmding a piece that is consistent through all of the descriptions may not be appropriate. That may take us off track in terms of what we are trying to identify. Ms. Hersey: So, heavy manufacturing, heavy industrial activities including processing, fabrication, assembling of products or materials, and bulk storage -- the mill was a prime example of the description. Mr. Harbison: That is what we are talking about, things that do not exist, why we are doing this defInition. Ms. Hersey: Edensaw and Maizefield Mantles are prime examples. City Attorney: Suggested: "... area. Includes, but is not limited to the Port Townsend Paper Mill." CONSENSUS: Change to read: . . . City limits ,although it may be appropriate for portions of the Glen Cove PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -6- October 23,2001 · · · area, (e.g., the Port TO'.VßseÐd Paper Mill) ( example is. but not limited to The Port Townsend Paper Mill) should it be designated as part of the City' s FUG.A~. Section 6. Pafle IV-12. Comprehensive Plan (Exhibit P) NO CHANGES Section 7. Pafle IV-14. Comprehensive Plan (Exhibit P) (Page 6, M-II(B) Comments: Mr. Randall: Typo -- will be corrected. Industrial is not even in there. CONSENSUS: Ignore Industrial. Section 8. Pafle IV-15. Comprehensive Plan (Exhibit P) (Page 8, Line 4) Comments: Mr. Randall: Making footnotes consistent; making one less footnote; striking GIV. Mr. Benskin: Footnotes 4 and 5 -- also apply to M-I? Relates to M-III and several others. Suggestion: **These land use designations could be applied to portions of the Glen Cove area. (Delete the remainder.) Mr. Randall: So have it on M-I and M-III, and add to M/C. CONSENSUS: Reinstate to read: ** These land use designations could be applied to portions of the Glen Cove area~ ifFUG}~ larger tlllffi the Port Townsend City limits is designated. Add ** to M/C (Line 2 Table IV-2). Section 9. Pafle IV-20. Comprehensive Plan (Exhibit P) (Page 9, Line 4) Comments: Ms. Hersey: What is Policy 4.11 attached to? Go back to Section 4. Mr. Randall: Good question. Tried to list out all the goals and policies relevant to it; didn't catch this one -- is in Amendment #4. He cited language under Parks and Recreation, Goal 4, "To develop park and recreational facilities, programs and opportunities which are responsive to the needs and interests of Port Townsend residents;' It is talking about developing park facilities, then says, "Work with Jefferson County to identify future park and recreational facility needs. . ." His suggestion: ". . . within Port Townsend." -- (as suggested in Amendment #4.) Ms. Hersey: Why would we talk to Jefferson County about putting parks in Port Townsend? Mr. Randall: Jefferson County already has parks in Port Townsend. Thought it might be talking about the management and future development of those parks, e.g., North Beach, Memorial Field, an unknown in 35th Street, Larry Scott Memorial Trail, Fair Grounds, maybe a future joint YMCA facility. Ms. Hersey: Shouldn't it work the other way around-- asking the County to work with us; should the City be asking if the City can work together with the County for whatever they do in Glen Cove, e.g., buffers? Maybe we should have parks and/or trails, say in between in the buffer zone, so the City would be working with tht'County. Suggestion: Port Townsend and buffer zones around it. Mr. Randall: You could say, ". . . and unincorporated lands in proximity to Port Townsend;' You also have the Quimper Wildlife Corridor, etc. Ms. Hersey: Suggested ". . . Port Townsend and Jefferson County." Ms. Surber: Suggested ". . . and the facilities within the County which serve Port Townsends population." So it indicates recreational facilities like the Trail that would be regional. Ms. Hersey: Something that goes both w~s. Mr. Randall: A two-way street. Chair Harbison asked for recommended language. Mr. Randall: "Work with Jefferson County to identify future park and recreational facility needs with Port Townsend and Jefferson County that serve both. . . Ms. Surber: ". . . and facilities within Jefferson County which serve the residents of Port Townsend:' Ms. Hersey: Serve residents of Port Townsend, not the physical land? CONSENSUS: Change to read: Work with Jefferson County to identi:fY future park and recreational facilities within the meoffJofated portion of the Port Townsend which serve the residents of Port Townsend. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -7- October 23, 2001 . . . PÍßal Urban Grov:tfl .^.rea (PUG}.). (Page 9, Line 18) Comments: Ms. Hersey: Knows the purpose is to eliminate FUGA, but is concerned that we are striking anything that says light manufacturing in Glen Cove. Thought basically whether we are doing it or the County, it needs to be there. Regional commercial-- has no reason. .. Would like to see reference to Glen Cove, even though we possibly don't want it future growth; it has its designation of being what it is. Mr. Randall: The section we are talking about is commercial lands. If you add that in, you might not want to add that here; you might want to add that Ì1 the manufacturing land section. CONSENSUS: Move -- add to Manufacturing Lands: Cooperate with Jefferson County to study the possibility of allowing regional commercial uses, along with the primary light manufacturing and associated community serving comIrercial uses. Section 10. Pafle IV-U. Comprehensive Plan (Exhibit P) (Page 10, Line 1) Comments: Mr. Randall: Open space buffers -- the County has expressed interest in doing this. Just left Old Fort Townsend Road as a suggested natural end to that buffer. Mr. Harbison: ". . . and to maintain a low density buffer around the entire Port Townsend UGA" Mr. Randall: There was some testimony about adding language that would suggest to maintain a low density buffer around the whole Port Townsend UGA which basically would extend from water edge to water edge on our western city limits, on from the Straights to P.T. Bay. We are not talking Glen Cove here; we are talking the whole proximity. Ms. Hersey: We are talking about asking the County to have buffer& or are we telling the County that the City is going to have buffers? Mr. Randall: We are suggesting to the County -- had a problem with the first part of that section really referring to the visual vegetation buffer along the entrance to Port Townsendwhich is also supported in the Gateway Plan. Mr. Benskin: Doesn't that already exist? Mr. Randall: It exists in our Gateway Plan, but he believed not the County. Mr. Benskin: The County has it also on Highway 20. In fact, Evans has promoted some of hat. Mr. Randall: Didn't think they have it in place regulatorily. Mr. Benskin: Thought it was placed, but not enforced, thafs why the trees are cut randomly down the strip. Ms. Hersey: Thought she had heard that today. Mr. Randall: Understood the County Administrator said they are interested in establishing it, but did not think they have a dimension -- say 50 to 100 feet. Ms. Hersey: It may not say that, but there is something in the Comp Plan that talks about something along SR 20 having buffers, along the street. Ms. Surber: She recalled that the Larry Scott Memorial Trail was being on Evans property just outside-~ the policy language does not say. Mr. Benskin: It could not be enforced. Mr. Randall: We are trying to provide support for them, and suggesting the Old Fort Townsend Road as the end of that area because along that area we are also talking about more intensive rural uses, that is where you need the buffers. You don't need the buffers for 20-acre residential properties; you need them for light industrial zoning just on the other side of those trees. Mr. Harbison: Is the added language going to be counter-productive? Mr. Randall: Suggested, if you want to add it, add a new policy. We are talking about something different; 8.10 is talking about a vegetative buffer along Sims Way to screen the more intensive more rural uses. He felt the suggested added language is talking about more of a density regulation, that when the County zones the land adjacent to the UGA, do it at a low density to discourage urban growth sprawl, basically, outside the city limits in unincorporated Jefferson County. Did not think it was talking about vegetative buffers-- Mr. Harbison indicated it says low density buffers. Mr. Randall thought was a differentissue. Ms. Surber: It is to promote identity and not have emerging areas, so you dont see a clear delineation between what is Port Townsend and what is industrial in the County. Mr. Randall: Suggested if they like that language, they make it 8.11 andstart it with Coordinate with Jefferson PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -8- October 23,2001 · · · County to maintain a low density buffer around the whole Port Townsend urban growth area. Chair Harbison called for a consensus on language. Mr. Randall. Ms. Surber brought up the question, is this the right pace for this -- commercial lands ? One more suggestion, if they do have this, thought they have it in the wrong place. Temporarily skipping ahead to the bottom of Page 10 talking about, Port Townsend urban growth area, and going to the next page, Goal16is talking about urban growth area which would be referring to the whole city as being the urban growth area. If we do have a policy about maintaining a buffer outside the Port Townsend urban growth area, he suggested it go after 16.4 which is talking about designating open spaces, etc., rather this which is only commercial. ~ee new Policv 16.5.) City Attorney Watts: Same comment on the top of Page 10, you would want to add the a policy for the same kind of buffer in manufacturing lands. Mr. Spieckerman: In the Comp Plan, is there part of the manufacturing that refers to buffers? Mr. Randall checked and did not see any along Sims Way. Mr. Spieckerman: What about adding that same paragraph in there someplace? Mr. Randall: What do you feel about Policy 9.7 being stricken? If you do add it, that would be the place. Ifit doesn't stay, we would add it somewhere else, or just copy that policy into manufacturing Consensus: Leave Policy 9.7 and copy language ttom Policy 8.10.5 into the Manufacturing Lanl section. Mr. Harbison: Existing as deleted in the text 8.10..5 and adding to Manufacturing. Mr. Benskin: Did not see the need for doing that. Mr. Harbison: For protecting. . . Mr. Randall: Thinks the need was that Glen Cove is more a manufactumg area, and the idea is to copy 8.10.5 into Manufacturing. We are copying 8.10.5 to Old Fort Townsend Road and putting it at the end of manufacturing lands policies 9.8 or 9.7 depending on the following action. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -9- October 23,2001 · · · CONSENSUS: Change to read: CoordiAate vlÍtß Encourage Jefferson County to extefld the opefl spaee buffer from the City limits south alOflg 8.R. 20 to Old Fort TowRsefld Road. the southerly exteat of the potential uBÍfteoreomted aortioB of the Port TowRseßd FUGf.. to maintain a low density buffer around the entire Port Townsend UGA. Section 11. Pafle IV-26. Comprehensive Plan (Exhibit P) (Page 10, Line 10) Comments: Ms. Hersey: We discussed previously if additional lands were needed to accommodate manufacturing uses or provide capacity for projected manufacturing growth in Port Townsend. ShouldIit it say here that we will look at rezoning more land in Port Townsend and then it will be consistent again? If you are looking at getting rid of FUGAs, end with located within the unincorporated portion of the Port Townsend; strike the remainder; add do future zoning in Port Townsend. Mr. Spieckerman: Asked about a previous reference. Mr. Randall: In the beginning chapter of this section-- Chapter 4, Urban Growth Area Section, Page 1. If additional land is needed it should first go in the city through rezone before going outside the city. Ms. Hersey: Instead of striking, completely getting rid of policy for additional lands, she suggested Policy 9.7 say something like, if additional land is needed to aœomodate manufacturing uses or provide capacity for projected manufacturing growth in Port Townsend look at rezoning or look at new zoning. . . Mr. Randall: It says the city should seek to rezone land within the existing city limits before identifying aeas outside the city limits for expansion of the city's UGA and potential annexation. Ms. Hersey: Can we add that? Mr. Randall: You can just copy that from Page 1, Line 26. Ms. Hersey: So we are going to leave Lines 10 & 11; "located" on Line 12; then add Mr. Randall's comment? Mr. Randall: It is going to read: "If additional land is needed to accomodate manufacturing uses or provide capacity for projected manufacturing growth in Port Townsend, the city should seek to rezone land within the existing city limits before identifying areas outside the city limits for expansion of the citýs UGA and potential annexation." City Attorney Watts suggested another alternative: First seek to identify areas within the city for potential rezone. You would identify areas outside the city for potential annexation. The third alternative would be to identify areas, e.g., the Glen Cove LAMIRD, that would be appropriate for additional manufacturing. Mr. Randall: This is rather serving the regional need. Again, thct is really the County's role which is identifying regional-- do we have enough commercial and manufacturing land. Ms. Hersey: Thought because we are not exactly sure yet that the County has the policy in their pockets, that we are putting things in there that we don't know for certain will be there. Mr. Randall: Asked what added language they wanted to go with. Ms. Hersey: Liked Mr. Randall's language. Mr. Randall: Policy 9.7 will end with Port Townsend; that rest of the section will be deleted, andin its place Page 1, Line 26, beginning with "the city" and the remainder of the paragraph. ?????????????????????? Ms. Surber: The copied language above becomes 9.8 CONSENSUS: Reinstate Policy 9.7 and add to read: If additional land is needed to accomodate manufacturing uses or provide capacity for projected manufacturing growth in Port Townsend, it should be located within the unincorporated portion of the Port TownsendFinal Urban Growth Area (i.e., the GleB Cove area). UGA. The city should seek to rezone land within the existing city limits before identifying areas outside the city limits for expansion of the citýs UGA and potential annexation. (Page 10, Line 14) Comments: (See Page 10, Line 1.) CONSENSUS: Add Policy 9.8 to read: Policy 9.8: Encourage Jefferson County to maintain a low density buffer around the entire Port Townsend UGA. Section 12. Pafle IV-30. Comprehensive Plan (Exhibit P) (Page 10, Line 22) Policy 13.4.2 Comments: Mr. Randall: We are saying encourage rather than ensure. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -IO~ October 23,2001 · · · Mr. Benskin: Why aren't we using the stronger language? Ms. Surber: Even with minimal changes someone could claim that. . . Mr. Randall: Claim that we didn't have duplicate hearings at the County and at the City. Basically, it allows Staff to determine when it's appropriate to involve both bodies rather than each requiring joint hearings or simultaneous public hearings Mr. Spieckerman: We can't enforce it. Mr. Randall: That is the other problem, we could create a process problem where someore could say we should have done that. Policy 13.4..2 is going to read, "Encourage where appropriate that proposed amendments. . ." The rest would remain the same. CONSENSUS: Change to read: EBsw:e Encourage where appropriate. . . . Section 13. Pafle IV-32. Comprehensive Plan (Exhibit P) (Page 10, Line 36) Comments: Ms. Hersey: Questioned, possibility of establishing other UGAs or limited areas of more intensive rural development (LAMIRD), and asked why LAMIRD and MlDs. Mr. Randall: He wouldn't put MIDs in there because MIDs are a process; you don't establish them. You establish a process, so if at some point a business comes along that fits them, they can apply for it on a specific piece of property, but you don't establish MID areas. You can't do that; said he would not put that in there. Ms. Hersey: However, at the time of this writing, the city of Port Townsend does not support extending a UGA to encompass unincorporated lands adiacent to Port Townsend. nor does it support a stand-alone Glen Cove UGA. Asked if the Council had voted to not support that. Mr. Randall: Replied that is what this will do. This is going to put it to the Council to let them decide if they support this language or not. They have not seen this language yet; this is hisdrafted language. Ms. Hersey: They are going to try to decide whether or not they are going to support this, possibly strike it or not? Mr. Randall: What he is saying here (the key sentence): "Additional analysis of the city's vacant lands inventory and growth proiections shall occur every 5-years beginning with the comprehensive plan update in 2002. At the time of this writing the city limits of Port Townsend constitute the citVs UGA. It comes back again to the philosophy he is recommending to go irto this that we don't have proof at this point that we have a lack of manufacturing/ commercial lands; we have a lack of manufacturing/ commercial lands with infrastructure. We need an analysis of what our development growth rates are to determine at whatpoint we will need to look at expanding through rezone and potential annexation, but at this time we have insufficient evidence to support the necessity of a Glen Cove UGA. Ms. Hersey: Shouldn't we be making part of the analysis data also to ncorporate infi:astructure? Shouldn't it be analysis of infi:astructure, cost or something? It used to be here and you struck it all out. Mr. Randall: Goal 16 says, "To promote the logical and efficient build-out and redevelopment oflands within the city. served with adequate urban public facilities and services. In planning growth over a 20 year period. the city should focus on. . ." (Maybe we shall focus on.) " . . . developing lands within the existing city limits before seeking to expand the city's UGA into adjacent unincorporated areas. Mr. Spieckerman: Is rezone more appropriate? Mr. Randall: Thought he also had another section that talks of the need to improve the infrastructure. Ms. Hersey: A hypothetical question and learning process for her, Tri-Area water when we switch sections that get taken care of, working with Glen Cove. She was concerned, if they were going to be dealing with their infrastructure anyway, even though ifs not a FUGA, somehow we need to say that we still have respon;ibility. Mr. Randall: We are going to have a water service area out there. Ms. Hersey: Are we addressing that in there? Mr. Randall: Policy 16.J. talked about it a little. Again, we didn't really have as a goal acquiring the PUD's water system in 1995. He thought that was why the Plan doesIit really talk about it. Ms. Hersey: What does it mean, inappropriate urban type development? Mr. Randall: In designated rural areas, that would basically be unincorporated land, County land outside a LAMIRD or UGA designation that the water system should be managed consistent with the uses of the County zones there. Don't use your water system to drive their zoning and make it a more urban zoning. It is making our water systems plans consistent with our CompPlan and the County's. NO CHANGE PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES October 23, 2001 -11- · · · (Page 10, Line 47) Comments: Mr. Benskin: It is a",lœowledged that ultimate aüthority te eaa",t aa eKpaaded rUG,\. Ðmmdary rests with the Jeffefsoa C01laty Board of Comm.issieaers. That should be in there. Mr. Randall: You could leave that in. Ms. Hersey: Or with a LAMIRD? Mr. Harbison: What does that clarify? What is the intent of that? Mr. Randall: Basically, the last sentence would read At the time of this writing the city limits of Port Townsend constitute the city's UGA. then you would add, It is acknowledged that ultimate authority to enact an expanded UGA boundary rests with the Jefferson County Board of Commissioners. It is not necessary; it clarifies it is not our jurisdiction. Mr. Spieckerman: It is rather confusing. You are talking about the city UGA, and then you say County. Mr. Benskin: If another UGA is enacted, it is the County's job to decide where it is going to be. Mr. Randall: Mr. Watts points out the law already says that; ifs not necessary there; RCWs clearly establish that. Mr. Harbison: That was his question; he wasn't sure what the clarification was. CONSENSUS: Leave as proposed Section 13. Pafle IV-32. Comprehensive Plan (Exhibit P) (Page 11, Line 12 -- Exhibit + 1-7) Comments: Ms. Surber: Proposed language change suggested by the County: Support the establishment of an unincorporated Glen Cove LAMIRD and industrial zoning within the LAMIRD. Mr. Randall: These are corrections suggested by the County. It was his understmding it was not a LAMIRD now. Their intent is what they have out there is a LAMIRD; they may propose to expand the Glen Cove LAMIRD. Mr. Harbison: What they represent is on the map? Mr. Randall concurred and said this is a LAMIRD right now. Ms. Surber: By definition under GMA, whatever the Board of County Commissioners (BOCC) has been officially calling that is a different story. Randy Kline, Jefferson County, would agree it is a LAMIRD. Ms. Hersey: Is it written anywhere? City Attorney Watts: Thought that is where the confusion is; it is a de facto LAMIRD. It looks a LAMIRD; it meets the defmition of a LAMIRD under GMA, but he does not think there has been an official designation by the BOCC making it a LAMIRD. Ms. Surber: This is the result of discussions she had with John Lockwood and a few e-mails exchanged with Randy Kline, Jefferson County-- is it or is it not a LAMIRD, how should they handle it? She felt it should stay the way it is. He was suggesting it is a LAMIRD under GMA, so thee is no reason why you shouldIit call it a LAMIRD. Mr. Randall: It is County Staffs position it is a LAMIRD. City Attorney Watts: To the extent that there is doubt there is an official designation by the County, either it is or it isn't, one possibility would be to look at Exhibit T, Line 12, after the word LAMIRD add the phrase, including its official designation, if not yet accomplished, to say Support industrial zoning in the unincorporated Glen Cove LAMIRD, including its official designation. Mr. Benskin: Because that may change. City Attorney Watts: If it's already been designated, that phrase would not add anything; if it hasrlt been designated, you are putting in the policy that it be designated. Mr. Harbison: The question is, do we want to include the additional language to clarify the concern that it is not already an existing LAMIRD. Ms. Surber: And with the language Randy Kline helped to develop. Mr. Harbison concurred. Mr. Harbison: Mr. Watt's language is in response to the concern that it mayor may not be designated. Ms. Hersey: In 16.U, Line 21, it talks about it being a LAMIRD. Ms. Surber: Encourage the establishment of zoning designations within the Glen Cove LAMIRD. Ms. Hersey: Thought that until they really do know that itis in writing, we need to . . . City Attorney Watts: Didn't think it hurts to add the phrase including its official designation if not yet accomplished. If it has been accomplished, you'll add it; if it has not been accomplished you are giving support fa- its official designation. Mr. Spieckerman: Asked if this if the first place LAMIRD has come up. Mr. Harbison replied it is not. