The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About03282002 Packet · · · CITY OF PORT TOWNSEND PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA City Council Chambers, 7 :00 pm March 28, 2002 I. Call to Order II. Roll Call III. Acceptance of Agenda IV. Approval of Minutes - March 14,2002 V. Unfinished Business Annual Assessment - Continuation of Workshop 1) Staff Overview 2) Planning Commission Clarifying Questions 3) Public Comment 4) Planning Commission Discussion VI. New Business Possible Suggested Amendments: A) Removal of Glen Cove FUGA (Final Urban Growth Area)Language from the Comprehensive Plan - Exhibit A attached) B) Modifications to the text ofthe P-I Zoning District (Exhibit B) VII. Upcoming Meeting April 11, 2002 - Planning Commission to finalize the Annual Assessment and Memo to BCD Director regarding Recommended Amendments (April 15 deadline) VIII. Communications Letter dated March 20, 2002, from Bernie Arthur regarding Annual Comprehensive Plan Review 2002 IX. Adjournment · · · CITY OF PORT TOWNSEND PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES WORKSHOP March 28, 2002 I. CALL TO ORDER Chair Cindy Thayer called the meeting to order at 7:09 p.m. in the City Council Chambers. n. ROLL CALL Other members answering roll were Alice King. Nancy Dorgan, Michael Hyland, Richard Berg, Jim Irvin, Frank Bel1$kin and Lyn Hersey. Bernie Arthur was excused. Also present were BCD staff members JeffRanda11 and Judy Surber, and Tim Caldwell of the Chamber of Commerce. m. ACCEPTANCE OF AGENDA Ms. Thayer proposed to add a public comment period to the agenda, and add the election of officers of the agenda. Mr. Irvin made a motion to accept the agenda as amended, and Ms. Dorgan seconded the motion. All were in favor. Discussion- Update -getting final phases of contract of Consultant Eric Toews. IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Mr. Irvin and Ms. Dorgan suggested amendments to the minutes. Mr. Hyland made the motion to approve the minutes of March 14, 2002, as amended, and Mr. Irvin seconded. All were in favor. V. UNFINISHED BUSINESS a. Election of officers. Ms. Dorgan made a motion to elect Cindy Thayer as Chair and Jim IIVin as Vice Chair. Ms. Hersey seconded. The motion passed. b. Camp Plan Annual Assessment Ms. Surber provided an oventiew of the annual assessment. She noted that according to the 2000 Census data, the City's percentage ofpopulation growth in relation to the rest of Jefferson County has been dropping over the years. Ms. Surber then discussed the FUGA suggested amendment from 2001. Two versions were provided to the Planning Commission. The first version reflected modifications made by the City Council during deliberations. The second version was an earlier one discussed at the Planning Commission level in 2001. However, with the exception of the MID policies, the FUGA amendment did not apply. The Planning Commission moved on to review and edit the annual assessment findings and conclusions that will be forwarded to City Council. The Commission agreed to add to indicators the increased layoffs from the paper mill, the closure ofPT Lumber, and the expansion of the Food Coop. Discussion was held regarding the importance of implementing the Plan and that the Comprehensive Plan assessment should be changed to a biannual assessment with in-between years focusing on implementation. Site-specific rezone amendments would be allowed every year but Comprehensive Plan assessments should occur only once every 2 years. Planning Commission Minutes Page 1 March 28, 2002 · · · Mr. Benskin made a motion that the City Council reconsider the Comprehensive Plan assessment process and consider less frequent assessments with a focus on implementation in between assessments. The motion passed unanimously. Ms. Surber was asked to draft a finding for Section 7. VI. NEW BUSINESS a. Suggested amendments. Ms. Dorgan discussed the Glen Cove FUGA and the amendment from 2001. Discussion was held on the "Final UIban Growth Area" reference in the Comprehensive Plan, and agreed that it is inappropriate to have "Final" referenced in the Plan. Ms Dorgan made a motion to docket the FUGA amendment as recommended by the Planning Commission in 200 1. Mr. Irvin seconded the motion. City staft' provided update of the Glen Cove planning process including the Jefferson County Board of Commissioners (BOCC) proposal to expand the Glen Cove LAMIRD through interim development regulation. City and County staff have met to discuss the issues. City staff (including the City Manager) has recommended to the BOCC that the CountyCOØlprehensive plan amendment process be utilized for consideration of any LAMIRD expansion. Mr. Randall also explained that it might be premature to docket this amendment at this time as the City and County are currently in negotiations on this issue. Mayor KoltY also stated a desire that the Planning Commission not docket this item at this time. The vote was 1 in favor and 8 against; the motion failed. b. Ms. Surber gave a briefing on the Shoreline Master Program update process. VII. UPCOMING MEETINGS· April 11 &. April 25 VIII. COMMUNICATIONS· Letter from Mr. Bernie Arthur. IX. ADJOURNMENT A motion to adjourn the meeting was made by LynHersey and seconded by Jim Irvin. All were in favor. The meeting adjourned at 9: 16 p.m. Planning Commission Minutes Page 2 March 28, 2002 · · · í ";. City of Port Townsend Planning Commission Waterman & Katz Building 181 Quincy Street, Suite 30 I Port Townsend, W A 98368 (360) 379-5084 Fax: (360) 385-7675 DRAFT To: Jeff Randall, Director of Building & Community Development From: Cindy Thayer, Port Townsend Planning Commission Interim-Chair Date: April 15, 2002 Re: Planning Commission Annual Comprehensive Plan Assessment Introduction The Planning Commission is charged with monitoring and assessing the comprehensive plan on an annual basis. Chapter 20.04 PTMC sets forth the process for the Annual Assessment and the seven criteria to be considered. These seven broad indicators of growth management include the address the following: · Growth and development trends · Infrastructure capacity · Land availability · Changes in assumptions, circumstances, or community wide attitudes · Consistency with GMA and the Countywide Planning Policies Analysis of the seven criteria provides a foundation for suggested amendments to the Plan. While the Annual Assessment provides some basic analysis, it does not measure our progress in achieving the goals of the Comprehensive Plan. Successful implementation is the key to turning abstract goals and policies into tangible products (e.g., adopting design standards, investing in public improvements, recruiting a four year college, providing incentives for businesses). Annual Assessment Following are the seven criteria set forth in the municipal code followed by a short narrative and our findings. 1. Is growth and development as envisioned in the comprehensive plan occurring faster or slower than anticipated. or is it failing to materialize? 1 , Since 1990, Port Townsend's population growth is slower than anticipated by the Comprehensive Plan. The 1996 Comprehensive Plan estimated the city would grow at an annual rate of two-percent per year. Although the city's average annual growth rate in the 1990's increased over the previous decade, it averaged only 1.6%. Jefferson County's . growth rate is provided for comparison. The County growth rate is fairly consistent with the statewide average of 2%. Decade 1990 to 2000 1980 to 1990 1970 to 1980 Average Annual Growth Rates Port Townsend: Jefferson County 1.6% 2.24% 1.33%. 2.18% 1.36% 3.32% Statewide Unlike a growth rate that exceeds anticipated growth, a slower growth rate does not compel the City to take immediate action. It may be premature, at this point, to revise the Plan. We are only five years into a 20- year plan. Furthermore, the city cannot simply choose to base the plan on a modified growth projection. The Office of Financial Management issues population forecasts and Jefferson County, in coordination with the city, determines how that growth is allocated. Growth and densities will be reviewed by the County no later than 2008 (i.e., ten years after their plan adoption as required by the GMA RCW 36.70A.130(3)). Probably sooner, given their plans to designate a new urban growth area, Tri-Area. The City's population as a percentage of Jefferson County's total population has continued to decline. Port Townsend made up nearly half of Jefferson County's population in 1973 (49.1%), and approximately one-third in 1996 (31.6%). The Comprehensive Plan anticipated that Port Townsend would begin to capture a higher percentage of the County's total population growth, "Past trends in building activity and growth are not likely to continue after implementation of the GMA, because more people are likely to live in UGAs (including Port Townsend), and fewer in rural areas" (Page IV- 6). According to the Census data, this has not been the case: . Decade 1990 to 2000 1980-1990 1970 to 1980 Census Counts Port Townsend: Jefferson County 8,334 26,299 7,001 20,406 6,067 15,965 Percent in City 32% 34% 38% Finding: Population growth within the City has been slightly lower than anticipated by the Office of Financial Management and the Comprehensive Plan. However, actual growth as measured by the 2000 census is consistent with historic population growth over the past 3 decades at 1.3% - 1.6%. However, it appears the City is falling well short of the goal of accommodating 40% of the County's population growth. The City and County should reassess this population distribution either at the time òf the 10 year update, or sooner if needed (such as corresponding to a Hadlock-Irondale Area UGA designation). 