The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About05302002 Packet /. . . I. II. m. IV. V. VI. VII. CITY OF PORT TOWNSEND PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA City Council Chambers, 7:00 pm May 30, 2002 Call to Order Roll Call Acceptance of Agenda . Approval of Minutes - May 9 and May 15,2002 General Public Comment (limited to 3 minutes per person) Unfinished Business New Business A. Forming Docket for Comp Plan & Development Regulation Amendments · Judy Surber - City of Port Townsend BCD 1. Rezone Blocks 170 and 171 of the Eisenbeis Addition 2. Revise Comprehensive Plan Text to be Consistent with Recent GMA Amendments 3. Revise Lot Coverage in PIOS Districts 4. Remove FUGA Language from the Comprehensive Plan 5. Revise Density ofR-ill and R-IV Zoning Districts 6. Revise Setbacks/Lot Coverage for Corner Lots 7. Revise Zoning Use Tables to Allow Group Homes Outright in Certain Zones 8. Strike the 500.10 Rule for ADUs 9. Delete Portion ofWaterwalk from Non-Motorized Transportation Plan vm. Upcoming Meetings · June 13, 2002 - Planning Commission Regular Meeting · June 17, 2002 - City Council Public Hearing on Planning Commission's Final Docket · June 27, 2002 -- Planning Commission Regular Meeting vm. Communications IX. Adjournment e CITY OF PORT TOWNSEND PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES May 30, 2002 I. CALL TO ORDER Chair Cindy Thayer called the meeting to order at 7 p.m. in the City Council Chambers. II. ROLL CALL Members answering roll were Lyn Hersey, Frank Benskin, Richard Berg, Bernie Arthur, Nancy Dorgan, James Irvin, Alice King, and Michael Hyland. Richard Berg arrived at 7:05 p.m. Also present were BCD Senior Planner Judy Surber and City Attorney John Watts. Michele Sandoval represented City Council. III. ACCEPTANCE OF AGENDA Chair Thayer asked to amend the agenda to accept public comment at the occurrence of public hearing on each suggested amendment and receive Public Comment, Agenda Item V, on non-hearing items only. Mr. Irvin made a motion to accept the agenda as amended; Mr. Benskin seconded. All were in favor. IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES May 9, 2002 -- Mr. Irvin made a motion to accept the minutes as written. Mr. Benskin seconded. All were in favor. May 16, 2002 -- Mr. Irvin made a motion to accept the minutes as amended. Mr. Benskin seconded. All were in favor. eV. PUBLIC COMMENT Mr. Todd Wexman, Port Townsend (planner and Architect) He had suggested to Ms. Dorgan there is need for rewriting the Community Direction Statement of the Comp Plan and reviewing Chapter 12 for county-wide planning policies and actions as they relate to the GMA goals before embarking on attempts to bring our Comp Plan in consonance with the County's. VI. UNFINISHED BUSINESS -- There was none. VII. NEW BUSINESS -- PUBLIC HEARING: FORMING OF DOCKET FOR COMP PLAN &. DEVELOPMENT REGULATION AMENDMENTS: Ms. Surber referenced the joint meeting on May 15, 2002 with the City Council to review the following nine suggested amendments to the Comp Plan proposed for docketing, and, therefore, suggested only a brief review of each at this time. She distributed communications entered as Exhibit A (see suggtested amendment #4); Exhibit B (see suggested amendment #4); and Exhibit C (see suggested amendment #9). Chair Thayer asked for consensus to consider each suggested amendment separately. She pointed out tonight's consideration of each suggested amendment would be heard as to docketing only and not on its merits. 1. Rezone Blocks !1!! and 171 of the Eisenbeis Addition -- Glenn Norcross, Proponent Ms. Surber gave a review and stated the location is behind Grant Street Elementary School across from undeveloped multi-family land. Staff recommends docketing because of the need for more R-IV zoning property. . Chair Thayer opened the meeting for public comment at 7:20 p.m. Planning Commission Minutes May 30, 2002 I Page 1 · · · PUBLIC COMMENT Mr. Glenn Norcross. Port Townsend, owner of the property Mr. Norcross said that after hearing comment and listening to Staff, this rezoning seems logical and makes this property consistent with other properties. He asked that the Commission give it thought, that he wanted what was best for the city. There being no other public testimony, at 7:21 p.m. Chair Thayer closed public comment on item #1. PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENT Chair Thaver Her recollection and concern was that Mr. Norcross had owned other property that was formerly rezoned from R-IV to R-III because of the need for R-III; now there is something saying they need more R-IV. She said whether or not they docket this, they need to give consideration what the basis is of their decisions. Ms. Hersey Staffwas more concerned for this change because the R-III did not get built out as multi-family. If they went to R-IV, it would have to go to multi-family, and R-IV would be the way to go for our intent. Ms. Surber Answered Ms. Dorgan's question regarding the Staff recommendation, that Staff informed Mr. Norcross he might want to consider either R-III or R-IV for flexibility. It is not Staff's recommendation, but it is for him to be clear. Mr. I:!YlmM;l How much staff time would it take to research, if docketed? Ms. Surber Environmental review, etc. -- They did not feel it significant enough to change BCD recommendation. Mr. Arthur If changing to more dense zoning, have all property owners in the vicinity been notified? Ms. Surber If docketed, Staff recommends that property owners within a 300 foot radius be notified. Mr.~ Do you need the Planning Commission to say that, or is that a fact? MOTION Ms. Dorgan THE PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMEND TO CITY COUNCIL THAT TIllS ITEM BE DOCKETED AND THE APPROPRIATE NOTIFICATION TO ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS BE PART OF TIllS PROCESS SECOND Mr. Arthur Discussion: Mr. Berg asked Ms. Surber if Staff considered this to be a benefit to the City as a whole. Ms. Surber concurred noting it as a way to provide a variety of housing and perhaps affordable housing. VOTE PASSED UNANlMOUSL Y BY ROLL CALL VOTE, 9 IN FAVOR Ms. Surber explained the requirement for findings and conclusions as part of these Planning Commission recommendations - the need, urgency and appropriateness! MOTION Ms. Dorgan RECOMMEND TO COUNCIL THAT TIllS AMENDMENT IS NEEDED, URGENT AND APPROPRIATE SECOND VOTE Mr. Benskin PASSED UNANlMOUSL Y BY VOICE VOTE, 9 IN FAVOR 2. Receive Comorehensive Plan Text to be Consistent with Recent GMA Amendments -- BCD Department, Proponent Ms. Surber suggested by Consultant Eric Toews to clarify and provide stronger language to make connection to the GMA. Chair Thayer opened the meeting for public comment at 7:30 p.m. There being no public testimony, Chair Thayer closeci public comment on item #2. Planning Commission Minutes May 30, 2002/ Page 2 · · · PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENT Ms. Dorgan Questioned Staff, if adopted will this constitute the City's official consistency statement for the 7-year update? Ms. Surber replied negatively. Mr. Berg Questioned, if there will be another one by 2004? Ms. Surber replied affirmatively and concurred this one brings the City current with GMA, and another would bring the City current at that point. He questioned the use of wording" best available science" as Councilor Geoff Masci says they do not know what that means. City Attorney Watts The question, is what the people meant consistent with the best available science? MOTION RECOMMEND DOCKETING THE AMENDMENT TO REFLECT RECENT AMENDMENTS TO THE GROWTH MANAGEMENT ACT (GMA) Ms. King SECOND VOTE Mr. Irvin PASSED UNANIMOUSLY BY ROLL CALL VOTE, 9 IN FAVOR 3. Revise Lot Covera2e in P/OS Districts - BCD Department Proponent Ms. Surber reviewed the BCD recommendation to change the Comp Plan and zoning code to resolve lot coverage inconsistencies. Chair Thayer opened the meeting for public comment at 7:40 p.m. There being no public testimony, Chair Thayer closed public comment on item #3. PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENT Ms. Hersey Thought this important to docket. MOTION Ms. Dorgan RECOMMEND COUNCIL TO DOCKET; THERE IS NEED FOR GREATER LOT COVERAGE FOR PROJECTS PROPOSED IN THE P-I DISCTRICT, AND FOR FURTHER DISCUSSION REGARDING THE P/OS(B) RECOMMEND COUNCIL TO DOCKET AS PROPOSED BY STAFF, TO BE CONSISTENT WITH THE C-III AND C-II ZONING DISTRICT STANDARDS AMENDED MOTION Ms. Dorgan SECOND VOTE Mr. Irvin PASSED UNANIMOUSLY BY ROLL CALL VOTE, 9 IN FAVOR 4. Remove FUGA Lanl!Ua2e from the Comorehensive Plan -- Alice King, Proponent Ms. Surber discussed the confusion between the submittal amendment version and the somewhat later version approved by the Planning Commission in October 2001, and transmitted to City Council. She explained that if this is docketed, they would look at it again this year and go through the same process. Ms. Hersey asked for clarification that if this is the specific language, would they legally have to work from the version submitted? City Attorney Watts determined if is the proposal docketed, this would be the starting point. Ms. Surber referred to Exhibits A and B distributed this evening and asked Mr. Watts for an update on current Glen Cove events. Mr. Watts referred to the BOCC timetable for LAMlRD designation and said Staff would be preparing material by the middle of next week for BOCC consideration. He indicated it a work in progress. Ms. Hersey asked regarding Staff recommendations. Ms. Surber replied the Staff recommendations were choices of whether or not to docket. Ms. Dorgan asked for clarification of which specific policies in this amendment Staff felt would hinder future planning for UGA expansion. Ms. Surber suggested it might be better to docket the suggested amendment and not worry about specifics now. Planning Commission Minutes May 30, 2002 I Page 3 . PUBLIC TESTIMONY RECEIVED BY CORRESPONDENCE: Exhibit A Copy of Memorandum to Jefferson County BOCC dated May 24, 2002, from DCD Randy Kline updating Jefferson County Comp Plan Docket. The County Staff recommends that the County revisit the Glen Cove industrial boundary. Exhibit B May 29, 2002 faxed letter from James D. Lindsay, Planning and Development Management Services, Harbor Development Services, LLC, Seattle, W A for public comment on Prelimiruuy Docket, item #4; Chair Thayer opened the meeting for public comment at 7:50 p.m. PUBLIC COMMENT Ms. Alice King. Proponent and citizen of Port Townsend Ms. King said her intent was, and she thought she was submitting the version approved by the Planning Commission and presented to City Council last year. She stated that if the version she submitted is docketed, she might later move to amend it in accordance with the version approved by the Planning Commission last October. She felt it was worth discussing again and pointed out changes since the City Plan was adopted include Jefferson County adopting their Comp Plan and completion of the Glen Cove special study. There are options and additional information available now. Ms. King's main concern is inconsistency with the County Comp Plan that does not talk about an unincorporated portion of the Port Townsend Urban Growth Area. One other reason to docket, policies contained in the current City Plan are too specific for an area that exists only as a planning term and not specific enough if looking at expanding the UGA, in particular how infrastructure would be provided and paid for. She also referred to other polices contained in the document and said she would like to see the language be more neutral as it is in the Planning Commission's version of this amendment. . Mr. ~ PiDiª, 1540 22nd Street, Port Townsend Referenced the proposed amendment to the Comp Plan submitted last year and encouraged docketing this suggested Comp Plan amendment #4. He asked if the City has enough land why is it not being used, and he referred to infrastructure. He questioned the basis of the one choice in BCD Staff recommendation -- not to docket. He referenced the Memorandum of Understanding (MOD) and stated the County is not negotiating. Mr. Pipia requested, " . . complete the work begun by the citizens and staff a year ago, and bring this amendment back before the Council for consideration." Copy of oral testimony submitted as Exhibit D. Mr. ktIKeletv. 