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES October 23, 2001 -12- · · · Ms. Hersey: It is saying Glen Cove is a LAMIRD. Mr. Harbison: The others were referring to the district without saying i: was an established piece. Are we going to include that language in both places, 161 also? Ms. Surber: Do you think it is necessary to include them both? Mr. Harbison replied negatively. Mr. Spieckerman: Could this be handled with something as simple as saying, at the time ofthis writing there is a Glen Cove LAMIRD being proposed. Mr. Harbison: A footnote reference to LAMIRD. Ms. Surber: It might be appropriate, because it does show up three times on this page, rather than insert that language each time. Mr. Harbison: That would be footnote I on Page 11. Ms. Surber: Suggested wording to include. . . the County is exploring land use options for Glen Cove including its official designation as a LAMIRD. Mr. Harbison: Footnote (*) to be repeated on Line 12, Policy 16.1; Line 22, Policy 16.U; Line 27, Policy 16.2; and Line 34, Policy 16.J. CONSENSUS: Change 16.1 ~ to read: Support the establishment of an unincorporated Glen Cove LAMIRD and industrial zoning within the LAMIRD. (Page ll, Line 12 -- Exhibit + 1-7) CONSENSUS: Add Footnote 1 to 16.14-to read: At the time of this writing. the County is exploring options at Glen Cove including its official designation as a LAMIRD. (Page 11, Line 21 -- Exhibit + 1-7 Comments: Ms. Surber: Suggested wording -- Encourage the establishment of zoning designations with the Glen Cove *LAMIRD to support diversified manufacturing (e.g., small scale"clean"industry) and accessory commercial uses. Ms. Hersey: What do you mean by accessory commercial uses? Mr. Randall: That comes out of the Unified Development Code which is the County zoning regulations. He believed there are some definitions in the UDC, but what it is referring to is commercial uses that are occurring on the same site. If you have a busness that is manufacturing something, also selling it-- directly related to the primary business which is making the product. Ms. Surber: That is also consistent with what County Staff has been telling us would happen. Ms. Hersey: Liked getting away JÌ'om the regional commercial. Mr. Randall: They have prohibited that, so we are on the same page. Ms. Surber: Asked if there was consensus. Mr. Benskin: Said he thought some of the LAMIRD language actually defines that. Mr. Randall: It uses the same terminology. CONSENSUS: Change 16.1.2 ~ to read: Encourage the establishment ofEnsl:lre that zoning designations within the Glen Cove LAMIRD to support diversified manufacturing and smalllmsinessøs (e.g., small scale "clean" industry) and accessory commeæial uses. Add Footnote 1. (Page ll, Line 12 -- Exhibit + 1-7) (Page 11, Line 25 -- Exhibit + 1-7) CONSENSUS: Do not include proposed Policy 16.1.3 (Page ll, Line 27 -- Exhibit + 1-7) CONSENSUS: Change to read: the Glen Cove LAMIRD. Add Footnote 1. (Page II, Line 12 -- Exhibit + 1-7) (Page ll, Line 32 -- Exhibit + 1-7) Comments: Ms. Hersey: If the city acquires the PUD's serving. . . Glen Cove City Attorney Watts: Suggested changing to -- The city is in the process of acquiring. . . Mr. Spieckerman: If the city gets around to acquiring. . . Mr. Randall: They can change it too. City Attorney Watts: We can change it to has acquired. Mr. Randall: We can move it a little closer. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -13- October 23, 2001 · City Attorney Watts: Suggested putting a period after the word area on Line 32, and start a new sentence on the next line. Mr. Randall concurred. CONSENSUS: Change to read: The city is in the process of acquiring the POO's public water system serving the Glen Cove area. The city should manage the Glen Cove water system to promote industrial and accessory commercial uses in the Glen Cove LAMIRD and the city . . . Add Footnote 1. (Page 11, Line 12 -- Exhibit + 1-7) · (Page ll, Line 47 -- Exhibit + 1-7) Comments: (See Page 10, Line I) Mr. Spieckerman: Encourage the County to maintain low density buffers around the UGA. Mr. Randall: That's pretty soft. Ms. Surber: That is also consistent with a lot of the smart growth type articles that have come out that say it is best to maintain that low dwsity buffer around the UGA. Mr. Spieckerman: He was trying to point out previously the area on the map which is really on the border of the city; he thinks there is not much you can do about it. Ms. Surber: When she researched residential property on what used to be the Evans parcel, part of it is Evans', the mill was concerned about air quality, etc. on that border That is one of the reasons they had purchased this land on the edge of town to be sure that they were in control of development there,S> that future air quality complaints were within their own limits. They bought that buffer. Mr. Spieckerman: Thought encourage is hard to ignore. Mr. Randall: Encourage Jefferson County to maintain a low density buffer adjacent to the Port Townsend UGA. Mr. Harbison: What are some of the consequences of that? Mr. Benskin: When you think about around the UGA, that would be around Port Townsend, all around Jefferson County including all waterfront property. Ms. Surber: Where they have land use. . . Mr. Randall: Adjacent to the Port Townsend UGA. Pretty soft. He did not think they would object to that. CONSENSUS: Add Policy 16.5 to read: 16.5 Encourage Jefferson County to maintain a low density buffer adjacent to the Port Townsend UGA. Section 14. Pafle VII-2. Comprehensive Plan (Exhibit P) NO CHANGES Section 15. Pafle VII-51. Comprehensiye Plan (Exhibit P) NO CHANGES Section 16. Pafle VII-8.9. Comprehensive Plan (Exhibit P) (Page 12, Line 3 CONSENSUS: Change to read: To ensure that adeqtlate urban level public facilities and utilities are onlv extended into UGAs and otherwise extended only if consistent with official land use designations. Delete the remainder. (Page 13, Line 10) CONSENSUS: Change to read: c. Do not accommodate businesses and services that are more appropriately located within a UGA or LAMIRD; or Delete the remainder. (Page 13, Line 12) CONSENSUS: Delete: or Limited Areas of More Intensive Rural Development (LAMIRDs). Section 17. Pafle VII-IS. Comprehensive Plan (Exhibit P) NO CHANGES · Section 18. Pafle VII-15. Comprehensive Plan (Exhibit P) NO CHANGES PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -14- October 23, 2001 · Section 19. Pafle VII-16. Comprehensive Plan (Exhibit P) NO CHANGES Section 20. Pafle VII-n. Comprehensive Plan (Exhibit P) (Page 14, Line 18) Comments: Mr. Spieckerman: Remove the word then. CONSENSUS: Change to read: current city limits. then cooperate with. . . Section 21. Pafle VIII-7. Comprehensive Plan (Exhibit P) (Page 14, Line 40) Comments: Mr. Randall: Policy 9.3 adds MID language (about as generic as possible). The purpose -- it is pretty important because we are engaged in this joint MID process now. CWPP 7.4 pretty clearly has this idea in mind: talks about cooperating with Jefferson County for commercial and manufacturing projects that aretoo big to fit in the UGA; they didn't have a name, so he has basically labeled it the MID process and referred to it here to have support for engaging with the County in this objective, which City Council has directed. NO CHANGES · (Page 15, Lines 11 & 12, Policy 9.10) Comments: Mr. Benskin: Is that consistent with the zoning table? Mr. Randall: It talks about Encourage the mixed use centers. . . -- again, this policy is under Commercial and Manufacturing Zoning; the goal is "To provide an adequate amount of appropriately zoned land to support commercial and manufacturing development:' Policy 9.10 reads, "Encourage neighborhood mixed use centers. . ;' This is talking about within the City of Port Townsend; we actually do have neiglborhood commercial and mixed use. We could implement more, but so far they have not built out a whole lot. Mr Benskin: Not allowed in R-I and R-II? Mr. Randall: No. Where we have it is the old Texaco Station, San Juan & F Streets; some others-- it is pretty low density out there, so it doesn't have that critical mass you need to make commercial happen. We have created some; we can do more if needed. Thinks we should leave it. NO CHANGES Section 22. Pa/le VIII-H. 16. Comprehensive Plan (Exhibit P) (Page 16, Line 40) Comments: Mr. Randall: Talking about Commercial Historic District Revitalization and basically a strategy to accomplish that. Strategy 5 talks about the "Retail Plan", Main Street Program, etc., -- was mitigating the potential impacts of large scale regional commercial developments in Glen Cove. Since we have basically withdrawn our support for that concept, and the County has not tried to implement that out there and have said they are not going to, he thought they could safely delete #5 and replace with the "Community Vitality Plan' below. · (Page 16, Line 50; Page 17, Line 1) Comments: Mr. Randall: "Community Vitality Plan' Ms. Hersey: So we are asking to develop the Community Vitality Plan, and we dorlt know what it is yet? I have a problem because you are asking us to set policy of a plan, but we dorlt know what the plan would even be like. Ms. Surber: Asked if the additional information they received tonight helped at all. Mr. Harbison: The further definition -- "Develop a "Community Vitality Plan' to protect and enhance the local economy and the inherent social value oflocally owned businesses. The Community Vitality Plan shall. . '; Ms. Hersey: But that is what the Comp Plan is. Mr. Harbison That is the clearest additional information. Mr. Randall: In related matters, if you have read any of the newspaper articles recently regarding the Economic Development Council (EDC) and what they are looking at, one of the things they have tried to refocus on is trying to attract new businesses, but remembering that encouraging and providing support to existing businesses PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -15 - October 23, 200 I · · · and their growth is really important. Ifhe had to explain, he thought it meant a Community Vitality Plan would be encapsulating that. Ms. Hersey: We need it right now. We are talking about conceptual, but ifs not in writing in here. The Community Vitality Plan becomes anything. Mr. Randall: It would totally depend on the Council that gave Staff money and said this is what they want mto do and what they want us to study. It would be up to that particular Council. Ms. Hersey: What if Council couldn't fmd any money and we went 5- 10 years without developing that Community Vitality Plan? Mr. Randall: It doesn't get implemented at that point. It's a desired goal, but until it's funded it doesn't happen. Mr. Benskin: Had some trouble with the language. Is not a fan of big business, but not all corporate businesses headquartered outside the community are going to be bad for this canmunity. He thought that assumption is false. We have a lot of businesses in the community right now whose corporate headquarters are outside of this community, and they are functioning as a part of this community; they employ people (the mill, SafewayQFC, Les Schwab, Port Townsend Lumber, SubWay at the ferry dock-- all these) all franchised outside the area. They are part of our local economy and they give back to this community. To say these are the bad guys, because they dont live here. . . Mr. Randall: They are run by people who live here. Mr. Benskin: Agreed, but their corporate headquarters are somewhere else. Mr. Randall: Explained that he suggested softening it by saying potential adverse effects of new corporate businesses. He suggested a further softening, second sentence to read: The Community Vitality Plan shall recommend techniques and legislation to strengthen existing local businesses and attract new businesses that are consistent with the local economy, or compatible with the locå economy. So, it is rather focusing on the EDC strategy of strengthen existing businesses and attract new ones. It makes sense. Mr. Benskin: Thought that made a lot more sense; most of the people here dont want this to turn into a strip mall, etc. Mr. Randall: Thought that would be so with most residents of Port Townsend-- we defmitely need to grow, to add new people; change is inevitable but we need to support what we have and encourage things that make sense. Mr. Benskin: Would like to see, ifit's possible at this point, the Community Vitality Plan defined a little bit further by who does it and what is the means for these things being accomplished. Ms. Surber: Who does it -- who should be on that committee, is actually mentioned by the PLC in IXhibit J-4. It recommends who should be on the committee, etc. Mr. Harbison: Quoted rrom Exhibit J-4 -- a permanent or ad hoc citizens committee; people from environmental groups, development community, Main Street, Chamber of Commerce, the Historical Sœiety to name a few. Mr Benskin: But that's not in here. Ms. Surber: You could put it as a subpolicy. Mr. Benskin: If things are defined at the inception, there is less chance for confusion later. Mr. Spieckerman: What is the development community? Mr. Randall: Maybe it should say the business community. Mr. Spieckerman: Was curious about the fact Main Street, Chamber of Commerce and Historical Society are included and EDC is not. Mr. Harbison: His reading was, development communty was referring to the EDC. Mr. Randall: Thought they want to give flexibility; wère here now -- say they fund this 5 years from now, the city is going to be different and will have different players. If you say anything, you want to say the committemay consist of representatives including but not limited to the following organizations. Recognize that players change. Ms. Hersey: Aren't we trying to reinvent the Economic Development portion of the Comp Plan because all of those are in there now? Ms. Surber: a lot of them are only focused on the Main Street Program, and the downtown; this one covers all. Ms. Hersey: It talks about marine trades, examples that are given. They had a whole list of different things. Ms. Surber: In this particular section, she thought there had been some comment on how we were focusing too much on Main Street, and not including uptown. Mr. Benskin: Those were his comments. Ms. Hersey: This is in the Comp Plan now. This isn't new information we havent had already. Mr. Randall: The Community Vitality Plan is not in the Comp Plan. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES October 23, 200 I - 16- . . e Ms. Hersey: No, the historical portion is. Ifwe wanted to look at changing that.. we need to be a lot more specific about what we are going to develop and rather then general ideology ve know nothing about. Mr. Spieckerman: Why are we saying something about corporate headquarters when the section is talking about the Commercial Historic District. Ms. Surber: It might be better in the commercial! manufacturing. Mr. Randall: His suggestion would be probably not to reference the whole corporate thing. His suggested language:: The Community Vitality Plan shall recommend techniques and legislation to strengthen existing local businesses and encourage new businesses that are compatible with the economy. Mr. Spieckermao: Agreed, and said this section deals with the Historic District. Mr. Randall: Correct; it might actually be more appropriate under the Economic Development Chapters implementation strategies. Ms. Hersey: We want to try to keep Main Street as our retail area; we talked about a step child up on Sims Way being retail, but if we could somehow say that we dont want retail out in an area. . . light manufacturing. Mr. Randall: Reiterated his suggestion is to strike -- Ms. Surber made the point that we are talking about the Commercial Historic District Revitalization section, and while you dont have it in front of you, in the Comp Plan a few pages before that section on the Economic Development element there is a section calhd Diversified Manufacturing and Small Business that talks about the economic strategy of Port Townsend and Eastern Jefferson County, small manufacturers, emerging technologies-- the City is a facilitator in encouraging industries to pursue different things and talks about different strategies to encourage this. It may be that this section, this implementation strategy would be more appropriate in that section rather than the Commercial Historic section. It is a broader implementation area. He suggesttrl going with his suggested language and putting it in the implementation section of Diversified Manufacturing and Small Business section of the Economic Development Element. Mr. Spieckerman: Are you saying take out what is now 6.5 and put it in another s«:tion? Mr. Randall: Correct, it would become Implementation Strategy 9, in the Diversified Manufacturing and Small Business section of the Economic Development Element. Mr. Spieckerman: Said he was confused. This is a whole new amendment. Mr. Randall: It is exactly the language we just agreed to, but put it in a different place. Mr. Spieckerman: We are not dealing with the overall Comp Plan at this point in time. fm not sure why that is even appropriate to be discussed. Ms. Surber: The Retail Plan is taken out and the Community Vitality Plan was put in, but not in the right place. Mr. Randall: The Community Vitality Plan is a suggested addition. He was trying to fmd a place to fit and put it after the Main Street reference. Ms. Surber: This Community Vitality Plan has been docketed Mr. Randall: It's been reviewed; it's fine. It is part of Amendment #4; we're just suggesting there might a more appropriate place. Ms. Hersey: Have you looked at it and compared it to strategies in the introduction to the Economic Development element? Mr. Randall: He had, and there is nothing that jumped out at him that is inconsistent. .. He really sees this related to how the EDC's strategy has changed over the last few years, how they really used to focuson the attraction of new business. The Commission does not have to recommend including this at all. Mr. Spieckerman outlined reasons businesses are not coming to Port Townsend. He recommended the Community Vitality Plan be a separate docketed item and look at it by itself. Mr. Randall explained it was originally brought up in Amendment #4 and was docketed there; his Amendment #5 is basically a revision with some modifications. Mr. Harbison: The recommendation now is that we support the docketed langu¡ge, that there is a more appropriate place to put it. Mr. Randall and modifying the language to not reference corporate entities , but rather focus on encouraging existing businesses and new businesses that are compatible with the economy. Ms. Hersey: They have already talked about it in there. Mr. Randall asked if she felt it was redundant. She replied this is rather general ideology, the Community Vitality Plan. She spoke of having more specifics as to how we will actually get to that point, md sees this as probably more of an overall view of what has already been written. Mr. Randall: Looking at VIII-l 3 Ms. Surber: Prior to the meeting she spoke with Mr. Lockwood about new information on the Community Vitality Plan; she was sure Ms. Dorgan had included that in response to inquiries at the last meeting. It appeared a second page was missing, and Mr. Lockwood said if it became an issue, he would be willing to go and try to obtain it. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES October 23, 200 I - 17- · · · Ms. Hersey felt they were past that point. Ei1her they agree the conceptual idea of the Vitality Plan is a necessity to put into this, or we don't. Mr. Randall: VIII-13 says, "Research, identify and offer development incentives for new businesses and business expansions which are appropriate to Port Townsend's resources and vision. Establish a quick response team comprised of key officials and staff members who are available to meet with and provide guidance to prospective business developers. Contract with the EDC to develop and make available to prospective businesses vital economic information to the city including but not limited to economic based capital infrastructure, city permitting processes, and specific. .. Organize a facilitative manufactureis round table to identify and pursue joint marketing opportunities and to examine. . . Review and if necessary amend existing zoning regulations'; He felt it could fit and be compatible. Ms. Hersey: The very front of the EDC Strategy of Port Townsend-- She thought the in the strategy it was tàking about what the Vitality Plan is wanting it to be. She was concerned if they adopt this, but it is really part of that. Mr. Harbison: Did not see anywhere in this, the suggestion that a citizen committee to accomplish those goals is appropriate. Ms. Hersey: . . . components of an economic strategy in the city's approach to seeking. . . articulates the source of action. Mr. Harbison: Right; this says how that is to become. Ms. Hersey: When we go back it says how it is to be accomplished. Mr. Harbison: Right; this is an additional way this can be accomplished. Ifhe understands, this list is how to accomplish these things and it is an additional way of how to accomplish those things. PROPOSED WORDING: Changing paragraph number to 5. (from 6.) Change to read: . . . to strengthen existing local businesses and encourage new businesses that are compatible with the economy. Chair Harbison called for a vote on the following: 1) Enough clarification about what is intended by Community Vitalty Plan; if wording is appropriate (2 in favor) Mr. Spieckerman felt the wording is not inappropriate. Mr. Benskin felt the wording is great and does express it, but the whole thing needs more clarification of what it is. The defmition needs to go a little further. He did not have language to accomplish that. What is missing-- the players, what is their authority and accountability to the city and to the people. 