Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout01312002 Min Packet . i -6/ pauLe t City of Port Townsend Department of Building and Community Development Waterman-Katz Building 181 Quincy Street, Suite 301, Port Townsend. WA 98368 (360) 379-5081 FAX (360) 385-7675 . '. 2002 GMA Update - Joint Workshop with the City Council Revisions to BCD Staff presentation: A. Purpose B. GMA Updates - What is Required? a. Five Year Update (2002) b. Ten Year Update (2008) c. Has the State Identified Key Areas To Focus On? C. Brief Overview of the Port Townsend Comprehensive Plan - a. Who Created the Comprehensive Plan? (Video) b. What Were the Reoccurring Themes? (Video) c. How is the Plan Implemented? D. Annual Update Process a. What Criteria Do We Use to Monitor the Plan? b. How Long Does the Process Take? c. What Amendments Have Been Approved to Date? E. Timelines Does the State Timeline Dovetail with Ours? F. Suggestions to Proceed a. Staff Recommendation b. Items for consideration: i. Should We Limit the Docket (i.e., not accept suggested/formal amendments)? ii. Should We Amend Annual Update Process! Timelines? iii. Should We Inject More Public Participation? Attachments: 1. RCW 36.70A.130 2. Five-Year Update, Key Areas 3. Implementing the PT Comprehensive Plan 4. Overview of Annual Comprehensive Plan Update Process 5. Amendments to the Comprehensive Plan 6. Suggested Planning Commission W orkplan . . . DRAFT PLANNING COMMISSION AND CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PORT TOWNSEND MINUTES OF THE JOINT WORKSHOP MEETING JANUARY 31, 2002 City of Pert Towí1Hnd RECEIVED FE B - 4 2002 CALL TO ORDER o 'II~ (' . ,{¡u~¡~mQ & t..è~mllmty O~welopmenf The Planning Commission and the City Council of the City of Port Townsend met in joint workshop session this thirty-first day of January, 2002, at 7:10 p.m. in the Port Townsend Council Chambers of City Hall, Acting Planning Commission Chair Jerry Spieckerman presiding. ROLL CALL Planning Commission members present were Bernie Arthur, Lyn Hersey, Jim Irvin, and Jerry Spieckerman. Frank Benskin was also present. Mr. Benskin's term expired on December 31 and he has applied for reappointment but official action on Planning Commission appointments has not been taken. Because no action will be taken at the meeting, Mr. Benskin was asked to participate for purposes of continuity as a former member, although he is not an official member of the Commission. City Council members present were Frieda Fenn, Kees Kolff, Geoff Masci, Catharine Robinson, and Michelle Sandoval. Mr. Finnie and Mr. Youse were excused. CHANGE TO AGENDA Mr. Spieckerman noted that Mayor Kolffrequested the addition of an item to the agenda. That item is discussion of the possible expansion of the number of members on the Planning Commission. 2002 GMA UPDATE Senior Planner Judy Surber presented an overview of the Growth Management Act requirements for updating the Comprehensive Plan. As part of the presentation, she showed a video tape prepared as part of the 1996 Comprehensive Plan process. Ms. Surber noted that staff has suggested that the process focus on implementation of the plan rather than a "rewrite." She noted that implementation is in process for many key plans, including the Critical Areas Ordinance and the Shoreline Master Plan. Several handouts were provided, including a suggested schedule of meetings and Comprehensive Plan elements which might be addressed during the scheduled meetings. She also suggested that the Planning Commission consider limiting the docketing of annual amendments in 2002 and only accept those which are urgent or which are related to GMA. \.. Planning Commission/City Council Workshop Page 1 January 31, 2002 ". . Shetequested input on the time line, docketing, and methods for providing adequate public process. Mr. Randall asked if the regularly scheduled February 14 meeting could be scheduled on February 13 instead. There was consensus to change that meeting date. Mayor Kolff then stated he has just returned from a legislative conference in Olympia where he found that cities are asking for a two-year extension for completion of the mandated five-year Comprehensive Plan reviews. Bills have been proposed addressing this matter which would extend the deadline to September 2004. Part of the rationale for this movement is the lack of funding many cities have suffered because of various new tax cut initiatives. He stated that the preliminary indication from legislators is that the Bills have a good chance of passing. He then challenged the Planning Commission and staff to consider stretching the five-year update process. PLANNING COMMISSION EXPANSION . Mayor Kolff noted he has proposed increasing the number of representatives to the Planning Commission from 7 to 9 members. He noted that this would enable a greater variety of Commissioners with the potential for increased representation of citizens who have some historical involvement with the Comprehensive Plan and the opportunity for more women to participate. The recruitment notices have asked that applications be submitted by January 31 and he added that he and Mr. Spieckerman are ready to begin interviewing candidates on Monday afternoon (February 4). Appointments to fill the three existing vacancies may be proposed as quickly as the next council meeting on Feb. 4. Public Comment: Larry Crockett stated that the Port is starting their comprehensive scheme process which will take approximately eight months. Selection of a consultant will be done in March and he added that BCD Director Jeff Randall and County Planning Director AI Scalf will be an integral part of this process which will establish a 20 year plan for the Port. Vanessa Brower of Common Ground, an affordable housing intermediary organization, expressed the desire to have an opportunity for public participation regarding service providers as part of the Housing Element of the Comprehensive Plan. She stated that workshops will be scheduled to educate board members and staff on the relationship between service providers and the provision of affordable housing for the community. Nancy Dorgan stated that the state appears to be providing a sliding scale of extensions which may benefit and provide a bonus to more recalcitrant counties. She urged the Commission and Council not to delay the process unless it is really necessary; she stated that the city must tackle a huge list of implementations. She said that GMA was initially the result of a citizen initiative and therefore is a mandate imposed by citizens rather than legislators. She expressed her unhappiness about the last amendment cycle, particularly in regard to the amendment proposed by People for a Liveable , e \" Planning Commission/City Council Workshop Page 2 January 31,2002 . Community. She asked that proposed aIIlendments be thoroughly formulated and not presented as tentative thoughts so that public process can be more lengthy and thorough. Bob Sokol discussed the original Comprehensive Plan process during which he was a City Council member. He noted that the seven Council members chaired committees for the six elements of the plan, with the seventh member in charge of a "string and glue" committee who provided minutes and tracking of the various meetings and actions. Each committee also included a planning commissioner, a staff member, and several citizens. He asked whether the increase in number of Planning Commission members has already been approved by the Council. He also commented that addressing two or three elements of the plan at a single meeting is really loading up the process. He also inquired about what the process is for a citizen who wishes to come forward with ideas about general land use, economic development, housing, etc. He noted that the presentation looked as though it is a staff drive process from the top down rather than from the community up. Mr. Spieckerman clarified that there are three current vacancies on the Planning Commission that must be filled and that was the purpose of the advertising. The decision to expand the Commission has not yet been made by the Council. . Mr. Randall replied that the meeting date outline was basically the schedule the Planning Commission would use to go through the Comp Plan elements as part of their annual assessment cycle and that there could also be workshops or public meetings in addition. The meetings could result in the Commission or staff suggesting that certain items be addressed. The City Code provides for public notice which will go out shortly in the newspaper of record which will announce how citizens may submit suggested or formally