419 Benton Street, Port Townsend He expressed concern regarding the Future Urban Growth Area (FUGA) and the possible language change to Provisional Urban Growth Area (pUGA). He said, ". . . Amendment 4 as it stands was important last year and it is just as important now." Mr. Kelety urged docketing suggested Comp Plan amendment #4. Copy of oral testimony and related map and charts were submitted as Exhibit E Ms. Nora Re~an. 1331 Olympic Street, Port Townsend She referred to the MOU process, negotiations regarding the Glen Cove LAMIRD and spoke against, "the backwards process of waiting for a non-GMA process to conclude before placing an important Comp Plan amendment before the City Council." She indicated that a, ". .. community decides [this] for itself before entering into agreements with other municipalities;" ". . . and then administrative agreements should be reached." Ms. Regan encouraged docketing Comp Plan amendment #4. Copy of oral testimony submitted as Exhibit F. Jim Todd. 1515 Fir, Port Townsend For the same reasons expressed by the three previous persons giving oral testimony, he recommended docketing Comp Plan amendment #4. . City Attorney Watts commented that there is nothing illegal about a Planning Commission member submitting a proposed amendment. This is a legislative amendment and not quasi-judicial He also clarified regarding the MOU process, that nothing has violated the GMA, and that this process is not the "cart before the horse." He believed it to be consistent with GMA in terms of jurisdictions attempting to work out any issues in the process. Any negotiations between jurisdictions are subject to GMA required public participation and planning processes. Planning Commission Minutes May 30, 2002 I Page 4 · · · There being no other public testimony, at 8: 10 p.m. Chair Thayer closed public comment on item #4. PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENT Mr. Hyland Felt it should be docketed without limits because it is so controversial, and to him confusing. He thought the more information that is available the better the community and public would be. Mr. Benskin Spoke of the enormous amount of time spent last year by the community, the public and the Planning Commission, going line-by-line; that they had done their homework and more discussion would not clarify the issues. He stated it is a pretty good document, the document Ms. King did not receive, and that to docket it and again go through it would be burdensome. MsKinlZ Expressed her wish to have received the correct document, because of all the work that was done on it. She does not feel they have to reinvent the wheel and go over it word-by-word. She indicated the document looked pretty good, that it does not need that much work, just a little updating of the text and being tweaked. Mr. Benskin Listening to some of the comments, he sensed some of the public has a misconception of what's being accomplished by this document, a misconception of the roles the City and County take as far as community planning. Mr Hyland Felt a good reason to docket it might be the public's misconceptions, that maybe they will be cleared up. Ms. Surber She and Mr. Watts discussed the intent of the person submitting this suggested amendment that Ms. King's intent was to submit the Planning Commission's approved amendment from last year. If everyone is in agreement, nobody is objecting, it sounds O.K. to use the version approved by the Planning Commission. Ms. Kin~ Stated that is what she was hoping. Mr. Irvin Is opposed to docketing this amendment. A year ago there were several versions of this that resulted in their being put into one form that went forward and was rejected by the Council This came up before the Planning Commission 2 months ago, and at that time the vote was something like 8 to 1 against docketing. He said they have not taken time to scrutinize all the policies and changes word-by-word, that he had done that and there are no less than six to eight versions of this since last October. None are identical, there are subtle changes to policies, subtle changes of words, things that were in then out, things that were in by the Council and then out. At the March 28th meeting, even the Mayor said not to be in a hurry there is a process that is going to resolve this and there will be time to make that change, and make it right. He feels this is a political process that is being driven by the City and County and we shouldn't be forced into using that same political process to decide what we docket and what we don't. Ms. KinlZ She had been under the impression they were talking about a week or two until they could get some other information from Mr. Randall and an update from the County. That was the only reason she had been willing to wait. She pointed out that even though there is an ongoing process, there are some things in this Plan that concern her; it is inconsistent with the County Plan. There is nothing in the County Plan about an unincorporated portion of the Port Townsend Urban Growth Area. MOTION RECOMMEND CITY COUNCIL DOCKET AS TIlE 10/31/01 VERSION OF THE AMENDMENT Ms. Dorgan SECOND Mr. Hyland Discussion: During discussion of the designation of which version to use, Ms. Hersey noted Mr. Watt's statement about this being a starting point. Mr. Watts clarified that if the proponent indicates that the application was intended to be X instead ofY, if the Planning Commission recommends that substantive proposal be docketed, that would be acceptable and then become the starting point. Ms. Dorgan declared that it was a Staff error in providing a previous version. There was further discussion for and against docketing. VOTE PASSED BY ROLL CALL VOTE -- 5 IN FAVOR; 4 OPPOSED -- Ms. Hersey; Mr. Benskin; Mr. Arthur; Mr. Irvin Planning Commission Minutes May 30, 2002/ Page 5 · At 8:40 p.m. Chair Thayer called for a 5-minute recess. Due to the close vote on item #4 Chair Thayer called for viewpoints to be recorded. Minoritv Vote = (ViewDoints eXDressed rel!:ardiol!: ODDosition m docketinl!: t!.Ð: Mr. Irvin Still talking about an undefined package. His objections: 1) the handout they received today dated May 9, the one we are looking at, did not agree with the one they received on March 28 that was dated October 10 rather than October 30 and did not agree with the one they received on March 21 dated in November; 2) there is more information provided as handouts they did not have time to review. This conflicts with the argument in one handout that says not to be in a hurry to change our Comp Plan, because the County is probably going to change theirs and would probably make ours more out of date. Then why are we beating our heads against the wall? If the Council decides to docket this and to tweak it, there will be the forum of a public hearing. Ms.~ This is a 20 year Comp Plan, and it is too soon to be doing major changes to it. The Council last year also stated that is why they did not pass it then. Mr. Arthur There is not enough adequate available space to locate businesses in Port Townsend for commercial and light industrial development that is locating in this area. Believes that is going to be resolved by the County and City in their agreement to negotiate a settlement. If it isn't, many have amendments we would like to see happen that don't, and have to wait a year. He does not see where this would make any difference in that regard. (ViewDoints eXDressed in SUDDort of docketiol!: t!.Ð: Ms. King Referenced a another supporting statement that there are portions of the Plan that are out of date and need to be updated; portions are inconsistent with the County Plan. This amendment would update references to Glen Cove as a LAMlRD; remove outdated references as a FUGA; retain important policies about collaborating with the County; add important policies about needed infrastructure within the City. · 5. ~ Densitv !!f R:.m and R-IV Zoninl!: Districts -- Ted Schoulberg, Proponent Ms. Surber indicated Mr. Shoulberg felt the density was accidentally lowered in their review in 1999. He indicated this does not coincide with the original intent when he was speaking to City Council; his thought was "bedrooms" or "units." Mr. Benskin asked regarding the definition of bedroom. Ms. Surber pointed out the new zoning code contains definitions for bedrooms and units. Chair Thayer opened the meeting for public comment at 8:50 p.m. There being no public testimony, Chair Thayer closed public comment on item #5. PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENT Ms. King Suggested going to pre-1999, and if they want to "up" the zoning and increase the density, "up" the units. She felt this is where the impacts are, e.g. traffic et al, and she suggested docketing. MOTION Ms. Hersey DOCKET TIllS PROPOSAL RECOMMENDED AND REVISED BY STAFF SECOND Mr. Berg Discussion: Mr. Berg said he had been working on a project with bedroom limit zoning for the last half year, and he sees a definite advantage of being able to use bedrooms rather than units. He said on the other hand the use of "bedrooms" has trapped them. Being able to use either "bedrooms" or "units" might have prevented that. He thought it a good idea and spoke in favor of docketing. VOTE PASSED UNANIMOUSLY BY ROLL CALL VOTE, 9 IN FAVOR · 6. Revise SetbackslLot Coveral!:e for Corner Lots -- C. L. Flint, Proponent Planning Commission Minutes May 30, 2002 I Page 6 · Ms. Surber pointed out this amendment was suggested by C. L. Flint as a citizen, but supported by BCD. Chair Thayer opened the meeting for public comment at 8:55 p.m. There being no public testimony, Chair Thayer closed public comment on item #6. PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENT · Mr. Benskin Asked Ms. Surber regarding BCD recommendation to consider a 10' front yard setback as well, Mr. Flint's recommendation is R-I, R-II and R-III zones. Exhibit 6-1, pg 2 of 2, Set Back Table lists front yard setbacks as R-I 20'; R- II 10'; R-III 20' except 10'; R-IV 20'. Are you proposing across-the-board to reduce the front yard setback to 5' in all those zones, or just the one that refers to 10'? Mr. Surber Explained this was