2. Has the capacity to provide adequate services diminished or increased? . 2 The City's capacity to provide adequate services has increased with respect to certain elements of critical infrastructure (wastewater, water, and streets) while not changing with respect to other elements such as (stormwater and parks). · WASTEWATER: Re-rating of the wastewater treatment facility in 2001, has increased overall treatment capacity by approximately 13%. The new forced main/trunk sewer line from Kearney St. to Tremont St. has increased the capacity and reliability ofthe system's principal sewer conveyance line. The Gaines St. Pump Station Replacement Project, currently under construction will add to the conveyance system capacity and reliability as well. In general the collection system has grown concurrently with development although areas exist througIDut town that are not served by the City's wastewater collection system. WATER: The expansion of the F St. water main from 8" to 12" from San Juan Ave. to Chestnut St. has increased water service capacity and pressure to a significant portion of the town. In general the distribution system has grown concurrently with development although areas exist throughout town that are not directly served by the City's water system. Continuous minor system repairs and improvements have increased the system capacity in certain specific areas of the City. The transfer of the Tri-Area water system to the PUD in exchange for the Glen Cove water system has not significantly impacted the City water system capacity positively or negatively. · STREETS: The completion ofthe Sims Way Overlay and the F St Renovation projects have not significantly increased the capacity of these roadways to vehicular traffic, but roadway quality and safety have been improved. These major projects, and other smaller projects, have increased pedestrian and bicycle capacity. STORMW A TER: No significant change in capacity. The Capital Improvement Program for each element of infrastructure is developed in conjunction with the system facilities plan for each element. These plans are reviewed and updated periodically. The CIP list is also reviewed annually as part of the City Budget development process and changes in the CIP may be incorporated as required by legal, regulatory, or operational needs. Finding: The city's capacity to provide adequate services has not changed substantially since the Comprehensive Plan was adopted. System repairs and improvements have increased the system capacity in certain specific areas of the City. In general, the city's infrastructure has grown concurrently with development. There are still areas throughout the City, primarily in Tier III, that do not have some or any basic infrastructure. 3. Is sufficient land designated and zoned to meet projected demand and needs? To determine if sufficient land exists to meet demands, the Planning Commission reviewed growth rates and land consumption since 1996. Based upon our growth rate, the demand is less. The city was zoned to accommodate a projected annual growth rate of2% over the next 20 years while our actual growth rate has been 1.6% from 1990 - 2000. · We are one-quarter of the way into our 20-year plan. Since 1996, consumption of vacant land has been less than 25% in each land use category save one (i.e., C-III zone). 3 Total Land Area Vacant Land Area In Land Area In Percent of Total Percent of Land Use (In Acres Less Acres (Less Platted Rights Acres Vacant Lit Designation Platted Rights of of Way, Marinas, and Developed Land Developed Develop Way and Marinas) Govemment Owned Land) Since 1996 Since 1996 Since 1996 R-I, Single-family low density 550.6 286.9 30.2 5.5% 9.5% R-II, Single-family medium density 1547.2 539.7 72.9 4.7% 11.9% R-III, Medium Density Multi-family 156.4 86 10.2 6.5% 10.6% R-IV, High Density Multi-family 20 13.1 0.9 4.5% 6.4% C-I/MU. Neighborhood Serving Mixed Use Center 17.1 4 0 0.0% 0.0% C-II/MU, Community Serving Mixed Use Center 14.6 7 0 0.0% 0.0% C-I, Neighborhood Commercial 2.1 0 0 C-II, General Commercial 98.5 37.5 1 1.0% 2.6% C-II (H), Hospital Commercial 10.8 4.1 0.5 4.6% 10.9~ C-III, Historic Commercial 26.4 1.2 0.7 2.7% 58.3% M/C, Mixed Commercial/Light Manufacturing 63.3 45.6 2.1 3.3% 4.4% M-II (A) Marine Related Boat Haven 60.9 0 3.3 M-II (B) Marine Related - Point Hudson 18 0 0 P/OS, Existing Park lor Open Space 587.2 1.4 0 0.0% 0.0% P/OS (B), Public / ~ixed Use 82.6 0 0 P-I, Public / ~nfrastructure 150.9 0 0 Given that plenty of opportunities exist to remodel and reuse historic buildings in the C-III district the 36.8% vacant land consumption does not raise concern. . 4 . Finding: The appears to be adequate vacant land in all zoning categories to accommodate future anticipated growth. However, the City should evaluate the availability of infrastructure to vacant lands zoned for manufacturing, commercial, and multi-family and seek to improve the availability of key infrastructure to these lands to help implement Comprehensive Plan economic development and affordable housing goals and policies. 4. Are the assumvtions upon which the plan is based invalid? Fifteen assumptions for Port Townsend's future influenced the formation of the Comprehensive Plan (Page 11-9, Introduction, Comprehensive Plan). Five years following adoption of the Comprehensive Plan, the majority of these assumptions continue to be valid. Current growth trends and County planning actions indicate that one of the assumptions may prove incorrect; specifically, the Plan assumed that "population growth within the City and Jefferson County will considerably exceed that of the state and nation as a whole." OFM and Census 2000 data indicate that, since adoption of the Growth Management Act, the City's growth rate has fallen behind that of the nation and the state (See #1, above). Unlike a growth rate that exceeds projections, a slower growth rate does not compel the City to take immediate action. Recall that the Comprehensive Plan is a 20- year plan. But the current downward trend coupled with plans for a second Urban Growth Area in the County, may prompt the City to revisit the plan in the near future. . Jefferson County is proceeding with plans to establish a Hadlock-Irondale Area urban growth area (UGA) and a LAMIRD (limited area of more intensive rural development) in Glen Cove. Currently, the capture rate for Port Townsend is approximately 32% ofthe County's total population growth per the 2000 census. The County may revisit population allocation with formation of the Hadlock-Irondale Area UGA. Any significant change in the City's allotted growth may trigger revisions to the Comprehensive Plan. Finding: The majority of the assumptions remain valid, however, the City may need to revisit growth assumptions if the current downward trend in growth continues and/or the County reallocates growth in conjunction with formation of the Tri-Area UGA. 5. Are there changes in community wide attitudes that necessitate amendments to the goals and purposes of the comprehensive plan and the basic values embodied within the comprehensive plan community direction statement? Determining community wide attitudes requires a scientific survey and/or an extensive public outreach program. Public participation was extensive during the years leading up to adoption of the Comprehensive Plan. As documented in Ordinance No. 2539, the city conducted an extensive public participation program, involving thousands of hours of citizen discussion, questionnaires, over 50 public meetings, citizen workgroups, and numerous public hearings. Although citizens have continued to be·involved in city government on a broad range of issues, the attitudes expressed do not necessarily represent the attitudes of the community as a whole. . Given that the assumptions of the plan remain valid (Item #4) and that circumstances have not changed substantially (Item #6) in the five years since Plan adoption, it is assumed that the attitudes expressed in the Plan also remain valid. 