2) The appropriate placement within the Comprehensive Plan Mr. Harbison: We have some optional language that indicates who the players are-- environmental groups, developers and the development community, EDC, Main Street, Chamber of Commerce, Historical Society, to name a few. Trying to see if that additional language clarifies this enough to move this forward. Ifit does not, we need to see if this is appropriate, whether we take this out. Ms. Surber: It does say a permanent or ad hoc citizen committee. Addition would be: that recommends to the Planning Commission. Mr. Benskin: Suggested removing "permanenf' -- any permanent committee gets to be stale after awhile. Mr. Randall: It is pretty unusual to have a comprehensive plan get real detailed on the process. Usually that is left to the decisionmakers. This is giving general !J1idance on the issues that need to be addressed -- but, how that is accomplished is usually left up to them. Ms. Hersey: What does the Community Vitality Plan "protect"? Ms. Surber: The local business economy. Keep them in business. Ms. Hersey: . . . "inherent social value." How do you quantify that? Ms. Surber: Suggested an article Mr. Randall had previously presented to the Commission. Mr. Randall: a while back in the workshop we introduced an article from an APAjournal that talked about economic development, the importance of focusing on local businesses, industrial and office businesses, and not regional. He then asked if a majority support having this in there at all? Ms. Hersey: Thought it could work and not be a three sentence statemmt. It needs to be more indepth. It is too vague for her to say she likes it; she does not know what it is saying. Mr. Randall: Asked if she would suggest something like this being brought up at next yeats 2002 5-year update -- a bigger, broader, more public involvement sort of thing than what we are doing here? PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - 18- October 23, 200 I · · · Ms. Hersey: Would like to see something like this, but would like to see it correlated with taking it from the Economic portion of the Comp Plan and see where it fits within the structured ~as we are talking about, whether strategies or specific details. Mr. Randall: It appears like you are looking for meat on it and how it relates to the other elements of the Comp Plan; how does it accomplish other goals in the Comp Plan. Ms. Hersey: Thinks it is really a good idea, but wants to see how ifs going to be. Mr. Spieckerman: We didn't have a workshop on this did we? Mr. Randall: We had a workshop on the general issue. Basically, that workshop consisted of his supporting 80 percent of what is in here, some general responses and some public testimony about what the Community Vitality Plan meant. Thought at that time it was felt to be a good general idea, but did not have details of how it worked. Chair Harbison thought that certainly in tœ 5-year review, we are going to look at economic strategies. Ms. Hersey Would like to see the maker of the motion bring us more specifics. Mr. Randall: The record is open before Council too. Whatever recommendation you make is a recommendation. Cout~il can further consider this; they are going to see the minutes and see that you labored over this issue. I would just decide what you want to do. Ms. Surber: You can include in the recommendation that there was discussion about the Community Vitality Plan that supports the concept of wanting more detail on it. At least you have set the stage. Mr. Spieckerman: Asked if it is appropriate to make a motion now. MOTION Mr. Spieckerman Report to Council that we have considered the Community Vitality Plan as a good idea in concept, and recommend that this be discussed and studied for next year's 5-year Comp Plan update SECOND VOTE Mr. Benskin UNANIMOUS, 4 IN FAVOR Section 23. Pafle IX-I. 2. Comprehensive Plan (Exhibit P) Mr. Randall: Refers to UGA, reduce sprawl, economic development-- major goals coming out of the GMA, GMA principles. The Comp Plan tried to address how this Plan implements these overriding principles. Amendment #4 in some cases eliminated the whole di~ussion. Amendment #5 either reinstated or added language in an attempt to clarify that some discussion was needed on these issues. (Page 18, Line 34) (Exhibit T) Comments: Ms. Surber presented proposed language recommended by the County, which is con;Ístent with other changes made concerning accessory commercial uses. CONSENSUS: Change paragraph to read: Finally, the Plan recommends that the Port Townsend Paper Mill should be left outside of the City's poteRtial rntHre FUGA, and zoned for "resource-related" manufacturing uses. The Plan suggests that compatible light manufacturing andaccessorv commercial uses be located in the area west of the Glen Cove Mill site, inside thepoteHtial unincorporated portieR efthe FUGA Glen Cove LAMIRD. Section 24. Pafle IX-6. 7. Comprehensive Plan (Exhibit P) Mr. Randall: Refers to CWPP; they are separate documents. It summarizes those policies. Those policies exist -- we are not changing those policies; they were adopted by interlocal agreement between the Cty and the County. Reinstates language eliminated by Amendment #4. He felt it extremely important to reference how they were implementing and consistent with those policies. (Page 19, Line 13 -- Policy #1) Comments: Mr. Benskin: Requested to reinstate, a shortage of1ß:Hd suitable for commercial and manufacturing development still exists within the City limits. The qualifier is land suitable. Mr. Randall: We might want to say with infrastructure. We could say a shortage ofland servedwith adequate infrastructure and zoned for commercial and manufacturing development still exists within the City limits. CONSENSUS: Change to read: . . . Although Port Townsend contains enough vacant residential land to PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -19- October 23, 200 I · accommodate the projected 20 year population increase. a shortage of land sl:1itabJe for serviced with adeQuate and zoned commercial and manufacturing development, still exists within the City limits. (Page 19, Lines 19 - 29 -- Policy #1) Comments: Mr. Benskin: Seems to be pretty much a true statement except for the FUGA language. It is a description of the Glen Cove area. Thought you could remove-- full range of urban public services within a 20 year planning horizon. There will be public services there if the LAMIRD goes tlTough, and we will be coordinating with Jefferson County as to how to provide those services to those people. City Attorney Watts: Noted it doesn't say plan, but "would cooperate to provide." If Jefferson County made a land use designation out there, it wouldn't automatically require the City to provide the services. We could agree by interlocal agreement to do so, but I don't know you want to say here that we will do it. Mr. Randall: Felt there was already fair enough discussion about, "can provide"; he would rather not change it. Mr. Benskin concurred. NO CHANGE · (Page 19, Line 31 -- Policy #3) Comments: Ms. Hersey: We covered "The Capital Facilities & Utilities Element," which is intended to ensure that adequate public facilities and utilities will be provided within. . . Mr. Randall: Afftrmed and said that policy is talking about joint City/ County planning, but this is saying there is no joint City/ County planning necessary at this point other than the Citÿs extension of services to rural areas. Ms. Hersey: The Joint Planning -- so we wouldn't want to do joint planning with them, which would include SEPA reviews at this time? We are going to leave that alone-- they are going to do their thing, and we are going to do our thing? Ms. Surber: We still review SEPA. . . Mr. Randall: Joint County/ City planning within urban growth areas. "However. if the City's UGA is expanded then. .. It basically says we don't have an urban growth area there now, but if we do we will engage Î1 it. Ms. Surber: Our ability to review comments during the standard public comment periods is always. . . NO CHANGE (Pages 19, Line 51 -- Policy #7) Comments: Ms. Hersey: Reference to cottage industry has not been included, and we have been tåking a lot about it. Mr. Randall: It has small "clean" businesses; you can include cottage industries. . Ms. Hersey: Since we are writing policies on it, she thought it would be fair. Does it need a reference to policies? Mr. Randall: Did not think there was need to; this is just a summary of what is in the Plan. CONSENSUS: Change to read: . . . "clean" business including: cottage/home based businesses. sustainable year-round tourism. community retail. commercial historic district revitalization. and telecommunications · (Page 20, Line 1 -- Policy #7) Comments: Mr. Randall: Read the strategy; didn't think this implemented it at all, and was a bad summary of it. It was not at all what was listed in the strategy. Mr. Benskin: There is reference here to creating 2,700 "family wage jobs." Mr. Randall: Said he did not know where that came fi:om. He found no basis for that anywhere; it is not in the economic development chapter, nor economic development strategies. This is how we are promoting economic development, but it is not out of the strategies. It could have been some sort of separate study. Ms. Hersey: After tonight, we can't ask if there is any future. . .? Mr. Randall: After tonight we will be coming back with fmdings and conclusions; you viii see the completed fixed document. We will have the draft findings and conclusions and the minutes to approve. You will have one more look at it, but not to deliberate, but see if what is drafted is consistent with what they requested Staff to draft. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -20- October 23, 2001 · · · Ms. Hersey: She said, then she would like them to look further as to why they chose 2,700"family wage jobs" and 20 years. This was referenced twice, so obviously there was some reason. Mr. Randall: Said they could see if they can fmd it. Mr. Spieckerman: Asked if it might have been in reference to anticipated growth and the number of jobs required to accommodate it (based on something like 2-1/2 percent per year)? Ms. Surber: In the final EIS it talks about how many people per industrial acre they tXpected, so she is sure they had some basis for their numbers. Mr. Harbison: Leave language 2,700 "family wage jobs;' and if you can find its source, it would be informative. Mr. Randall: It was not deleted in Goal #5, Page 18. Mr. Spieckerman: Would rather take it out of Page 18. Mr. Randall: That is actually his preference; he would rather delete in it both places because he did not know where it came from, and is basically irrelevant. Ms. Hersey: Hates to throwaway something someone did somewhere mwn the line, and we get an understanding of why they put it there. Mr. Randall: Did not have a problem with leaving it there; it really does not matter. Ms. Hersey: I would like to leave it in. Mr. Randall: Leave it in both places for the time being. We are going to be looking at all the numbers next year, looking at all the population figures -- we can update it then. CONSENSUS: Change to read: infrastructure that pays particular attention to the needs of nonservice sector businesses and manufacturing. Reinstate: The Element is intended to create at least 2,700 "family wagè' jobs within the next 20 years. Delete remainder ofthe policy. (Pages 20, Line 26 -- Policy #9) Comments: Ms. Hersey: Would you also want to include LAMIRD? Mr. Randall: No, that is talking about if the County loses revenues due to annexation. We cant annex a LAMIRD; it doesn't matter. NO CHANGES (Pages 20 -- Policy # 1 0) NO CHANGES Accept the report on Amendment #5 and forward it to City Council as changed. Discussion: Mr. Randall noted the only suggested amendment to Title 17 was to delete all references to GIV, that it is appropriate to include in this motion. AMENDED MOTION MOTION Mr. Spieckerman Accept the report on Amendment #5 and amendments to Title 17 and forward them to City Council as changed. Chair Harbison asked for further discussion to move the motion forward. Mr. Benskin requested to see the completed document before they vote to move it on to Council, that he thought the process would be tovote on it when it came back to them. Mr. Randall suggested they direct Staff to prepare Findings and Conclusions consistent with the modifications made in tonighfs review. VOTE DIED FOR LACK OF a SECOND. MOTION Mr. Spieckerman Direct Staff to prepare Findings and Conclusions consistent with the modifications made tonight to Amendment #5 to come back to the Planning Commission for a vote on October 30th, which will be a continuation of tonight's Public Hearing. SECOND VOTE Mr. Benskin UNANIMOUS 4 IN FAVOR PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -21- October 23,2001 1--------------- ! · · · TEXT AMENDMENTS: Amendment #2 -- Revise Goals & Policies, which Imply a Specific Utility Provider Ms. Surber presented the proposed changes to Amendment #2 as indicated in the Staff Memorandum to the Planning Commission dated October 17,2001. She indicated they were informed by legal council there may be some risk in having the wording local serving utility or any reference to Puget Sound Energy or Puget Power in our code. They were advised to search and delete those references and repbce them with more general terms, so if they decided to choose a different utility provider in the future, there is no risk of challenge. On Exhibit N the suggested amendments are to the Capital Facilities element of the Comprehensive Plan under Electricty¡ Goal 30, to work with the city's selected utility providers. City Attorney Watts explained the reason for presenting Amendment #2. Chair Harbison called for Public Testimony. PUBLIC TESTIMONY Mr. John Lockwoo!l, 1510 Jefferson Street, Port Townsend Humorously commented, "It is a fine job." There being no other testimony at 10:30 p.m. Chair Harbison declared the meeting closed to testimony on Amendment #2. MOTION Ms. Hersey SECOND Mr. Benskin Discussion: Mr. Benskin asked if they needed to include in the moÜon to forward to City Council. confirmed and asked for an amended motion. AMENDED MOTION Mr. Benskin ACCEPT THE CHANGES TO AMENDMENT #2 Chair Harbison VOTE ACCEPT THE CHANGES TO AMENDMENT #2 AND FORWARD TO CITY COUNCIL Accepted by the maker of the motion UNANIMOUS 4 IN FAVOR MOTION Mr. Benskin ACCEPT INSERTION OF AMENDMENT #3 INTO AMENDMENT #5 AND THAT IT BE FORWARDED TO COUNCIL IN THAT FORM SECOND VOTE Ms. Hersey UNANIMOUS 4IN FAVOR MOTION Mr. Benskin RECOMMEND TO COUNCIL NOT ADOPT AMENDMENT #4 Discussion: Mr. Spieckerman asked what happens if we do not accept Amendment #5; if we haverlt accepted either, that if #4 is out and we don't accept #5 we haven't done anything. Mr. Randall said none of them hate to be approved, that they are just being recommended to Council. Mr. Watts noted that in that event they would have done something, they would have recommended that neither one go forward. Mr. Spieckermarls question was should they vote on #4 after tœy have voted on #5. Mr. Randall stated they could continue that also. They will have one Findings and Conclusions that will deal with all of the amendment items; #4 will be in there, but they will say not to adopt it. MOTION WITHDRAWN IV. NEW BUSINESS Ms. Surber referenced her memorandum to the Planning Commission dated October 22, 2001 and explained the need to change numbering on Exhibits M forward until exhibits are included in materials presented to the City Council on the Comprehensive Plan docketed amendments. (New exhibits listed at the end of these minutes. ) PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -22- October 23, 200 I · · · CONSENSUS: PERMIT NUMBER CHANGES TO EXHIBITS FROM OCTOBER 17 AND FORWARD FOR PRESENTATION TO THE CITY COUNCIL. Mr. Randall explained that BCD had planned to consider Cottage Housing issues at the regularly scheduled Planning Commission meeting November 13,2001. Due to conflicts they have had to change to the regularly scheduled meeting November 29,2001. Mr. Randall noted the need for one or more Planning Commission memœrs to attend the City Council meeting on November 5, 2001 for City Council consideration on the Comprehensive Plan docketed amendments. Chair Harbison will attend. VII. UPCOMING MEETING -- October 25,2001, Public Hearing to consider: Amendment #6 -- Resolve Zoning of US West Facility-- Lawrence Street Amendment #7 -- Resolve Zoning of Abundant Life Amendment #8 -- Rezone Portions of Blocks 278 & 279, Eisenbeis Formal Amendment-- Northwest Maritime Center VIII. ADJOURNMENT Motion to adjourn was made by Mr. Benskin and seconded by Ms. Hersey. All were in favor. At 10:40 p.m. Chair Harbison declared the meeting recessed until 7:00 p.m. October 30,2001 in the city Council Chambers to finalize actions on Amendments #2, #3, #4, and #5. NEW EXHIBITS PRESENTED AT THIS MEETING: Exhibit J-l Dorgan, Replacement Testimony, October 19,2001 Exhibit J-2 Dorgan, Re: Marine-Related Uses, October 22,2001 Exhibit J-3 Dorgan, Re: Preferred Alternative, October 22, 2001 Exhibit J-4 Dorgan, 6/18 Packet Materials, October 22,2001 Exhibit J-5 Harbor Development Services, LLC, Amendments #3, #4, #5, October 22,2001 Exhibit J-6 Evans, Amendments #4 and #5, October 23,2001 DRAFT PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, October 23,2001, . . . }' City of Port Townsend Building & Community Development Staff Report Date: To: From: October 10,2001 for October 17 Hearing Port Townsend Planning Commission Jeff Randall, BCD Director Judy Surber, Senior Planner Subject: 2001 Comprehensive Plan Update - Staff Recommendations Information provided herein supplements the materials provided for the workshops held on August 9th, September 20th and September 27th. Please bring all the materials with you to the hearing. Amendment #1 Clarifv Definitions of Unit/Bedroom and Various Housine: Tvpes Description of the Suggested Amendment: Several inconsistencies and ambiguities in the Comprehensive Plan and the zoning code (Title 17) were revealed during the recent appeal of the Port Townsend Assisted Living Facility. Definitions of unit, bedroom, assisted living facility, boarding homes etc, need to be reviewed and amended. Use tables should be reviewed to determine if allowable vs. conditional or prohibited housing types have been appropriately linked to density and potential impacts on other permitted uses within the zoning district. Also, the zoning code was amended in 1999 to limit the number of dwelling units in anyone structure to four (4) in the R-I and R-II districts. However, there is no clear policy direction in the Comprehensive Plan or the Zoning Code explaining on what types of uses this restriction applies. While apartments, multi-family dwellings, and nursing homes are prohibited in the R-I & R-II; other uses requiring similar types of structures (e.g., congregate care facilities, boarding houses, schools, colleges, churches, residential treatment facilities, child day care centers, and preschools) are permitted outright or conditionally in the R-I or R-II zoning districts. These uses often involve large bulky buildings and often include a residential component. Are the residential units in these structures "dwelling units" therefore limited to four (4) per structure? Should building size be limited in R-I and R-II as the number of dwelling units is limited? BCD seeks clarification of the intent of the Comprehensive Plan and the Zoning Code on these matters. BCD Recommendation 2001 Comprehensive Plan Update October 17,2001 Page 2 ~ . BCD Recommendation: Adopt amended language shown on Exhibit M; thereby amending the definitions in the Comprehensive Plan and Chapter 17.08 ofthe PTMC; and to Chapter 17.16, Residential Zoning Districts, of the PTMC, including Table 17.16.020 Residential Zoning Districts - Pennitted, Conditional and Prohibited Uses; and Table 17.16.030 Residential Zoning Districts - Bulk, Dimensional and Density Requirements. These amendments are intended to accomplish the following objectives: 1. Clarify and make consistent, definitions of dwelling units and related uses contained in the zoning code and comprehensive plan. 2. Prohibit uses in the R-I and R-II that are inconsistent with the four (4) dwelling unit per structure limitation in bulk and dimensional standards. 3. Allow limited multifamily in R-I and R-II through a PUD. Add method of calculating density by bedrooms in the R-I and R-II zoning districts (i.e., 8 bedroom max for R-I and 16 bedroom max for R-II). This calculation would apply to PUDs only. Clarify in table that through a PUD process, limited multifamily dwellings may be allowed in R-I and R- II, thereby qualifying the limitation of four (4) dwelling unit per structure. 4. Consistent with the definition offamily (up to 6 unrelated individuals) and definition of adult family home (for up to 6 adults); clarify definitions for boarding houses; and those uses with 7 or more patients/ residents belong in R-III and R-IV (nursing homes, congregate care, etc.). . 