proposed by Mr. Flint, because he has found that comer lots get penalized because they have both a front and side yard restriction; an interior lot has a 5' restriction. Mr. Irvin Everyone has been living to this rule to this point; the only ones being penalized are those who adhered to in initially. Unless he misunderstands, he is opposed to allowing this to be expanded to eliminate the front setback Ms. Surber At the workshop Mr. Randall commented that especially in the Historic District where many non-conforming front yard setbacks; they are closer to the street. Others are coming in and wanting to put on things such as front porches and are going to need variances. She answered Mr. Benskin that this pertains to single-family homes, R-I, R-II, R-III. Regarding his question concerning 5' front setback, she replied they would revisit. They did not necessarily specify it would be 5'. Ms. Thaver Reread BCD recommendation. Ms. King Opposed. Docket the whole thing. Part B, maximum lot coverage would increase from 20% to 40% in R-I. Ms. Thaver Thought if they docket, they can consider all. MOTION Ms. Hersey RECOMMEND TO DOCKET C. L. FLINT'S AMENDMENT ONLY, AND NOT BCD RECOMMENDATION FOR A IO'FRONTYARD SETBACK. (DELETE THE REQUIRED 10 FOOT, SIDE-YARD SETBACKS IN R-I, R-II, AND R-III; AND REFLECT A MAXIMUM LOT COVERAGE OF 40% IN R-I AND R-II ON CORNER LOTS.) SECOND Mr. Benskin Discussion: Mr. Benskin referenced Ms. Kings comment regarding need to correct the table. Chair Thayer explained that would come before them in the hearing. Ms. Dorgan supported docketing because it is important to look at more ways to create infill within the city. Ms. Thayer felt this amendment should be discussed, that she has concerns regarding the 10' front yard setback. Mr. Berg spoke in favor of docketing rather than having to go through variances. He spoke of working with someone who wanted to add a front porch to their house, which was within the 10' setback and was consistent with other houses on the street that were that close to the street and required to go through the variance process which is cumbersome and requires a compelling reason. It would be useful to people in Port Townsend to eliminate that problem. FRIENDLY AMENDMENT: Mr. Berg VOTE DOCKET C. L. FLINT AMENDMENT AND CONSIDER BCD RECOMMENDATION FOR REDUCED 10' YARD SETBACKS Mr. Hyland Seconded; Accepted by Ms. Hersey and Mr. Benskin PASSED UNANIMOUSLY BY ROLL CALL VOTE, 9 IN FAVOR 7. ~ Zonin2 Use Tables!!! Allow Group Homes Outri2ht in Certain Zones -- BCD Department, Proponent · Ms. Surber explained this was proposed by BCD to confonn with the Washington Housing Policy Act as it relates to groups homes. Planning Commission Minutes May 30, 2002 / Page 7 · · · Chair Thayer opened the meeting for public comment at 9: 10 p.m. There being no public testimony, Chair Thayer closed public comment on item #7. PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENT There was none. MOTION Ms. Hersey RECOMMEND CITY COUNCIL TO DOCKET THIS ITEM WITH FINDINGS OF FACT AS SUGGESTED SECOND VOTE Mr. Irvin PASSED UNANIMOUSLY BY ROLL CALL VOTE, 9 IN FAVOR 8. Strike the 50% Rule for ADUs -- BCD Department, Proponent Ms. Surber noted the proposal is by the BCD Department and strikes ADU limits to less than 50% of the total floor area of the main residence. Chair Thayer opened the meeting for public comment at 9: 12 p.m. There being no public testimony, Chair Thayer closed public comment on item #8. PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENT Mr. Berg Thought it was high time the City eliminate this rule from their books, that it is urgent. MOTION Mr. Berg PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMEND DOCKETING SUGGESTED AMENDMENT #8 SECOND VOTE Mr. Benskin PASSED UNANIMOUSLY BY ROLL CALL VOTE, 9 IN FAVOR 9. Delete Portion ofWatenvalk from Non-Motorized Transportation Plan -- Sarah Westall, Proponent PUBLIC TESTIMONY RECEIVED BY CORRESPONDENCE: Exhibit C Written testimony dated May 30, 2002 received from Ms. Sarah Westall regarding Comp Plan suggested amendment #9, Westall-- Existing Trail. The Commission read for consideration Exhibit C which BCD received earlier in the day. Mr. Irvin asked Ms. Surber if this testimony changed anything for her. She r replied that it did not and also stated Ms. Westall was aware of this meeting. Ms. Surber also concurred with Chair Thayer that BCD Director Jeff. Randall had recommended if they do not docket this suggested amendment, it could be resolved faster outside of the Comp Plan process. Ms. Surber Felt it could be accomplished through the Comp Plan process, but that Mr. Randall felt it would be faster otherwise and is not necessary. Ms. Thayer Asked why then had Ms. Westall tried for 3 years, and it has not happened? Mr. Irvin How can the Comp Plan drive a change in the Non-Motorized Transportation Plan? Ms. Surber explained that in the transmittal a majority of the exchange was between Mr. John McDonagh and Ms. Westall, and she thought a lot was interrelated with construction at the Lincoln Beach project. She felt that until recently the misunderstanding was that the actual waterwalk on the beach from Point Hudson to Chetzemoka Park was part of Ms. Westall's proposal. However, Ms. Surber pointed out two small dots in the suggested amendment that link the beach to Lincoln Street. She said she believed all along Mr. McDonagh was under the impression Ms. Westall was talking about the waterwalk that is in the Urban Waterfront Plan and the Non-Motorized Transportation Plan. Planning Commission Minutes May 30, 2002 / Page 8 · Chair Thayer opened the meeting for public comment at 9: 17 p.m. PUBLIC COMMENT Ms. Michele Sandoval. Port Townsend She explained she met that day with the Transportation Committee, and that they had asked for a current updated Non- Motorized Transportation Map. She said this is on their task for this year, and whether or not this amendment is docketed, the actual map will be updated. There being no other public testimony, at 9:18 p.m. Chair Thayer closed public comment on item #9. PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENT Ms. Dorgan Did not support docketing this amendment. She said it is part of the land use information that is useful to Staff, and suggested these are trails that are not on easements, they are just where people have walked. She did not think they should amend the Plan, that it would not solve the problem. Ms. Thayer Thought they should handle it a different way, and felt not to docket. Mr. Hvland Also did not think to docket it due to staff time involvement for one private property. Mr. Benskin Felt it should be dealt with. Pointed out it is private property, and that it is time for Ms. Westall to get relief from trespass. ML. Hersev Concurred. Her understanding is the Non-Motorized Transportation Trail was never adopted and does not have the right to go onto private property, that the City does not have the right to take private property and make it a public use, unless they take it andpay for it. She thinks Ms. Westall needs their help. · MOTION Ms. Hersey DOCKET SUGGESTED AMENDMENT #9 TO REVISE THE NON- MOTORIZED TRANSPORTATION PLAN MAP TO REMOVE THE TWO DOTS AND TAKE IT OFF AS PRIVATE PROPERTY FOR MS. WESTALL SECOND Mr. Benskin Discussion: Mr. Arthur thought oftentimes the public is confused as to which way to proceed; she has obviously attempted several ways to remove property from the map she had not agreed to. Costs to remove it otherwise by the City could be $750. Ms. Surber clarified the impact of not talking about the waterwalk they thought originally. There was further discussion regarding maps. Mr. Benskin thought this resulted from Staff misunderstanding and he wanted to make sure the problem was remedied without more run-around. Ms. Hersey thought this to be good check and balance to make sure it gets dóne. VOTE FAILED BY ROLL CALL VOTE -- 3 IN FAVOR; 6 OPPOSED: Mr. Berg, Ms. Dorgan, Mr. Hyland, Ms. King, Mr. Irvin, Ms. Thayer EXIllBITS RECEIVED AT THIS MEETING: Exhibit A Copy of Memorandum to Jefferson County BOCC dated May 24, 2002, from DCD Randy Kline updating Jefferson County Comp Plan Docket. Exhibit B May 29, 2002 faxed letter from James D. Lindsay, Planning and Development Management Services, Harbor Development Services, LLC, Seattle, W A for public comment on Preliminary Docket, item #4, Remove FUGA language from Comprehensive Plan, proponent Alice King. Exhibit C Written testimony dated May 30, 2002 received from Ms. Sarah Westall regarding Comp Plan suggested amendment #9, Westall -- Existing Trail. Exhibit D Copy of oral testimony given by Joe Pipia to encourage docketing of Comp Plan amendment #4. Exhibit E Copy of oral testimony given by JeffKelety and related map and charts to encourage docketing of Comp Plan amendment #4. Exhibit F Copy of oral testimony given by Ms. Nora Regan to encourage docketing of Comp Plan amendment #4. · Planning Commission Minutes May 30, 2002 I Page 9 · · · Ms. Surber explained there is no scheduled meeting preceding the deadline to forward the transmittal to City Council for their public hearing regarding docketing of the Comp Plan suggested amendments on June 17th. She suggested the Planning Commission appoint representatives to meet and sign the Planning Commission's transmittal. Ms. Surber also asked if it were the Commission's wish for Staff to present the transmittal to City Council for the Planning Commission. MOTION REPRESENTATIVES CHAIR THAYER AND MR. BENSKIN TO MEET WITH MS. SURBER TO SIGN PLANNING COMMISSION TRANSMITTAL TO CITY COUNCIL Ms. Hersey SECOND VOTE Mr. Hyland UNANIMOUS, 9 IN FAVOR BY VOICE VOTE CONSENSUS: STAFF TO PRESENT PLANNING COMMISSION TRANSMITTAL TO THE CITY COUNCIL AND A JOINT MEETING WITH CITY COUNCIL WILL NOT BE SCHEDULED UNTIL THE RECOMMENDATION TO APPROVE OR DENY Mr. Arthur expressed concern that considerations of lengthy amendments not preclude adequate consideration of the remaining amendments. Ms. Surber noted that appropriate consideration would be given all amendments in forthcoming workshops. VIII. UPCOMING MEETINGS June 13, 2002, Planning Commission Regular Meeting June 17, 2002, City Council Public Hearing on Planning Commission's Final Docket June 27, 2002, Planning Commission Regular Meeting -- Update by Ms. Surber IX. COMMUNICATIONS -- There were none X. ADJOURNMENT Motion to adjourn the meeting was made by Mr. Benskin and seconded by Mr. Hyland. All were in favor. The meeting adjourned at 9:40 p.m. ~~r .