5 Finding: Given that the assumptions of the plan remain valid (Item #4) and that circumstances have not changed substantially (Item #6), it is assumed that the attitudes expressed in the Plan . also remain valid. We recommend that the city consider a scientific survey and/or extensive public outreach program are implemented in conjunction with the ten-year update of the plan. 6. Is there sufficient change or lack of change in circumstances to dictate the need for an amendment? Circumstances have changed to a limited degree. As noted in Items #1 and #4, population growth has been slower than anticipated and the County is proceeding with plans for a new Tri- Area Urban Growth Area. There have also been regulatory changes that affect the city's Plan, please see Item #7, below. Circumstances have also changed in the employment sector of Port Townsend. · The Port Townsend Paper Company reduced its workforce with the closing of the bag plant at the end of2001. The number of employees dropped from 460 to 380 employees, a difference of eighty. Further cutbacks or future closure of the mill is a distinct possibility. · Nesting Bird Yurt Co. suspended production and laid off 15 employees in November 2001. The company has found local investors and intends to resume production in March. · The NWMC has purchased the Thomas Oil Site as proceeding with clean-up of the site. It is estimated that approximately 20-35 FTE will work at the NWMC when completed. e · Applications have been received for the restoration of the Cannery Building adjacent to Quincy Street Dock. The owner plans to establish a software business. · The Port of Port Townsend resumes control of Point Hudson on April 1, 2002. They are currently developing a Master Plan. · A Final Plan has been issued for Phase 2 of Lynnesfield housing development. · Several residential subdivisions are in permit process. The overall goal of the economic development strategy was to foster a net increase of at least 680 "family wage" jobs within five years of adoption of the Plan and 2,700 "family wage" jobs by the end of the 20-year planning horizon (page VIII-l 6). To meet these employment targets, a healthy business climate needs to be nurtured in Port Townsend. Traditionally, local governments have played a significant, though limited role in shaping how local economies perform. Regional, national and global economies have had a much greater impact on the local economy than economic development plans and policies adopted by local jurisdictions. Nevertheless, local .. government can provide leadership in several key areas as outlined in the Economic 6 . . . Development Strategy. Implementation of the economic development strategy is critical. As noted in our Year 2001 Assessment, the Commission is concerned that inadequate infrastructure is impeding development within the C-II and M-C zoning districts. Much of the vacant C-II and M-C land located west of Thomas street lacks needed infrastructure (water, sewer, streets, stormwater). Several businesses have recently been deterred from locating in these areas due to the cost of extending infrastructure. The city should support extension of infrastructure to the C- II and M-C zoning districts to encourage commercial and light industrial development as envisioned by the Plan. Finding: The City should focus on implementing the Comprehensive Plan, with specific emphasis on economic development Gob creation and retention) and affordable housing. The Comprehensive Plan contains many goals and policies that if implemented, could significantly improve the local situation. 7. Do inconsistencies exist between the comprehensive plan and the GMA or the countywide planning policy for Jefferson County? During this year's annual update process, the city is required to review the Comprehensive Plan and development regulations to ensure that they are complying with the requirements of the GMA as amended (RCW 36.70A.130). The City's Comprehensive Plan was GMA compliant at the time of its adoption in 1996. However, the GMA has continued to evolve as the result of amendments and interpretations by the Growth Management Hearings Board. These amendments and interpretations will likely require corollary amendments to goals and policies in our plan. The city has retained a qualified consultant to assist BCD staff in the required review and evaluation ofthe Plan. Where needed, draft amendments will be formulated and included in the Preliminary Docket. The Countywide Planning Policies have been amended twice since their adoption. One amendment added the Port of Port Townsend as a voting member. The second involved revisions to Policy 6.1 to amend the definition of affordable housing. The city's comprehensive plan is consistent with the amended definition. The City should also determine if a public participation element is necessary to be included in the Comprehensive Plan to comply with GMA. Finding: Respectfully submitted on behalf of the Planning Commission, Cindy Thayer, Interim Chair 7 - . .' 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 NOTE FOR NOV 20, 2001 MEETING: Exhibit A (Amendment #5 FUGA) attached to proposed Ordinance 2784 has been modified to include draft amendments based on direction staff received from Council at the November 5, 2001 public hearing and proposed amendments handed out by Mayor Geoff Masci at the November 1yh public hearing. These amendments are highlighted and amend the Planning Commission's recommendation as follows: Bold and underlined laneuaee = added language Striekeø laBgu.age = language stricken Exhibit A Excerpts from Comprehensive Plan relating to Final Urban Growth Area (FUGA) aBd Majer IBdu.strial DeYelepmeBt (l\UD) Pelieies <Amendment #5 - Review and Amend FUGA Language in Comprehensive Plan) Section 1. Pafle IV-2: FiB&I- Port Townsend Urban Growth Area (FUGA) - Under. the GMA, "urban growth" is defined as growth that makes intensive use of land for the location of buildings, structures, and impermeable surfaces. The Act makes it clear that urban growth must occur only within designated urban growth areas (UGAs), and that counties, rather than cities, are responsible for designating UGA boundaries. As of the time of this writing (200 I) 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 ofthe city's UGA and potential annexation with concurrent vlannine with Jefferson County officials. In conformance with the county-wide planning policies for Jefferson County. the city and the county should continue to coordinate planning efforts. Port TOWB3ead has inekuled pertions of the Glea Coye area beyo:ad the pfesØftt City limits W#h.iB a eeBeept\ial :fiftal arbaø. grewth area (puG."..). The area is loeated immediatel)' adjaeem an:d to the south....¡est of the City, along the S.R. 20 eorridor. The area is prœeBtly 1:1Ðineerpoæted aø.d falls \Hider the jurisdietioB of JeffemoB CoU:Bty for plamHBg and lB:Bd \:tse p6ffilit admiBistmtioB. ..^...n ØKpMsioB efthe Pert TO'''lBsead FUG1\ is beiBg eOBsidered for a B1:!mÐer efreasoBs: De~ite the iB City \tfIzeBes direeted by this Plan, a shortage of IMd ß"16ilable for eomæ.ereial Md æftffilfaet~.ng de'¡elopæeBt still exists withiB the City limits. 1 Many of the pareels ia to'.VÐ. \\'hich are available for eommereial Ð:fI.d maBUfaetliring 2 de>/elopmeat teati te be too small Ð:fI.d fægmeated te SUPf)ort theeeeaomie developmem 3 aeeded ia the eelftfffilDÌty. 4 Pareels iB the City ',>;hieh are large eBeagh to support commerøial Ð:fI.d manufacturing 5 de>:elopmeat are iB mÐ:fl.Y Ïftstanees \ift91iitable beeause they: 6 Efl.eompass ewlir~aœeÐtal1y seasiti'le areas (ES.^1S) whieh eeastmiB 7 develapmeftt; Ð:fI.d 8 TeBd to be leeated iB areas whieh are removed from existiBg regioRal 9 traBspoftatiea eerridom (i. c., S.R. 20/Sims Way). 10 '^1 sigBifieÐ:fl.t portiea ef the Glea CO':e area is emreÐtly zaRed for light mBmifaemr.ng 11 Ð:fI.d eømmereial uses under the C01:tfI.ty's ZORing code. Ifmbæ commereial8Bd 12 mÐ:fl.ufacWriBg gro'l,OC+.h is to eoB:tÍBtie ia 13 Olea Cø\'e, thea it sheuld be withiB the City's FUGA. 14 Finally, expÐ:fl.sioa of Pert TO'.VÐ.seBd's FUG.^1 iato Glea Ceve ';;ill assist ia stcmmiag the 15 flow of retail sales leakage to aeighboriBg areas like Silveftiale Ð:fI.d SeqHim, 8Bd helf) 16 promote a æorø bal8Bced and vital eeoBomy ia aortÐ.eastem Jeffersoa County. 17 18 Ja J1Hle of 1995, the JoiBt Grewth MÐ:fI.agemeat Committee (Ð:fI. ad'lisory committee compriscd of 19 e1eeted effieials from both the Co\iftty Emd City) reeommeBded a "preferred" eOHceptual 20 altemative fer the 'lHHHeorporated portioa ofthe Port TOWBsead PUG.-\.. The JoiBt GrO'....th 21 Maftagemem Committee (lGMe) direeted that this akemafjfe be Ìl'lcludeà ia the compreheRsi':e 22 plÐ:f1.s ofboth the CeWlty RBd City. This eoacepmal alternative eavisioRs the desigBatioHof BB 23 expBBded "CoæmlHlity Serviag UG:\." eacompassiag a portion of the Glea Cove area. The goal 24 ofthe altematiye is to support e\HTeat commercial Ð:fI.d manufaehlriag eB:terprises iB Glcn Cove, 25 aftd pr~vidc e-xPEmded oppoI11Hlities for FetailiBg Ð:fI.d appropriatc manufaet\ti'Ìag, eoasisteftt with 26 the broader eomnmnity vision. This elemeat iBeludes goals and policies which 91ipport the 27 reeommeBdatioBs of the lGMC. i'1dditioaally, the Laftd Use Map whieh aecompanies this Plan 28 depicts the possible futu.fe ex:teftt øfthe uBÍfieoFfl0fftted pertioR of the FUG.~ (sce the map pocket 29 at the baek of this PIBB). 30 31 1ft eoftf-ormanee with the Cø1:1ftty Wide Plamtiftg Policy for Jeffcrsoß CouBty, the CouBty and City 32 are eoordiRatiag their plæ.:miBg cff-erts te eolleet Ð:fI.d aftalyze data, Ð:fI.d deteræiBe an apprepriate 33 FUG.^.. bmæàefy. Hø?'e"/er, at the time oHhis writiftg, additioBal inforæatieB RBd aftalysis is 34 aeeded te refæe Ð:fI.d medify the eOBeepmal FUG.^.. baœàæy to eooure eORsisteaey with the 35 plaÐBÍilg goals Ð:fI.d prineiples efthe GMi'.., as well as reeeat deeisieas by the Gre'llth 36 ManagemeÐt Hearægs Beafds. It is Ð:fI.tieipated that Part Tev."flsead's FUG¡\ b01Hldary will be 37 desigaated either ftt the time Jefferseft CØU:Bty adepts its GMA CempreheBsÞ:e PIÐ:fl., ar iB a 38 91ibsCflaeBt ameaåmæt ta that PIÐ:fl.. Ultimately, this pfeeess is lilœly te lead te the dCNeløpmeB:t 39 of jaiBt pl8ftBiø:g, mtæegemeBt, and amtexatiea pølieies fer the l:IBiBee'P6fftted partioa ef the 40 FUGA 41 42 Section 2. PafZe IV-3: 43 44 Land Use Map (Note: Delete FUGA from ComDrehensive Plan Land Use MaD) 45 46 The Land Use Map is also required by the GMA. The map represents the general future land use 47 patterns which are desired for the City of Port Townsend within the 20 year planning period. 