amendments. He stated that unless the municipal code is changed that process will remain the same. Discussion of expansion of the Planning Commission Ms. Hersey stated that she was uncomfortable with the issue being brought to the agenda tonight without public notice. She added that she believes more public input is necessary before the decision is made; she noted that putting the issue on the agenda one night and deciding the same night without opportunity for public comment is unfair. She proposed that the issue be docketed for the next Planning Commission meeting. Mr. Spieckerman noted that the expansion of the Commission is actually the prerogative of the City Council but that the Council has asked the Planning Commissioners for their input on the subject. Ms. Hersey stated that the Planning Commission met frequently during the last annual amendment cycle and said that every time you add a person you add an extension to the discussion. Because the Commission was short a member during most of the year, the new members will actually be three more people and getting through the discussions will take a significant additional amount of time. She suggested that instead of adding Planning Commissioners, workshops be scheduled with past Planning Commissioners to gain some insight from their perspective. , . \, Planning Commission/City Council Workshop Page 3 January 31,2002 . . . Bernie Arthur stated that he understands the Council can decide the number of Planning Commission members and suggested that the idea behind that is that the Commission would be more objective if there were more people involved. He believes that speaks to open mindedness. He added that from his experience on the Shoreline Commission and the Planning Commission, in order for staff to keep up with all guidelines, time lines, and demands of the public, much of the information provided is put together by the staff and others and printed for the packets ahead of time. He prefers the idea of listening to public input and then formulating the ideas and putting them down on paper. He stated that more important than the number of people on the Commission is the need to hear from the public as far ahead of the actual decision making as possible. He said that currently he gets piles of paper in the mail with postage costs and that these costs will go up as more people are added to the Commission. The proposals are changed after every meeting and produced again thereby spending much of the city's funds that are hard to come by. He questioned whether the goal of additional Commissioners is that there may be private agendas and a wish to load the Commission with those who have different ideas from the sitting Commissioners. He noted that he would like to think he is more open minded that that and can listen and decide and not be influenced by just a small segment of vocal people. He suggested strongly that the Council not increase the size of the Commission, noting they are already three people short and therefore filling those appointments would provide an opportunity for more women or a broader representation of various opinion groups. He hopes the Planning Commission is considered a fair and open-minded body. He also stated that the Council makes the decisions in the end and many decisions have been reversed. He stated that more members would create a greater financial burden on the city and may impact the amount of time for public input at meetings. Frank Benskin stated that having a workable Planning Commission is extremely important and that the more people you add to any situation, the more difficult it is to have a conversation that is limited enough to address all the agenda items coming before the group. He believes a smaller, more efficient body would facilitate the Comprehensive Plan review this year in a better way rather than slowing down the work by incorporating more members. Jim Irvin stated he would be very much opposed to "dividing and conquering" - in other words dividing the members into subcommittees does not seem practical. Everyone needs to work on the same material and from his experience if you get more than five or seven people in a group it is difficult to come to a decent decision. He noted the current members have worked together and worked well together; if they get three new people to bring up to speed in a tough year anyway, there will be a period of struggle. Michelle Sandoval noted she has been a County Planning Commissioner for six years on a Commission with nine members. She stated that democracy is messy and always has been. Her opinion is that the more people you have, the more ideas you have; much depends on the function of people and their personalities and how they are able to function together. She added that the most important aspect is to have your eyes on the goal and know what your purpose is. She agreed that there should be considerable public participation and added that the calendar as presented by the staff does seem quite ambitious. She suggested scheduling at least two meetings for each plan element. She stated support for the idea of not accepting site specific amendments that are \, Planning Commission/City Council Workshop Page 4 January 31,2002 . . . - unrelated to the Comprehensive Plan review itself. She added her wish to focus on the parts of the Plan that have not been implemented. Mr. Masci then questioned why the issue was being discussed since no action has been taken by the City Councilor the Planning Commission requesting expansion of the Planning Commission. He stated that he believes the public process has been accelerated. He noted that the idea was mentioned at the Council retreat where he was vehement in opposition and suggested a parallel citizen advisory board would be adequate to address citizen input. He added that a fully written ordinance is included in Council packets for the upcoming meeting on Monday and he does not remember any directive from the council regarding that. He asked that if some members of the Council feel this is important, notice to other member should have been provided. He added that from the comments made tonight it does not appear that members of the Planning Commission are particularly interested in expansion. He asked who benefits, why now and why is this needed. He added that the expansion of the Commission would have a financial impact on the city as well. Ms. Fenn replied that her motivation for desiring the expansion is not based on trying to change the majority opinion but to expand the talent, participation and experience and spread out the workload. She stated there is an arduous schedule of meetings and some will have personal reasons to not be in attendance at times so it is important that a quorum be present for each meeting. She added that she would like to see the Planning Commission consider some other work this year in addition to the Comp Plan update; she thinks it is a positive thing to include more people and thinks that it will lead to a lively exchange of ideas. Ms. Sandoval asked if data from GIS and the census will be available ahead of time so that it can be ingested prior to and during the update process. Mr. Randall replied that projections will be coming forward probably in March and that staff needs to work with the County on changing the population numbers and determining trends. Ms. Robinson posed a process question to the City Attorney regarding the addition of the expansion question to the agenda without proper notice as was done tonight. Mr. Watts noted that tonight's meeting was noticed as a workshop and the item was added at Mayor Kolff's request to Mr. Spieckerman so that comment could be received from Planning Commission members on the proposal. Ms. Robinson noted that there has been some discussion of the matter but it was not sufficiently formalized to be placed on the agenda in advance. Mr. Watts confirmed that it was discussed briefly at the retreat and then further at a work session in mid-January. At that time Councilors commented that it would be useful or beneficial to get input from Planning Commission members. There was no specific vote taken to refer this to a regular meeting of the Planning Commission but the idea was raised informally at the City Council level. Mayor Kolff stated that discussion has not been finished by the City Council nor has public process been terminated. He added that the item is on the City Council agenda for this coming \" Planning Commission/City Council Workshop Page 5 January 31, 2002 . . . Monday and public comment will be taken at that time. He stated that tonight's discussion