5. Make congregate care and nursing homes allowed outright in R-III and R-IV; these uses will be reviewed like apartment complexes. Discussion/Rationale: The amendments are necessary to clarify the code and avoid future appeals. In recommending the appropriate zoning for each use, we not only considered the impacts of the use but also the type of structure required. For example, boarding houses and adult family homes are similar in use to lodging houses and congregate care facilities. However, they require smaller structures which are compatible with the single-family residential districts, while their bigger "cousins" would be more suitable in a multi-family zoning district. That is not to say that all multi-family is incompatible in a single-family zoning district. In some cases, it may be appropriate to have limited multi-family living arrangements in the R-II zone. This could be pennitted through a Planned Unit Development. . 2 . BCD Recommendation 2001 Comprehensive Plan Update October 17,2001 Page 3 Suggested Findings & Conclusions: 1. Circumstances related to the proposed amendment have substantially changed since the adoption of the Port Townsend comprehensive plan. Two appeals were received in 2000, challenging decisions by the Director and Planning Commission that would allow an assisted living project within the R-II zoning District. The appeals targeted ambiguous definitions pertaining to "dwelling units" and the legality of pennitting a multi-family structure in a single-family zoning district without benefit of a Planned Unit Development. 2. Assumptions upon which the Port Townsend comprehensive plan is based are still valid, however the appeals present issues which may not have been considered during the adoption process or any annual amendments of the Port Townsend comprehensive plan; and 3. The proposed amendments are intended to protect neighborhood character in the R-I and R-II zoning districts. Protection of neighborhood character is a widely held community value. . Amendment #2 - Revise Goals & Policies. which Implv a Specific Utility Provider Description of the Suggested Amendment: Existing policies in the Capital Facilities Element refer to "Puget Power" or " the local serving utility". This language may be construed to limit the city's ability to contract with other utility providers in the future. PSE had claimed that the City of Bellingham could not change utility providers due to language in their comprehensive plan. The city proposes to search and replace specific references with general tenus. BCD Recommendation: Replace specific references to Puget Power or "local serving utility' with generic language as shown in Exhibit N. DiscussionlRationale: The amendments are necessary to protect the city's right to contract with other utility providers in the future Suggested Findings & Conclusions: 1. Circumstances related to the proposed amendment have substantially changed since the adoption of the Port Townsend comprehensive plan. Recently, the PSE challenged the City of Bellingham's ability to switch utility providers based upon policy language in their code which referenced Puget Power. 2. Assumptions upon which the Port Townsend comprehensive plan is based are still valid, however the case of City of Bellingham vs. PSE** identifies potential constraints arising rrom the specific policy language which was not considered during the adoption or amendment process of the Port Townsend comprehensive plan; and . 3 BCD Recommendation 2001 Comprehensive Plan Update October 17,2001 Page 4 · 3. The proposed amendments are intended to ensure the city's ability to select from competing utility providers. Affordable utility rates are a widely held community value. Amendment #3 - Add Policy re: Maior Industrial Developments Description of the Suggested Amendment: Pursuant to a 1995 amendment to the Growth Management Act (GMA), counties, in consultation with cities, may establish a process for siting of specific major industrial developments (MIDs) outside of urban growth areas (RCW 36.70A.365, attached). As defined by the RCWs an MID "means a master planned location for a specific manufacturing, industrial, or commercial business that: (a) Requires a parcel ofland so large that no suitable parcels are available within an urban growth area; or (b) is a natural resource-based industry requiring a location near agricultural land, forest land, or mineral resource land upon which it is depending. The MID shall not be for the purpose of retail commercial development or multi-tenant office parks." Supporting policy language exists within the County-wide Planning Polices (CWPP) and the County's Comprehensive Plan (Policy LPN 11.1) (Exhibit C, 2). The city's comprehensive plan contains related policy language but no specific policy on MIDs. The Joint Growth Management Steering Committee (JGMSC) directed county staff to draft an MID ordinance in consultation with city staff. The County Planning Commission has reviewed a draft ordinance to be inserted into the County's Unified Development Code (UDC). The ordinance is slated for adoption by the BOCC by the end of the year. · BCD Recommendation: Add an MID policy in the Economic Development Element of our Comprehensive Plan as indicated in Exhibit O. This amendatory language has also been incorporated into Amendment #5, proposed FUGA amendment language. Discussion/Rationale: The County is in the process of adopting an MID Ordinance. It is appropriate for the City to include MID policy in its Comprehensive Plan which calls for cooperation between the two agencies. Adoption of the proposed MID policy is consistent with County-wide Policy #7, "Policy on County-wide Economic Development and Employment". Suggested Findings & Conclusions: 1. Circumstances related to the proposed amendment have substantially changed since the adoption of the Port Townsend comprehensiv:e plan. The Joint Growth Management Steering Committee (JGMSC) directed county staff to draft an MID ordinance in consultation with city staff. Jefferson County plans to adopt an MID ordinance by the end of the year. · 4 BCD Recommendation _ 2001 Comprehensive Plan Update October 17, 2001 Page 5 · 2. Assumptions upon which the Port Townsend comprehensive plan is based still valid. The City of Port Townsend will continue to be the retailing, service, government, medical, and transportation center for eastern Jefferson County. An MID cannot be approved if, through an inventory of developable lands, the County finds that land suitable to site the MID is available within an urban growth area. Furthermore, MIDs cannot be for the purpose of retail commercial development or multi-tenant office parks. 3. No new information is available which was not considered during the adoption process or any annual amendments of the Port Townsend comprehensive plan; and 4. Adoption of the proposed MID policy is consistent with Policy #7, "Policy on County-wide Economic Development and Employment" ofthe County-wide Planning Policy. These policies reflect current widely held community values. · Amendment #4 - Remove FUGA Language from the Comprehensive Plan Description ofthe Suggested Amendment: Pursuant to the Growth Management Act (GMA) counties, rather than cities are responsible for designating urban growth boundaries. The limits of urban growth areas (UGAs) are adopted at the time the County adopts its comprehensive plan. In June of 1995, the Joint Growth Management Committee recommended a "preferred" conceptual alternative for the unincorporated portion of the Port Townsend Final Urban Growth Area (FUGA) and directed that this alternative be included in the comprehensive plans for both the County and City. The city included portions of the Glen Cove area beyond the present city limits within a conceptual final urban growth area (FUGA). The city's comprehensive plan clearly states that additional information and analysis was needed to refine and modifY the conceptual FUGA boundary to ensure consistency with GMA and Growth Management Hearings Board decisions. The County continues to analyze land use options for Glen Cove. Options include: expansion of Port Townsend UGA, Non-Municipal UGA designation, and Limited Area of More Intensive Rural Development (LAMIRD). In June of 200 1, the city docketed two amendments that were to revisit the conceptual FUGA language. Amendment #4 proposes to 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 from 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, and adopt policy regarding development of a "Community Vitality Plan". Draft language in strikeout and underline format is included as Exhibit E, #2(PLC Application Material). · 5 BCD Recommendation 2001 Comprehensive Plan Update October 17, 2001 Page 6 . BCD Recommendation: Although Planning Commission is in agreement with much of the amended language in Exhibit E, 2; we do not recommend that it be adopted as written. Instead, the Planning Commission recommends Amendment #5 be adopted, see below. DiscussionlRationale: Circumstances related to the proposed amendment have substantially changed since the adoption ofthe Port Townsend comprehensive plan. The conceptual Final Urban Growth Area is no longer appropriate given advancements by the County since 1996. Both amendments #4 and 5 are very similar in that they both delete reference to the Glen Cove conceptual FUGA. The Commission prefers the language in Amendment #5 as it addresses 1) analysis conducted by the County post-l 996; 2) emphasize development of existing commercial and industrial lands within the city prior to expanding these uses in the Glen Cove area; 3) setting a goal to improve in:tTastructure in the commercial and industrial zones to facilitate development; 4) County's plans to adopt a major industrial developments ordinance. Suggested Findings & Conclusions: 1. Circumstances related to the proposed amendment have substantially changed since the adoption of the Port Townsend comprehensive plan. The conceptual Final Urban Growth Area is no longer appropriate given advancements by the County since 1996. When the County Comprehensive Plan was adopted in August of 1998, the final urban growth area of Port Townsend remained at the city limits and did not expand . into the Glen Cove FUGA. The City limits define the Port Townsend UGA. The city's 1996 comprehensive plan, called for additional analysis of the conceptual urban growth boundary. The County has continued to study the Glen Cove area to detennine its appropriate land use designation. The most recent study released by the County, Glen Cove Land Use Operations: A Strategic Analysis by Earth Tech in September 2001, recommends designation of a Limited Area of More Intensive Rural Development ~LAMIRD). LAMIRDs are a relatively new type ofland use designation added to the GMA in 1995. The proposed amendatory language addresses the need to delete conceptual Final Urban Growth Area language :tTom the Plan but does not address more recent developments by Jefferson County (i.e., drafting of an MID Ordinance, additional infonnation on Glen Cove Options). 2. Assumptions upon which the Port Townsend comprehensive plan is based are still valid. Port Townsend continues to be the urban center for eastern Jefferson County. 3. City records pertaining to the initial adoption of the Comprehensive Plan show that city staff and planning commissioners were concerned over the lack of public involvement in the issue of Glen Cove and an expanded UGA. In the last three years, . the city has received testimony opposing a Glen Cove UGA. 6 BCD Recommendation 2001 Comprehensive Plan Update ~ October 17,2001 Page 7 . " . Amendment #5 - Review and Amend FUGA Lan2;ua2;e in the Comprehensive Plan Description of the Suggested Amendment - This amendment also revisits the Glen Cove FUGA language. It was docketed with the intent of giving the city more flexibility to fonnulate a policy position based upon a review of Jefferson County's most recent UGA proposals and supporting analysis. This amendment had a broad scope that encompassed a range of alternatives, including the opportunity to play with the amendatory language suggested in Amendment #4. Proposed amendments to the FUGA language are shown in Exhibit P. Suggested amendments are very similar to those proposed in Amendment #4. The two differ in that Amendment #5 addresses: I) analysis conducted by the County post-l 996; 2) emphasize development of existing commercial and industrial lands within the city prior to expanding these uses in the Glen Cove area; 3) setting a goal to improve infrastructure in the commercial and industrial zones to facilitate development; 4) County's plans to adopt a major industrial developments ordinance. BCD Recommendation: Adopt the amendments to the Comprehensive Plan as indicated in Exhibit P. . Discussion/Rationale Circumstances related to the proposed amendment have substantially changed since the adoption of the Port Townsend comprehensive plan. The conceptual Final Urban Growth Area is no longer appropriate given advancements by the County since 1996. Both amendments #4 and 5 are very similar in that they both delete reference to the Glen Cove conceptual FUGA. The Commission prefers the language in Amendment #5 as it addresses 1) analysis conducted by the County post-I 996; 2) emphasize development of existing commercial and industrial lands within the city prior to expanding these uses in the Glen Cove area; 3) setting a goal to improve infrastructure in the commercial and industrial zones to facilitate development; 4) County's plans to adopt a major industrial developments ordinance. Suggested Findings & Conclusions: I. Circumstances related to the proposed amendment have substantially changed since the adoption ofthe Port Townsend comprehensive plan. The conceptual Final Urban Growth Area is no longer appropriate given advancements by the County since 1996. When the County Comprehensive Plan was adopted in August of 1998, the final urban growth area of Port Townsend remained at the city limits and did not expand into the Glen Cove FUGA. The City limits define the Port Townsend UGA. . The city's 1996 comprehensive plan, called for additional analysis of the conceptual urban growth boundary. The County has continued to analyze the Glen Cove area to detennine its appropriate land use designation. The most recent study released by the County, Glen Cove Land Use Operations: A Strategic Analysis by Earth Tech in September 2001, recommends designation ofa Limited Area of More Intensive Rural Development (LAMIRD). LAMIRDs are a relatively new type ofland use 7 BCD Recommendation 2001 Comprehensive Plan Update October 17,2001 Page 8 designation added to the GMA in 1995. The proposed amendatory language addresses the need to delete conceptual Final Urban Growth Area language from the Plan and addresses more recent developments by Jefferson County (i.e., drafting of an MID Ordinance, additional infonnation on Glen Cove Options). 2. Assumptions upon which the Port Townsend comprehensive plan is based are still valid. Port Townsend continues to be the urban center for eastern Jefferson County. 3. City records pertaining to the initial adoption of the Comprehensive Plan show that city staff and planning commissioners were concerned over the lack of public involvement in the issue of Glen Cove and an expanded UGA. In the last three years, the city has received testimony opposing a Glen Cove UGA. 8 . ¡. . . . . . . . LIST OF EXHIBITS (Note Exhibits A-L have been provided previously) Exhibit A - MDNS for Comp Plan 2001 Exhibit B - DNS for NWMC Exhibit C Exhibit D Exhibit E Exhibit F Exhibit G Exhibit H Exhibit I Exhibit J Exhibit K Exhibit L Planning Commission Packet, August 9 Workshop (Amendment #1) Exhibit 1 Excerpts rrom Zoning Code Exhibit 2 Excerpts rrom the Comprehensive Plan Exhibit 3 Use table for the Residential Zoning Districts with proposed revisions. Planning Commission Minutes, August 9, 2001 Workshop Planning Commission Packet September 20, Workshop (Amendments #4 & 5, FUGA) 1) Year 2001 Suggested Comprehensive Plan Amendments RE: Glen Cove 2) Suggested Amendatory Language for Amendment #4 (PLC Comprehensive Plan Amendment Application) 3) Jefferson County Viewpoint - Urban Growth Area Update 4) Excerpt rrom RCW Section 36.70A.070 Re: Limited Areas of More Intensive Rural Development (LAMIRDs) 5) Taking the Mystery Out of Economic Development Planning Commission Minutes of September 20,2001, Workshop Planning Commission Packet, September 27 Workshop (Amendments #6, 7, 8 and 9) Planning Commission Minutes, September 27,2001 Workshop Planning Commission Packet, October 17 Hearing (Amendments 1-5) Planning Commission Minutes, October 17, 2001 Hearing Planning Commission Packet, October 25 Hearing (Amendments #6, 7, 8 and 9) Planning Commission Minutes, October 25,2001 Hearing BCD Recommendation 2001 Comprehensive Plan Update October 17,2001 Page 2 Exhibit M - Suggested Amendatory Language for Amendment #1 Exhibit N - Suggested Amendatory Language for Amendment #2 Exhibit 0 - Suggested Amendatory Language for Amendment #3 Exhibit P - Suggested Amendatory Language for Amendment #5 *Exhibit Q - Glen Cove Land Use Options, A Strategic Analysis, prepared for Jefferson County by Earth Tech, September 2001 Note: Suggested Amendatory Language for Amendment #4 is in Exhibit E, 2. 2 . . . It. .J-' · 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 · 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 · 45 EXHmIT M Excerpts from Comprehensive Plan and PTMC (Amendment #1 Clarify Definitions ofUnitlBedroom and Various Housing Types) Amended language to Comprehensive Plan Glossary of Terms, Chapter X Accessory Dwelling Unit: A second dwelling constructed within an existing single family home, usually for use as a rental unit. An "accessory unit" is a separate dv.'elling, including kitchen, sleeping, and bathroom facilities. Also knov;n as "mother in law apartment. II Accessory dwelling unit: a separate dwelling unit with separate cooking facilities that is substantially contained within the structure of a single-family residence or an outbuilding which is accessory to such residence. Assisted Living Facility:Residences for the elderly that provide rooms, meals, personal care, and supervision of self administered medication. They may pro';ide other services, such as recreational activities, financial services, and transportation. Congregate carel Assisted living facilities: a building or complex containing seven or more of dwellings or bedrooms designed for. but not limited to. occupancy by senior citizens which provides for shared use of facilities. such as kitchens. dining areas. and recreation areas. Such complexes may also provide kitchens and dining space in individual dwelling units. Practical nursing care may be provided. as well as recreational programs and facilities. Dwelling Unit One or more rooms located within a structure which are designed, arranged, occupied or intended to be occupied by not more than one family and permitted roomers and boarders as living accommodations, independent from any other family. The existence of a food preparation area within the room or rooms is evidence of the existence of a dV/elling unit. Dwelling unit any building or portion thereof that contains separate living facilities for not more than one family. Separate living facilities shall constitute: provisions for sleeping. eating. kitchen facilities (including at least an oven range or cooking device and a permanently installed sink). and bathroom facilities. "Dwelling unit" does not include motel. tourist court. boarding house. or tourist home units. Household: A household includes all the persons who occupy a housing unit The occupants may be a single family, one person living alone, two or more families living together, or any other group of related or unrelated persons who share living arrangements. Family: one or more persons related by blood. marriage. adoption.. or a group of not more than six persons ( excluding servants) not related by blood or marriage. living together as a single housekeeping unit in a dwelling unit. The persons thus constituting a family may also include foster children. guests and domestic servants. State-licensed .... .* Exhibit M Recommended Language for Amendment # 1 Page 2 of2 1 adult family homes and consensual living arrangements of disabled persons. in 2 accordance with the federal Fair Housing Act. are exempt from this definition. 3 4 Excerpts from Title 17 PTMC 5 17.08.020 A through D (excerpts starting with page 17-4) 6 "Accessory building" means a subordinate building attached to or detached from the 7 principal building and used for purposes customarily incidental to the use of the principal 8 building and not involving the conduct of a business or the sale of a service. Accessory 9 buildings include but are not limited to an automobile storage garage, play house, laundry 10 room, garden shelter, hobby room and mechanical room. 11 12 "Accessory dwelling unit" means a separate dwelling unit with ª separate cooking 13 facilities kitchen that is substantially contained within the structure of a single-family 14 residence or an outbuilding which is accessory to such residence. 15 16 ",^..ccessory structure" means a detached, subordinate structure, located on the same lot, 17 the use of which is clearly incidental to that of the principal building, or to the principal 18 use of the land. (note: proposed to delete as is redundant with "accessory building") 19 20 "Accessory use" means a use incidental and subordinate to the principal use and located 21 on the same lot or in the same building as the principal use. 22 23 "Adult family home" means a home in which residential care is provided on a 24-hour 24 basis by an owner or tenant of the fle.me dwelling unit in which care is provided, plus the 25 family of the provider. The maximum number of adults to be accommodated in such a 26 home shall conform to the requirements of the Washington State Department of Social ·27 and Health Services as currently exist or are hereafter amended. As of the date of this 28 ordinance. the maximum number allowed by state law is six (6). 