48 The map is the City's ''blueprint'' for action and graphically depicts where various land uses 49 should be located. The goals and policies found within this chapter support and implement the 50 land use map. 51 . . e 2 1 2 · 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 · 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 · 51 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 IZUGA, as discussed above.- The City has been divided into II subareas, as indicated on Figure N -Ion page N-4. The City has already prepared several subarea plans, such as the Urban Waterfront Plan, Gateway Development Plan, and the Point Hudson Master Plan. The subareas used in the preparation of this Plan build upon those previously established. Section 3. Parle IV-7: Land Use Map Designations The following categories and land use designations have been used in developing the Land Use Map, and are described more fully below: Residential Designations: Low Density: size) 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 H 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-IIMU with moderate density multi- Community-Serving Mixed Use Center residential C-IIIMU with high density multi-family residential Commercial Designations: Neighborhood Commercial: General Commercial: Hospital Commercial: Historic Commercial: Regional Commercial: C-I C-U C-II(H) C-III C-IV Marine-Related & Manufactnring Designations: Mixed Light Manufacturing and Commercial MlC Light Manufacturing: Marine-Related Uses: Marine-Related Uses: Heavy Manufacturing: M-I M-IIA (Boat Haven) M-Iffi (point Hudson) M-III Section 4. Pave IV-JO: C-IV - Regional Commercial: The purpose of this designation is to provide areas for diversified commercial activities which serve a broader regional clientele. The uses generally attract traffic from a broader area than the general commercial designation, and are usually larger in scale than in other commercial districts. This designation accommodates large scale retall stores, shopping centers, and specialty stores. The C-IV 3 1 designation has not been applied to areas within the present City limits, altHougH it he eøtlld 2 be applied to portieas ofthe Gleø. CO'/e area, if designated by JeffØfSoa Cmmty withiB Port 3 ToWftßead's Fiaal UrbÐB Gf'{)':¡th Mea (FUG.^1). 4 5 Marine-Related & Manufacturing Designations 6 7 MlC - Mixed Light Manufacturing & Commercial: This district accommodates small scale 8 manufacturing businesses along with associated and subordinate on-site retailing. The purpose of 9 this designation is to provide for manufacturing and commercial enterprises which do not fit 10 neatly under either the light manufacturing or commercial label (e.g., Coyote Found Candles, 11 Maizefield Mantles, Edensaw Woods, etc.). Manufacturing to commercial floor area ratios are 12 necessary for this designation to ensure that certain uses do not dominate at the expense of others. 13 The WC designation has been applied to areas south of Sims Way, and west of Thomas Street. 14 This district may also be appropriate for significant portions of the Glen Cove area: if a FUG'^1 15 larger than the preseftt City limits is designated. 16 17 M-I - Light Manufacturing: The M-I designation provides for light manufacturing, processing, 18 fabrication and assembly of products and materials, warehousing and storage, and transportation 19 facilities. The designation is appropriate for light manufacturing uses similar to those proposed 20 for the Port Townsend Business Park. No areas oftown are currently proposed to receive this 21 designation, although it may be appropriate for portions of~e Glen Cove LAMIRD area. if an 22 c*paflded Port TOWflsead FUG¡\ is approved. 23 24 Section 5. Pafle IV-II: 25 26 M-Ill - Heavy Manufacturing: The M-III designation accommodates heavy industrial activities 27 including processing, fabrication, assembling of products or materials, and bulk storage. This 28 designation has not been applied to any areas within the current City limits, although it may be 29 appropriate for portions of the Glen Cove area.. An example includes but is not limited to the 30 Port Townsend Paper Mill. (e.g., the Port TovfRsead Paper Mill) should it he àesigBftted as part 31 of the City's FUG1\. 32 33 Section 6. Paf?e IV-I2: 34 35 CM-PUD - CommerciallManufacturing: This overlay designation applies only in areas zoned 36 for commercial or manufacturing development (i.e., C-I, C-II, C-ill, G-I¥, WC, M-I, M-IIA, M- 371m and M-III). The designation allows business and industrial park developments to vary from 38 the prescriptive standards of the zoning code. The designation is intended to promote innovative 39 and well designed commercial and light manufacturing developments which are supportive of the 40 City's economic development strategy. Standards for this type ofPUD should allow variety in 41 terms of the mixture of commercial and manufacturing uses, patterœd after the Port Townsend 42 Business Park PUD approved in 1993. The minimum acreage necessary for a CM-PUD should 43 be substantially larger than for either the R-PUD or MU·PUD designations (e.g., 10 acres). 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 · · · 4 1 Section'. Page IV-14: 2 TABLE IV-1: LAND USE DESIGNATIONS - SUGGESTED USES, DENSITIES & BUILDING HEIGHTS* LAND USE LAND MINIMUM MAXIMUM BUILDING DESIGNATIONS USES ALLOWED DENSITY DENSITY HEIGHTS OR LOT (Feet) COVERAGE R-I Single-Family Not 4 Dwelling Units 30 Houses, Specified Per Duplexes, Acre; Maximum Triplexes Lot Coverage of & Fourplexes 35% R-II Single-Family Not 8 Dwelling 30 Houses, Specified Units Per Duplexes, Acre Triplexes & Fourplexes R-III Single-Family Not Specifie<t" 16 Dwelling 35 Houses, Units Per Duplexes, Acre Triplexes & Fourplexes; Condos, Townhouses & Apartments R-IV Condos, 17 Dwelling 24 Dwelling 35 Townhouses Units Per Acre Units Per Acre & Apartments C-I/MU Upper Floor Not 2 Square Feet of Not Specified Residential & Specified Gross Floor Area Ground Per Floor I Square Foot of Neighborhood Lot Commercial C-II/MU Upper Floor Not 3 Square Feet of Not Specified Residential & Specified Gross Ground Floor Area Per Floor Community I Square Foot of Commercial Lot C-I Small Scale Not I Square Foot of 35 Neighborhood Specified Gross Floor Area Retail & Per Professional 3 Square Feet of Offices Lot · · 3 · 5 TABLE IV-I: CONTINUED 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 I Square Foot of 35 Nursing Homes Specified Gross Floor Area Doctor's & Per Dentist's I Square Foot of Offices, & Lot Pharmacies C- III Upper Floor Not 3 Square Feet of 50, or as Residential, Specified Gross Specified by the Studios & Floor Area Per Port Townsend Offices; Ground I Square Foot of Urban Waterfront Floor Lot Plan General Retail C-IV Large Scale Auto- Not Ñ Maximum Lot 45 Oriented Specified Coverage of 90% Retailing; Shopping Centers & Mini-Malls LAND USE LAND MINIMUM MAXIMUM BUILDING DESIGNA nONS USES ALLOWED DENSITY DENSITY HEIGHTS OR LOT (Feet) COVERAGE WC** Small Scale Not I Square Foot of 35 Manufacturing Specified Gross Floor Area with Per Associated On-Site I Square Foot of Retailin2 Lot M-I** Light Not I Square Foot of 35 Manufacturing, Specified Gross Floor Area Processing, Per Fabrication I Square Foot of & Assembly; Lot Warehousing & Storage M-II(A) Marine-Related Not I Square Foot of 35 Uses at Specified Gross Floor Area the Boat Haven Per I Square Foot of Lot 1 6 . . - · · · TABLE IV-I: CONTINUED M-II(B) Marine-Related Not I Square Foot of 35 Uses at Specified Gross Floor Area Per Point Hudson I Sauare Foot of Lot M-Ill** Heavy Industrial Uses Not I Square Foot of 35 & Bulk Storage Specified Gross Floor Area Per I Sauare Foot of Lot P/OS Existing City, County Not Not Not Applicable & Applicable Applicable State Owned Parks & . Recreation Areas P/OS(A) Potential Not Not Not Applicable (Overlay Open Space & Trails Applicable Applicable Designation) Network; Residential & Passive Recreational Uses P/OS(B) Mixed Public Facility Not I Square Foot of 35 & Passive Recreation Specified /I!# Gross Floor Area per Uses 4 Sauare Feet of Lot P-I Schools, Libraries, & Not Maximum Lot 50 Government Specified Coverage of 45% 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 - Commercial Specified Upon Base Zoning Depending 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 1 2 3 4 5 * This table is intended only to provide information and guidance in the preparation of revisions to the Zoning Code (i.e., Title 17 PTMC). 7 1 Section 8. Paf!e IV-I5: 2 TABLE IV-2: THE LAND USE MAP - ACREAGE WITIDN EACH LAND USE DESIGNATION* LAND USE LAND AREA LAND AREA IN ACRES DESIGNA nON 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 N 2 C-II 139 88 C-II(H) 17 11 C-III 44 23 C-IV** 0 0 M/C 84 69 M-Ill 0 0 M-II(A) Boat Haven 94 45 M-IIŒ) Point Hudson 24 12 M-IIIll 0 0 P/OS 611 479 , P/OS(A)**~ N/A N/A P/OS(B) 90 86 P-I 175 147 . . 3 * Totals include lands within the Port Townsend City limits only. 4 ** These land use designations could be applied to portions of the Glen Cove area~, if a FUGA 5 l8f'ger thæ the Pelt T&WfiSeBEl City limits is Elesigaateå. 