is a small part of the process. In answer to a question from Ms. Robinson, Mr. Watts stated that in terms of the "three touch" rule, the initial discussion at the retreat and the subsequent informal discussion at the council meeting could be considered as "touches". Bob Sokol was recognized for a public comment. He reiterated the original Comprehensive Plan process and stated that it was a concurrent rather than a linear process, with the various committees meeting and working concurrently and then blending the outcomes together near the end of the process. Scott Walker also spoke as a member of one of the original Comp Plan advisory groups. He stated his admiration for the process and said that it might slow things down but would provide for more ownership by the public. He added that the Non-Motorized Transportation Advisory Board would love to have input into this year's process. RECESS Mr. Spieckerman declared a recess for purposes of a break at 9:05 p.m. RECONVENE The meeting was reconvened at 9:10 p.m. Mr. Spieckerman made comments on the proposed process, stating his concern that it doesn't consider any other activities of the Planning Commission. He added he wants to make sure there is sufficient public input on whatever process is used and that has not really been outlined. He is hearing tonight that the previous process worked well and said that public involvement is something he admires most about the city and would like to see that worked out in a more detailed plan. He stated it is evident there can be some forgiveness from the state if a work plan is submitted; that would get the City more relief on the time line and he stated that we should look in that direction, come up with a work plan and develop one that will look at the priorities of developing programs for this year. He suggested meeting with staff, a Council member and a Planning Commission representative to work out a detailed program and look at everything that will be on the table during the year. Mr. Arthur stated that the initial package received has a lot of information and he finds it interesting that we want to attempt to predict the next five years when we didn't predict the previous five years very well. He stated that if the Comprehensive Plan was taken page by page, eliminating items that are not of concern and discussing the items that are of concern to individual members of the public, it might be effective. He listed several proposals that have not been implemented, for example urban mixed use centers, economic stimulation, and others that have not been supported by the investment community. He added he is more interested in updating a real plan that is going to mean something to important issues like low and medium income housing and family wage jobs. He added that the goals and policies of the plan all sounded and still sound wonderful but things haven't gotten any better for the people who were supposed to benefit. He \, Planning Commission/City Council Workshop Page 6 January 31,2002 . . . stated that we should go through the plan and remove the thfu.gs we are not going to do anything about instead of just playing with the state and making it look good. He said the plan is not helping the people who need the help and if we really want to do something for people who live here and are starting families or have invested 40 or 50 years in the town, we should do it but if we are just going to fill up pages and pages of documents about what we would love to do or how we feel about things, that is not responsible government and is certainly not responsible to the citizens of the community who depend upon us to come up with laws that allow them to build a house or open a business or find a place to live or get a job. Drawing up plans and ideas and thoughts that look good in textbooks is not important; making the policies and goals work is important and plans only work if they are supported with funding. He added that there is no point addressing concerns that are not affordable or don't have community support; it is necessary to make good responsible changes for the people who need help. Mr. Spieckerman added that he would like to do more work within the Planning Commission and not rely so much on the staff. He suggested the need for more time for assessment. Ms. Sandoval agreed there should be an emphasis on implementing selected parts of the plan; action must be taken for the goals to be met. Mayor Kolff agreed, and stated a good example is the affordable housing section which contains a ton of good ideas which no one has looked at in the last few years to figure out how to implement the good ideas. He cited the cottage housing ordinance which was picked by chance and not part of an implementation plan. He added that the real question being faced is whether or not we think it is worth taking the time to go through all elements of the plan by committee per Mr. Sokol and Mr. Walker's suggestion and not worry about meeting a tight time frame. Some components may take three or four months and some may take eight months. He stated we should do it right and get baseline data so that five years from now we can document the implementation of the chosen goals. Without data, there is only individual anecdotal evidence. He said we need a systematic way to look at what we are doing. One question is whether we want to have Planning Commission go through the plan sequentially or divvy it up so we can get more citizen involvement and have a number of things going on at the same time. Ms. Fenn stated she agrees with Mr. Sokol that imitating the initial process would serve the community well. The process could be set up to review each element listed on the time line with one Planning Commission member to shepherd review of each element. She has spoken in advance with Leader Editor Scott Wilson about the newspapers involvement in printing summations of specific elements in advance of the discussion meetings with accompanying encouragement for citizens to attend. She stated that in general she feels that general comments should be encouraged although too much input may overburden to staff. She added she is unresolved about specific feedback and how it would related to a running list of proposed changes. She stated she would like this process to be a motivator for the community as well as meeting the requirements of the review process. She proposed that a committee be created to focus on the baseline study. Ms. Robinson stated she has already been thinking along the lines of having committees organized within the community. \, Planning Commission/City Council Workshop Page 7 January 31,2002 . . . Mr. Randall stated that perhaps suggested amendments be more foèused. He said it is important to remember the City has a process in place; the code says we need to provide public notice of what the amendment process is and what the deadlines are and we need to proceed with that notice. He suggested that informal amendments may be allowed in addition to the state mandates regarding required review. The money provided for consultants is very limited, no where near the budget which was provided for the original writing of the Comprehensive Plan. The many committees did all require a huge amount of staff commitment. He added that this is not a one-time opportunity; he suggested we start proceeding with the process specified in the municipal code, use the annual assessment process to look at the things in the Plan that don't make sense and draft language or use a consultant to address the necessary state mandates, then look at a laundry list of implementations . and start prioritizing those. Ms. Surber added that perhaps the subcommittee structure would be useful forlooking at prioritization of the implementation strategies and have Planning Commission continue on with their usual process. Ms. Hersey noted that the City has many advisory groups already in place who have demonstrated their commitment, are familiar with issues, and could step in and assist. Ms. Robinson asked about the procedure which would occur if we didn't do the annual amendment process. Mr. Randall replied that an ordinance and public hearing would be required and that the ordinance would state what would take the place of the annual process and what it will accomplish. Ms. Sandoval stated she would love to see Planning Commission or subcommittees or a task force look at each element, not line by line, but in terms of goals and policies, and compare them to programmatic actions, to see what goals are needed because they are critical and to make note of the goals that have been accomplished. Perhaps a citizen group could be established apart from the Planning Commission to deal with the four state mandated elements. She suggested that staff and representatives from Planning Commission and City Council meet and try to come up with another proposal and plan to bring back to the whole group. Ms. Sandoval and Mr. Spieckerman agreed to meet with staff for that purpose. Ms. Fenn noted that although Mr. Finnie could not attend the meeting, he asked that his strong desire to see site specific amendments addressed this year be noted. Ms. Hersey asked if there would be new Planning Commission members at the next regular meeting. Mayor Kolff replied in the affIrmative. . " Planning Commission/City Council Workshop Page 8 January 31,2002 . . . ADJOURN There being no further discussion the meeting was adjourned at 10:02 p.m. Attest: Pamela Kolacy, CMC City Clerk \, Planning Commission/City Council Workshop Page 9 January 31,2002 . . . Page 1 of2 RCW 36. 