~ Sheila Avis, Minute Taker Planning Commission Minutes May 30, 2002/ Page 10 · THE NEXT TWO ITEMS WERE REQUESTED BY THE COMMISSION FOR REVIEW OF AMœNDMENT #4-GLEN COVE FUGA Memorandum of Understanding FUGA Amendment as Recommended for Approval by PC in 2001 · · · · · Record & Return to: Clerk to the County Commissioners Jefferson County Court House PO Box 1220, 1820 Jefferson Street Port Townsend. W A 98368 April 8, 2002 INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT City-County MOU re LAMIRD Boundary Agreement and Appropriate Glen Cove Designation TABLE OF CONTENTS I. PREAMBLE A. Purpose B. Background II. AGREEMENT A. Parties to Agreement B. Authority C. Objectives D. General Provisions III. SIGNATURES 1 1. PREAMBLE A. PURPOSE . The purpose for this Interlocal Agreement (hereinafter referred to as "Agreement") is to establish a cooperative process concerning LAMIRD boundaries for Glen Cove and to establish a framework for City-County negotiations regards Appropriate Glen Cove Designation. B. BACKGROUND The County adopted its comprehensive plan in 1998 based on requirements of GMA. The comprehensive plan made an initial designation of the Glen Cove Industrial Area Interim Light Industrial/Commercial Zone boundary. The adopted 1998 comprehensive plan addressed the need to revisit interim rural area boundaries following the completion of the Glen Coveffri- Area Special Study and establish final boundaries. On December 3,2001, the final tasks related to the Special Study were delivered to the Board of County Commissioners and the Special Study was deemed complete. The Board determined to review the scope of the Glen Cove area by re-visiting the LAMIRD boundary. The Board held a public hearing on March 18,2002 and received public comment, including comment from the City of Port Townsend, that any . boundary revision should meets GMA criteria. II. AGREEMENT A. Parties to A~eement This Agreement is entered into individually by Jefferson County (hereinafter referred to as "County") and the City of Port Townsend (hereinafter referred to as "City"). B. Authority This Agreement constitutes an exercise of authority granted to the City and County under Chapter 39.34 RCW, the Interlocal Cooperation Act. Copies of this Agreement shall be filed with the Jefferson County Auditor and the Washington State Office of Community Development. Copies shall be available at the City Clerk's Office. 2 . · · · c. O~jectives The objectives of this Agreement are to define a process for the parties to work together to reach agreement on permanent LAMIRD boundaries for Glen Cove within a defined framework, and to negotiate the terms of an interlocal agreement providing for a future UGA or other appropriate designation of Glen Cove, addressing issues including but not limited to infrastructure financing strategies, boundaries, land use, capital facilities, revenue-sharing, and environmental issues, all of which should be consistent with GMA requirements. D. Permanent IAMIRD Boundary City and County agree to work together to reach agreement on permanent LAMIRD boundaries for Glen Cove, within the following framework: 1. City and County shall jointly fund the retention of an expert in GMA issues. The City and County BCD Directors shall jointly prepare a scope of work and contract and administer the contract on behalf of both entities. 2. The expert selected shall be mutually agreed on by the City Manager and Interim County Administrator. 3. The expert shall be directed to accomplish the following: a. Review and provide conclusion for each area of proposed lAMIRD expansion identified in the Glen Cove Boundary Analysis prepared by the Jefferson County Department of Community Development March 7, 2002 and render an opinion whether the area(s) are consistent with GMA criteria for LAMIRD designation (including any growth board or court decisions). The expert shall further render an opinion on whether areas within the original County provisional UGA ("PUGA") designation that were excluded frqmLAMIRD designation under the Boundary Analysis 3 or other areas on plans submitted by their planning commission should be . included in a Glen Cove LAMIRD boundary revision. b. Conduct whatever review the expert deems appropriate. This may include meeting with staffs, owners, or others in order to make an opinion. c. Conclude work as soon as possible, but in no event more than fourteen (14) days from date of retention. 4. Following conclusion by the expert, City and County staffs and elected officials will in good faith and as promptly as possible attempt to reach agreement on a permanent LAMIRD boundary for Glen Cove. a. County agrees it will not take action to revise LAMIRD boundary until City and County have reached agreement on permanent LAMIRD boundary revision, and then only to revise boundaries consistent with the . resolution on permanent LAMIRD boundaries reached between the City and the County. In no event shall any LAMIRD expansions occur beyond that which the expert says is consistent with G~ unless both parties otherwise agree. b. City agrees it will not contest to the growth board (WGMHB) any part of revised LAMIRD boundaries, which are mutually agreed upon between City and County. c. City and County may task a mediator in resolving any differences between City and County on LAMIRD boundary. E. Future of Glen Cove City and County agree to negotiate in good faith terms of an interlocal agreement providing for a future UGA or other appropriate designation of Glen Cove, and addressing issues 4 . · · · including but not limited to infrastructure financing strategies, buffers, boundaries, land use, capital facilities, revenue-sharing, and environmental issues. Any interlocal must be consistent with GMA requirements. Each party shall designate a negotiation team, which shall include at least one elected official from each party. The parties will endeavor to quickly negotiate the terms of an interlocal agreement, and take prompt implementing measures subject to required processes. The parties intend an agreement to be negotiated within the next 90 days. The parties agree to jointly hire an outside expert or a mediator if needed to reach agreement, or may agree to extend the time needed to reach agreement. F. General Provisions 1. Relationship to Existing Laws and Statutes Except as specifically provided herein, the County and City do not abrogate the decision-making authority vested in them by law. This Agreement in no way modifies or supersedes existing State laws and statutes. 2. Amendment The County and City recognize that amendments to this Agreement may be necessary to clarify the requirements of particular sections to update the Agreement. All parties, by action of their legislatures in open meeting, must agree in writing with any proposed amendments to this Agreement before such an amendment becomes effective. 3. Effective Date and Term of Agreement/Provisions for Termination The 'effective date' for this Agreement shall be the latter of the two dates when the City Councilor the County Commissioners, acting in their distinct legislative capacities, adopt this Interlocal Agreement. If those legislative bodies adopt this Agreement on the same date, then that date shall be the effective date. The term of this Agreement shall be for five (5) years from the effective date hereof. 5 4. Severability . · If any provision of this Agreement or its application to any person or circumstance is held mvalid, the remainder of the provisions andlor the application of the provisions to other persons or circumstances shall not be affected. In. SIGNATURES IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this Agreement has been executed by each party to this Agreement as evidenced by signature pages affixed to this Agreement. ~ · an Titterness, Member 4lglD~ APPROVED AS TO FORM r/Jo.;.r.J at. "t)Z3)~ Deputy Prosecuting Atto~ 6 · · · · INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT SIGNATURE PAGE The legislative body of the undersigned jurisdiction has authorized execution of this Interlocal Agreement. IN WITNESS WHEREOF This Agreement has been executed by the City of Port Townsend ~ý~ David Timmons By: City Manager Date: s . q .. ð2- Attest: By: ~ CÞ<k Pamela Kolacy, CMC 0 City Clerk Approved as to Form: By: ~~ß0 ..., John Watts City Attorney SEAL: 7 ;, I · 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 Exhibit P 1-4 Excerpts from Comprehensive Plan relating to Final Urban Growth Area (FUGA) and Major Industrial Development (MID) Policies (Amendment #5 - Review and Amend FUGA Language in Comprehensive Plan) Section 1. Pafle IV-2: IifltaI- Port Townsend Urban Growth Area (Ji:UGA) Under the GMA, "urban growth" is defmed as growth that makes intensive use ofland for the location of buildings, structures, and impermeable surfaces. The Act makes it clear that urban growth must occur only within designated wban 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 Irondale and Hadlock area - "Irondale UGA" and possibly a limited area of more intensive rural development (LAMIRD) in the Glen Cove area. 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 identifying 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 TovlRseBa has iBeluded poftieBs ofthe Gloo Cove area bØ)'oad the preseÐ:t City limits witæB a eOBeøptual fiBal urban gre'",¡.th area (FUGf..). The area is loeated immediately adjaeeBt aBd to the so:athwest efthe City, aJeRg the S.R. 20 corridor. The area is preseBtly aBiBeOlflOfated aBd falls \iBde£ the jarisdietioB of JeffersoB Cmmty for plamlmg and laBd \ise pemlit administmtiÐB. ,^..a expaBsioB efthe Port TO'llRseaa FUG'^1 is beiBg eaBsidered for a Bamber ofreasÐBs: De9l9ite the iB City apzoBes direetea by this PlaB, a shortage of laBd available for eommereial aBd HiaBafaetwiBg de>.'elopmeBt still eJ!:Ïsts '.vithiB the City limits. M8B'J of the f'areels ÍB ta'WR whieh are available for eommereial aBd m9ffilfaeturiBg de'lel~meat tood ta be too small ana fægæeBted to ~ort the eeoBomie de>æleflHieÐ:t Beeded ÍB the eemHRiBity. Pareels iB the City v..hieh are large oooagh te support eommereial aBd manafaetariflg developmeat are ÍB maBY ÍBstanees aBSi:lÍtable beeause they: EBeamflass eftviroameBtally sCBsitive areas (ESAs) ·....1Heh eOBstmffi de>:elof'moot; aBd Tead to be loeated ÍB areas whieh are reffioyed from existiBg ægioBal . ·tt r SR~9/S' UT~ tmn9lgertatIeB eom om I.e., .. ,1mS.. ay . ^ sigaifieaBt portioB of the GleB Cove area is cmreBtly zOBed for light HiaBafaetm'ÍBg and commereial uses l:1Bder the COtiftt)"'S ZOBÏng code. If urban commercial aBd HiaB\iÍ8eæriBg growth is to eoBtÏnac iB Last printed 5/23/02 2:04 PM C:\Jefi's Files\JEFFR\COMP.PLA\amendments\Amendment 5 - New Pages.doc · · · 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 Gloo Cove, thoo it shoti1d be withiR the City's FUGA. FiBally, expansioB of Port Tov;fl:sood's FUGA iato Glefl CO'/e vtill assist iB stemmiBg the fio':; of retail sales leakage te fleighboring afeas like Silverdale and Seq1:1im, and help pmmote a more baltmeed aad vital ecoaomy in aortheastem Jefferson Cmæty. In J\:Hle of 1995, the JoiRt Gm'Nth Management Committee (an advisory committee eomprised of elected offieials from both the CouRty and City) reeommeftded a "preferred" eoncept1:1a1 alternative f-or the unincorporated portion of the Port Tov;nsen:d FUG:\.. The Joint Grovnh ManagemeRt Committee (JGMC) direeted that this alternative be iReluded in the eomprehoosive plans of both the Cot1ftty and City. This concept1:1ftl altefflative OOYÌsioRs the designation of an expanded "Community Serving UG.A~" encompassing a portion ofthe Glen Cove area. The goal of the alternative is to oopport emroot eommereial aÐ:d manl:1faetoong eflterprises in Glen CO'/e, and pf0'.4de eJ{fJanded opportunities for retailing aÐ:d appropriate manufacturing, cOflsistent with the broader eomffi1:Hl:ity '/Ísion. 