29 30 "Apartment" means a room or suite of rooms within an apartment house or apartment 31 hotel, used as a dwelling unit for one family with facilities that function or are intended to 32 function for living, sleeping, and cooking. 33 34 "Apartment hotel" means an apartment house that furnishes services for the use of its 35 tenants which are ordinarily furnished by hotels, but the privileges of which are not 36 primarily available to the general public. 37 38 "Apartment house" means a building or portion of a building arranged or designed to be 39 occupied as five or more separate dwelling units. 40 "Apparel and accessory stores" means stores primarily engaged in selling new or used 41 clothing, shoes, jewelry, and related articles for personal wear and adornment and stores 42 which rent clothing such as costumes or formal wear. 43 44 "Bed and breakfast inn" means a building with a central kitchen which provides the 45 primary residence for the owner or operator and which offers guest rooms for travelers . . . · · · ';: Exhibit M Recommended Language for Amendment # 1 Page 3 of3 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 and transient guests for compensation. Food service may be offered exclusively to people registered to use the inn for lodging or special events. Accessory buildings which were lawfully established prior to June 1, 1989, may be considered part of a bed and breakfast inn. A bed and breakfast inn is a transient accommodation and shall conform to the definition thereof. "Bedroom" means a room integrated within a dwelling unit or other housing type permitted by the zoning district.. A bedroom is a room other than a kitchen, dining room, living room, bathroom, office. or closet, that is marketed, designed, or otherwise likely to function primarily for sleeping. "Boardinghouse" means a dwelling with a single kitchen that provides the primary residence for the owner or operator and in which not more than fetH: six roomers, lodgers and/or boarders are housed or fed. A boardinghouse is to be distinguished from both a lodging house and a hotel. "Congregate care or assisted living facilities" means a building or complex containing seven or more ef dwellings or bedrooms designed for, but not limited to, occupancy by senior citizens which provides for shared use of facilities, such as kitchens, dining areas, and recreation areas. Such complexes may also provide kitchens and dining space in individual dwelling units. Practical nursing care may be provided, as well as recreational programs and facilities. Convalescent Home. See "Nursing, rest, or convalescent home." Cooperative /~partment. See "Apartment house." "Duplex" means a single structure containing two dwelling units, either side by side or above one another. For purposes of this title, units in a duplex are considered single- family dwellings within R-I and R-II districts; provided, that the base density requirements of the district are not exceeded. See also "Dwelling, single-family attached," "Triplex," and "Fourplex." "Dwelling" means any building or portion thereof designed or used primarily for residential occupancy. including single family dwellings. duplexes. triplexes. fourplexes. and multi-family dwellings. but not including hotels or motels. "Dwelling, multifamily" means a building containing five or more dwelling units, including units that are located one over the other. "Dwelling, single-family attached" means a dwelling having any portion of a wall in common with up to three adjoining dwellings. Exhibit M Recommended Language for Amendment # 1 Page 40f4 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 "Dwelling, single-family detached" means a dwelling that is entirely surrounded by open space on the same lot, and which is designed for and occupied exclusively by one family and the household employees of that family. "Dwelling unit" means a any building or portion thereof that contains providing complete housekeeping separate living facilities for not more than one family. Separate living facilities shall constitute: provisions for sleeping. eating. kitchen facilities (including at least an oven range or cooking device and a permanently installed sink). and bathroom facilities. "Dwelling unit" does not include motel, tourist court, rooming boarding house, or tourist home units. 17.08.030 E through H. "Efficiency dwelling unit" means a dwelling unit consisting of one room exclusive of bathroom, kitchen, hallway, closets, or dining alcove, whether or not directly off the principal room. "Family" means one or more persons related by blood, marriage, adoption, or a group of not more than six persons (excluding servants) not related by blood or marriage, living together as a single housekeeping unit in a dwelling unit. The persons thus constituting a family may also include foster children, guests and domestic servants. State-licensed adult family homes and consensual living arrangements of disabled persons, in accordance with the federal Fair Housing Act, are exempt rrom this definition. "Foster home" means a home licensed and regulated by the state and classified by the state as a foster home, providing care and guidance for not more than five unrelated juveniles, adults or both. "F ourplex" means four attached dwellings in one building in which each unit has at least one open space exposure and shares one or two walls with adjoining units. For purposes of this title, fourplexes are considered single-family dwellings within R-I and R-II districts; provided, that the base density requirements of the district are not exceeded. "Fraternal organization" means a group of people formally organized for a common interest, usually cultural, religious, or entertainment, with regular meetings, rituals, and formal written membership requirements. (Note: this is not a "fraternity"). "Fraternity, sorority, or student cooperative" means a building occupied by and maintained exclusively for students affiliated with an academic or professional college or university, or other recognized institution of higher learning and regulated by such institution. "Group home for the disabled" means a dwelling shared by four or more disabled persons, and resident staff, who live together as a single housekeeping unit and in a long- term, family-like environment in which staff persons provide care, education, and " · · · · · · " Exhibit M Recommended Language for Amendment # J Page 5 of5 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 participation in community activities for residents with the primary goal of enabling the resident to live as independently as possible in order to reach their maximum potential. As used herein, "disabled" means: A. Having a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more of such person's major life activities so that such person is incapable ofliving independently; B. Having a record of having such an impairment; or C. Being regarded as having such an impairment. However, "disabled" shall not include current illegal use of or addiction to a controlled substance, nor shall it include any person whose residency in the home would constitute a direct threat to the health and safety of other individuals. "Group home for the disabled" shall not include alcoholism or drug treatment centers, work-release facilities for convicts orex-convicts, or other housing facilities serving as an alternative to incarceration. "Guest house"/ "detached bedroom" means living quarters without a kitchen located on the same lot with a principal building and occupied for the sole use of members of the family, temporary guests, or persons permanently employed on the premises. Guest houses/detached bedrooms are not permitted in any zoning district. See also "Accessory dwelling unit." "Halfway house" means a licensed home for inmates on release from more restrictive custodial confinement or initially placed in lieu of such more restrictive confinement wherein supervision, rehabilitation, and counseling are provided to mainstream a person back into society. "Homeless shelter" means a facility that provides temporary housing for individuals or families which, due to personal adverse financial situations, have lost their homes. See also "Residential treatment facility." "Institution, educational" "Schools. higher education" means a college, junior college or university supported by public or private funds, tuitions, contributions or endowments, giving advanced academic instructions as approved by the State Board of Education or by recognized accrediting agency, excluding preschool, elementary and junior and senior high schools, and trade and commercial schools; including fraternity and sorority houses. "Kitchen~' means any rooms used or intended or designed to be used for cooking and/or preparation of food. A kitchen-shall include at least an oven range or cooking device and a permanently installed sink "Lodging house" means a building with a single kitchen that provides -the primary residence for the owner or operator and in which twe seven or more roomers, lodgers and/or boarders are housed or fed. A lodging house is to be distinguished from both a boardinghouse and a hotel. See also. "Dwelling. multifamily." Multiple-Family Dwelling. See "Dwelling, multifamily." Exhibit M Recommended Language for Amendment # 1 Page 6of6 1 "Nursing, rest, or convalescent home" means an establishment which provides full time 2 care for three seven or more chronically ill or infirm persons. Alzheimer units are 3 included in this category. Such care shall not include surgical, obstetrical or acute illness 4 services. See also. "Adult family home" and "Congregate care or assisted living 5 facilities. " 6 7 "Office" means a building or portion of a building wherein services are performed 8 involving predominantly administrative, professional, or clerical operations. 9 10 "Office/ studio. detached" means an office. business. or artistic space contained in an 11 accessory building and accessory to a permitted single-family dwelling located on the 12 same lot for the sole use of members of the family. or persons employed on the premises 13 consistent with home occupation provisions. 14 15 "Planned unit development" or "PUD" means a special overlay zoning designation 16 subject to discretionary approval under Chapter 17.32 PTMC. As regulated under 17 Chapter 17.32 PTMC, PUDs are residential developments that are planned and/or 18 developed in several stages consistent with a unified site design, and may consist of 19 clusters of multi-unit structures interspersed with areas of common open space. In 20 appropriate circumstances. the PUD overlay allows an applicant to take advantage of 21 flexible zoning standards. modification of requirements of the city's engineering design 22 standards. and bonus densities. Once approved, prescriptive regulations relating to bulk, 23 dimension and infrastructure may be varied to allow design innovations and special 24 features in exchange for additional and/or superior site amenities or community benefits. 25 (The added verbage comes from the PUD Chapter and is meant to clarify that PUDs may 26 exceed the base density of the underlying zoning district). 27 28 Residence. See "Dwelling unit." 29 30 "Residential treatment facility" means a facility that provides both a residence (for 3 1 varying periods of time) and a care component. Among such facilities are group eare 32 homes for the disabled, emergency or homeless shelters (including facilities or homes for 33 victims of violence), recovery homes, and group homes, rest and convalescent homes, 34 and orphanages. Such facilities do not include halfway houses. In such a facility, 35 services, equipment, and safety features necessary for the proper care of residents is 36 normally provided. Such services may include: 37 A. Supervision and assistance in dressing, bathing, and in the maintenance of good 38 personal hygiene; 39 B. Care in emergencies or during temporary illness, usually for periods of one week or 40 less; 41 C. Supervision in the taking of medication; and 42 D. Other services conducive to the residents' welfare. 43 " · · · '. · · · Exhibit M Recommended Language for Amendment #1 Page 70f7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 "Residential use" means use ofland or structure thereon, or portion thereof, as a dwelling. place for one or more families or households, but not including occupancy of a transient nature such as in hotels, motels, or time-sharing condominium uses. Rest Home. See "Nursing, rest or convalescent home." Rooming House. See "Lodging house." "School" means a place for systematic instruction in any branch or branches of knowledge, including elementary and junior and senior high schools, whether public, private, or parochial. "School, commercial" means a building where instruction is given to pupils in arts, crafts or trades, and operated as a commercial enterprise as distinguished from schools endowed and/or supported by taxation. Shelter, Emergency. See "Residential treatment facility." Single-Family Dwelling. See "Dwelling, single-family, attached" and "Dwelling, single- family detached." "Tourist home" means a building which provides the primary residence for the owners and which offers not more than two guestrooms for hire to transient guests for sleeping purposes only. A tourist home or a portion thereof may be located in an accessory building which was lawfully established prior to June 1, 1989. A tourist home is a transient accommodation and shall conform to the definition thereof "T ownhouse or rowhouse" means a one-family dwelling in a right-of-way of at least t-flree five such units in which each unit has its own front and rear access to the outside, no unit is located over another unit, and each unit is separated from any other unit by one or more vertical common fire resistant walls. For purposes of this title, townhouses or rowhouses of five or more residential units are considered multifamily dwellings. See also "Duplex," "Triplex," "Fourplex," "Dwelling, single-family attached," and "Dwelling, multifamily." "Triplex" means a building containing three dwelling units, each of which has direct access to the outside or to a common hallway which accesses the outside. For purposes of this title, triplexes are considered single-family dwellings within R-I and R-II districts; provided, that the base density requirements of the district are not exceeded (i.e., four dwelling units per acre within the R-I district; eight dwelling units per acre within the R- II district). .' Exhibit M Recommended Language for Amendment # 1 Page 8 of8 . 1 2 RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS (17.16.010 PTMC) 3 1. R-I - Low Density Single-Family. This district accommodates single-family residences 4 (including duplexes, triplexes, and fourplexes) at a density of up to four dwelling units 5 per 40,000-square-foot area (i.e., 10,000-square-foot minimum lot size, or approximately 6 four dwelling units within one block of platted land) or 8 bedrooms per 40.000-square- 7 foot area for Planned Unit Developments. It allows four or fewer single-family dwelling 8 units to be contained within one structure upon condition of sufficient tract size: 20,000 9 square feet for a duplex; 30,000 square feet for a triplex; and 40,000 square feet for a 10 fourplex. Limited multi-family development could occur with approval of a Planned Unit 11 Development. This zoning district has been applied only in the northwestern portion of 12 the city, because of stormwater related development constraints. The district 13 accommodates single-family development at densities that maintain and promote the 14 "small town" character of Port Townsend, while ensuring that the environmental quality 15 (particularly as it relates to stormwater control) of the area is not adversely impacted. 16 Higher densities could be permitted in these areas through approval of a planned unit 17 development (R-PUD) overlay designation pursuant to Chapter 17.32 PTMC. 18 19 2. R-II - Medium Density Single-Family. This district accommodates single-family 20 dwellings (including duplexes, triplexes, and fourplexes) at a density of up to eight units 21 per 40,000-square-foot area (i.e., 5,000-square-foot minimum lot size, or approximately 22 eight dwelling units within one block of platted land) or 16 bedrooms per 40.000 square- 23 foot area for Planned Unit Developments. It allows four or fewer single-family dwelling 24 units to be contained within one structure upon condition of sufficient tract size: 10,000 25 square feet for a duplex; 15,000 square feet for a triplex; and 20,000 square feet for a 26 fourplex. Limited multi-family development could occur with approval of a Planned Unit 27 Development. The R-II district corresponds closely to those areas of town that are 28 currently platted to eight lots per block, include few development limitations, and which 29 are in proximity to existing public facilities and services. 30 31 3. R-III - Medium Density Multifamily. The R-III district accommodates smaller scale 32 multifamily structures (e.g., five to 12 dwellings per structure) at a density of up to 24 33 bedrooms per 40,000 square feet ofland area. The intent of this district is to provide a 34 broad range of housing opportunities; to provide a variety of housing types and styles; 35 and to provide for development with a density and configuration that facilitates effective 36 and efficient transit service. Although multifamily development is encouraged in these 37 areas, single-family residences continue to be an allowed use. This district includes areas 38 along arterial and major collector streets with existing or planned transit service. 39 40 4. R-IV - High Density Multifamily. This district accommodates larger scale multifamily 41 structures (e. g., 10 to 24 dwellings per structure) at a density of not less than 25 42 bedrooms per 40,000 square feet ofland area, or more than 40 bedrooms per 40,000 43 square feet of land area. A minimum density has been specified for this district in order to 44 discourage use of this land for subordinate, lower density development; single-family 45 dwellings are not permitted in this district. This district includes areas designed to be . . Exhibit M Recommended Language for Amendment # 1 Page 9 of9 . 1 compatible with adjoining uses; to provide for development with a density and 2 configuration that facilitates effective and efficient transit service; and to enable 3 provision of affordable housing. 4 5 Table 17.16.020 6 Residential Zoning Districts - Permitted, Conditional and Prohibited Uses 7 . . Key to table: P = Permitted outri2ht; C = Subiect to a conditional use permit; X = Prohibited; N/A = Not applicable DISTRICT R-I R-II R-III R-IV APPLICABLE REGULA TIONS/NOTES SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL USES Accessory dwelling units P P P X Ch. 17.48 PTMC, Accessory Dwelling Units~ and PTMC 17.16.030, Residential bulk, dimensional and density requirements. For ADUs in the R-III zone, the ADU shall be counted toward the maximum housing density as provided in PTMC 17.16.030. Adult family homes (for 6 P P P P PTM C 17.16.030, Residential bulk, or fewer adults) dimensional and density requirements. Efficiency dwelling units P P P P PTMC 17.16.030, Residential bulk, dimensional and density requirements. Manufactured homes (on P P P X Ch. 17.64 PTMC, Manufactured and individual lots) Mobile Home Parks. Manufactured homes are prohibited within the limits of the Port Townsend National Register Historic I District, but allowed on individual lots in R- I, R-II and R-III zoning districts; and PTMC I 17 .16.030, Residential bulk, dimensional and density requirements. Mobile homes and trailer X X X X homes (on individual lots) Modular homes P P P X PTMC 17.16.030, Residential bulk, dimensional and density requirements. Modular homes are constructed in accordance with the Uniform Building Code and are considered a type of single- family dwelling. Single-family dwellings P P P X PTMC 17.16.030, Residential bulk, (including duplexes, dimensional and density requirements. triplexes, and fourplexes which meet the base density requirements of the applicable district) Exhibit M Recommended Language for Amendment # 1 P 10 {1O age 0 MULTIFAMILY RESIDENTIAL USES . Apartment houses X X P P Ch. 17.36 PTMC, Multifamily Residential Development Standards; and PTMC 17.16.030, Residential bulk, dimensional and density requirements. Boardinghouses (fum: six P P P P Same as above. or fewer roomers) and lodging and rooming houses (fiye or more roomers) lodging houses (seven or X X r r Same as above. more roomers) Congregate care or assisted X C P P Same as above. In R-II zoning district. living facilities (with 7 or facilities proposing greater than four units more dwelling per structure require a PUD. Ch. 17.32 unitslbedrooms) Foster homes P P P P Same as above. Fraternities, sororities and X X C C Same as above. student cooperatives Halfwav house X X X X See definition PTMC 17.08.030. Multifamily dwellings X X P P Same as above. Nursing, rest, or X X P P Same as above. convalescent homes (three- . seven or more persons) Residential treatment C C Gr Gr "Group homes" are considered an "essential facilities including group public facility" under RCW 36. 