70A.130 Comprehensive plans Review -- Amendments. (1) Each comprehensive land use plan and development regulations shall be subject to continuing review and evaluation by the county or city that adopted them. Not later than September 1, 2002, and at least every five years thereafter, a county or city shall take action to review and, if needed, revise its comprehensive land use plan and development regulations to ensure that the plan and regulations are complying with the requirements of this chapter. The review and evaluation required by this subsection may be combined with the review required by subsection (3) of this section. Any amendment or revision to a comprehensive land use plan shall conform to this chapter, and any change to development regulations shall be consistent with and implement the comprehensive plan. (2) (a) Each county and city shall establish and broadly disseminate to the public a public participation program identifying procedures whereby proposed amendments or revisions of the comprehensive plan are considered by the governing body of the county or city no more frequently than once every year except that amendments may be considered more frequently under the following circumstances: (i) The initial adoption of a subarea plan; (ii) The adoption or amendment of a shoreline master program under the procedures set forth in chapter 90.58 RCW; and (iii) The amendment of the capital facilities element of a comprehensive plan that occurs concurrently with the adoption or amendment of a county or city budget. (b) Except as otherwise provided in (a) of this subsection, all proposals shall be considered by the governing body concurrently so the cumulative effect of the various proposals can be ascertained. However, after appropriate public participation a county or city may adopt amendments or revisions to its comprehensive plan that conform with this chapter whenever an emergency exists or to resolve an appeal of a comprehensive plan filed with a growth management hearings board or with the court. (3) Each county that designates urban growth areas under RCW 36.70A.II0 shall review, at least every ten years, its designated urban growth area or areas, and the densities permitted within both the incorporated and unincorporated portions of each urban growth area. In conjunction with this review by the county, each city located within an urban growth area shall review the densities permitted within its boundaries, and the extent to which the urban growth occurring within the county has located within each city and A TT ACHMENT 1 http://search.1eg....NiewHtml.asp?Action=Html&Item=O&X= 130 151239&p= 1 &X= 13015124 1/30/02 Page 2 of2 the unincorporated portions of the urban growth areas. The county comprehensive plan designating urban growth areas, and the densities permitted in the urban growth areas by the comprehensive .- plans of the county and each city located within the urban growth areas, shall be revised to accommodate the urban growth projected to occur in the county for the succeeding twenty-year period. The review required by this subsection may be combined with the review and evaluation required by RCW 36.70A.215. [1997 c 429 § 10; 1995 c 347 § 106; 1990 1st ex.s. c 17 § 13.] NOTES: Prospective application -- 1997 c 429 §§ 1-21: See note following RCW 36.70A.3201. Severability -- 1997 c 429: See note following RCW 36.70A.3201. Finding -- Severability -- Part headings and table of contents not law -- 1995 c 347: See notes following RCW 36.70A.470. RCW 36.70A.130(2) does not apply to master planned locations in industrial land banks: RCW 36.70A.367(4). . . http://search.leg....NiewHtml.asp?Action=Html&Item=O&X= 130 151239&p= l&X= 130 15124 1/30/02 - . . . City of Port Townsend Department of Building and Community Development Waterman-Katz Building 181 Quincy Street, Suite 301, Port Townsend, W A 98368 (360) 379-5081 FAX (360) 385-7675 Five-Year Update Key Areas of Focus Critical Areas and Best Available Science · Do you have policies in your comprehensive plan for identifying and protecting critical areas? · Do your development regulations protect critical areas? · Have you reviewed your critical areas ordinances to see if they incorporate the best available science and special consideration for anadromous fisheries as required by RCW 36.70A.172? · Did you identitY sources of best available science used to develop your critical areas regulations? (This should be included in the record compiled during the adoption of your ordinance. ) · Does your comprehensive plan have policies that give guidance to your critical areas regulations and are those poliCies based on best available science? Update Shoreline Master Programs · Have you reviewed your shoreline master program for consistency with the other elements of your comprehensive plan and with your development regulations? · Are your "shoreline environment designations" consistent with your zoning? · Have you made any revisions to your Shoreline Master Program using the new shoreline guidelines if applicable? Housing · Do your county-wide planning policies and your plan have targets or objectives for providing affordable housing suited to the various income levels of people who live or work in your community? · What strategy and mechanisms do you have for achieving these targets? · How has your plan and development regulations provided for group homes, foster care facilities, accessory dwelling units, and manufactured housing in accordance with the GMA, Washington Laws Against Discrimination (RCW 49.60.222-225), and the Federal Fair Housing Act as amended (42 use 3602 et seq)? · Does your plan include a housing inventory and analysis of future needs? Transportation · Have you worked with your regional transportation planning organization to designate levels of service on highways that are not of statewide significance? · Have you incorporated the levels of service set by Washington State Department of Transportation for highways of statewide significance and eliminated these highways from your concurrency management system? A TT ACHMENT 2 · Does your plan include an inventory of state transportation facilities in your jurisdiction's area? · Have you estimated the traffic impacts to state-owned facilities resulting ITom your land use assumptions? . Essential Public Facilities · Have you adopted a process for siting "secure community transition facilities" consistent with the statutory requirements and rules applicable to these facilities? · Have you adopted a process in your policies and regulations for the identification and siting of transportation facilities of statewide or regional significance? · Do your plans and regulations provide for the identification and siting of essential public facilities? Capital Facilities · Has your concurrency ordinance or other mechanisms been effective in providing public facilities and services concurrent with development? · Does your plan identify lands useful for public purposes? (Note: Per 36.70A.130(iii) Exemptions ITom annual update process includes. .."the amendment of the capital facilities element of a comprehensive plan that occurs concurrently with the adoption or amendment of a county or city budget.") Integrating Environmental Review with the Permit Process Have you adopted regulations that integrate your environmental review process with your permit process? Public Participation · Has your jurisdiction established and distributed information on methods for citizens to participate in the land use planning and permit process? . . /. " IMPLEMENTING THE PORT TOWNSEND COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Key Programmatic Actions & Capital Improvements . LAND USE ELEMENT Programmatic Actions: 1. Revise the Zoning Code to conform with and implement the Plan 2. Revise the Subdivision Code to conform with and implement the Plan 3. Develop design guidelines for mixed use and multi-family development 4. Establish Urban Growth Tiers to help direct the timing and location of capital improvements 5. Work with Jefferson County to successful1y designate a "community-serving" UGA in Glen Cove 6. Develop and adopt a Comprehensive Open Spaces and Trails Plan and Implementation Program 7. 