6 *** This designation is intended only to depict, at a conceptual level, areas that could be 7 valuable if maintained as open spaces. Considerable work must be completed before the 8 boundaries of this conceptual overlay district can be detailed, and before specific steps can be 9 undertaken to implement the concept. Consequently, acreage totals are of marginal usefulness at _ 10 this point in time. _ 8 1 2 · 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 · 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 · 51 Section 9. Page IV-20: Policy 4.11: Work with Jefferson County to identify future park and recreational facility needs within the l.uHncorporateå portion oftne Port Townsend.. FiBal Urban Growth :\rea (FUGA). and facilities within Jefferson County which will serve Port Townsend residents. Section 10. Pafle IV-24: Commercial Lands Goal8: To provide adequate commercial land to conveniently serve community needs while maintaining Port Townsend's small town atmosphere. Policy 8.1: Provide appropriately sized and located commercial areas to prevent reduce retail leakage, reduce vehicle trips out of town, enhance the tax base, and improve the livability of the community. Policy 8.9: Cooperate with Jefferson County to smdy the possibility of allowing regional commereÍal lises, along 'l,'ith the primary light manufacturing and associated community serving accessory commercial uses, in the Glen Cove LAMIRD ul:lÌneorporated portion of the Port Towns~ Final Urban Gmwth Area (FUGA). Policy 8.10: Transfonn the Howard Street/Discovery Road Corridor into a vital, attractive local shopping and commercial services district. Prepare a corridor master plan for intensive commercial development of the area. The master plan should address: a. The size and location of proposed land uses; b. Targeted commercial uses and employment numbers; c. Proposed street improvements, including right-of-way acquisition and nonmotorized facilities; d. The location of open space and buffers; e. Identification of public improvements and costs needed to fa.cilitate the planned development; and f. Design guidelines which clearly describe the development characteristics desired. Policy 8.11: As depicted on the Land Use Map, require a 50 to 100 foot open space buffer along Sims Way (i.e., S.R. 20) ITom the City limits to Howard Street, and Discovery Road from the City limits to 7th Street, to preserve the forest corridor, and to provide a visual buffer between the roadway and new residential, commercial, and manufacturing development. 8.11.1 Limit access through the forest corridor buffer to platted street rights-of-way. 8.11.2 Ensure that utilities to serve new development along the forest corridor are placed underground. 8.11.3 Preserve existing trees and vegetation along the forest corridor to the maximum extent possible. 8.11.4 Require the planting of native species when necessary to enhance the buffer, and the replanting of native species to replace trees and vegetation removed during development. 9 1 2 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 8.11.5 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 sÐutherly exteø.t €If the pÐteBtial1:lIHaeOlpemteEl portiea of the PÐrt Tø'llBsood FUG'i\. . Section 11. Pafle 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 sMaM be leeated withifl the æHaeorpÐfateEl pertioB of the Port TevlBsead Fiael Ur98B Gro',vth fJea (i.e., the Gleø. CO'le 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. PafJe 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 EastH'0 Encourage. where appropriate. that proposed amendments to the Plan which affect the unincorporated lands adiacent to the City's portiea of the Fiflal 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. Pafle IV-32: FilIal Port Townsend Urban Growth Area (FUGA) [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 lJGA to encompass unincOlpOrated lands adjacent to Port Townsend nor. does it support a stand-alone Glen Cove UGA. Additional analysis of the city's vacant lands inventoty and growth projections shall occur evety 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. aElditieB6l ÏBfefBiatioB 8BEl8Balysis arø Heeded te retiae aød meElify the eeae~t1:lel FUGA. beUftdary te eø.sure eeB5istooey with the pl8BBÏag geals 8Bd priBeiples ef the GMA, as well as reeeø.t deeisieBs by the Gfe'.vtB MaftegemeBt HeariBgs Beards. It is aBtieipated that Pert Te'.vBseø.d's PUG:\. boWldary will be desigaated either at the time JeffefSeB CoUBty adopts its e 10 1 2 · 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 · 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 · GM.^.. Compreheasi';e Phm, ør i-B a saÐseq1::1eBt affieaàmeat to that Plaa. This preeess is likely to lead te the àevelopmeat of joint plæming aad maaagemem polieies f-or the UGA It is aelœø'.vledgeà that 1::1kimate amhørity to Øftact aa œc.panàed FUG:f.. boundary rests with the Jefferson C01::1my BOaM øfCommissionef's.] Goal 16: To promote the logical and efficient build-out and redevelopment oflands within the city. served with adequate urban public facilities and services. In planning growth over a 20 year period. the city should focus on developing lands within the existing city limits before seeking to expand the city's UGA into adjacent unincorporated areas. establish aa expanded "eomm1::1ftity serving" final1::1rbaa gfØ\vth area (FUGA) which is pr-o'¡iàeà ',yith adeE¡1:1ate1::1rbaa p1::1blie facilities aaà serviees. Paliey 16.1t Consider 1:1sing Jefferson Co1::1ßty's existing light maœfaet1::1ring afld commereial eM/C) zoning b01::1ß.dary in the Glea Cove arøa as the bo1::1ß.dary f-or the 1::1nineorporated portion of the FUGl\.. Policy 16.1.~: Support the establishment of an unincorporated Glen Cove LAMIRD and Ii~ht- industrial zoning within the LAMW1). 81::1pport e'I:HTem eommereial afld maIftlfactliring emerpflses in the Glen Cøve arøa, aad provide expanded opport1::1nities for retailing and appropriate IRam:1faet1::1flng, eonsistem with the brøader eomm1::1ß.ity vision. 16:.l.:1..M Participate and support countÿ sub-area planning efforts in the Glen Cove area. Cooperate with Jefferson C01::1my to st1::1ŒY the possibility of allowing 1:1J3 to two loeatiofls (i. C., appr-oximately 20 total acres) for r-ogional retail1::1se within the 1::1flineorporated portion of the FUG.'\.. 16.1.2.~ Encourage the establishment of Ensure th.at appropriate zoning designations within the Glen Cove LAMIRD(I) the 1::1nineorporated portion of the FUG}.. to support diversified lieht-manufacturing and small b1:1smesses (e.g., small scale "clean" industry) and associated and accessory commercial uses. Policy 16.2.3: Support the County in permittinelimitin~ bimit new residential aDd iBcompatible associated and assessorv commercial uses within the unincorporated portion ofthe Glen Cove LAMIRD(J) of the FUGA. (}l8tc: Port Tovmsead has mere than adeq1::1ate laad eapaeity to aeeoHlIRodate projected pop1::1lation growth over the 20 year planRing period additionalægh. density residential areas are 1:1ÐBeeessary). Policy 16.3 A: The City is in the process of acquiring the PUD's public water system serving the Glen Cove area. The city should manage the Glen Cove water system to promote industrial and associated and accessory commercial uses in the Glen Cove LAMIRD(I) aDd the eity shaulll lIiseaurilge iDapprapriate urhaB type de1f;elapmeBt iB lIeslgaatell rural areas. EBsure that adequate ¡mèlie faeilities aaà utilities are provided within the l:H1ÍBempemted portioR of the FUGA ~lemØftt the FUG.^.. polieies eømained '.vitæn the Capital Faeilities &, Utilities Elemeat of this Plaa. 1 At the time of this writing, Ocbber 2001, the County is exploring land use options for Glen Cove iBeludiBg its effieial desigBatieB as a LAMIRD. 11 1 2 · 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 · 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 · 51 Policy 16.4 öS: Work with Jefferson County and the various volunteer. non-Drofit and civic 2rOUDS JeffersoB Lood Tm5t to designate open space and trail connections through the unincorporated portionª of Jefferson County the FUGA (i. e., consistent with Chapter 36. 70A.160 RCW). 16.~.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 soather1y exteBt of the poteBtial UÐiBcoFfJomtcd portioB ef tho Port TO'WRSCBd PUG}\.. Section 14. Paf!e VII-2: Scope The scope of this plan primarily addresses land within the existing City limits, although some references to unincorporated Jefferson County polieics for the potootial future 1:1B:Ù1corpomtcd portioB ofthe Port TO'WRsend FiÐ:al Urban Grow1h l\r-øa (FUG"^~) 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. Paf!e VII-5L: - Policy 2.4: Identify and designate urban capital facility and utility growth tiers which are consistent with and support the growth and development patterns established in the Land Use Element. 2.4.1 Designate areas that are currently characterized by urban development and densities, which are provided with the full range of public facilities and utilities, as "Tier I" areas. 2.4.2 Designate areas currently provided with limited public infrastructure which are designated for commercial, manufacturing, or higher density residential development, as "Tier 2" areas. (Nate: This would iÐ.cffide the l:1Ð.incorporated portioBs of the fiBal urban gro,,Vth Mea (FUG>^~) if designated). 