'This elemeRt inemdes goals and policies which s1:1pport the recommefldatiofls of the JGMC. Additionally, the LaRd Use Map ,¡.hieh accompanies this Plan depiets the possiÐle future extent of the unincorporated portion of the FUG::\. (3CC the map pecket at the back of this Plan). In conf-ormance with the CouRty Wide Planning Policy for Jefferson Cot1ftty, the Cmmty and City afe coordiHftting theii' pltmning efforts to collect and analyze data, and determine an appæpriate FUG,'\. bOlmdary. Howeyer, at the time of this writing, additional inf{)rmation aBd analysis is needed to refiRe and moàify the cORcepmal FUG.A~ boundary to enStire consistooey with the pllHHling goals and principles of the GMf~, as well as reeent deeisioo.s by the Growth Managemoot HeariRgs Beams. It is anticipated that Port TO':;flsend's FUG.A~ bO\:lHdary will be desigBated either at the time Jefferson COl:1nty adepts its GM.A~ Comprefloosive Plan, er in a st1Ðseqt1oot affiefldment to that Plan. Ukimatcly, this proceæ is likely to lead to the de'.'clopmeRt of joint pltmning, management, and aflI}exation polieies f-or the uniaeorporated portion of the FU<1A~. Section 2. Page IV-3: Land Use Map (Note: Delete FUGA from ComDrehensive Plan Land Use MaD) The Land Use Map is also required by the GMA. The map represents the general future land use patterns which are desired for the City of Port Townsend within the 20 year planning period. The map is the City's "blueprint" for action and graphically depicts where various land uses should be located. The goals and policies found within this chapter support and implement the land use map. The Port Townsend Planning Area The "planning area" includes all of the lands within the present City limits~;-and portions of the Glen Cove area that have the potential to be included within the City's FUGA, as discussed above.- The City has been divided into 11 subareas, as indicated on Figure IV -Ion page IV-4. The City has already prepared several subarea plans, such as the Urban Waternont Plan, Gateway Development Plan, and the Point Hudson Master Plan. The subareas used in the preparation of this Plan build upon those previously established. Section 3. Page IV-7: Land Use Map Designations Revised 10/31/01 2 C:Veffs FilesVEFFRICOMP.PLAlamendmentslAmendment 5 - New Pages. doc I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 IS 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 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) Medium Density: size) Medium Density: 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: Neighborhood-Serving Mixed Use Center family C-I/MU with moderate density multi- Community-Serving Mixed Use Center residential C-II/MU with high density multi-family residential Commercial Designations: Neighborhood Commercial: General Commercial: Hospital Commercial: Historic Commercial: Regioaal Commercial: C-I C-II C-II{H) C-III C IV . Marine-Related & Manufacturing Designations: Mixed Light Manufacturing and Commercial M/C Light Manufacturing: Marine-Related Uses: Marine-Related Uses: Heavy Manufacturing: M-I M-IIA (Boat Haven) M-IIB (Point Hudson) M-III Section 4. Pafle IV-10: C IV Regioaal CommereÎal: The pHrpose of this designatioR is to pro'/ide areas for dhrersified commereial aetivities which serve a broader regioaal clieatele. The Hses geaørally attract trfliIie ITam a br{)ader area than the general eamæel'eial desigaatioR, and are liStIally larger iB seale than iB ather eommereial districts. This designatioR aeeammodates large scale retail stores, sftoppiRg eeaters, and speeialty stores. The C IV designatiaR has Bot beeR applied to areas vlithiB the prcsCHt City limits, although it be eould be applied to portioBs of the Gloo Caye area, if designated by JeffersoB COliRty withiB Port TovlRsead's FiRal Urbem Gro'.vth Area (FUGf1)' 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, Maizefield Mantles, Edensaw Woods, etc.). Manufacturing to commercial floor area ratios are necessary for this designation to ensure that certain uses do not dominate at the expense of others. The MlC designation has been applied to areas south of Sims Way, and west of Thomas Street. e Revised 10/31/01 3 C:VefJ's FilesVEFFRICOMP.PLAlamendmentslAmendment 5 - New Pages. doc · · · 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 This district may also be appropriate for significant portions ofthe Glen Cove area. if a FUG:.A~ larger tflaft the f)resoot City limits is desigBateà. M-I - Light Manufacturing: The M-I designation provides for light manufacturing, processing, fabrication and assembly of products and materials, warehousing and storage, and transportation facilities. The designation is appropriate for light manufacturing uses similar to those proposed for the Port Townsend Business Park. No areas of town are currently proposed to receive this designation, although it may be appropriate for portions of the Glen Cove area. if aft expanded Port To·.....nsend FUG:\. is approved. Section S. Page IV-II: M-III - Beavy Manufacturing: The M-III designation accommodates heavy industrial activities including processing, fabrication, assembling of products or materials, and bulk storage. This designation has not been applied to any areas within the current City limits, although it may be appropriate for portions ofthe Glen Cove area.. An example includes but is not limited to the Port Townsend Paper Mill. (e.g., the Port TøwBsood Paper Mill) slioHld it be desigBateà as part of the City's FUG:\.. Section 6. Parle IV-12: CM-PUD - CommerciallManufacturing: This overlay designation applies only in areas zoned for commercial or manufacturing development (i.e., C-I, C-II, C-III, G-I¥, M/C, M-I, M-IIA, M- liB and M-III). The designation allows business and industrial park developments to vary from the prescriptive standards of the zoning code. The designation is intended to promote innovative and well designed commercial and light manufacturing developments which are supportive of the City's economic development strategy. Standards for this type ofPOO should allow variety in tenns of the mixture of commercial and manufacturing uses, patterned after the Port Townsend Business Park POO approved in 1993. The minimum acreage necessary for a CM-POO should be substantially larger than for either the R-POO or MU-POO designations (e.g., 10 acres). Section7. Parle IV-14: TABLE IV-I: LAND USE DESIGNATIONS - SUGGESTED USES, DENSITIES & BUILDING BEIGBTS* 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% 34 I ! TABLE IV-I: CONTINUED Revised 10/31/01 4 C:VefJ's FilesVEFFRICOMP.PLAlamendmentslAmendment 5 - New Pages. doc 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-IIMU 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-IIIMU 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 I Square Foot of 35 Auto Oriented Specified Gross Floor Area Commercial Uses Per I Square Foot of Lot C-II(H) Medical Clinics, Not 1 Square Foot of 35 Nursing Homes Specified Gross Floor Area Doctor's & Per Dentist's 1 Square Foot of Offices, & Lot Pharmacies 1 Revised 10/31/01 5 C:VefJ's FilesVEFFRICOMP.PLAlamendmentslAmendment 5 - New Pages. doc . . e · · · I TABLE IV-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 1 Square Foot of Urban Waterfront Floor Lot Plan General Retail G-I¥ Large Seale .^.uto Net Mæ!.ÎImHfi Lot # Oriented Retailing; Speeified CO'¡erage of90% Shoppmg Ceaters &; 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 1 Square Foot of Retailing Lot M-I** Light Not 1 Square Foot of 35 Manufacturing, Specified Gross Floor Area Processing, Per Fabrication 1 Square Foot of & Assembly; Lot Warehousing & Storage M-II(A) Marine-Related Not 1 Square Foot of 35 Uses at Specified Gross Floor Area the Boat Haven Per 1 Square Foot of Lot M-II(B) Marine-Related Not 1 Square Foot of 35 Uses at Specified Gross Floor Area Point Hudson Per I Square Foot of Lot M-III** Heavy Industrial Not I Square Foot of 35 Uses Specified Gross Floor Area & Bulk Storage Per 1 Square Foot of Lot 2 Revised 10/31/01 6 C:IJeffs FilesIJEFFRICOMP.PLAlamendmentslAmendment 5 - New Pages. doc 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 1 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 information and guidance in the preparation of revisions to the Zoning Code (i.e., Title 17 PTMC). Revised 10/31/01 7 C:lJeffs FileslJEFFRICOMP.PLAlamendmentslAmendment 5 - New Pages. doc · · · · · · I Section 8. Paf!e IV-i5: 2 TABLE IV-2: THE LAND USE MAP - ACREAGE WITHIN EACH LAND USE DESIGNATION* LAND USE LAND AREA LAND AREA IN ACRES DE SIGNA TION 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 G--f¥U () () M/C 84 69 M-I.tl 0 0 M-II(A) Boat Haven 94 45 M-II(B) Point Hudson 24 12 M-III.tl 0 0 P/OS 611 479 P/OS(A)*u N/A N/A P/OS(B) 90 86 P-I 175 147 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 * Totals include lands within the Port Townsend City limits only. ** These land use designations could be applied to portions of the Glen Cove area~, if a FUG.LA~ larger Hum tho Port Te'.vRsoad City limits is designated. *** This designation is intended only to depict, at a conceptual level, areas that could be valuable if maintained as open spaces. Considerable work must be completed before the boundaries of this conceptual overlay district can be detailed, and before specific steps can be undertaken to implement the concept. Consequently, acreage totals are of marginal usefulness at this point in time. Revised 10/31/01 8 C:IJeffs FilesIJEFFRICOMP.PLAlamendmentslAmendment 5 - New Pages. doc 1 Section 9. Page IV-20: ~ Policy 4.11: Work with Jefferson County to identify future park and recreational facility . 4 needs within the \ffiÎBeol'fJÐmted portioB of the Port Townsend.:. FiBal Urbaii 5 Grev,1:hl\rea (FUG.^~). and facilities within Jefferson County which will serve 6 Port Townsend residents. 7 8 Section 10. Page IV-24: 9 10 Commercial Lands 11 12 Goal8: To provide adequate commercialland to conveniently serve community needs while 13 maintaining Port Townsend's small town atmosphere. 14 15 Policy 8.1: Provide appropriately sized and located commercial areas to pfØ\'€iftt reduce retail 16 leakage, reduce vehicle trips out of town, enhance the tax base, and improve the 17 livability of the community. 18 19 Paliey 8.9: Coopemte '.vith J effefSoB C01:1Bty to st-udy the possibility of allowing regional 20 eOffimereial lises, along with the primary light maiilifaemriRg Bfld assoeiated 21 CÐffiffiliflity serving eommereiallises, ifl the liflifteÐl'fJoratcd portiofl ofthe Port 22 TO'Nflsefld Final Ul"baii GmvÂh Area (FUG.^~). 23 24 Policy 8....2.-W: Transform the Howard Street/Discovery Road Corridor into a vital, attractive 25 local shopping and commercial services district. Prepare a corridor master plan 26 for intensive commercial development of the area. The master plan should _ 27 address: - 28 a. The size and location of proposed land uses; 29 b. Targeted commercial uses and employment numbers; 30 c. Proposed street improvements, including right-of-way acquisition and 31 nonmotorized facilities; 32 d. The location of open space and buffers; 33 e. Identification of public improvements and costs needed to facilitate the 34 planned development; and 35 f. Design guidelines which clearly describe the development characteristics 36 desired. 37 38 Policy 8.!