70A.200; ". . homes for the disabled (for . their siting cannot be precluded by 6 or fewer residents). development regulations. . ."; and PTMC 17.16.030, Residential bulk, dimensional and density requirements Residential treatment X X r r "Group homes" are considered an "essential facilities including group public facility" under RCW 36.70A.200; ". . homes for the disabled (for . their siting cannot be precluded by 7 or more residents). development regulations. . ."; and PTMC 17.16.030. Residential bulk. dimensional and density requirements Townhouses or rowhouses X X P P Ch. 17.36 PTMC, Multifamily Residential (zero lot lines) Development Standards; and PTMC 17.16.030, Residential bulk, dimensional and density requirements. COMMERCIAL USES Bed and breakfast inns C C C C PTMC 17.16.030, Residential bulk, dimensional and density requirements. Child day care centers, C C C C Ch. 17.52 PTMC, Day Care Facilities; child day care facilities, and PTMC 17.16.030, Residential bulk, and preschools dimensional and density requirements. Family day care homes P P P P Same as above. . Home occupations P P P P Ch. 17.56 PTMC, Home Occupations; an · · · L_ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _________ '- Exhibit M Recommended Language for Amendment # 1 Page II of II PTMC 17.16.030, Residential bulk, dimensional and density requirements. Tourist homes C C C C PTM C 17.16.03 0, Residential bulk, dimensional and density requirements. ACCESSORY USES Accessory buildings and P P P P PTMC 17.16.030, Residential bulk and accessory structures dimensional requirements. Detached Office/ Studio ~ ~ ~ X Subiect to home occupation regulations. Chaoter 17.56. Fuel oil and kerosene P P P P Such containers require a pennit and containers inspection pursuant to Ch. 16.04 PTMC, Building Code, may only be pennitted for domestic heating purposes, must be located aboveground, and may not exceed 750 gallons' capacity. Guesthouse/detached X X X X See definition PTMC 17.08.030. bedroom Garages, private residential P P P P PTMC 17.16.030, Residential bulk, dimensional and density requirements. AGRICULTURAL USES Barns P C X X PTMC 17.16.030, Residential bulk, dimensional and density requirements. Concession stands, P P* X X PTMC 17.16.030, Residential bulk, agricultural or produce dimensional and density requirements; temporary agricultural or produce stands are subject to Ch. 17.60 PTMC, Temporary Uses.*In the R-II zone, concession stands are limited to locations fronting onto principal arterial, collector, and minor arterial streets. Crop or tree fanning (no P P X X retail sales) Crop or tree fanning with P P X X All parking shall be off-street community supported agriculture sales Stables, private and riding P C X X PTMC 17.16.030, Residential bulk, dimensional and density requirements. Plant nurseries, C C X X Same as above. landscaping materials, greenhouses (commercial) Small animal husbandry, C X X X Same as above. commercial Small animal husbandry, P P P P Same as above. noncommercial U-pick sales of crops P P X X All parking shall be off-street. OTHER USES Cemetaries C C X X Exhibit M Recommended Language for Amendment # 1 Pg 12112 a e 0 Churches C C C C Church buildings must comply with the requirements ofPTMC 17.16.030, Residential bulk, dimensional and density requirements; however, towers, spires and steeples exceeding the height requirements of that section may be allowed, provided they comply with Uniform Building Code § 506, Maximum Height of Buildings and Increases. Community clubhouses P P P P PTMC 17.16.030, Residential bulk, dimensional and density reauirement Fraternal organizations C C C X Same as above. Kennels, animal C X X X Same as above. Public facilities P P P P Same as above. Personal wireless service N/A N/A N/A N/A Refer to Chapter 17.78 PTMC, Personal facilities Wireless Service Facilities, for list of permitted, conditional and prohibited uses and other substantive reauirements. Radio and television towers C C C C Such facilities are allowed in all zoning districts subject to the conditional use permit requirements ofCh. 17.84 PTMC; however, such facilities are prohibited within the limits of the Port Townsend National Register Historic District; and PTMC 17.16.030, Residential bulk, dimensional and density requirements, except as provided in applicable Federal Communications Commission rules and regulations. Satellite dishes, P P P P Satellite dishes and antennas shall meet the noncommercial, and antennas requirements of PTMC 17.16.030, Residential bulk, dimensional and density requirements, except as provided in applicable Federal Communications Commission rules and regulations. Schools. higher education X X C C PTMC 17.16.030, Residential bulk, dimensional and density reauirements. Schools, colleges (public or C C C X PTMC 17.16.030, Residential bulk, dimensional private) and density requirements. Stadiums, arenas, and C C X X PTMC 17.16.030, Residential bulk, dimensional assembly halls and density reauirements. Veterinary hospitals C X X X Same as above. TEMPORARY USES Contractor offices and model P P P P PTMC 17.16.030, Residential bulk. homes dimensional and density requirements; and Ch. 17.60 PTMC, Temporary Uses. Rummage or other outdoor P P P P Ch. 17.60 PTMC, Temporary Uses. sales Yard or garage sales P P P P Same as above. 1 (Ord. **** § * 2001; Ord. 2700 §§ 9, 10, 1999; Ord. 2670 § 3.2, 1998; Ord. 2571 § 2, 1997). 2 ..., .J . -, '- · · · Exhibit M Recommended Language for Amendment # 1 Page 13 of 13 1 2 3 4 5 Table 17.16.030 Residential Zonin2 Districts - Bulk, Dimensional and Density Requirements DISTRICT R-I R-D R-ID R-IV I MAXIMUM HOUSING 4 dwelling units (10,000 8 dwelling units (5,000 sf 24 bedrooms per 40 bedrooms per DENSITY sf of lot area per unit)~ of lot area per unit) or 16 40,000 sf of lot 40,000 sf of Jot (units/bedrooms per 8 bedrooms for POOs bedrooms for POOs area area 40,000 square foot area) DISTRICT R-I R-D R-ID R-IV , , i MINIMUM AVERAGE - - - 25 bedrooms per HOUSING DENSITY 40,000 sf of lot (unitslbedrooms per area 40,000 square foot area) MAXIMUM NUMBER 4 (Note: limited 4 (Note: limited No limit No limit OF DWELLING UNITS structures with more than structures with more than IN ANY ONE 4 dwellings per structure 4 dwellings per structure STRUCTURE may be pennitted through may be pennitted tluough the POO process, see the POO process, see Chapter 17.32.) Chaoter 17.32.) MINIMUM LOT SIZE 10,000 sf = single-family 5,000 sf = single-family 3,000 sf= single- - detached detached family detached; and 10,000 sf= multifamily MINIMUM LOT 50' 50' 30' except: 100' - WIDTH = multifamily MINIMUM FRONT 20' except: 50' = barns 10' except: 50' = barns 20' except: 10' 20' except: 10' YARD SETBACKS and agricultural buildings and agricultural buildings w/ side or rear w/ side or rear parking; no parking; no setback for setback for multifamily multifamily structures structures located within located within 200 feet of an 200 feet of an abutting mixed abutting mixed use zoning use zOnIng district district MINIMUM REAR 20' except: 50' = barns 10' except: 100' = barns 10' except: no 15' except: 20' if YARD SETBACKS and agricultural buildings, and agricultural buildings setback for directly abutting and 100' if abutting an R- multifamily an R-I or R-II II, R-III, or R- IV zoning structures district; no district located within setback for 200 feet of an multifamily abutting mixed structures use ZOnIng located within distri ct 200 feet of an abutting mixed use zoning district Exhibit M Recommended Language for Amendment # 1 PageJ40fJ4 MINIMUM SIDE YARD SETBACKS 5' except: 10' = abutting a street row; 50' = barns and agricultural buildings and 100' if abutting an R II, R III, or R-IV zoning di stri ct. 5' except: 10' = abutting a street r-o-w; 100' = barns and agricultural buildings 5' except: 10' = along a street r- o-w; no setback for multifamily structures located within 200 feet of an abutting mixed use zoning district MAXIMUM BUILDING HEIGHT MAXIMUM LOT COVERAGE 30' 30' 35' 25% 35% 45% 1 2 (Ord. **** § * 2001;*******) 3 Table 17.72.080 Minimum Parking Space Requirements Use Required Parkinf Spaces Banks and other financial offices with I per each 200 sq. ft. of gross floor area customer services on premises Bed and breakfast inns, tourist homes 2 plus I per sleeping room Boat building/repair 1 per 1,500 sq. ft. gross floor area of the building Child day care centers as defined in Ch. 1 loading space if serving 12 or fewer children, otherwise 1 parking 388-73 WAC or as hereafter amended space per employee plus 2 loading spaces Churches, mortuaries, auditoriums and 1 per 4 seats or 60 lineal inches of pew or 40 square feet of gross similar places of assembly used for floor area assembly purposes Convalescent homes for aged I per each 5 beds Dance halls, skating rinks, similar I per 200 sq. ft. of floor area used for recreation recreation uses Dry cleaners, appliance and shoe repair 1 per 500 sq. ft. of gross floor area shops, bakeries without customer seating, similar front counter uses Ferry landing Determined by the decisionmaker when considering conditional use pennit application Furniture, major appliance, floor covering, hardware stores ;- 15' except: 20 directly abutting an R-I or R-II district; no setback for multifamily structures located within 200 feet of an abutting mixed use zomng district 35' 50% . . · · · ... Exhibit M Recommended Language for Amendment # 1 Page 15 of 15 ifless than 1,500 sq. ft. floor area if more than 1,500 sq. ft. floor area 1 per 300 sq. ft. gross floor area 5 spaces + 1 per each 600 sq. ft. in excess of 1,500 sq. ft. Health and physical fitness clubs and I per 200 sq. ft. of gross floor area facilities Hospitals 1 per each 2 beds excluding bassinets Libraries and museums 1 per 300 sq. ft. of gross floor area Manufacturing uses, research testing and I per each 2 employees on maximum shift and not less than 1 per processing, assembling, all industries 800 sq. ft. of gross floor area except boat building/repair Medical, dental or veterinary offices 1 per each 200 sq. ft. of gross floor area [Moorage facility other than those 1 per each 2 slips, excluding slips used only for transient moorage reserved for exclusive use of an adjacent residence Motels, hotels, motor hotels I per sleeping unit Motor vehicle, machinery, plumbing, 1 per 1,000 sq. ft. of gross floor area or 1 per each 3 employees heating, ventilating, building supply, stores and services Motor vehicle, motorcycle and small 1 per 400 sq. ft. of gross floor area . . engllle repaIr Offices, business and professional (other 1 per 300 sq. ft. of gross floor area than banks, medical, dental or veterinary offices) with on-site customer service Offices not providing on-site customer 1 per 4 employees or I per 400 sq. ft. of gross floor area services Recreation. commercial center 4 per each bowling alley, tennis or racquetball court, pool or billiard table; or 1 per each miniature golf hole or each 3 video games Residential, single-family; mobile home 2 per dwelling unit or mobile home space parks Residential, duplex or multifamily 1.5 per dwelling unit, plus recreational vehicle spaces for large developments pursuant to footnote 1 below Residential. studio/1 bedroom unit 1 per dwelling unit (detached or multi-family) Residential, government assisted housing 1 per each 3 bedrooms or residents subject to footnote 2 below Restaurant or tavern with sales and 1 per 100 sq. ft. of gross floor area consumption on premises Restaurant, fast food I per 50 sq. ft. of gross floor area ExhibitM Recommended Language for Amendment # 1 Page 16 of 16 Retail, not otherwise listed Not fewer than 1 per 300 sq. ft. gross floor area, but not greater than a maximum of 1 per 200 square ft. of gross floor area Rooming houses, similar uses 1 per sleeping unit Schools, preschool 1 loading space if serving 12 or fewer children, otherwise 1 parking space per employee plus 2 loading spaces Schools, elementary and junior high 1 per classroom, plus two loading spaces Schools, senior high 6 per classroom Schools, adult education 1 per each 4 fixed seats or I per 50 sq. ft. of gross floor area used for classrooms, exercise, dance or rehearsal Stadiums, sports arenas and similar open 1 per 8 fixed seats and 1 per 100 sq. ft. of assembly space without assemblies fixed seats Storage areas which are incidental and No requirement subordinate to a principal use which otherwise conforms to this chapter Theaters 1 per 4 seats Warehouse, storage and wholesale I per each 2 employees on maximum working shift business (Ord. **** ss *, 2001) 1 per each 2 employees on maximum working shift 1 .. . . . . . . EXHmIT N Excerpts from Capital Facilities Element of Comprehensive Plan (Amendment #2 - Revise Goals & Policies which Imply a Specific Utility Provider) Page Vll-20 - 21 of the Capital Facilities Element of the Comprehensive Plan Electricity Goal 30: To work with the local serving utility city's selected utility provider to plan and allow regional and local improvements to electric facilities and include prospective service plans for facility development within the City's Comprehensive Plan. Policy 30.1: Ensure that City decisions respecting electric utility facilities do not negatively affect the availability of safe and efficient electrical service in neighboring jurisdictions. Policy 30.2: Accommodate additions and improvements to electric utilities in a manner consistent with the needs and resources of Port Townsend as well as other neighboring jurisdictions. Policy 30.3: Encourage the local serving utility city's selected utility provider to make additions to and improvements of electric utility facilities to provide adequate capacity for projected future growth. 30.3.1 Provide the electric utility with annual updates of population, employment and development projections. 30.3.2 With the utility provider, jointly evaluate actual patterns and rates of growth, and compare those patterns and rates to electrical demand forecasts. Policy 30.4: Recognize the need for electric utility facilities that are sufficient to support economic development. Policy 30.5: Encourage the local serving utility city's selected utility provider to coordinate and cooperate with other jurisdictions in the implementation of multi-jurisdictional electric facility additions and improvements. Coordinate procedures for making specific land use decisions to achieve consistency in timing and substantive requirements. Policy 30.6: Encourage the use of joint utility corridors, provided that such joint use is consistent with limitations prescribed by applicable law and prudent utility practice. Policy 30.7: Work with providers to appropriately place electric utility facilities within public rights-of-way. . Policy 30.8:· Continue to implement the City's existing agreement with the leeal serving utility city's selected utility provider regarding vegetation retention and management. Policy 30.9: Continue to work with the local serving utility city's selected utility provider to eliminate the use of pesticides and herbicides in the management of electric utility facilities and corridors. Policy 30.10: In cooperation with the Bonneville Power Administration (BP A), other direct energy providers, and the local serving electric utility city's selected utility provider, examine the possibility of purchasing electric power directly from BP A or other energy providers as a wholesale customer. Energy Conservation Goal 31: To promote the efficient use of energy and resources, and the use of alternative energy sources and technologies. Policy 31.1: Facilitate and encourage the efficient use of resources to delay the need for additional facilities. . Policy 31.2: Promote the conversion to cost-effective and environmentally sensitive technologies and energy sources (e.g., solar energy, natural gas, etc.). Policy 31.3: Ensure that City facilities and personnel conserve energy resources (e.g., examine the feasibility of converting City vehicles to cleaner fuels). Policy 31.4 : Work in partnership with the local serving utility city's selected utility provider to promote public education efforts which emphasize the efficient use of energy and resources. Policy 3 1.5: Encourage Puget Power to install an electric car charging station in downtown Port Townsend. . tþ. . EXHffilT 0, Excerpts from Economic Development Element of the Comprehensive Plan (Amendment #3 - Add Policy re: Major Industrial Developments) Page VID-7: Commercial & Manufacturing Zoning Goal 9: To provide an adequate amount of appropriately zoned land to support commercial and manufacturing development. Policy 9.1: When revising the Port Townsend Municipal Code (PTMC) to implement this Plan, identify the types of commercial and manufacturing uses that are consistent with community values, estimate the demand for those types of uses, and scale the amount of commercial and manufacturing land available to projected demand and need. Policy 9.2: Cooperate with Jefferson County to ensure that high intensity commercial and nonresource- related industrial activities are concentrated within urban growth areas (UGAs) where adequate public facilities and services exist, or will be provided at the time of development. Policy 9.3 - Consistent with county-wide planning policy #7.4. establish. through an Inter-local Agreement with Jefferson County. a process for reviewing applications for Maior Industrial Developments (MID) as defined by RCW 36.70A.365. . Policy 9.;J4: Expand existing commercial and manufacturing zones only after assessing and mitigating adverse environmental impacts. Policy 9.47 Encourage the infill of existing commercial and manufacturing zones before considering the expansion or creation of new zones. Policy 9.~: Provide effective separation of conflicting land uses through buffering, setbacks, zone uses allowed, and transition zones. Policy 9.6: Achieve a greater balance between housing and employment opportunities. Policy 9.7: Assure that implementing regulations permit cottage industries within residential areas, consistent with the character of the surrounding neighborhood. Policy 9.8: Promote development of planned office, business and industrial parks, while conserving unique physical features of the land and maintaining compatibility with other land uses in the surrounding area. . Policy 9.9: Encourage neighborhood mixed use centers where small scale commercial development (e.g., professional services offices, restaurants, or retail stores) may occur in residential neighborhoods, consistent with the goals and policies of the Land Use Element of this Plan. 1 . 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 . 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 . Exhibit P Excerpts from Comprehensive Plan relating toFinal Urban Growth Area (FUGA) and Major Industrial Development (MID) Policies (Amendment #5 - Review and Amend FUGA Language in Comprehensive Plan) Section 1. Page IV-2: Fin-al- Port Townsend Urban Growth Area (FUGA) Under the GMA, "urban growth" is defined as growth that makes intensive use of land for the location of buildings, structures, and impermeable surfaces. The Act makes it clear that urban growth must occur only within designated urban growth areas (UGAs), and that counties, rather than cities, are -responsible for designating UGA boundaries. As of the time of this writing (2001) the city of Port Townsend constitutes the only formally designated UGA in Jefferson County. Jefferson County is in the process of conducting: studies to determine the feasibility of establishing a UGA for the lrondale. Hadlock. Chimacum - "Tri- Area" and possibly a limited area of more intense rural development (LAMIRD) in the Glen Cove area. but these areas have not yet been formally designated for urban or more intense rural development. During the 2002 comprehensive plan amendment cycle (5-year update). the city of Port Townsend should conduct an analysis of vacant commercial. industrial. and residential lands and determine if additional land is needed for these or other land use categories in the city. If it is determined that additional land areas are needed for projected growth. the city should seek to rezone land within the existing city limits before identi:f)ring areas outside the city limits for expansion of the city's UGA and potential annexation. In conformance with the county-wide planning policies for Jefferson County. the city and the county should continue to coordinate planning efforts. Port Townsend has included portions ofthe Glen Cove mea beyond the present City limits within a conceptual final urban gro'.vth area (FUGA). The mea is located immediately adjacent aHd to the southwest of the City, along the S.R. 20 corridor. The area is presently unincorporated and falls under the jurisdiction of Jeffcrson County for planning and land use permit administration. .\n expansion of the Port Townsend FUGA is being considered for a number of reasons: o Despite the in City upzones directed by this Plan, a shortage of land available for commercial and manufacturing development still exists ...ÚthÏ:H the City limits. o Many of the parcels in tov¡.'n ,...hich are available for commercial and manufacturing development tend to be too small and fragmented to support the economic development needed in the community. o Parcels in the City which are large enough to support commercial and manufacturing development are in many instances unsuitable because they: o Encompass en..ironmeHtally sensitive areas (ESAs) ·which constrain development; and o Tend to be located in areas 'which are remo'v'ed from existing regional transportation corridors (i.e., S.R. 20/Sims Way). 1 o A significant portion of the Glen Cove area is curœmly zoned for light manufactüring and commercial uses under the County's zoning code. Ifurban commercial and manufacturing growth is to continue in Glen Cove, then it should be within the City's FUGA. o Finally, expansion of Port Townsend's FUGA into GleB Cove ·.vill assist in stemming the floy; of retail sales leakage to neighboring areas like Silverdale and Sequim, and help promote a more balanced and vital economy in northeastern Jefferson County. . 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 Section 2. Pa,?e IV-3: 34 In June of 1995, the Joint Growth Management Committee (an advisory committee comprised of elected officials from both the County and City) œcommended a "pœfcrred" conceptual alternative for the unincorporated portion of the Port Tov¡nsend FUG.^.. The Joint Growth Management Committee (JGMC) directed that this alternative be included in the comp~{;iheBsive plans of both the County and City. This conceptual alternatiye envisions the desigBation of an expanded "Community Serving UGA" encompassiag a portion of the Glen Cove area. The goal of the alternative is to support current commercial and manufacturiag enterprises in Glen Cove, and provide expanded opportunities for retailing and appropriate manufacturing, consistent '.vith the broader community vision. This element includes goals and policies which support the recommendations of the JGMC. Additionally, the Land Use Map which accompanies this Plan depicts the possible future e){tent of the unincorporated portion of the FUGA (see the map pocket at the back of this Plan). In confonnance with the County Wide Planning Policy for Jefferson County, the County and City are coordinating their planning efforts t-o collect and analyze data, and detennine an appropriate FUGA boundary. However, at the time of this '/lriting, additional infonnation and analysis is needed to refine and modif)iÍhe conceptual FUGA boundary to ensure consistency with the planning goals and principles of the GM,^., as well as recent decisions by the Gro·.vth Management Hearings Boards. It is anticipated that Port Tovll1send's FUGA boundary will be designated either at the time Jefferson County adopts its GMA 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. . 