8. 9. . 10. 11. Develop and adopt a Comprehensive Parks and Recreation Plan and Implementation Strategy Adopt and implement the Storm water Management Manual for the Puget Sound Basin Prepare a corridor master plan for the Howard StreetlDiscovery Road commercial area Review, recommend revisions if necessary, and approve the Point Hudson Master Plan Seek funding to revise and update the City's historic survey: a. Identify and invèntory historic structures and sites; and b. Integrate the historic sites and structures inventory into the City's permit data base. 12. Develop and implement an Historic Preservation Element in a future Plan amendment 13. Review and eliminate inconsistencies between the Urban Waterfront Plan and the Shoreline Master Program 14. Adopt the Shoreline Master Program as a Shoreline Management Element in a future amendment to the Plan Capita/Improvements: 15. Acquire and develop public open space and trails within the financial capabilities and LOS standards of the Capital Facilities & Utilities Element 16. Acquire and develop public park and recreational lands to serve the future population of the City COMPREHENSIVE PLAN IMPLEMENTATION I DEPARTMENT HEADS MEETING OCTOBER 22, 1996 . A TT ACHMENT 3 HOUSING ELEMENT Programmatic Actions: 1. Develop and maintain an inventory of surplus public lands that may be suitable to nonprofit housing providers for affordable housing 2. Assist the Jefferson County Housing Authority and the Community Action Council in the development of a minor home repair program, fuitded through State administered block grant funds~ òr the State Housing Assistance Program 3. Identify neighborhoods and areas of the City most in need of rehabilitation assistance and infrastructure improvements - coordinate public investments in infrastructure with rehabilitation efforts 4. Work with Jefferson County to develop a "fair share" distribution strategy for low income and special needs hòusing 5. Adopt a memorandum of understanding establishing a formal relationship and supporting the mission of the Jèfferson County Housing Authority 6. Seek ongoing funding for affordable housing projects and educational programs Capital Improvements: 7. Provide adequate basic infrastructure to areas designated for multi-family housing development COMPREHENSIVE PLAN IMPLEMENTATION 2 DEPARTMENT HEADS MEETING OCTOBER 22,1996 · · · . . . TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT Progrllmnultic Actions: , 1. Develop and adopt a Transportation Demand Management Program and Implementing Strategy (TDM) that creates incentives for the use of alternative transportation modes (e.g., transit, bicycling, walking, etc.) 2. Prepare a TDM ordinance as part. of the City's concurrency management system 3. Develop and adopt new street development standards, including criteria that allow for consistent and predictable review of street development applications 4. Establish a street use permit system that allows the private use of public rights-of-way 5. Establish and maintain a joint City/County program to review and resolve inteIjurisdictional transportation issues affecting Port Townsend's UGA 6. Review and comment on all major land developments in Jefferson County that may affect the regional transportation system serving the City 7. Adopt the Draft Arterial Street Plan, except for those recommendations relating to the City's northwest quadrant 8. Complete a public involvement process and study that reviews a range of collector/arterial options and recommends future road alignments for the area lying north of Hastings Avenue and west of San Juan Avenue 9. Develop recommendations regarding tree and vegetation retention and management within City rights-of-way 10. . Adopt and implement the Draft Comprehensive Nonmotorized Plan to guide development of bicycle and pedestrian improvements 11. Adopt design and maintenance standards for nonmotorized improvements 11. Develop policies that address conditions warranting illumination of street crossings 12. Pursue limited improvement districts (LIDs) or business improvement districts (BIDs) to provide adequate nonmotorized facilities 13. Prepare a "safest route to school" map to assure that safety and accident prevention for pedestrian and bicycle travel to school receives the highest consideration 14. Develop an educational program that promotes awareness of the "safest route to school" COMPREHENSIVE PLAN IMPLEMENTATION DEPARTMENT HEADS MEETING OCTOBER 22,1996 3 15. Establish design and construction standards for pedestrian walkways 16. Petition the WSDOT Ferries Division to study alternatives relating to parking needs for short- term and long-term ferry and vehicle queuing operations ' · 17. Promote the use of the Park-and-Ride facility 18. Develop and adopt reduced parking requirements to encourage new development and the adaptive reuse of historic structures, limit the construction of new impervious smaces, and provide for parking needs (i.e., repeal and replace Chapter 17.30 PTMC) 19. Develop a Parking Management Plan that encourages short-term and discourages long-term parking in the Commercial Historic District and other commercial areas 20. Develop and adopt a clearly defined and consistent policy describing which existing transportation facilities will be maintained by the City 21. Set aside specific unopened rights-of-way for greenways, regiona1 storm water drainage facilities, and nonmotorized use Capital Improvements: 22. Implement the Arterial Street Plan 23. Follow the recommendations described in the Gateway Development Plan to fund and construct improvements to S.R. 20 24. Upon adoption, implement the bicycle and pedestrian improvements directed by the Comprehensive Nonmotorized Plan · 25. Earmark sufficient and dedicated funding for construction of nonmotorized system improvements 26. Provide safe and attractive sidewalks or pedestrian pathways and bike lanes on both sides of all arterials 27. Where practical, redevelop or upgrade existing primary City roadways as bicycle routes 28. Provide needed inffastructure to support public and private transit-oriented development 29. Provide Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) improvements to enhance safe mobility of the handicapped COMPREHENSIVE PLAN IMPLEMENTATION 4 DEPARTMENT HEADS MEETING OCTOBER 22, 1996 · · · · CAPITAL FACILITIES & UTILITIES ELEMENT Programmtltic Actions: 1. Develop, adopt and implement a concurrency management system within one year following' adoption of the Comprehensive Plan (i.e., by July 15, 1997) 2. On an annual basis, reassess the Comprehensive Plan to ensure that capital facilities, utilities needs, financing, and levels of service are consistent and that the Plan is internally consistent 3. Work with Jefferson County to jointly develop specific siting criteria and standards for essential public facilities 4. Implement the "community-serving" UGA in Glen Cove if designated: a. Cooperate with Jefferson County to develop "mirror image" plans, regulations and design standards for the unincorporated portion of the UGA (i.e., Glen Cove); b. Adopt interlocal agreements which identify the appropriate provider of public facilities and services within the unincorporated portion of the UGA; c. Coordinate joint planning and permit review with Jefferson County - if necessary, establish joint planning and permit processing agreements with Jefferson County; d. Establish interlocal agreements with Jefferson County regarding the provision of urban water, wastewater, storm water and transportation services to the unincorporated portion of the UGA; and . e. Cooperate with Jefferson County to contain urban growth within appropriately designated UGAs 5. Revise as necessary, and adopt the Water System Plan 6. Establish boundaries for the out-of-City service area 7. Actively participate in the development of the Jefferson County Coordinated Water System Plan (CWSP) as a member of the Water Utilities Coordinating Committee (WUCC) and the WUCC Steering Committ~ 8. Cooperate with the Port Townsend Paper Company, the Point No Point Treaty Council and other entities to develop an in-stream flow program for the Big and Little Quilcene Rivers 9. Develop an Emergency Water Shortage Response Plan to ensure that the essential needs of City water customers are met and that available water is distributed equitably 10. Continue to work the Washington State Department of Health (DOH) to implement the measures necessary to remain an unfiltered surface water supply system 11. Develop and enforce a cross-connection control program as required by the DOH and the Federal Environmental Protection Agency . 