º-.H: As depicted on the Land Use Map, require a 50 to 100 foot open space buffer 39 along Sims Way (i.e., S.R. 20) from the City limits to Howard Street, and 40 Discovery Road from the City limits to 7th Street, to preserve the forest corridor, 41 and to provide a visual buffer between the roadway and new residential, 42 commercial, and manufacturing development. 43 8.10.H-trl Limit access through the forest corridor buffer to platted street 44 rights-of-way. 45 8.10.2~ Ensure that utilities to serve new development along the forest 46 corridor are placed underground. 47 8.10.3~ Preserve existing trees and vegetation along the forest corridor to the 48 maximum extent possible. 49 8.!!!.dHA Require the planting of native species when necessary to enhance the 50 buffer, and the replanting of native species to replace trees and .. 51 vegetation removed during development. Revised 10/31/01 9 C:Veffs FilesVEFFRICOMP.PLAlamendmentslAmendment 5 - New Pages.doc · · · 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 IS 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 8.10.5t-t.6 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 Bo\:1therly exteftt øf the poteatialliBißeoFpørated pørtiøß of the Port To'.viiBeBd FUGA. Section 11. Page IV-26: Manufacturing Lands Policy 9.7: If additional land is needed to accommodate 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 city's UGA and potential annexation.-it Bholilå be loeated withiB the liBißeoFpømted portioR of the Port Towßsood FiBal Urban Grovlth :\rea (i.e., the Glen Cøve area). Policy 9.8: Coordinate with Jefferson County to extend the open space buffer from the City limits south along S.R. 20 to Old Fort Townsend Road. Section 12. Page 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 Hasere Encourage. where appropriate. that proposed amendments to the Plan which affect the unincorporated lands adiacent to the City's portioR ofthe Final Urban Growth Area (FUGA) are subject to separate public hearings before the Jefferson County and Port Townsend planning commissions. 13.4.3 Confonn with the applicable provisions of the County-Wide Planning Policy during interlocal planning. Section 13. Page IV-32: FiBøI Port Townsend Urban Growth Area (Ji:UGA) [Note: In confonnance with the County-Wide Planning Policy for Jefferson County, the County and City are coordinating their planning efforts to collect and analyze data, and detennine an appropriate FUGA boundary on an on-going basis. Jefferson County is also reviewing the possibility of establishing other UGAs or limited areas of more intensive 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 adjacent 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. additioaal iRformation and analysis are aeeded to refiße and modify the eøReepmal FUG.^.. bøtiftàary to eßsere eORsisteßey with the plRflfliøg goals and priBeiples øf the GM.^.., as well as reeeat àeeisiofls by the Grovlth Managemeftt Hearings Boards. It is antieif)ated that Port Tø".vflsend's FUGA b01:1fldary will be desigaated either at the time JeffursoR CøtlRty adof)ts its Revised 10/31/01 10 C:lJefJ's FileslJEFFRICOMP.PLAlamendmentslAmendment 5 - New Pages. doc I GMA Comprdi.eflsi'¡e PIEm, or iR a subsequeHt I:}ffiefldment to that PIEm. This process is likely tø 2 lead to the d(welopmeflt of joint planaiRg and memagemeHt policies fer the UGl\.. It is 3 aelmmvledged that l.iltimate authority tø enact Em expanded FUG>^.. bouRdary rests with thc 4 Jefferson CO\:1Ilty Board of CommissioRers.] 5 6 Goal 16: To promote the logical and efficient build-out and redevelopment oflands within the 7 city. served with adequate urban public facilities and services. In planning growth over a 20 year 8 period. the city should focus on developing lands within the existing city limits before seeking to 9 expand the city's UGA into adiacent unincoI:porated areas. establish IlÐ. exp8flded "comm1.:mÏ:ty 10 serviRg" fiRall.:lfbllÐ. gt"Dv/th area (FUG,^..) whieh is provided with adeql:late urban public facilities II and services. 12 13 Paliey 16.1: Consider usiRg JeffersoR Coanty's existing light manufaetu1'Ï:ßg IlÐ.d commereial 14 (M/C) zORiRg bOUildaiy iR the Glen Coye area as the bOl.:l.Ð:dary for the 15 UfliRcorporated portion of thc FUGA. 16 17 Policy 16.1.~: Support the establishment of an unincoI:porated Glen Cove LAMIRD and 18 industrial zoning within the LAMIRD(I). Support C1:H"fØm eommereial 8fld 19 mmmfacturiRg enterprises in the Glen Cove ar'Ca, IlÐ.d provide expanàed 20 opportUflities fDr retailing 8fld appropriate mmmfacturiRg, consisteHt with the 21 broadoc community visioR. 22 16.1.1.M Participate and support county sub-area planning efforts in the 23 Glen Cove area. Coopemte '.vith Jefferson Coanty to study the 24 possibility of allowing up to t'.vø loeations (i. c., approximately 20 25 total aeres) fer regioBal retail use within the umfleorporated portion 26 of the FUGA. 27 16.1.2 .~ Encourage the establishment ofEmmre that zoning designations 28 within the Glen Cove LAMIRD(I) the unincorporated portion of the 29 FYGA to support diversified manufacturing IlÐ.d small businesses 30 (e.g., small scale "clean" industry) and accessory commercial uses. 31 32 Policy 16.2 ~: Support the County in limiting I:,imit new residential and incompatible 33 commercial uses within the unincorporated portion of the Glen Cove LAMIRD(I) 34 of the FUG>^... U'.Te1c: Port To'.vnsefld has more thllÐ. adeqt1ate 18fld capacity tø 35 accommodate prDjeetcd populatioR gre,;¡th over the 20 year plæming period 36 additioeal high deRsity resideatial areas are uBRecessary). 37 38 Policy 16.3 ..4: The City is in the process of acquiring the PUD's public water system serving the 39 Glen Cove area. The city should manage the Glen Cove water system to promote 40 industrial and accessory commercial uses in the Glen Cove LAMIR.D'I) and the 41 city should discourage inappropriate urban type development in designated rural 42 areas. Ensllr'C that adequate pttblic facilities and utilities are prmided vlÎthin the 43 uniflcørporated portioR ofthe FUGA. Implemeæ the FUGA policies cOBtaÎfied 44 within the Capital Facilities & Utilities Element of this PIIlÐ.. 45 46 Policy 16.4 ~: Work with Jefferson County and the Jefferson Land Trust to designate open 47 space and trail connections through the unincorporated portion§ of Jefferson 48 County the FUGA (i. e., consistent with Chapter 36. 70A.160 RCW). I At the time of this writing, October 2001, the County is exploring land use option; for Glen Cove including its official designation as a LAMIRD. Revised 10/31/01 11 C:VefJ's FilesVEFFRICOMP.PLAlamendmentslAmendment 5 - New Pages. doc · · · 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 16.64.1 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 somherly extœt of the poteBtial uaiReorporated portioR af the Port TOWRs6ftà FUG,^~. Section 14. Pafle VII-2: Scope The scope of this plan primarily addresses land within the existing City limits, although some references to unincoI1>orated Jefferson County polieies far the patœtial future UfliReorporated portioR of the Port TO'llRsead Final Urblm Growth ¡\cree (FUGf~) have been included. This plan element covers all public capital facilities ofthe 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. Pafle 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 conunercial, manufacturing, or higher density residential development, as "Tier 2" areas. (}wlc: This 'l;ol:1ld iRell:1de the l:1Riaeorpomteà POrtiORS ofthe fiRall:1rbaR grovlth area (FUG.^~) if desigaated). 2.4.3 Designate all remaining areas as "Tier 3." Section 16. Paf{e VII-8.9: Unincomorated Areas Served bv the City UBiøeoFpOFated FiBal UrbaB CFOVith Area (FUC....) Goal8: To ensure that adeql:1ate urban level public facilities and utilities are only extended into UGAs and LAMlRDs and otherwise extended only if consistent with official land use designations. prøviàeà withia the 1IDÎneorporateà portioR of the FUG¡\~. Poliey 8.1: Poliey 8.2: Poliey 8.3: Coopefftte with Jeffersoa COURt)' to de'¡elop "mirror image" plans, regalatioas and àesigB staBàafd" for the l:1Riaeorporated POrtiOR of the FUGA f""sl:1re that levels of serviee for pübliø faeilities in the Uflineorporated portioa of the FUGf~ aTe eORsisteat with or ideBtieel to the City's level of serviee stlmàafàs. f~àopt iftterlocal agreemœts which iàeBtify the BJ3prQJ>riate provider of public faeilities Bfld serviees v;ithiR the UflÍBeorpomted POrtiOR of the FUG.^~. CoordiBete vlith JeffersoR Cooot)' Bflà other appropriate ageBcies Bfld eRtities to graooally phase the prøvisioR of faeilities, serviees aRd l:1tilities iR the \:ffiÌ8:eorporateà POrtiOR of the FUGA Revised 10/31/01 12 C:Veffs FilesVEFFRICOMP.PLAlamendmentslAmendment 5 - New Pages. doc I 2 Polie~' 8.! 4: CoordiBate jøiBt plar..niBg aBd permit reviev.' with Jeff-ersøB CoaBt)'. If 3 Beeessary, establish joiBt plæmiBg aBd permit proeessiBg agreemeBts ·.'lith 4 JeffersoB C01:lBty. 5 6 Poliey 8.5% Establish iaterloeal agreemeftts with Jeffemofl C01:lBty regardiflg the provisioB of 7 lHÌJaB water, waste,.....ater, storm,/..ater aad tnmspørtatiofl serviees to the 8 1:lBiBeorpomted POrtiØBS of the FUGA. 9 10 Policy 8.1_ét Cooperate with Jefferson County to contain urban growth within appropriately II designated UGAs, ensuring that commercial and manufacturing areas outside of 12 UGAs: 13 a. Are rural in character, scale and intensity; 14 b. Are served at a rural level of service; ftBd 15 c. Do not accommodate businesses and services that direetly compete .....ith 1:lses 16 withiR UG,^~s are more appropriately located in a UGA or LAMIRD: or 17 d. Are approved Maior Industrial Developments (MIDst 18 19 Section 17. Pafle VII-15: 20 21 Public Health & Safety 22 23 Goal 18: To assure proper disposal of wastewater to protect ground and surface water supplies. 24 25 Policy 18.1: Ensure that all existing and new development within the Port TownsendFffial 26 Urban Growth Area (FUGA) is supplied with adequate wastewater collection and treatment 27 facilities. 28 29 Section 18. Pafle VII-15: 30 31 System Development & Management 32 33 Goal 19: To efficiently develop and manage the City's wastewater collection and treatment 34 system. 35 36 Policy 19.1: Encourage infill development and the gradual, phased expansion within the Port 37 Townsend Fffial Urban Growth Area (FUGA). 38 39 Policy 19.6: Establish standards for wastewater collection and treatment facility design. 40 19.6.1 Design the wastewater collection system to convey the peak daily flow 41 based upon a 20 or 50 year growth forecast and infiltration/inflow 42 allowances. 43 19.6.2 Design treatment plants using a minimum of a 20 year growth projection, 44 with planned expansion capable of serving the 50 year growth projection 45 of the Port Townsend Fffial Urban Growth Area (FUGA). 46 47 Section 19. Paf!e VII-16: 48 49 System Development Phasing 50 · · · Revised 10/31/0 J 13 C:Veffs FilesVEFFR\COMP.PLA\àmendmentslAmendment 5 - New Pages. doc · · · 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 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. Policy 20.2: Do not extend the wastewater system into areas outside the Port Townsend Final Urban Growth Area (I"UGA). Section 20. Paf!e VII-72: IMPLEMENTATION PROGRAMS Capital Facilities Projects 1. 