2.4.3 Designate all remaining areas as "Tier 3." Section 16. Pafle VII-8.9: (Note - Policy 8.2(d) includes language added in Amèndment #3, Ordinance 2783 regarding MIDsJ. UnincorDorated Areas Served bv the City UniBeorporatcd Fmal Urban Gro''vth. 1\roa (FUGA) Goal8: To ensure that adequate urban level public facilities and utilities are only extended into UGAs and LAMIRDs and otherwise extended only if consistent with officia1land use designations. pfe'lided WithiB the \:Himeorporated portioB of the FUG>^~. P-elfey 8.1: Coepemte with JeffemoB COUBty to develop "mirror image" plaas, regulatiofts aad desigø staadards rer the l:1Ð.iBeolpeæted portioB of the FUGf~. "^~S9\:Ire that 1ø'{e1s ef serviee for p1:1blie faeilities iB the 1:HlÌÐ:eorpomtcd portioB of the FtJG.'\ are eoftsi5teøt with or ideøtical to the City's lø'{e1 of service standa.fds. Pelfey 8.2: f"dÐf)t Ìflterloeal agreements which idefttify the appropriate provider of pahlie faeilities and services withiB the uniBeorpomtod portioB of the PUG"^~. 12 1 2 Peliey 8.3% Caefdinate ',yith. Jeff0rsaa CaUBty aÐ:d other Bf'propriate agencies Bfld entities to 3 gæåuaUy phase the pfØ'Asion øf facilities, services aad utilities ia th.e 4 uBÌaeerpoFated pORioa of the ruG.A... 5 6 Peliey 8.4r CaørttiBate joiBt plaÐBiag Bfld pefIBit review with Jefferson CøaBty. If 7 neeessary, estaàlishjoiBt planning Bfld peflBit proeessiag agFeemoots with. 8 Jeffersøa Cøanty. 9 10 Pelie)' 8.Sr Establish interlocal agreemeats with. Jefførsaa Cøl:lftty regafdiag the pfØ'Asioa of 11 urhBfl ',yater, waste',yater, starmy¡ater Bfld tmBSf)ortatioa services ta the 12 uBincarpomtcd poF1:iøns of the FUG.A... 13 14 Policy 8.1.ttt Cooperate with Jefferson County to contain urban growth within appropriately 15 designated UGAs, ensuring that commercial and manufacturing areas outside of 16 UGAs: 17 a. Are rural in character, scale and intensity; 18 b. Are served at a rural level of service; ftBd 19 c. Do not accommodate businesses and services that dir~ct1y compote "lith. uses 20 withia UGAs are more appropriately located in a UGA or LAMIRD: or 21 d. Are a~proved Major Industrial Develo¡¡nents (MIDs) which MIDs are 22 permitted and approved consistent with GMA and interlocal a2reement 23 between the City and Jefferson County Drovidin2 for sitin2 and 24 Dermittin2 criteria. 25 26 27 Section 17. Paf!e VII-15: 28 29 Public Health & Safety 30 31 Goal 18: To assure proper disposal of wastewater to protect ground and surface water supplies. 32 33 Polley 18.1: Ensure that all existing and new development within the Port Townsend FiBel 34 Urban Growth Area (FUGA) is supplied with adequate wastewater collection and treatment 35 facilities. 36 37 Section 18. Paf!e VII-15: 38 39 System Development & Management 40 41 Goal 19: To efficiently develop and manage the City's wastewater collection and treatment 42 system. 43 44 Polley 19.1: Encourage infill development and the gradual, phased expansion within the Port 45 Townsend FiBel Urban Growth Area (FUGA). 46 47 Policy 19.6: Establish standards for wastewater collection and treatment facility design. 48 19.6.1 Design the wastewater collection system to convey the peak daily flow 49 based upon a 20 or 50 year growth forecast and infiltration/inflow 50 allowances. · · · 13 1 2 · 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 · 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 · 51 19.6.2 Design treatment plants using a minimum of a 20 year growth projection, with planned expansion capable of serving the 50 year growth projection of the Port Townsend FiDel Urban Growth Area (FUGA). Section 19. Pafle VII-16: System Development Phasing Goal 20: To coordinate wastewater facility planning with land use, environmental, economic development, and growth management objeètives. 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 FiDel Urban Growth Area (FUGA). Section 20. Pafle VII-72: IMPLEMENTATION PROGRAMS Capital Facilities - Projects I. Develop a concurrency management system. 2. Consider new revenue sources for capital facilities and implement as appropriate. 3. In future planning phases. if Port Townsend's Urban Growth Area is extended beyond the current city limits. cooperate with Jefferson County to study the capital facilities needs of the potential unincorporated portion of the Port Townsend Fffial Urban Growth Area (FUGA.). If a FUGA larger than the City's incorporated boundary is designated, develop agreements with Jefferson County to coordinate the planning and development of capital facilities within the unincorporated portion of the FUGA. Section 21. Parle 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. 14 1 2 Policy 9.3 - Consistent with county-wide planning policy #7.4. establish. through an Inter-local . 3 Agreement with Jefferson County. a process for reviewing applications for Maior Industrial 4 Developments (MID) as defined by RCW 36.70A.365. 5 6 Policy 9....4..~: Expand existing commercial and manufacturing zones only after assessing and 7 mitigating adverse environmental impacts. 8 9 Policy 9.5 4:- Encourage the infill of existing commercial and manufacturing zones before 10 considering the expansion or creation of new zones. 11 12 Policy 9.ft,..s·: Provide effective separation of conflicting land uses through buffering, setbacks, 13 zone uses allowed, and transition zones. 14 15 Policy 9.1-6: Achieve a greater balance between housing and employment opportunities. 16 17 Policy 9Jl+: Assure that implementing regulations permit cottage industries within residential 18 areas, consistent with the character of the surrounding neighborhood. 19 20 Policy 9~&: Promote development of planned office, business and industrial parks, while 21 conserving unique physical features of the land and maintaiJ¡ingcompatibility with other land 22 uses in the surrounding area. 23 24 Policy 9.1Q..9: Encourage neighborhood mixed use centers where small scale commercial 25 development (e.g., professional services offices, restaurants, or retail stores) may occur in 26 residential neighborhoods, consistent with the goals and policies ofthe Land Use Element ofthis . 27 Plan. 28 29 Section 22. Page VIII-15.16: 30 31 Commercial Historic District Revitalization 32 33 Port Townsend's plan for revitalization of the Commercial Historic District identifies three 34 important. areas of involvement for City government. 35 36 First, the City's plan should ensure the provision and maintenance of appropriate public 37 improvements in the Commercial Historic District. The quality of the physical link between 38 public and private spaces is crucial to the proper functioning of the Commercial Historic District- 39 and its businesses. Public improvements should help create an inviting environment for shoppers. 40 with clearly marked streets, convenient shopping places, well-lit sidewalks and good pathways 41 between parking areas and stores. Public improvements should provide basic infrastructure and 42 services in a manner that is visually compatible with the nature of the functions they support. In 43 order to implement the Commercial Historic District revitalization policies of this element. the 44 City should develop a comprehensive public improvements program whi;h is tailored to the 45 specific needs of the district while reinforcing private projects. 46 47 Second, the City's plan should provide adequate parking and parking management to meet the 48 needs of customers, merchants, employees, visitors and residents. It shoukl be regulated to 49 encourage turnover of customer spaces and to discourage abuse by long-term parkers. In order to 50 ensure well designed, maintained and managed parking in the Commercial Historic District, the . 51 City should develop a parking management strategy. The parking management strategy should 15 · 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 · · take into account not only the numbers and locations of parking spaces, but also methods of enforcement - the incentives and disincentives that can be used to encourage parking in certain areas. Finally, the City should provide assistance to the Main Street Program in strengthening the Commercial Historic District's existing economic base and gradually expanding it. The City, in conjunction with the Main Street Program, should work to enhance diverse resident and visitor- based commercial activities and community events in the downtown. Implementation: I. In cooperation with the Main Street Program and merchants, develop a comprehensive public improvements program for the Commercial Historic District which is tålored to the specific needs of the area while reinforcing private projects. The program should: a. Help to develop public/private partnerships to improve the pedestrian environment; b. Promote the use of pedestrian visible signage in the Commercial Histaic 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 rßtrchants, 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 servicelhost 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. 16 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 5. COBtmet ,-'.'4th the Maift Str-eet Pregram to dø"/elop a "Retail Plan" to proteet aÐ:d ØHhanee l'etailiBg in Port TOWilSead's Commer-eial Histone Distriet. The plaÐ: shol:Ùd examme the likely impaets ef large seale regional eommereial developmeHt ift the Gleø. Cove area on ' Port To·.væead's Commereial Histone Distriet. !..dditieH8l1y, the Plan should recommeø.8 poteø.tialland use and zoning teelmiques whieh might be used to miHmize the aå-vefSe effeets ef r-egienal eommereial devølopmeHt Oft Commereial Historic Distriet retailers. · Section 23. Pafle lX-i.2: CONSISTENCY WITH THE 13 GMA GOALS Goal #1 - Urban Growth. Encourage development in urban areas where adequate public facilities and services exist or can be provided in an efficient manner. The Plan eoHtemplfttcs the poteHtial dcsigaation of a finalurÐan gr{)wth area (FOO!..) larger than the C\:HTent City limits. The Plan proposes a "eOl'leepmal FUG.