12. Develop and implement a well-head protection program as required by the DOH COMPREHENSIVE PLAN IMPLEMENTATION 5 DEPARTMENT HEADS MEETING OCTOBER 22, 1996 13. Establish locational criteria for a new or expanded wastewater treatment facility 14. Establish standards for wastewater collection and treatment facility design 15. Regularly update the Storm water and Drainage Ordinance and Procedures Manual to maintain up-to-date practices and standards · ---------. ---- -.-- 16. Work with the local cable franchisee to establish a mimmum level of service standard for public, educational and governlDental (pEG) programming 17. Prepare a Commumty Television Plan to guide the admimstration of local access channels 18. Work with the cable franchisee to establish adequate local studio facilities 19. Provide the local serving electric utility with annual updates of population, employment and development projections 20. Develop a process and criteria for evaluating, selecting and financing capital projects listed in the Capital Facilities & Utilities Element, but not yet included within the six year Capital Facilities Plan 21. Annually update the Capital Facilities & Utilities Element. to reflect the capacity of facilities, land use changes, level of service standards, and financing capability 22. Review and improve the procedure for forming local improvement districts (LIDs) 23. Develop public information campaigns to explain the issues associated with City water, wastewater, and storm water utilities · 24. Develop, adopt and implement functional utility plans for City-managed utilities (i.e., water, wastewater, and storm water master plans) 25. Review utility plans for non-City managed utilities - work with non-City utilities to ensure that their Plans are consistent with the Comprehensive Plan Capital Improvements: 26. Please refer to the "capital improvements" section of the CFP (i.e., pages Vll-22 through Vll- 71) - this section identifies the City's capital budget projects and funding sources for the first six years of the 20 year planning period (i.e., 1996 - 2001), and will be updated annually 27. H designated, coordinate with Jefferson County to gradually phase urban capital facilities, services and utilities in the unincorporated portion of the UGA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN IMPLEMENTATION 6 DEPARTMENT HEADS MEETING OCTOBER 22,1996 · ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ELEMENT · Programmatic Actions: 1. Actively work to establish a four year college or other educational institution in Port Townsend: a. Work with the Department of Natural Resources to purchase and lease land suitable for a technical training/education campus (note: a diversity of institutions such as the Magnet Center, Peninsula College and Washington Long Distance Learning could establish facilities on campus); . b. In conjunction with the establishment of a technical training/education center, examine the feasibility of attracting an on campus research station to Port Townsend; c. Facilitate a formal process involving all Jefferson County School Districts, EDC, Chamber, Main Street, Washington State University Cooperative Extension, Western Washington University, Peninsula College, and the University of Washington to determine what opportunities and obstacles exist to attracting a quality four year college to Port Townsend; d. Under the Mayor of Port Townsend's signature, send letters to the Deans of Instruction of all four year public and private colleges and universities in Washington State apprising them of Port Townsend's desire to attract a four year institution of higher education within the next 9 years; e. Sponsor a twice yearly Mayor's Workshop on "Future Prospects for Higher Education in Port Townsend" designed to attract Deans of Instruction to town and majntain an ongoing dialogue with candidate institutions; f. Designate a member of the Building and Community Development Department as the City's official "Education Liaison" for the college recruitment effort; g. Develop and maintain updated college recruitment information to provide to candidate institutions and the local news media; h. Work with Main Street, the Chamber of Commerce, EDC and other local entities to ensure that informational and recruitment publications emphasize Port Townsend as the "City that supports culture and education on the Olympic Peninsula"; and 1. Research, identify, and offer appropriate incentives for businesses that provide "in- house" training and education to bolster employee skills · 2. Develop and implement a Comprehensive Cultural Tourism Plan 3. Work with the Port of Port Townsend to obtain "pass through" grant funding to finance storm water management planning and facility improvements on Port owned lands 4. Encourage and assist the Port in developing a master plan for the Boat Haven properties 5. Cooperate with the Northwest School of Wooden Boatbuilding to organize and promote seminars, workshops and trade exhibitions designed to attract wide attendance while showcasing Port Townsend's quality marine trades industry 6. Research, identify and offer development incentives for new businesses and business expansions which are appropriate to Port Townsend's resources and vision COMPREHENSIVE PLAN IMPLEMENTATION 7 DEPARTMENT HEADS MEETING OCTOBER 22, 1996 · 7. 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 8. Contract with the Economic Development Council (EDC) to develop and make available to prospective businesses vital economic development information regarding the City, including, but not limited to: economic base; capital infi-astructure; City permitting processes; and specific sectors desired by the City · 9. Organize and facilitate a manufacturer's roundtable to identify and pursue joint marketing opportunities, and to examine the possibilities for increased foreign trade 10. Develop a listing of all available sources of funding for economic development efforts 11. In conjunction with the EDC, study local market conditions, identify areas for additional retail opportunities, and work with business owners and entrepreneurs to create strategies that build on those opportunities 12: Provide adequate funding to the Tourism Advisory Group to promote off-season cuJtural and educational visitation to Port Townsend 13. ,Enlist the assistance of the Chamber of Commerce, Main Street and Economic Development Council (EDC) in researching and identifying small businesses, organizations and associations which hold off-season educational meetings and corporate retreats 14. Examine the feasibility of establishing and funding a maritime museum 15. Contract with the Main Street Program or the Chamber of Commerce to provide ongoing customer service training for retail and service sector businesses · 16. Obtain adequate funding for the Visitor Information Center 17. Assist the Main Street Program and the Chamber of Commerce in developing a targeted marketing program which clearly defines the tourist market, establishes strategies for reaching target markets, and communicates when and how best to come for maxim'urn enjoyment of the area 18. Work with the Main Street Program, the Chamber of Commerce and the EDC to develop a mechanism for the collection and continuous maintenance of target market information 19. In cooperation with the Main Street Program and merchants, develop a comprehensive public improvements program for the Commercial Historic District which is tailored to the specific needs of the area while reinforcing private projects COMPREHENSIVE PLAN IMPLEMENTATION 8 DEPARTMENT HEADS MEETING OCTOBER 22, 1996 · · · · . 