35 Land Use Map (Note: Delete FUGA from Comprehensiye Plan Land Use Map) 36 37 The Land Use Map is also required by the GMA. The map represents the general future land use 38 patterns which are desired for the City of Port Townsend within the 20 year planning period. 39 The map is the City's "blueprint" for action and graphically depicts where various land uses 40 should be located. The goals and policies found within this chapter support and implement the 41 land use map. 42 43 The Port Townsend Planning Area 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 The "planning area" includes all of the lands within the present City limits.:., and portions of the Glen Cove area that ha'.'e the potential t-o be included within the City's FUG;\., as discussed above. The City has been divided into II subareas, as indicated on Figure N-l on page N-4. The City has already prepared several subarea plans, such as the Urban Waterfront Plan, Gateway Development Plan, and the Point Hudson Master Plan. The subareas used in the preparation of this Plan build upon those previously established. . 2 · · · 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 3 I 32 33 34 35 36 37 . 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 Section 3. Paf!.e IV-7: Land Use Map Designations The following categories and land use designations have been used in developing the Land Use Map, and are described more fully below: Residential Designations: [] Low Density: size) o Medium Density: size) o Medium Density: o High Density: R-I (SF) up to 4 d.u. per acre (i.e., 10,000 s.f. minimum lot R-II (SF) up to 8 d.u. per acre (i.e., 5,000 s.f. minimum lot R-III (MF) up to 16 d.u. per acre R-IV (MF) 17 - 24 d.u. per acre Mixed Use Designations: o Neighborhood-Serving Mixed Use Center C-VMU with moderate density multi- family o Community-Serving Mixed Use Center residential C-II/MU with high density multi-family residential Commercial Designations: o Neighborhood Commercial: o General Commercial: o Hospital Commercial: o Historic Commercial: o Regional Commercial: C-I C-II C-II(H) C-III C IV Marine-Related & Manufacturing Designations: o Mixed Light Manufacturing and Commercial M/C o Light Manufacturing: o Marine-Related Uses: o Marine-Related Uses: o Heavy Manufacturing: M-I M-IIA (Boat Haven) M-IIB (Point Hudson) M-III Section 4. Paf!.e IV-IO: C IV Regional Commereial: The purpose of this designatioH is to provide areas for diversified commercial activities ",¡hich serve a broader regioHal clientele. The uses generally attract traffic from a broader area than the general commercial desigHation, and are usaally larger in scale than in other commercial districts. This designation accommodates large seale retail stores, shopping centers, and specialty stores. The C IV designation has not been applied to areas ',vithiH the present City limits, although it be could be applied to portions of the Glen Cove area, if designated by Jefferson County vlÍthin Port Tovillsend's Final Urban Growth Area (fUG.^.). Marine-Related & Manufacturing Designations M/C - 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, 3 1 Maizefield Mantles, Edensaw Woods, etc.). Manufacturing to commercial floor area ratios are 2 necessary for this designation to ensure that certain uses do not dominate at the expense of others. 3 The M/C designation has been applied to areas south of Sims Way, and west of Thomas Street. 4 This district may also be appropriate for significant portions of the Glen CO'le area if a FUGA 5 larger than the present City limits is desigaatod. 6 7 M-I - Light Manufacturing: The M-I designation provides for light manufacturing, processing, 8 fabrication and assembly of products and materials, warehousing and storage, and transportation 9 facilities. The designation is appropriate for light manufacturing uses similar to those proposed 10 for the Port Townsend Business Park. No areas of town are currently proposed to receive this 11 designation.:...., although it may be appropriate for portions of the Glen Cove area if an expanded 12 Port Townsead FUG¡\ is approved. 13 14 Section 5. Faze IV-ll : 15 16 M-III -Heavy Manufacturing: The M-III designation accommodates heavy industrial activities 17 including processing, fabrication, assembling of products or materials, and bulk storage. This 18 designation has not been applied to any areas within the current City limits.:...., although it may be 19 appropriate for portions of the Glen CO'le area (c.g., the Port Townsend Paper Mill) should it be 20 designated as part of the City's FUGA. 21 22 Section 6. Faze IV-12: 23 24 CM-PUD - Commercial/Manufacturing: This overlay designation applies only in areas zoned 25 for commercial or manufacturing development (i.e., C-I, C-II, C-III, G-W, M/C, M-I, M-IIA, M- 26 IIB and M-III). The designation allows business and industrial park developments to vary from 27 the prescriptive standards of the zoning code. The designation is intended to promote innovative 28 and well designed commercial and light manufacturing developments which are supportive of the 29 City's economic development strategy. Standards for this type of PUD should allow variety in 30 terms of the mixture of commercial and manufacturing uses, patterned after the Port Townsend 31 Business Park PUD approved in 1993. The minimum acreage necessary for a CM-PUD should 32 be substantially larger than for either the R-PUD or MU-PUD designations (e.g., 10 acres). "" .:U 34 Section7. FafJe IV-14: 35 . . TABLE IV-I: LAND USE DESIGNATIONS - SUGGESTED USES, DENSITIES & BUILDING HEIGHTS* LAND USE LAND MINIMUM MAXIMUM BUILDING DESIGNATIONS USES ALLOWED DENSITY DENSITY HEIGHTS OR LOT (Feet) COVERAGE R-I Single-Family Not 4 Dwelling Units 30 Houses, Specified Per Duplexes, Acre; Maximum Triplexes Lot Coverage of & Fourplexes 35% 36 . 4 · · · TABLE IV-I: CONTINUED R-II Single-Family Not 8 Dwelling 30 Houses, Specified Units Per Duplexes, Acre Triplexes & Fourplexes R-III Single-Family Not Specified 16 Dwelling 35 Houses, Units Per Duplexes, Acre Triplexes & Fourplexes; Condos, Townhouses & Apartments R-IV Condos, 17 Dwelling 24 Dwelling 35 Townhouses Units Per Acre Units Per Acre & Apartments C-I/MU Upper Floor Not 2 Square Feet of Not Specified Residential & Specified Gross Floor Area Ground Per Floor I Square Foot of Neighborhood Lot Commercial C- II/MU Upper Floor Not 3 Square Feet of Not Specified Residential & Specified Gross Ground Floor Area Per Floor Community 1 Square Foot of Commercial Lot C-I Small Scale Not 1 Square Foot of 35 Neighborhood Specified Gross Floor Area Retail & Per Professional 3 Square Feet of Offices Lot C-II Medium Scale Not 1 Square Foot of 35 Auto Oriented Specified Gross Floor Area Commercial Uses Per 1 Square Foot of Lot C-II(H) Medical Clinics, Not I Square Foot of 35 Nursing Homes Specified Gross Floor Area Doctor's & Per Dentist's 1 Square Foot of Offices, & Lot Pharmacies 1 5 1 I TABLE IV-I: I CONTINUED C-III Upper Floor Not 3 Square Feet of 50, or as Residential, Specified Gross Specified by the Studios & Floor Area Per Port Townsend Offices; Ground I Square Foot of Urban Waterfront Floor Lot Plan General Retail G-IV Large Scale Auto Net Maximum Lot 4á Oriented Retailing; Specified Coverage of 90% Shopping Centers & Mini Malls LAND USE LAND MINIMUM MAXIMUM BUILDING DESIGNATIONS USES ALLOWED DENSITY DENSITY HEIGHTS OR LOT (Feet) COVERAGE M/C Small Scale Not 1 Square Foot of 35 Manufacturing Specified Gross Floor Area with Per Associated On-Site I Square Foot of Retailing Lot M-I Light Not I Square Foot of 35 Manufacturing, Specified Gross Floor Area Processing. Per Fabrication I Square Foot of & Assembly; Lot Warehousing & Storage M-II(A) Marine-Related Not I Square Foot of 35 Uses at Specified Gross Floor Area the Boat Haven Per I Square Foot of Lot M-II(B) Marine-Related Not I Square Foot of 35 Industrial Uses at Specified Gross Floor Area Point Hudson Per 1 Square Foot of Lot M-III Heavy Industrial Not 1 Square Foot of 35 Uses Specified Gross Floor Area & Bulk Storage Per 1 Square Foot of Lot 2 6 . e . · · · 1 TABLE IV-I: CONTINUED P/OS Existing City, Not Not Not Applicable County & Applicable Applicable State Owned Parks & Recreation Areas P/OS(A) Potential Not Not Not Applicable (Overlay Open Space & Applicable Applicable Designation) Trails Network; Residential & Passive Recreational Uses P/OS(B) Mixed Public Not I Square Foot of 35 Facility Specified Gross Floor Area & Passive per Recreation 4 Square Feet of Uses Lot P-I Schools, Libraries, Not Maximum Lot 50 & Specified Coverage of 45% Government Buildings R-PUD Single-Family & Not Varying - Depends Varying - Multi-Family Specified Upon Base Zoning Depending Residential Density Upon Surrounding Uses and Development Design MU-PUD Mixed Residential Not Varying - Depends Varying - & Specified Upon Base Zoning Depending Commercial Density Upon Surrounding Uses and Development Design CM-PUD Mixed Commercial Not Varying - Depends Varying - & Manufacturing Specified Upon Base Zoning Depending Density Upon Surrounding Uses and Development Design 2 3 4 5 6 * This table is intended only to provide infonnation and guidance in the preparation of revisions to the Zoning Code (i.e., Title 17 PTMC). 7 1 2 Section 8. Page IV-IS: TABLE IV-2: THE LAND USE MAP - ACREAGE WITHIN EACH LAND USE DESIGNA TION* LAND USE LAND AREA LAND AREA IN ACRES DESIGNATION IN ACRES Less Platted Rights of Way and Marinas R-I 775 541 R-II 2,196 1,531 R-III 249 173 R-IV 35 21 C-I/MU 19 14 C-II/MU 24 16 C-I 3 2 C-II 139 88 C-II(H) 17 11 C-III 44 23 C IV** {} {} MJC 84 69 M-Ill 0 0 M-II(A) Boat Haven 94 45 M-II(B) Point Hudson 24 12 M-IIIll 0 0 P/OS 611 479 P/OS(A)**.?I:. N/A N/A P/OS(B) 90 86 P-I 175 147 3 * Totals include lands within the Port Townsend City limits only. 4 ** These land use designations could be applied to portions of the Glen Cove area, if a FUGf1 5 larger than the Port Townsend City limits is designated. 6 **.'L This designation is intended only to depict, at a conceptual level, areas that could be 7 valuable if maintained as open spaces. Considerable work must be completed before the 8 boundaries of this conceptual overlay district can be detailed, and before specific steps can be 9 undertaken to implement the concept. Consequently, acreage totals are of marginal usefulness at 10 this point in time. 8 . . . 1 · 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 · 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 ^' ^' -'-' 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 · 50 Section 9. Page IV-20: 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 Grov,'+..h .L^.rea (FUG..^.). Section 10. Page IV-24: Commercial Lands Goal 8: To provide adequate commercial land to conveniently serve community needs while maintaining Port Townsend's small town atmosphere. Policy 8.1: Provide appropriately sized and located commercial areas to prevent reduce retail leakage, reduce vehicle trips out of town, enhance the tax base, and improve the livability of the community. PoliC)' 8.9: Cooperate viÌth Jefferson County to study the possibility of allovlÌng regional commercial uses, along with the primary light manufacturing and associated community serving commercial uses, in the unincorporated portion of the Port Townsend Final Urban Growth Area (FUGA). Policy 8...2...-W: Transfonn the Howard Street/Discovery Road Corridor into a vital, attractive local shopping and commercial services district. Prepare a corridor master plan for intensive commercial development of the area. The master plan should address: a. The size and location of proposed land uses; b. Targeted commercial uses and employment numbers; c. Proposed street improvements, including right-of-way acquisition and nonmotorized facilities; d. The location of open space and buffers; e. Identification of public improvements and costs needed to facilitate the planned development; and f. Design guidelines which clearly describe the development characteristics desired. Policy 8.1..!!..l-l-: As depicted on the Land Use Map, require a 50 to 100 foot open space buffer along Sims Way (i.e., S.R. 20) from the City limits to Howard Street, and Discovery Road from the City limits to 7th Street, to preserve the forest corridor, and to provide a visual buffer between the roadway and new residential, commercial, and manufacturing development. 8.10.1-l-h1- Limit access through the forest corridor buffer to platted street rights-of-way. 8.10.2!H Ensure that utilities to serve new development along the forest corridor are placed underground. 8.!!!d~ Preserve existing trees and vegetation along the forest corridor to the maximum extent possible. 8.10.4H-A- Require the planting of native species when necessary to enhance the buffer, and the replanting of native species to replace trees and vegetation removed during development. 9 1 2 8.10.51:--1-Æ Coordinate with Jefferson County to extend the open space buffer from the City limits south along S.R. 20 to Old Fort Townsend Road. the southerly extent of the potential unincorporated portion of the Port TO';msend FUGA. . .., .) 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 Section 11. Paf!.e IV-26: Manufacturing Lands Policy 9.7: If additional land is needed to accommodate manufacturing uses or provide capacity for project-ed ffiaÐufacturing growth in Port Tovlllsend, it should be located vlÍthin the unincorporat-ed portion of the Port Townsend Final Urban Growth Area (i.e., the Glen Cove area). Section 12. Paf!.e IV-30: Policy 13.4: Amend the Comprehensive Plan annually to incorporate the updated Capital Facilities & Utilities Element. 13.4.1 Process all proposed amendments to the Comprehensive Plan (including rezone applications) concurrent with the annual update of the Capital Facilities & Utilities Element. 13.4.2 Ensure that any proposed amendments to the Plan which affect the unincorporated lands adiacent to the City's portion of the Final Urban Growth Area (FUGA) are subject to separate public hearings before the Jefferson County and Port Townsend planning commissions. 13.4.3 Confoffi1 with the applicable provisions of the County-Wide Planning Policy during interlocal planning. . Section 13. Paf!.e IV-32: Fifl..ftl Port Townsend Urban Growth Area (FUGA) [Note: In conformance with the County-Wide Planning Policy for Jefferson County, the County and City are coordinating their planning efforts to collect and analyze data, and determine an appropriate FUGA boundary on an on-goin~ basis. Jefferson County is also reviewing the possibility of establishing other UGAs or limited areas of more intense rural development (LAMIRD) in Jefferson County. However. at the time of this writing, the city of Port Townsend does not support extending a UGA to encompass unincorporated lands adiacent to Port Townsend nor. does it support a stand-alone Glen Cove UGA. Additional analysis of the city's vacant lands inventory and growth proiections shall occur every 5-years beginning with the comprehensive plan update in 2002. At the time of this writing the city limits of Port Townsend constitute the city's UGA. additional information and analysis arenoeded to refino and modify tho conceptual FUGA boundary to ensure consistency with the planning goals and principles of the GMA, as \vell as recent decisions by the Growth Management Hearings Boards. It is anticipated that Port Townsend's FUGA boundary will be designated either at the time Jefferson County adopts its GMt. Comprehensive Plan, or in a subsequent amendment t-o that Plan. This process is likely to lead t-o the development of joint planning and management policies for the UGA. It is acknowledged that ultimate authority to enact an expanded FUG,A. boundary rests with the Jefferson County Board of Commissioners.] e 10 · · · 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 Goal 16: To promote the logical and efficient build-out and redevelopment of lands within the city. served with adequate urban public facilities and services. In planning growth over a 20 year period. the city should focus on developing lands within the existing city limits before seeking to expand the city's UGA into adjacent unincorporated areas. establish an expanded "community serving" final urban growth area (FUGA) 'shich is provided vÚth adequate urban public facilities and services. Policy 16.1: Consider using Jefferson County's existing light manufacturing and commercial (M/C) zoning boundary in the Glen Cove area as the boundary for the unincorporated portion of the FUGA. Policy 16.L~: Support the establishment of an unincorporated LAMIRD for the Glen Cove industrial area. Support current commercial and manufacturing enterprises in the Glen Cove area, and provide expanded opportunities for retailing and appropriate manufacturing, consistent with the broader community vision. 16.1.1.H Participate and support countv sub-area planning efforts in the Glen Cove area. Cooperate with Jeff-erson County to study the possibility of allowing up to two locations (i. e., approximately 20 total acres) for regional retail use v¡Íthin the unincorporated portion of the FUGL^" 16.1.2 .~ Encourage the establishment of Ensure that zoning designations within the Glen Cove industrial area the unincorporated portion of the FUGA to support diversified manufacturing and small businesses (e.g., small scale "clean" industry). Policy 16.2 ~: Support the County in limiting bim-it new residential and incompatible commercial uses within the unincorporated portion of the Glen Cove industrial area of the FUG}'.. (N-otc: Port Townsend has more than adequate land capacity to accommodate projected population gro·,vth over the 20 year planning period additional high density residential areas are unnecessary). Policy 16.3 .4: If the city acquires the PUD's public water system serving the Glen Cove area. the city should manage this system to promote industrial and accessory commercial uses in the Glen Cove industrial area (potential LAMIRD) and the city should discourage inappropriate urban type development in designated rural areas. Ensure that adequate public facilities and utilities are provided "",ithin the unincorporated portion of the FUGA. Implement the FUGf. policies contained within the Capital Facilities & Utilities Element ofthis Plan. Policy 16.4 Æ: Work with Jefferson County and the Jefferson Land Trust to designate open space and trail connections through the unincorporated portionâ of Jefferson County the FUGA (i.e., consistent with Chapter 36.70A.160 RCW). 16.5.1 Coordinate with Jefferson County to extend a 50 to 100 foot open space buffer along S.R. 20 from the City limits to Old Fort Townsend Road the southerly extent of the potential unincorporated portion of the Port Townsend FUGL^'. 11 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 Section 14. Paf!e VII-2: . Scope The scope of this plan primarily addresses land within the existing City limits, although some references to unincorporated Jefferson County policies for the potential future unincorporated portion of the Port Townsend Final Urban Gro...:th }~rca (FUGA) have been included. This plan element covers all public capital facilities of the City of Port Townsend, consistent with the County-Wide Planning Policy for Jefferson County (CWPP #4). This element also addresses essential public facilities. Section 15. Paf!e VII-5L: Policy 2.4: Identify and designate urban capital facility and utility growth tiers which are consistent with and support the growth and development patterns established in the Land Use Element. 2.4.1 Designate areas that are currently characterized by urban development and densities, which are provided with the full range of public facilities and utilities, as "Tier I" areas. 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. (N-otc: This would include the unincorporated portions of the final urban grov.th area (FUGA) if designated). 2.4.3 Designate all remaining areas as "Tier 3." . Section 16. Paf!c VII-B,9: Maior Industrial Developments/Limited Areas of More Intensiye Rural Deyelopment and Unincorporated Areas Served by the City Unincorporated Final Urban Growth Area (FUGA) "" jj 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 Goal 8: To ensure that adequate urban level public facilities and utilities are not inappropriately extended into rural areas pro'¡ided vÚthin the unincorporated portion of the FUGA. Policy 8.1: Cooperate with Jeff-crson County to develop "mirror image" plans, regulations and design standards for the unincorporated portion ofthe FUGA. Assure that levels of service fDr public facilities in the unincorporated portion of the FUGA are consistent with or identical to tlle Cit)~s level of service standards. Policy 8.2: Adopt interlocal agreements which ideRtif)' the appropriate pro>¡ider of public facilities and services within the unincorporated portion of the FUGA. Policy 8.3: Coordinate vlÍth Jefferson County and other appropriate agencies and entities to gradually phase the provision of facilities, services and utilities in the unincorporated portion of the FUG}~. Policy 8.1 --4-;- For Maior Industrial Developments (MIDs) requiring city services coordinate joint planning and permit review with Jefferson County. If necessary, establish joint planning and permit processing agreements with Jefferson County. e 12 1 · 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 · 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 · 50 51 Policy 8.5: Establish interlocal agreements '.vith Jefferson County regarding the provision of urban water, wastewater, stonnwatcr and transportation services to the unincorporated portions of the FUG!'