^.." fer further re-view and analysis that comprises appreximately 600 Beres ofthe Glen Cove ar-ea ÌH Wlineorporated Jefferson COUftty. If desigaated, Jefferson COOftty and the City of Port TOYIfiSeBd would eooperate to previde the full range of mban pehlie serviees withift a 20 year pl8:l1BÏng horizen. Û\itside the FUGA ÐOUBdary withffi the County's sole jurisdietion, in~rnetill'-e would be proyidcd at a "llifal" level of semee, and de'lelopmeø.t densities would be "rnml" in eharaeter. The Chapter IV - "The Land Use Element" and the Future Land Use Map establish land use designations and densities sufficient to accommodate the population growth expected to occur over the next 20 years (i.e., 5,510 additional residents by 2016). The Plan promotes higher density areas through the designation of Mixed Use Centers surrounded by distinct neighborhoods. The Plan encourages higher density retail, service businesses and multi-family residential development in areas where adequate transportation facilities, sewer, and water service already exist or are planned. · Goal #2 - Reduce Sprawl. Reduce the inappropriate conversion of undeveloped land into sprawling, low density development. The Plan contains goals, policies and implementation strategies that encourage compact, efficient urban growth, and the phasing of growth within Port Townsend, BBd the poteø.tial Wlineorpemted portien of the City's FUG!.., through the use of" growth tiers." The Plan designates mixed use centers surrounded by higher density residential areas at five key locations throughout town. The Plan also connects lands with development constraints (e.g., wetlands, drainage corridors, and steep slopes) with some of the City's remaining forested areas in an effort to create a City-wide system of interconnected open spaces and trails. One of the central objectives of the Plan is to attempt to retain the existing small town character of Port Townsend by encouraging new development in and around the mixed use centerS, rather than dispersed widely throughout the City. Goal #5 - Economic Development. Encourage economic development throughout the state that is consistent with adopted Comprehensive Plans; promote economic opportunity for all citizens of this state, especially for unemployed and for disadvantaged persons; and encourage growth, all within the capacities of the state's natural resources, public services, and public facilities. The Plan designates significant areas within the City limits for commercial and manufacturing development, and anticipates the dcsigaation of additioBal eommereialand manufaetanng l8:Bd · 17 1 2 · 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 · 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 · 51 within the potential future l:1B-Í:Bca£f'omted portion af the FUG..:\.. Many of these areas are already provided with a full range of urban services to facilitate development, or would be provided with these facilities within the 20 year planning horizon. One of the major emphases of the Plan is to address the current "jobs/housing imbalance" in Port Townsend and provide more "family-wage" jobs. An Economic Development Element has been included (see Chapter VIII) within the Plan to facilitate economic growth and development consistent with community and environmental values. The Economic Development Strategy stresses the importance of promoting our local training and education capabilities, and encouraging specific sectors of the local economy including: marine trades; small business and diversified, environmentally friendly manufacturing; and sustainable, year-round tourism. The Strategy also seeks to revitalize Port Townsend's Commercial Historic District and upgrade the City's telecommunications infrastructure for the jobs 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 tenn commercial significatrce 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 of the City's total land base are considered "current use agriculture," while fewer than 6 acres are considered "current use timbèrlands"). 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 potØRtial 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 potefttial unincorporated partion of the FUG.^.. Glen Cove LAMIRD. . Section 24. Pafle lX-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 ftamework for the Port Townsend and 18 1 Jefferson County Comprehensive Plans, to ensure that the plans are consistent with each other. 2 The policies also establish a foundation for determining consistency of individual plans with the 3 requirements of the Growth ManagementAct, and provide direction to coordinate the provision 4 of public facilities and services throughout the community. 5 The City of Port Townsend's Comprehensive Plan has been evaluated for consistency with the 6 CWPP and is found to be substantially consistent with the policies. The following discussion 7 brie£1y summarizes how the Comprehensive Plan elements arc consistent with the CWPP. 8 9 10 Policy #1. Policy to Implement RCW 36. 70A.II 0 - Urban Growth Areas. 11 12 By mutual agreement, the County and City have prepared and adopted a Joint Pop.dation 13 Forecast and Allocation for use in Growth Management planning. The land capacity analysis 14 conducted for the Plan concluded that Port Townsend's current corporate limits contain enough 15 undeveloped land suitable for residential uses to accommodate 100% of the population allocated 16 to the City under the adopted population forecast (Le., 5,510). Altho\:1gh Port Townsend contains 17 enough vacant residential land to accommodate the projected 20 year population increas~ ;&-A 18 shortage ofland Stlitable served with adequate infrastructure and zoned for commercial and 19 manufacturing development still exists within the City limits. During the 2002 5-year 20 comprehensive plan update the city shall conduct a vacant lands inventory and review growth 21 proiections forconµnercial and manufacturing development. The city should seek to rezone land 22 within the citv limits before seeking to expand into unincorporated Jefferson County. 23 Coaseqüeatly, the Plan iBeædes portieas of the adjaceD.t and l:1ftÍDcorpoæted Gloo Cove area 24 withia the City's ceBeØf)tual fiaal1:lfban gro'nth area (PUGf..). 25 Located immediately adjaeeat and to the somhv:est ofthe City, aloag the S.R. 20 corridor, the 26 area preseatly falls Bader the jarisdictioB ef Jeffersoa Coamy for plÐÐJlmg and land use permit 27 admimstmtioa. If desigaated, Jeffersoa Coæty aad the City of Port TowBsead would eoopemte 28 to pmvide the full taflge of Brban1*1èlie serviees withiR a 20 year plannmg horizoa. Omside the 29 PUG,^.. boædary v:ithia thc COl:1ftty's sole jwisdiøtioa, infÌ'astractare ,weld be provided at a 30 "mral" le'¡el of service, and de'lelopmeBt doosities would he "rural" ia eharaeter. No ædevelopcd 31 resideBtial areas are pr{)posed for iaeæsiea ia the l:1ftiaeorpeæted portioa of the ruG!... Iastead, 32 this portioa of the pfØJ30sed FOOA is iÐtooded te provide suffieieat developable 18ßd for 33 eommcreial and manBfaeturÍftg Bses to sRstaiB a healthy loeal eeoBomy. 34 35 Policy #3. Policy on Joint County and City Planning within Urban Growth Areas. 36 37 At the time ofthis writing. Port Townsend's city limits define the urban growth boundary. There 38 is no unincorporated UGA within which to conduct joint planning with Jefferson County.' 39 However. if the City's UGA is expanded then the City and the County should engage in the ioint 40 plannin~ and pernùtting activities outlined in county-wide planning policy #3. 41 Pl8fHlÍÐ.g far the peteatial1:lftÌÐ.eelJleæted portieR of the Pert T e'NBseBd Yl.J(Y.. is still ia its 42 formative stages, and maeh '/lork remaias te he dOBe. Hewever, the City's Plan does eomma 43 pelicies which speeifieally adtkess the 1:1BÏBeorpemted pertioa ef the FOOf... lB. partieular, a 44 poliey subseetioa has heeD. iBeæded withia C~ter VH "The Capital Facilities &. Utilities 45 ElemeD.t," "",hieh is ÍBtooded te eD.S\ife thet adeEll:16te pahlie faeilities and militias will be provideå 46 '.vithiB the 1:1BÏBcerpafBted portieR afthe FUG.^.., if desigBBted. This subseetieB establishes 47 fmmework 'polieie~ for jamt 1'18ftB:Ì:ftg anå permit 8ættiBisbøtiaa, ittehlEÜBg eByireBfBeBtal fe'liew 48 (Le., SEP.^.) and åeeisioa mekiBg aatftarity fer 1:1BÏBeo1"pomted lands leeateå 'llithiB the Port 49 TO\VÐ.seD.d FUG.^... 50 51 Policy #7. Policy on County- Wide Economic Development and Employment. · · · 19 · · · 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 The Port Townsend Comprehensive Plan includes an Economic Development Element (see Chapter VIII) with maior areas of emphasis including: training/education: marine trades: diversified manufacturing and small "clean" business including cottagelhome businesses: sustainable year-round tourism. community retail. commercial historic district revitalization. and telecommunications inttastructure that pays particular attention to the Heeds of Hoftserviee seetor businesses aßd HUHmfaeturiBg. The Element is intended to create at least 2,700 "family wage" jobs within the next 20 years. Speeifie seetofB of the loeal eeonomy ',yhieh. ar-e eneooraged hy the Element include: the Mari8:e Tmdes; Diversified Mam:1faeturiBg & Small Resiness; COlRIBUnity Retail; aBd year round Tourism. Chapter IV "The Laad. Use Elemeflt," 9tlggests that Port Tm,\'Rse8:d's FU(1'\ sflo:eld iHclude eommereial and mæmfaeturing zOHed laßds in the URineorpomted Glen Ce'le area. Whoo provided 'llith adequate publie infrastructure, this area eould provide suffieient laßd for the commereial, r'€tail, and ffiaaufacturing de>;eIOf)meflt Heeded in northeastern Jefferson Coumy. Beeaase efPort TowRsend's status as a UG.f.. aBd regional service Bftd retail eooter, it is anticipated that the unineorporated portion of the FUGA will inelede some 18:Hd zoned for larger seale "r-egional" retaileses. 