20. In conjunction with the Main Street Program, the City should work to strengthen the Commercial Historic District's existing economic base and gradually expand it Activities which should be pursued through the Main Street Program include: a. Studying local market conditions, identifying areas of opportunity and designating strategies to build on those opportunities; b. Helping existing businesses find better ways to meet their customers needs and expand to meet market opportunities; c. Recruit new businesses to complement the district's retail and service mix and boost overall market effectiveness; d.Find new or better uses for under-used or vacant downtown buildings; and e. Seminars and short courses offered to merchants regarding: customer service/host training; understanding the market; diversifying the mix; and window and retail display 21. Coordinate with the Main Street Program to maintain an organizational structure which is efficient and effective in promoting the Commercial Historic District. Activities which should be pursued through the Main Street Program include: a. Promoting events which enliven the Commercial Historic District; and b. Maintaining an ongoing planning and action program involving the business community of the Commercial Historic District 22. Contract with the Main Street Program to develop a "Retail Plan" to protect and enhance retailing in Port Townsend's Commercial Historic District 23. Task the EDC to research and prepare periodic reports identifying those aspects of the City's telecommunications infrastructure which require improvement in order to facilitate economic development 24. Contact telecommunications utility providers in an effort to "fast track" the provision of high capacity fiber optic cable to the Port Townsend area 25. Complete renegotiation of the City's current cable franchise Capital Improvements: 26. Work with the Port of Port Townsend to develop the infrastructure (e.g., the enhanced haul- out facility) necessary to facilitate the growth of the marine trades economy 27. Plan and provide capital improvements in the Gateway Conidor to attract new businesses, enhance existing businesses, and serve the retail needs of the community 28. Ensure that the 6 year Capital Facilities Plan targets areas designated for small scale "clean" manufacturing for necessary infrastructure improvements 29. Improve and expand signage, both directional and interpretive, throughout the City c:\&J...~......a\im¡olemnt\påOlÎti... COMPREHENSIVE PLAN IMPLEMENTATION 9 DEPARTMENT HEADS MEETING OCTOBER 22, 1996 · · · AMENDMENTS TO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN RUNNING LIST ORDINANCE 2606 Sentember 15. 1997 o Rezone Portions of Blocks 177 and 178 of the Eisenbeis Addition rezoned an area of less than two acres fÌ'om R-IV to R-m ORDINANCE 2670 December 7. 1998 o Amend Table IV-Ion page IV-14 of the Land Use Element of the Plan changing the height limit in the M-IT(A) land use designation from thirty-five feet (35') to fifty feet (50'), consisttmt with the height limitations contained in Table 17.22.030 PTMC; o Amend Policy 9.9 on page IV-26 of the Land Use Element of the Plan to indicate that the restriction to "water-oriented" uses are limited to land located within the jurisdiction of the Port Townsend Shoreline Management Master Program; o Amend the narrative text relating to "State and Private Ferry Needs" on page VI-8 of the Transportation Element of the Plan to indicate that the City advocates improved transit service between Port Townsend the Kingston ferry terminal as well as the establishment of Port Townsend to Seattle ferry service to support tourism and economic development; o Amend Goal 2 and policy 2.3 on page VI-12 of the Transportation Element of the Plan to recognize the role of the Port in air and water transportation; o Amend Policy 10.2(e) of the Transportation Element of the Plan to diminish the City's commitment to establishing a street utility fund, indicating instead that the City merely intends to explore the establishment of such a fund as one potential means for securing long-term funding sources for transportation improvement; o Add a new sub-paragraph entitled "Endangered Species Listings" at the end of the "Introduction" section to the Capital Facilities and Utilities Element of the Plan to acknowledge the potential implications of future ESA listings and to describe the steps previously taken by the City to mitigate the impacts of the City's growth and development on adjacent marine waters; and o Add a new Policy 3.7 on page VIll-4 of the Economic Development Element of the Plan to indicate the City's support for the establishment of the Northwest Maritime Center. o Amend the text and tables of Chapter 17.18 PTMC to improve the overall functioning of the C-II/MU zoning district. o Amend the narrative text of the Land Use Element of the Plan describing the R-I and R- IT zoning districts and the text and use table of Chapter 17.16 PTMC to allow a wider range of agricultural uses outright in the R-I district, and conditionally in the R-IT district. o Robert C. Harper rezone to amend the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map and the Official Zoning Map to change the designation and zoning of his property located at 2611 Sims Way fÌ'om M-IT(A) to C-IT. o Roger Evans rezone to amend Policy 8.11 of the Land Use Element and the Land Use Map of the plan and the Official Zoning Map to change the designation and zoning of a 4.16 acre portion of his property abutting the intersection of Sims Way and the unopened Howard Street right-of-way fÌ'om M-C and P/OS to C-IT. o Baldridge Group rezone to amend the Plan Land Use Map and the Official Zoning Map to change the designation and zoning of the "Key City Lanes" property located at 414 Kearney Street fÌ'om C-II/MU to C-IT. A TT ACHMENT 4 ORDINANCE 2716 November 15. 1999 Amendments to Certain Sections of Title 17. . o Rezone of the Kilham Property north of the Port Townsend Business Park ftom R-III (Medium Density Multi-Family) to R-II (Medium Density Single-Family) o Rezone of the ThorsenlBrooks property near Mountain View Elementary School ftom P- I (Public Infrastructure) to R-ill (Medium Density Multi-Family). o Rezone of the northerly boundary of the downtown historic commercial district to include the northerly ~ of two additional blocks: Lots 2,4, and 6 of Block 37, and Lots 2, 4, 6, and 8 of Blocks 38, 39. 55, and 56 of the Original Townsite to the City of Port Townsend from R-II (Medium Density Single-Family) to C-ill (Historic Commercial). o Amendments to the Land Use Map Table IV-2 of the Land Use Element of the Plan to reflect acreage within the various zoning districts following the 1997, 1998, and 1999 amendments. o Amendments to Policy 18.1 of the Capital Facilities and Utilities Element to simplify the policy language regarding required connections to the sanitary sewer system. o Approve an amendment to revise the description of the R-m, Medium Density Multi- Family, and R-IV, High Density Multifamily, land use designations, and Table 17.16.030 PTMC to link allowable densities to the number of bedrooms within dwelling units subject to a reasonable density cap of24 bedrooms per 40,000 square feet in R-III and 40 bedrooms per 40,000 square feet in R-IV. o City Council directed Administration to conduct additional public processes as necessary to propose final C-II design. standards for adoption and codification, and further directed Administration to address upper-story residential units within the C-II design standards. o Approved revisions to Table 17.18.030, Mixed Use Zoning Districts-Bulk, Dimensional, and Density Requirements, Chapter 17.18, Mixed Use Zoning Districts of the PTMC to where the table currently states none revise.to no requirement. This modification rejects the recommended maximum IS-foot ftont-yard setback. . ORDINANCE 2749 November 6. 2000 o Rezone Block 283 of the Eisenbeis Addition_ - Zone changed ftom M-C (Mixed Commercial/Light Manufacturing) to R-ill (Multi-family Residential). . ORDINANCE 2782 November 19. 