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. cooperate with Jefferson County to study the capital facilities needs of the potential unincorporated portion of the Port Townsend Final Urban Growth Area (I"UGA). If a I"UGA 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 I"UGA. 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 Major Industrial Developments (MID) as defined by RCW 36.70A.365. Policy 9.A-;: Expand existing commercial and manufacturing zones only after assessing and mitigating adverse environmental impacts. Revised 10/31/01 14 C:Vejfs FilesVEFFRICOMP.PLAlamendmentslAmendment 5 - New Pages.doc I Policy 9.5 4:- Encourage the infill of existing commercial and manufacturing zones before ~ considering the expansion or creation of new zones. . 4 Policy 9.Q..S.: Provide effective separation of conflicting land uses through buffering, setbacks, 5 zone uses allowed, and transition zones. 6 7 Policy 9.L6: Achieve a greater balance between housing and employment opportunities. 8 9 Policy 9&.~: Assure that implementing regulations permit cottage industries within residential 10 areas, consistent with the character of the surrounding neighborhood. 11 12 Policy 9~&: Promote development of planned office, business and industrial parks, while 13 conserving unique physical features of the land and maintaining compatibility with other land 14 uses in the surrounding area. 15 16 Policy 9.1Q..9: Encourage neighborhood mixed use centers where small scale commercial 17 development (e.g., professional services offices, restaurants, or retail stores) may occur in 18 residential neighborhoods, consistent with the goals and policies of the Land Use Element of this 19 Plan. 20 21 Section 22. Paf!e VIII-J5.J6: 22 23 Commercial Historic District Revitalization 24 25 Port Townsend's plan for revitalization of the Commercial Historic District identifies three 26 important areas of involvement for City government. . 27 28 First, the City's plan should ensure the provision and maintenance of appropriate public 29 improvements in the Commercial Historic District. The quality of the physical link between 30 public and private spaces is crucial to the proper functioning of the Commercial Historic District- 31 and its businesses. Public improvements should help create an inviting environment for shoppers, 32 with clearly marked streets, convenient shopping places, well-lit sidewalks and good pathways 33 between parking areas and stores. Public improvements should provide basic infrastructure and 34 services in a manner that is visually compatible with the nature of the functions they support. In 35 order to implement the Commercial Historic District revitalization policies of this element, the 36 City should develop a comprehensive public improvements program which is tailored to the 37 specific needs of the district while reinforcing private projects. 38 39 Second, the City's plan should provide adequate parking and parking management to meet the 40 needs of customers, merchants, employees, visitors and residents. It should be regulated to 41 encourage turnover of customer spaces and to discourage abuse by long-term parkers. In order to 42 ensure well designed, maintained and managed parking in the Commercial Historic District, the 43 City should develop a parking management strategy. The parking management strategy should 44 take into account not only the numbers and locations of parking spaces, but also methods of 45 enforcement - the incentives and disincentives that can be used to encourage parking in certain 46 areas. 47 48 Finally, the City should provide assistance to the Main Street Program in strengthening the 49 Commercial Historic District's existing economic base and gradually expanding it. The City, in 50 conjunction with the Main Street Program, should work to enhance diverse resident and visitor- . 51 based commercial activities and community events in the downtown. Revised 10/31/01 15 C:Veffs Fi/esVEFFRICOMP.PLAlamendmentslAmendment 5 - New Pages. doc · · · I 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 Implementation: I. 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 ofthe area while reinforcing private projects. The program should: a. Help to develop publiclprivate partnerships to improve the pedestrian environment; b. Promote the use of pedestrian visible signage in the Commercial Historic District; and c. Ensure that Commercial Historic District public improvements are adequately maintained in order to create a pleasant environment. 2. In cooperation with the Main Street Program and merchants, develop a Commercial Historic District parking management strategy. In developing the program the City should: a. Examine incentive based programs, coupled with education, to reverse resistance to using more remote parking areas; and b. Consider a variety of parking control alternatives, including: parking meters; chalking tires; cash boxes; and parking pennits. 3. 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 customer's 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. 4. 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. 5. COBtmct with the Maia Street Prøgram to develop a "Retail Pl&li" ta protect &lid eBhaftee rclailing ia Port TowBsead's Commereial Historie Distriet. The plan shoüld examiae the likely impaets of large seale regional eommef'eial de>¡elopment ia the Glea Cove area OB Port TovlBseBd's Commereial Historie Distriet. f~ŒlitiaBally, the PI&li shaald reeommead poteBtiallafld üse aBd zOBi1'1g teelmiques whieh might be ased to mi1'1imize the adverse effects of regio1'1M eommereial development 01'1 Coæmereial Historie Distriet retailers. Section 23. Paf!e IX-i.2: Revised 10/31/0 J 16 C:Veffs FilesVEFFRICOMP.PLAlamendmentslAmendment 5 - New Pages. doc 1 ~ CONSISTENCY WITH THE 13 GMA GOALS . 4 Goal #1 - Urban Growth. Encourage development in urban areas where adequate public 5 facilities and services exist or can be provided in an efficient manner. 6 7 The Plan cOBtemplates the poteatial designatioB of a fiBal urban growth area (FUG}~) larger than 8 the curœnt City limits. The PlaR proposes a "eoBcept-1:1al FUGN' for further review and aRalysis 9 that comprises approximately 600 aores ofthe GlOB Cøye area iB HfliBcorpoffited Jeff-ersoB 10 CØHflty. If designated, JeffersoB CØliBty aRd the City afPart TOWBseBd would eoo13emte tø 11 provide the full range of arbaR pablie serviees ';¡ithiB a 20 year plæmiBg horÎzoÐ. Outside the 12 FUG..\. BouBdary v:ithin the County's sole jurisdietiøB, iBfrafRrueawe ',vould be pro'lided at a 13 "rural" le'/eI of serviee, aRd de>/elofJffieBt deÐsities '.vo\:lld Be "rural" iB eharecter. 14 15 The Chapter IV - "The Land Use Element" and the Future Land Use Map establish land use 16 designations and densities sufficient to accommodate the population growth expected to occur 17 over the next 20 years (i.e., 5,510 additional residents by 2016). The Plan promotes higher density 18 areas through the designation of Mixed Use Centers surrounded by distinct neighborhoods. The 19 Plan encourages higher density retail, service businesses and multi-family residential 20 development in areas where adequate transportation facilities, sewer, and water service already 21 exist or are planned. 22 23 Goal #2 - Reduce Sprawl. Reduce the inappropriate conversion of undeveloped land into 24 sprawling, low density development. 25 The Plan contains goals, policies and implementation strategies that encourage compact, efficient 26 urban growth, and the phasing of growth within Port Townsend, aad the potefttialltniBcorporated . 27 portioB of the City's FUG.^., through the use of "growth tiers." The Plan designates mixed use 28 centers surrounded by higher density residential areas at five key locations throughout town. The 29 Plan also connects lands with development constraints (e.g., wetlands, drainage corridors, and 30 steep slopes) with some of the City's remaining forested areas in an effort to create a City-wide 31 system of interconnected open spaces and trails. One of the central objectives of the Plan is to 32 attempt to retain the existing small town character of Port Townsend by encouraging new 33 development in and around the mixed use centers, rather than dispersed widely throughout the 34 City. 35 36 Goal #5 - Economic Development. Encourage economic development throughout the state that 37 is consistent with adopted Comprehensive Plans; promote economic opportunity for all citizms of 38 this state, especially for unemployed and for disadvantaged persons; and encourage growth, all 39 within the capacities of the state's natural resources, public services, and public facilities. 40 41 The Plan designates significant areas within the City limits for commercial and manufacturing 42 development; and anticipates the desigo.atioB of additioaal commereial and manufacturing laRd 43 ¡,yithffi the potential futare lHiiBeorpoffited partioB of tho FUG,^~. Many of these areas are already 44 provided with a full range of urban services to facilitate development, or would be provided with 45 these facilities within the 20 year planning horizon. 46 47 One of the major emphases of the Plan is to address the current "jobslhousing imbalance" in Port 48 Townsend and provide more "family-wage" jobs. An Economic Development Element has been 49 included (see Chapter VIII) within the Plan to facilitate economic growth and development 50 consistent with community and environmental values. The Economic Development Strategy . 51 stresses the importance of promoting our local training and education capabilities, and Revised 10/31/01 17 C: \Jeffs Fi/es\JEFFRICOMP.PLA lamendmentslAmendment 5 - New Pages. doc 1 · 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 IS 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 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 of tomorrow. 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 of long term commercial significance have been identified or designated within the City. Only a small portion ofthe City's current land base is currently devoted to agricultural or forestry industries (approximately 75 acres ofthe 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. Finally, the Plan recommends that the Port Townsend Paper Mill should be left outside of the City's poteatial future FUGA, and zoned for "resource-related" manufacturing uses. The Plan suggests that compatible light manufacturing and accessory commercial uses be located in the area west of the Glen Cove Mill site, inside the poteatial unincorporated portion of the FUGA Glen Cove LAMIRD. Section 24. Pafle 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. 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. Revised 10/31/01 18 C:VefJ's FilesVEFFRICOMP.PLAlamendmentslAmendment 5 - New Pages. doc 1 Policy #1. Policy to Implement RCW 36. 70A.ll 0 - Urban Growth Areas. ~ By mutual agreement, the County and City have prepared and adopted a Joint Population . 