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 indudes 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 aftticipated that Jefferson County and the City of Port Townsend have the option of will be developing interlocal agreements to address the issues of tax revenue sharing and the provision of regional services if an unincorporated UGA is designated adjacent to Port Townsend Drior to ømHf annexation occuring in this area within the potentialeBincorporated portioHs of the Port Tevfflsend FUG.f... Policy #10. Policy on Use, Monitoring, Review and Amendment. The County-Wide Planning Policy for Jefferson County has been used consistently in the development ofthe Port Townsend Comprehensive Plan. Additionally, the Joint Growth Management Committee has served as the regional oversight body during the development of the Comprehensive Plan._ , aad has reviC'Ned aad proYided ad'lÍsory r-eeemmendatioHS eft the shape and subst8flee of Port TO..../Rsend's pmposed FUG.A... 20 Exhibit B · Possible SU22ested Amendment Re2ardin2 Public Zones Table IV-I: Land Use Designations - Suggested Uses, Densities & Building Heights Com rehensive Plan a e IV-14 Land Use Land Uses Allowed Minimum Maximum Density or Lot Desi nation Densi Covera e P/OS(B) Mixed Public Facility Not 1 Square Foot of Gross Floor & Passive Recreation Specified Area per 4 Square Feet of Lot Uses P-I Schools, -Libraries, & Not 3 sf of gross floor area per 1 W 50 Government Specified sf of lot in the Port Townsend Buildings Historic District: 2 sf of gross floor area per 1 sf of lot elsewhere MaximWR Lot PTMC 17.24.030 Public, Park and Open Space Zoning Districts - Bulk, · Dimensional and Density Requirements District P/OS - Park or P/OS(B) P-I Public Infrastructure Open Space Public Mixed Use Maximum 1 sf of gross floor 1 sf of gross 3 sf of gross floor area per .L W sf Floor Area area per 10 sf of lot floor area per oflot in the Port Townsend Historic Ratio 1 W sf oflot District: 2 sf of gross floor area per 1 sf oflot elsewhere Discussion: A. P/OS(B) Public Mixed Use zoning district occurs on lands used to provide public utilities, facilities and services which also provide valuable natural and open space functions. Public buildings are listed as a conditional use. 1 square foot of floor area per 10 square feet oflot area does not allow some of the listed permitted uses (such as buildings) to be constructed in this zone. In some situations, such as city water tank site it may be appropriate to construct some building for public purposes. The proposed change would make the zoning code consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. · B. P-I Public Infrastructure zoning district occurs on lands used to provide public utilities, facilities, and services. Allowed uses include, schools, libraries, public utilities, and government buildings. Currently the 3 square feet of floor area allowed per 10 square feet of lot area would not allow for the expansion of the City Hall or the proposed reconstruction/addition to the Fire Department. The proposed amendments would make the floor area ratio consistent with the C-III historic district floor for P-I zones located in the Port Townsend Historic District; and also consistent with the C-II General Commercial District for all other areas of town. · · · Annual Comprehensive Plan Review 2002 To: Judy Surber, Senior Planner, March 20, 2002 From: Bernie Arthur, Planning Commission Member I am offering my thoughts in writing as it seems the Planning Commission members are not being allowed time to interact and discuss the ideas of members on the various subjects that each member may want to explore in greater detail. I think that if plans are being developed outside the meetings by staff or groups of commission members then little discussion will be necessary. Although there will be times when all of us may agree, on issues and little discussion is needed, there will be other times when differing ideas should be considered and discussed to satisfy the concerns of even the minority. The Larry Harbison hand-out at the last meeting being an example of a comp plan assessment showed a finding that a reassessment may be necessary in 2002. This seems to me to be the same type of findings that our present review is aimed at. In order to accomplish something more positive, possible talking points might be: Item I.Policy 8.1-"provide appropriately sized and located commercial areas to prevent retail leakage, reduce vehicle trips out of town, enhance tax base, and improve the livability of the community." I would like the Commission to consider the square footage of retail space that has been occupied by non-retail users and what if anything should be done to provide vacant and new space to allow local businesses to grow and new businesses to locate near the major traffic corridors. I would like us to consider the cost of commercial properties available in Port Townsend compared to other commercial centers that draw businesses and our residents away to build and shop. Should government offices and service outlets be limited to P-I zone? Should more appropriately sized land be zoned? Should the city utilities and roads be extended to the South in the Gateway area to encourage development of that M-C zone? Should we continue to fight with the county over Glen Cove growth area while perfectly good jobs and businesses move out of our area? The lack of any predictability for business investment in this area certainly has not helped the formation of new jobs while the Paper Mill has reduced jobs. Most of the increase of good jobs has been in the public sector. This results in greater tax burdens being carried by the residential property owners who need to pay more and travel farther for their basic needs. Item 2. Capacity: Water costs could be affected by state regulations which may include a filtration plant and increased activity at Indian Island. Streets need to be improved in e" the Gateway corridor to include Discovery Road with connector at Howard St. Item 3. Zoned land: Should C-2 zone be increased to allow for new shopping areas. Should the county and city plans for new facilities and locations be designated to accommodate this know growth. Should public uses of commercial properties be discouraged? Why has land zoned C-1/MU and C-2/MU and C-l seen no development? Should the use table be revised for these zones to allow government occupancy. Item 4. Assumptions valid: growth down, mix of population is changing and affordability index is well above the average income. The retail leakage is increasing and no plans seem to be working to correct these trends. The energy and issues around the Glen Cove and Tri-Area UGA's has continued and continues to cloud the real issue of area to locate business and industry close to the people. Should this feud continue? Item 5. Attitudes: There seems to be many attitudes that are represented in small group efforts to influence legislation to satisfy their issue without consideration of all the people of the city. These efforts could be considered new community wide values and in that case attendance at meeting or petitions are the only vehicle to see these changing values. The problem is that these group efforts may not really represent the majority of the community, it is difficult to judge. Item 6. Need for Amendment: A tl}oughtful discussion of Commission members ideas may well create a need for an amendme . I know that many in the community need good jobs, many in the community want shopping choices locally, reasonably priced housing, many wish for a safe, a friendly, a small town. I know many like to walk, to bike, to skate-board, to drive, to park, to play games on safe fields, and to enjoy the cultural, religious or just the quiet life of Port Townsend. The city has many dedicated and hard working employees who are trying to guide the city and it's residents and this should be applauded. However, are we to be just a rubber stamp Commission or are we to be partners and helpers in this effort. Notes of interest that will require planning to offset impact: 1. Parking for new maritime center, new skate board park, expanded City Hall. Move memorial field and make it into a parking lot to accommodate new City Hall and maritime center. 2. Impact of 100,000 summer visitors to the Maritime Center. 3. How involved should the city be in the planning of Point Hudson, again parking issues that will spill onto the city streets and compete with new public investment in that civic district. 4. Should the Point Hudson properties be sold to private users and put property back on the tax rolls? 5. Should the Planning Commission take an active or passive roll in planning? 6. What should be the zoning ofKah Tai ? .