.. Policy 8.~á-;- Cooperate with Jefferson County to contain urban growth within appropriately designat«d 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; ami c. Do not accommodate businesses and services that directly compete with uses within UGAs:-~ or d. Are approved Maior Industrial Developments (MIDs) or Limited Areas of More Intensive Rural Development (LAMIRDs). Section 17. Page VII-i5: Public Health & Safety Goal 18: To assure proper disposal of wastewater to protect ground and surface water supplies. Policy 18.1: Ensure that all existing and new development within the Port Townsend Fíflttl Urban Growth Area (FUGA) is supplied with adequate wastewater collection and treatment facilities. Section 18. Pa£e VII-i5: System Development & Management Goal 19: To efficiently develop and manage the City's wastewater collection and treatment system. Policy 19.1: Encourage infill development and the gradual, phased expansion within the Port Townsend Fíflttl Urban Growth Area (FUGA). Policy 19.6: Establish standards for wastewater collection and treatment facility design. 19.6.1 Design the wastewater collection system to convey the peak daily flow based upon a 20 or 50 year growth forecast and infiltration/inflow allowances. 19.6.2 Design treatment plants using a minimum ofa 20 year growth projection, with planned expansion capable of serving the 50 year growth projection of the Port Townsend Fíflttl Urban Growth Area (FUGA). Section 19. Pa£e VII-16: System Development Phasing Goal 20: To coordinate wastewater facility planning with land use, environmental, economic development, and growth management objectives. Policy 20.1: Tier wastewater system infrastructure improvements and service extensions in a manner consistent with Policy 2.5 of this element. 13 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 Policy 20.2: Do not extend the wastewater system into areas outside the Port Townsend Final Urban Growth Area (FUGA). . Section 20. Paf!e VII-72: IMPLEMENT A TION PROGRAMS Capital Facilities Projects I. Develop a concurrency management system. 2. Consider new revenue sources for capital facilities and implement as appropriate. 3. In future planning phases. if Port Townsend's Urban Growth Area is extended beyond the current city limits. then cooperate with Jefferson County to study the capital facilities needs of the potential unincorporated portion of the Port Townsend Final Urban Growth Area (FUGA). Ifa 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. Section 21. Paf!e VIII-7: Commercial & Manufacturing Zoning Goal 9: To provide an adequate amount of appropriately zoned land to support commercial and manufacturing development. . Policy 9.1: When revising the Port Townsend Municipal Code (PTMC) to implement this Plan, identify the types of commercial and manufacturing uses that are consistent with community values, estimate the demand for those types of uses, and scale the amount of commercial and manufacturing land available to projected demand and need. Policy 9.2: Cooperate with Jefferson County to ensure that high intensity commercial and nonresource- related industrial activities are concentrated within urban growth areas (UGAs) where adequate public facilities and services exist, or will be provided at the time of development. Policy 9.3 - Consistent with county-wide planning policy #7.4. establish. through an Inter-local Agreement with Jefferson County. a process for reviewing applications for Maior Industrial Developments (MID) as defined bv RCW 36.70A.365. Policy 9.-.13< Expand existing commercial and manufacturing zones only after assessing and mitigating adverse environmental impacts. Policy 9 d 4:- Encourage the infill of existing commercial and manufacturing zones before considering the expansion or creation of new zones. Policy 9 .-º-~: Provide effective separation of conflicting land uses through buffering, setbacks, zone uses allowed, and transition zones. e 14 · · · 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 Policy 9.L6: Achieve a greater balance between housing and employment opportunities. Policy 9 ~ 1: Assure that implementing regulations permit cottage industries within residential areas, consistent with the character of the surrounding neighborhood. Policy 9JL%: Promote development of planned office, business and industrial parks, while conserving unique physical features of the land and maintaining compatibility with other land uses in the surrounding area. Policy 9..uL9: Encourage neighborhood mixed use centers where small scale commercial development (e.g., professional services offices, restaurants, or retail stores) may occur in residential neighborhoods, consistent with the goals and policies of the Land Use Element of this Plan. Section 22. Page VIII-15.16: Commercial Historic District Revitalization Port Townsend's plan for revitalization of the Commercial Historic District identifies three important areas of involvement for City government. First, the City's plan should ensure the provision and maintenance of appropriate public improvements in the Commercial Historic District. The quality of the physical link between public and private spaces is crucial to the proper functioning of the Commercial Historic District- and its businesses. Public improvements should help create an inviting environment for shoppers, with clearly marked streets, convenient shopping places, well-lit sidewalks and good pathways between parking areas and stores. Public improvements should provide basic infrastructure and services in a manner that is visually compatible with the nature of the functions they support. In order to implement the Commercial Historic District revitalization policies of this element, the City should develop a comprehensive public improvements program which is tailored to the specific needs of the district while reinforcing private projects. Second, the City's plan should provide adequate parking and parking management to meet the needs of customers, merchants, employees, visitors and residents. It should be regulated to encourage turnover of customer spaces and to discourage abuse by long-term parkers. In order to ensure well designed, maintained and managed parking in the Commercial Historic District, the City should develop a parking management strategy. The parking management strategy should take into account not only the numbers and locations of parking spaces, but also methods of enforcement - the incentives and disincentives that can be used to encourage parking in certain areas. Finally, the City should provide assistance to the Main Street Program in strengthening the Commercial Historic District's existing economic base and gradually expanding it. The City, in conjunction with the Main Street Program, should work to enhance diverse resident and visitor- based commercial activities and community events in the downtown. Implementation: 15 1 1. In cooperation with the Main Street Program and merchants, develop a comprehensive · 2 public improvements program for the Commercial Historic District which is tailored to 3 the specific needs of the area while reinforcing private projects. The program should: 4 a. Help to develop public/private partnerships to improve the pedestrian 5 environment; 6 b. Promote the use of pedestrian visible signage in the Commercial Historic 7 District; and 8 c. Ensure that Commercial Historic District public improvements are adequately 9 maintained in order to create a pleasant environment. 10 11 2. In cooperation with the Main Street Program and merchants, develop a Commercial 12 Historic District parking management strategy. In developing the program the City 13 should: 14 a. Examine incentive based programs, coupled with education, to reverse resistance 15 to using more remote parking areas; and 16 b. Consider a variety of parking control alternatives, including: parking meters; 17 chalking tires; cash boxes; and parking pennits. 18 19 3. In conjunction with the Main Street Program, the City should work to strengthen the . 20 Commercial Historic District's existing economic base and gradually expand it. 21 Activities which should be pursued through the Main Street Program include: 22 a. Studying local market conditions, identifying areas of opportunity and 23 designating strategies to build on those opportunities; 24 b. Helping existing businesses find better ways to meet their customer's needs and 25 expand to meet market opportunities; 26 c. Recruit new businesses to complement the district's retail and service mix and · 27 boost overall market effectiveness; 28 d. Find new or better uses for under-used or vacant downtown buildings; and 29 e. Seminars and short courses offered to merchants regarding: customer 30 service/host training; understanding the market; diversifying the mix; and 31 window and retail display. 32 33 4. Coordinate with the Main Street Program to maintain an organizational structure which is 34 efficient and effective in promoting the Commercial Historic District. Activities which 35 should be pursued through the Main Street Program include: 36 a. Promoting events which enliven the Commercial Historic District; and 37 b. Maintaining an ongoing planning and action program involving the business 38 community of the Commercial Historic District. 39 40 5. Contract ',vith the Main Street Program to develop a "Retail Plan" to protect aad enhance 41 retailing in Port Townsend's Commercial Historic District. The plan should examine the 42 likely impacts of large scale regional commercial de'.'elopment in the Glen Co'.'e area on 43 Port Tovmsend's Commercial Hist{)ric District. ,.^.dditionally, the Plan should 44 recommend potential land use and zoning techniques which might be used t{) minimize 45 the adverse effects of regional commercial development on Commercial Historic District 46 retailers. 47 48 6. Develop a "Community Vitality Plan" to protect and enhance the local economy and the 49 inherent social value of locally owned businesses. The Community Vitality Plan shall 50 recommend techniques and legislation to strengthen local businesses and minimize · 16 1 . 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 . 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 . 50 51 Dotential adverse effects of new corporate businesses headquartered outside the community. Section 23. Page IX-i. 2: CONSISTENCY WITH THE 13 GMA GOALS Goal #1 - Urban Growth. Encourage development in urban areas where adequate public facilities and services exist or can be provided in an efficient manner. The Plan contemplates the potential designation of a final urban grov,'th area (FUGA) larger than the current City limits. The Plan proposes a "conceptual FUGA" for further revie\v and analysis that comprises approximately 600 acres of the Glen Cove area in unincorporated Jeff-crson 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 pro',oided at a "rural" 16';el of service, and development densities would be "rural" in character. The Chapter IV - "The Land Use Element" and the Future Land Use Map establish land use designations and densities sufficient to accommodate the population growth expected to occur over the next 20 years (i.e.., 5,510 additional residents by 2016). The Plan promotes higher density areas through the designation of Mixed Use Centers surrounded by distinct neighborhoods. The Plan encourages higher density retail, service businesses and multi-family residential development in areas where adequate transportation facilities, sewer, and water service already exist or are planned. Goal #2 - Reduce Sprawl. Reduce the inappropriate conversion of undeveloped land into sprawling, low density development. 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." The Plan designates mixed use centers surrounded by higher density residential areas at five key locations throughout town. The Plan also connects lands with development constraints (e.g., wetlands, drainage corridors, and steep slopes) with some of the City's remaining forested areas in an effort to create a City-wide system of interconnected open spaces and trails. One of the central objectives of the Plan is to attempt to retain the existing small town character of Port Townsend by encouraging new development in and around the mixed use centers, rather than dispersed widely throughout the City. Goal #5 - Economic Deyelopment. 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 public 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. 17 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 One of the major emphases of the Plan is to address the current "jobs/housing imbalance" in Port Townsend and provide more "family-wage" jobs. An Economic Development Element has been included (see Chapter VIII) within the Plan to facilitate economic growth and development consistent with community and environmental values. The Economic Development Strategy stresses the importance of promoting our local training and education capabilities, and encouraging specific sectors of the local economy including: marine trades; small business and diversified, environmentally friendly manufacturing; and sustainable, year-round tourism. The Strategy also seeks to revitalize Port Townsend's Commercial Historic District and upgrade the City's telecommunications infrastructure for the jobs oftomorrow. The overall goal of the Plan is to facilitate the provision of at least 2,700 more "family wage" jobs by the year 2016. · Goal #8 - Natural Resource Industries. Maintain and enhance natural resource-based industries, including productive timber, agricultural, and fisheries industries. Encourage the conservation of productive forest lands and productive agricultural lands, and discourage incompatible uses. Because of Port Townsend's status as an urban growth area under the GMA, no agricultural, mineral, or forest "lands oflong term commercial significance have been identified or designated within the City. Only a small portion of the City's current land base is currently devoted to agricultural or forestry industries (approximately 75 acres of the City's total land base are considered "current use agriculture," while fewer than 6 acres are considered "current use timberlands"). Very few areas within the City contain "prime" agricultural soils suitable for fanning. Consequently, the Plan directs that natural resource lands be protected through a combination of public and private initiatives ranging from open space tax incentives to voluntary conservation easements. The Plan allows and encourages agricultural uses in the least developed portions of town, and directs that lower density residential areas allow certain agricultural uses "outright." Chapter IV - "The Land Use Element," instructs the City to consider adopting a "right to farm" ordinance to protect agricultural uses in these areas. The Land Use Element also contains policies which would allow mineral resource extraction and timber harvesting within the City limits, subject to certain conditions. · ...... -'-' 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 Finally, the Plan recommends that the Port Townsend Paper Mill should be left outside of the City's potential future FUGA, and zoned for "resource-related" manufacturing uses. The Plan suggests that compatible light manufacturing and commercial uses be located in the area west of the Glen Cove Mill site, inside the potential unincorporated portion of the FUGA. Section 24. Page IX-6, 7: CONSISTENCY WITH THE COUNTY-WIDE PLANNING POLICY The GMA requires that counties planning under the Act adopt County-Wide Planning Policies in cooperation with the cities within the county. The County-Wide Planning Policy for Jefferson County (CWPP) was developed and adopted by Jefferson County and the City of Port Townsend in December of 1992. The CWPP is to be used as a framework for the Port Townsend and Jefferson County Comprehensive Plans, to ensure that the plans are consistent with each other. The policies also establish a foundation for determining consistency of individual plans with the requirements of the Growth Management Act, and provide direction to coordinate the provision of public facilities and services throughout the community. · 18 1 · 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 · 26 27 28 29 30 3] 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 · 50 51 The City of Port Townsend's Comprehensive Plan has been evaluated for consistency with the CWPP and is found to be substantially consistent with the policies. The following discussion briefly summarizes how the Comprehensive Plan elements arc consistent with the CWPP. Policy #1. Policy to Implement RCW 36. 70A.] 10 - 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 allocated to the City under the adopted population forecast (i.e., 5,510). ,^.lthough Port Townsend contains enough vacant residential land to accommodate the projected 20 year population increase and significant amounts of; a shortage ofland suitable for commercial and manufacturing development still exists within the City limits. During the 2002 5-year comprehensive plan update the city shall conduct a vacant lands inventory and review growth projections for commercial and manufacturing development. The city should seek to rezone land within the city limits before seeking to expand into unincorporated Jefferson County. Consequently, the Plan includes portions of the adjacent and unincorporated Glen Cove area within the City's conceptual final urban grov,rth area (FUGA.). Located immediately adjacent 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 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 service, and development densities would be "rural" in character. No undeveloped residential areas arc proposed for inclusion in the unincorporated portion ofthe FUGA. Instead, this portion of the proposed FUG,^. is intended to provide sufficient developable land for commercial and manufacturing uses to sustain a healthy local e·conomy. Policy #3. Policy on Joint County and City Planning within Urban Growth Areas. At the time of this writing. Port Townsend's city limits define the urban growth boundary. There is no unincorporated UGA within which to conduct joint planning with Jefferson County. However. if the City's UGA is expanded then the City and the County should engage in the joint planning and permitting activities outlined in county-wide planning policy #3. Planning for the potential unincorporated portion of the Port Tov.rnsend FUGA is still in its formati','e stages, and much work remains to be done. Howe'ler, the City's Plan does contain policies which specifically address the unincorporated portion of the FUGA. In particular, a policy subsection has been included 'within Chapter VII "The Capital Facilities & Utilities Element," which is intended to ensure that adequate public facilities and utilities will be provided within the unincorporated portion of the FUGA, if designated. This subsection establishes framework policies for joint planning and permit administration, including environmental review (i.e., SEPA) and decision making authority for unincorporated lands located within the Port Townsend FUGA. Policy #7. Policy on County-Wide Economic Development and Employment. The Port Townsend Comprehensive Plan includes an Economic Development Element (see Chapter VIII) with major areas of emphasis including: training/education: marine trades: diversified manufacturing and small "clean" business: sustainable year-round tourism. community retail. commercial historic district revitalization. and telecommunications 19 1 infrastructure that pays particular attention to the needs of nonservice sector businesses and 2 manufacturing. The Element is intended to create at least 2,700 "family wage" jobs within the 3 next 20 years. Specific sectors of the local economy v¡hich are encouraged by the Element 4 include: the Marine Trades; Diversified Manufacturing & Small Business; Community Retail; 5 and year round Tourism. 6 Chapter IV "The Land. Use Element," suggests that Port Tov,'Osend's FUGA should include 7 commercial and manufacturing zoned lands in the unincorporated Glen Cove area. When 8 provided with adequate public infrastructure, this area could provide sufficient land for the 9 commercial, retail, and manufacturing development needed in northeastern Jefferson County. 10 Becal:lse of Port Townsend's status as a UGA and regioßal service and retail center, it is 11 anticipated that the unincorporated portion of the FUGA '.';ill include some land zoned f-or larger 12 scale "regional" retail uses. 13 14 Policy #9. Policy on Fiscal Impact Analysis. 15 16 Fiscal impacts are addressed through Chapter VII - "The Capital Facilities & Utilities Element." 17 Chapter IV - "The Land Use Element," has been coordinated with the Capital Facilities & 18 Utilities and other elements of the Plan. The assessment includes projected revenues and 19 expenditures, and an analysis of the fiscal impacts of providing governmental services to 20 accommodate the projected population growth. 21 Numerous incentives and nonregulatory options (e.g., density bonuses, priority permit processing, 22 open space tax incentives, etc.) have been identified as alternatives to regulatory programs in the 23 implementation of Comprehensive Plan policy. 24 Finally, it is anticipated that Jefferson County and the City of Port Townsend have the option of 25 wi-ll--be developing interlocal agreements to address the issues of tax revenue sharing and the 26 provision of regional services if an unincorporated UGA is designated adiacentto Port Townsend 27 and if annexation occurs in this area within the potential unincorporated portions of the Port 28 To\vnsend FUGA. 29 30 Policy #10. Policy on Use, Monitoring, Review and Amendment. 31 32 The County-Wide Planning Policy for Jefferson County has been used consistently in the 33 development of the Port Townsend Comprehensive Plan. Additionally, the Joint Growth 34 Management Committee has served as the regional oversight body during the development of the 35 Comprehensive Plan.:...., and has reviewed and provided advisory recommendations on the shape 36 and substance of Port Townsend's proposed FUGA. 20 . . .