4 Forecast and Allocation for use in Growth Management planning. The land capacity analysis 5 conducted for the Plan concluded that Port Townsend's current corporate limits contain enough 6 undeveloped land suitable for residential uses to accommodate 100% of the population allocated 7 to the City under the adopted population forecast (i.e., 5,510). Althoagh Port Townsend contains 8 enough vacant residential land to accommodate the projected 20 year population increase... ,a-A 9 shortage of land Stlitaèle served with adequate inrrastructure and zoned for commercial and 10 manufacturing development still exists within the City limits. During the 2002 5-year 11 comprehensive plan update the city shall conduct a vacant lands inventory and review growth 12 projections for commercial and manufacturing development. The city should seek to rezone land 13 within the city limits before seeking to expand into unincoq>orated Jefferson County. 14 Coaseqaently, the Pllm iachuies portioas of the adjacent aRd aaiacorporated Glefl Cove area 15 vfÎthia the City's eOÐceptl:utl fiaal1:1fhaR gi"evlth area (FUGf~). 16 Loeated immediately adjaceflt and to the southwest of the City, aloag the S.R. 20 corridor, the 17 area presently falls l:ffidør the jwisdietioa ofJeffersoB Coaaty for planniag afld lafld ase permit 18 admiaistratioB. If desigaated, Jeffersoa CoaHty afld the City of Port TowBseBd ':;oald eooperate 19 to provide the full raflge of 1:1fhafl public serviøes withia a 20 year p18ll1'liag horizoa. Outside the 20 FUGA b01:1Rdary withia the CoaHty's sole jarisdietioa, iafrastructure v;oald he provided at a 21 "f1:1fRI" level of serviee, aRd developmeHt deasities would he "reml" ia character. No aade'¡eløped 22 resideHtial areas are proposed for iaclasioa ia the uaiacorperated portioa of the FUGA. lastead, 23 this portioR of the proposed FUG..\. is iHteflded to provide safficieflt developaèle laRd for 24 commercialafld ffiBft1:1faeturing ases to sastaiR a healthy local ecoaomy. 25 26 Policy #3. Policy on Joint County and City Planning within Urban Growth Areas. . 27 28 At the time of this writing. Port Townsend's city limits define the urban growth boundary. There 29 is no unincorporated UGA within which to conduct joint planning with Jefferson County. 30 However. if the City's UGA is expanded then the City and the County should engage in the joint 31 planning and pennitting activities outlined in county-wide planning policy #3. 32 Planniag f.or the poteHtial1:1Riacorporated portioa of the Port TowaseÐd FUG,^~ is still ia its 33 formatbe stages, ood mach work remaias to be done. Howe'/er, the City's Plaa does coatam 34 policies ',vhich specifieally address the aaiacorporated portion of the FUGA la paftiealar, a 35 poliey subseetioa fias beea iacluded withia Chapter VII "The Capital Faeilities & Utilities 36 Elemeat," whieh is inteÐded to eaS\:1fe that adeq1:1ate publie faeilities ood utilities will be pr.o'¡ided 37 withia the 1:1Rifteorpor8ted portion of the FUG..^.., if desigBated. This subseetioa estahlishes 38 fraæ:ework policies for joiat planBiRg 8Bd pcrmit admiBistratioft, iacludiag ØBYÍfOftmeÐtal reYie',\' 39 (i.c., SEP"^~) 8Bd deeisioa makiag authority for 1::1nifteorporated lEmds located ·.vithift the Pert 40 Towaseftd FUGf... 41 42 Policy #7. Policy on County-Wide Economic Development and Employment. 43 The Port Townsend Comprehensive Plan includes an Economic Development Element (see 44 Chapter VIII) with major areas of emphasis including: training/education: marine trades: 45 diversified manufacturing and small "clean" business including cottagelhome businesses: 46 sustainable year-round tourism. community retail. commercial historic district revitalization. and 47 telecommunications infrastructure that pays partie-ular attcation to the needs of aoaservice seetor 48 basi:aesses aRd mBft1:1faet1::1ring. The Element is intended to create at least 2,700 "family wage" 49 jobs within the next 20 years. Spceific sectors ofthø loeal economy ',vhich are caco1::1raged by the 50 EIØffleHt iacmde: the Maria€! Trades; Diversified MBft1:1factwiag & Small Btisi:acss; COfl'lfffiHlÎty . 51 Retail; ood year r01::1ftd Tourism. Revised 10/31/01 19 C:VefJ's FilesVEFFRICOMP.PLAlamendments\Amendment 5 - New Pages. doc · · · I 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 Chapter IV "The LBfld. Use Elemeøt," Stlggests that Port TO>JÆsead's FUGA sftØ\ild iBelude eommereial Bfld mææfaetmiø.g zoned lands ÎB the 1:lBiBeorpoæted OleR Coye area. WBeB provided with adeqaate pahlie iRfrestruet\ire, this area ee\:1ld provide Stlffieieat IBfld for the eommereial, retail, 8ftà mæmfaetwiRg de"lelopmeat Reeded iR Bortàeestem JeffefSoR Col:1ftty. Beeaase efPort TO'NBsend's stat1:ls as a U01\. earl regioRal serviee ead retáil eeBter, it is Bfltieipated that the 1:H1ffieorpoæted portiOB oft.àe FUGA will iReæde some land zoned for larger seale "regioRal" retail ases. Policy #9. Policy on Fiscal Impact Analysis. Fiscal impacts are addressed through Chapter VII - "The Capital Facilities & Utilities Element." Chapter IV - "The Land Use Element," has been coordinated with the Capital Facilities & Utilities and other elements of the Plan. The assessment includes projected revenues and expenditures, and an analysis of the fiscal impacts of providing governmental services to accommodate the projected population growth. Numerous incentives and nonregulatory options (e.g., density bonuses, priority permit processing, open space tax incentives, etc.) have been identified as alternatives to regulatory programs in the implementation of Comprehensive Plan policy. Finally, it is eatieipated that Jefferson County and the City of Port Townsend have the option of will he developing interlocal agreements to address the issues of tax revenue sharing and the provision of regional services if an unincOlporated UGA is designated adiacent to Port Townsend and if annexation occurs in this area witàiR the poteatial WliBeorpof8ted portioRs of the Port TOWflsead FUGA. Policy #10. Policy on Use, Monitoring, Review and Amendment. The County-Wide Planning Policy for Jefferson County has been used consistently in the development of the Port Townsend Comprehensive Plan. Additionally, the Joint Growth Management Committee has served as the regional oversight body during the development of the Comprehensive Plan._ , anti has reviewed and prÐyided advisory reeommeadatioRs OR the shape and s\ibstanee of Port TowÐsend's prÐposød FUGA. Section 25. Zoning Code Amendments. Note: If the City Council approves Amendment #5 or approves with modifications that include the elimination of the C-IV land use and zoning designation, then staff will conduct a search and strike-out of all references to C-IV in the zoning code and will include these changes in the final ordinance prepared for Council. JR. Revised 10/31/01 20 C:Veffs Fi/esVEFFRICOMP.PLAlamendmentslAmendment 5 - New Pages. doc · · · City of Port Townsend Planning Commission Waterman-Katz Building 181 Quincy Street, Suite 301A, Port Townsend, WA 98368 (360) 379-3208 FAX (360) 385-7675 DRAFT Date: May 30, 2002 To: City Council From: Planning Commission Subject: Planning Commission Recommendations on the 2001 Preliminary Docket This letter transmits the recommendations of the Planning Commission on the 2002 preliminary docket. This year, the preliminary docket consists of nine suggested amendments. Planning Commission has conducted a public hearing and deliberated on each of the suggested amendments. Following is a brief description of each suggested amendment (for more detailed descriptions and the strike-out and underline language associated with each amendment, please refer to your 2002 Comprehensive Plan binders) and Planning Commission's recommendation on docketing. The commission has been guided by the criteria listed in §20.04.060(C); specifically, the "need", "urgency", and "appropriateness" of each suggested amendment. 1. Rezone Blocks 170 and 171 of the Eisenbeis Addition (Quasi-Judicial) a. Proponent: Glenn Norcross b. Description of the Suggested Amendment: Rezone Blocks 170 and 171 of the Eisenbeis Addition from R-II to R-IV (Exhibit 1, Map). A rezone requires amendments to the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map and the Zoning Map. c. Planning Commission Recommendation: **If docketed, I recommend that we send notification of property owners within a 300-foot radius. Also, note that, should the rezone be approved, acreages listed in Table IV-2 of the Comprehensive Plan will need to be amended. 2. Revise Comorehensive Plan Text to be Consistent with Recent GMA Amendments a. Proponent: Building & Community Development Department b. Suggested Amendment Amend the goals and policy text of the Comprehensive Plan to reflect recent amendments to the Growth Management Act (GMA) since 1995: c. Planning Commission Recommendation: 3. Revise Lot Coveral!e in P/OS Districts a. Proponent: Building & Community Development Department b. Description of the Suggested Amendment: Planning Commission Recommends modifYing the floor area ratios for the P-I zone (Exhibit 3) to be consistent with the C-III and C-II zoning district standards (depending upon whether the P-I zone is in the historic district or not). · c. Planning Commission Recommendation: 4. Remove FUGA Lanlrual!e from the Comprehensive Plan a. Proponent: Alice King b. Description of the Suggested Amendment: Please refer to the attached amendatory language (Exhibit 4). c. Planning Commission Recommendation: Planning Commission recommends ****** 5. Revise Density ofR-III and R-IV Zoninl! Districts a. Proponent: Ted Shoulberg b. Description of the Suggested Amendment: Revise the maximum density for the R-III and R-IV zoning districts to allow calculation of density to be based on either bedrooms or units (Exhibit 6). c. Planning Commission Recommendation: ** · 6. Revise SetbackslLot Coveral!e for Corner Lots a. Proponent: C.L. Flint b. Description of the Suggested Amendment: Amend Comprehensive Plan and PTMC to reduce side-yard setbacks and increase lot coverage in the residential zoning districts. c. Planning Commission Recommendation: **If docketed, do you agree with BCD staff that the proposal should be expan.ded to consider reducing the 1 O-loot front- yard setback requirement as well? 7. Revise Zon~1! Use Tables to Allow Group Homes Outri2ht in Certain Zones a. Proponent: Building & Community Development Department b. Suggested Amendment The proposal is to amend definitions and use tables in the zoning code to differentiate group homes for the disabled and emergency shelters from residential treatment facilities whose clients may be considered a risk to the public. The intent is to treat group homes for the disabled and emergency shelters (e.g., homes for battered women) the same as similar residential structures occupied by a family or other unrelated individuals. · · · Cindy Thayer, Chair · c. Planning Commission Recommendation: 8. Strike the 50% Rule for ADUs a. Proponent: Building & Community Development Department b. Description of the Suggested Amendment: BCD proposes to strike the current code requirement that limits Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) to less than 50% of the total floor area of the main residence (Exhibit 11). c. Plànning Commission Recommendation: 9. Delete Portion ofWaterwalk from Non-Motorized Transportation Plan a. Proponent: Sarah Westall b. Description of the Suggested Amendment: The applicant proposes the "existing trail" designation that crosses her property at 227 Lincoln Street (Exhibit 12, portion ofNMTP showing subject property). c. Planning Commission Recommendation: Respectfully submitted on behalf of the Planning Commission,