2001 Clarify Definitions ofUnitlBedroom and Various Housing Types o Amendments to the definitions in Chapter X of the Comprehensive Plan and Chapter 17.08 Definitions of the PTMC; and amending Chapter 17.16, Residential Zoning Districts, of the PTMC, including Table 17.16.020 Residential Zoning Districts - Permitted, Conditional and Prohibited Uses; and Table 17.16.030 Residential Zoning Districts - Bulk, Dimensional and Density Requirements and Table 17.72.080 Minimum Parking Space Requirements. These amendments are intended to clarify and make consistent, definitions contained in the zoning code and comprehensive plan; address inconsistency between allowed uses and density limits in the R-I and R-II zoning districts; clarify that "halfway houses" are prohibited in the residential districts; Add "detached bedroomslguesthouses" . and "detached office/studios" as permitted uses in the R-I and R-II zoning districts; make congregate care and nursing homes allowed outright in R-ill and R-IV; and revise parking ratios for one bedroom! studio units in multi-family dwelling units ftom 1.5 to 1 off-street · parking space per dwelling unit. This amendment also prohibits congregate care facilities in the R-ll district until such time as the bulk and scale impacts of these buildings are addressed. This review may take place during the 2002 5-year comprehensive plan amendment cycle. The amendment also clarifies that limited multi-family development (structures containing more than 4 dwelling units) may be allowed through, the Planned Unit Development process in the R-I and R-ll zoning districts. Revise Goals & Policies, which Imply a Specific Utility Provider o Amendments to Electricity (Goal 30 and related Policies) and Energy Conservation Policies found on page VII-20-21 of Chapter VII, Capital Facilities of the Comprehensive Plan to replace reference to specific utility provider(s) with generic language. Resolve Zoning of Abundant Life Seed Foundation on Discovery Amendments to Title 17, Zoning: o Amend Chapter 17.08, Definitions, modifying the definition of community supported agriculture and adding a definition for community agricultural centers; o Amend Table 17.16.020 Residential Zoning Districts - Permitted, Conditional and Prohibited Uses to add community agricultural centers as a conditional use in the R-I and R-ll zoning districts. o Retain the P-I zoning of Tax Parcels 45 and 5 o Amend Table 17.24.020 Public, Park and Open Space Zoning District - Permitted, Conditional, and Prohibited Uses to allow community-supported agriculture as a permitted · use and community agricultural centers as a conditional use in the P-I zoning district. Rezone Portions of Blocks 278 & 279, Eisenbeis Addition o Amend the Official Land Use and Zoning Maps to reflect a rezone of the following properties from R-II to C-ll: Lots 7 and 8 of Block 278 and the south ~ of vacated 4th Street Lot 1 of Block 279 and the south ~ of vacated 4th Street Lot 8 of Block 279 and the south ~ of vacated 4th Street Formal Amendment - Northwest Maritime Center Height Amendment o Amend the height limit from 30 to 40 feet on Block 4 of the Original Townsite. The figures and text of the Urban Waterfront Plan and Title 17 of the PTMC are to be amended to reflect this revision. ORDINANCE 2783 November 19. 2001 Add MID Policy o Added Major Industrial Developments (MID) policy to the Capital Facilities (policy 8.6) and Economic Development Elements (policy 9.3). · · City of Port Townsend Department of Building and Community Development Waterman-Katz Building 181 Quincy Street, Suite 301, Port Townsend, W A 98368 (360) 379-5081 FAX (360) 385-7675 Overview of Annual Comprehensive Plan Update Process An overview of the annual update process is provided in the following text and on the attached flowchart. For a complete explanation, please refer to Chapter 20.04 of the Port Townsend Municipal Code (PTMC). Planning Commission Annual Assessment of the Comprehensive Plan. The Planning Commission is charged by the Municipal Code to conduct an annual assessment of the comprehensive plan, and to make recommendations as necessary to keep the plan current. This task must be completed by April 15 of each year. Any recommended amendments must be forwarded to the BCD Director by May 1st. Seven review criteria are to be considered by the Commission in their annual assessment: 1. Is growth and development as envisioned in the comprehensive plan occurring faster or slower than anticipated. or is it failing to materialize? 2. Has the capacity to provide adequate services diminished or increased? · 3. Is sufficient land designated and zoned to meet proiected demand and needs? 4. Are the assumptions upon which the plan is based invalid? · 5. Are there changes in community wide attitudes that necessitate amendments to the goals and purposes of the comprehensive plan and the basic values embodied within the comprehensive plan community direction statement? 6. Is there sufficient change or lack of change in circumstances to dictate the need for an amendment? 7. Do inconsistencies exist between the comprehensive plan and the GMA or the countywide planning policy for Jefferson County? Forming the Docket Each year, the city accepts applications for amendments to the Comprehensive Plan. There are two basic types of proposed amendments: "formal" and "suggested." Formal amendments are site specific, quasi-judicial requests requiring a fee to be paid by the landowner. This type of amendment is automatically placed on the final docket for review. A TT ACHMENT 5 Suggested amendments may be made by anyone. They do not require a filing fee, but are not guaranteed a place on the City's final docket. Planning Commission and Council review the "need, urgency, and appropriateness" of each suggested amendment (§20.04.060) to determine which warrant placement on the final docket. . Applications for Comprehensive Plan Amendments are accepted through May 1 of each year. By May 31st, BCD complies the list of suggested amendments into a "preliminary docket" and forwards it, along withstaft" s recommendation, to the Planning Commission. The Commission in turn, forwards their recommended docket to Council. Council must consider the Commission's recommendations by the sècond meeting of June each year. Recommendation on Proposed Amendments Amendments placed on the Final Docket are reviewed under SEP A. Workshops and public hearings are typically scheduled in the late summer months. Ultimately, the Commission develops findings and conclusions and a recommendation on each amendment placed on the final docket. Both the Planning Commission and City Council must consider the following findings: 1. 2. Whether circumstances related to the proposed amendment and/or the area in which it is located have substantially changed since the adoption of the Port Townsend comprehensive plan; Whether the assumptions upon which the Port Townsend comprehensive plan is based are no longer valid, or whether new information is available which was not considered during the adoption process or any annual amendments of the Port Townsend comprehensive plan; and Whether the proposed amendment reflects current widely held community values. 3. Eight additional findings are applied to site-specific formal amendments. (Section 20.04.080 A . (4) a-h PTMC). The City Council must adopt any amendments to the Comprehensive Plan by the second Council meeting of November of each year. . ~. CI) .... c ( ) E "0 C ( ) < E 2 ~ï ~ g g~ '2 ~ ~ II ~ 1 . C ø ( ) ~ E Z "0 ¡ C .!! ( ) w E I <{ i c u.. as c..1 ( ) ð > . ëñ ~ c ( ) .c ~ a. E o ü . ~= g' zg; ~::J4I C041 NO~ 41 3iJg' -'C'ii ~::J4I ~8~ TO" ('I) >- aI ::E TO" >- aI ::E ~.g ~ ::J:ä~ C::JO alo..Z ., I I I I I I I I I I , I I I I I , , , I I I , , I I I , GlI .5 , 'i. GlI 0, I , I I I I I , , I . . . I , . . . , , . . - . - - - - . . . , . . . . . _ . . .', . . . . . .M e^e~ Vd3S I III " _ .11= 8..!! ."c.....-c= CIIIO~III4I 41.2 >-1;: C It (I) ã. 0. :s .2 0.0 '-u < u 0 GI .5 '6 -----------------. !'II GI o CD u ;iJ .S; § 5 ~ 0'- OO~ c'- !.2 o GI .5 '6 ------------- !'II CD o :I-o!! _-SCDi Q.Q.!E ! It .0.-0 0..a:2c 011:0.." ~tð5~ -t ~~j )ii:' ~o >->- ~,g.o~ .o~..c: ~~:õ. Q..!! &.2i..!! A:~A:~i 'a'2"~2' æ'i-.... ~~>~ .0.. -' in. 3· =1 "= .2(1) ã.u :-s: -~ 1110. Eel) o U. . eI) iü ~ o ~ -ä CD '- :; r:T ~ lot èñ" iü: u :=0 It I I I I , , ~III I >-õ.s ii~ l~iiEg!.2 1It)·~=Q.;ø ~~ãI <0.. I Fo , -¡ I I I . , , I .... ..... --.- a¿ C'- " -.: E .... III CD .58·11 .o_xo Eõ~< oZªo.. o w (I) ~ C C . 0 ca,,:!:!:;:: «........0. 0.... 11I..c:.s W:2 ~= E eI)~It~~ .s::. 1=1) o 0 ~ i 'Eæ !'II 0. i~ Q.c <- ~j =::¡s III::J ~o.. . I I , , -' I I 1 ~ I I'; I d~ I I ~ 1 14 I I -g I 111 18"i1 I ~il I ~~I Ics- Z1: 1~1: I ~fl I I I I , I I , 11ลก--- : I ~ .. I I CD "I lug u I c= i' I~.g..c: ~ I' I;~ J ; I: 0S ð ~ II ou. ~ . I li~ ~ ¡ I, I~:S ig'8 I' a:¡f '.:! , 111:. <'>-:: I, .!>-~-o 1(1)111 C)~- I, ~o ...co , I ¡~ ~ i~ I , I ~ i ~ ~ii I I ,~¡:!: 01110 " ~ ¡ .~. I I z-' I' , I I, L __J I I I , , I . I , I I I I I I , I , I , I I I I , I , I I I I I I I I I I , I I I I , I , , 1-' '1 >- I Î § 1 18.; I I g g 1 e· U QI 111:< .~ -. " I 10- _It I 'S ~ I Q.ï:1 ,.- a:>. ,:¡¡iil 0.31 I~... c., 11II..c: ~ÕI I ê5~ z i I I I sepue6v 0} steJeJe~ E .2 c: . . 0 CD :cu 8~i .ã.'ä q ~Q. ~i! U'5~ :!c:u 1¡:2ii ð~-g .ute c: 0.. .. ~5i :3:;:: ã g~ go 8E~ -g4~ "'02 ~ &~:; ìí.:äw i CD,SeI) E a:-.. :¡¡:]! 0&:~~ I~~; 111 't: . 'E:ð Uo Q. C:~ -0 c. "0 .N ::ïo .:::t ~b: _.s ï: . '"-5 ~c: .CD :~ "c: c..! 110.. ··os E>- i5 . :2 u.i~ :i6 -3 ~< r:T~0.. .õw a:Oel) : ~ ~ ~. E= o~ i¡ ¡!i5 jl"- ã."~ ~';õ 0'0 z·o . .! à:J --- ~- setOlqOO~