The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2825 Various PTMC Amendments Ordinance No. 2825 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF PORT TOWNSEND, WASHINGTON, ADOPTING CERTAIN AMENDMENTS TO TEXT AND TABLES WITHIN CHAPTERS IV, LAND USE ELEMENT AND VII, CAPIT AL FACILITIES & UTILITIES ELEMENT, VIII, ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ELEMENT, IX, GMA & CWPP CONSISTENCY AND CHAPTER X, GLOSSARY OF TERMS OF THE PORT TOWNSEND COMPREHENSIVE PLAN (THE PLAN); ADOPTING AMENDMENTS TO THE TEXT AND TABLES OF TITLE 17, ZONING, OF THE PORT TOWNSEND MUNICIPAL CODE (PTMC); IN ORDER TO BE CONSISTENT WITH, AND IMPLEMENT THE GOALS AND POLICIES CONTAINED WITHIN THE PLAN; ADOPTING AN AMENDMENT TO THE LAND USE MAP CONTAINED WITHIN THE PLAN; ADOPTING AMENDMENTS TO THE OFFICIAL ZONING MAP ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 17.12.030 PTMC IN ORDER TO BE CONSISTENT WITH, AND IMPLEMENT THE LAND USE MAP CONTAINED WITHIN THE PLAN DIRECTING THE BUILDING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT TO PREPARE REVISED COPIES OF THE PLAN INCORPORATING THE AMENDMENTS SET FORTH IN THIS ORDINANCE; DIRECTING THE CITY CLERK TO CODIFY THE AMENDMENTS TO TITLE 17 PTMC SET FORTH IN THIS ORDINANCE; AND ESTABLISHING AN EFFECtIVE DATE; ALL IN A MANNER CONSISTENT WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF CHAPTER 20.04 PTMC AND THE GROWTH MANAGEMENT ACT OF 1990, AS AMENDED (CHAPTER 36.70A RCW). SECTION 1 FINDINGS The City Council ofthe City of Port Townsend finds as follows: 1. After extensive public review and a recommendation from the Port Townsend Planning Commission (the Planning Commission), the City's current Comprehensive Plan (the Plan) was adopted by the City Council (the Council) on July 15, 1996 (Ordinance No. 2539), to comply with the Washington State Growth Management Act (GMA) of 1990 (Chapter 36.70A RCW), and to facilitate the orderly and coordinated growth and development of the City. All findings, recitals and other provisions of Ordinance No. 2539 are incorporated herein by this reference. 2. After public review and a recommendation from the Planning Commission, the City adopted its current Zoning Code (Title 17 PTMC) on April 7, 1997 (Ordinance No. 2571), to comply with the GMA and to implement the Plan. All findings, recitals and other provisions of Ordinance No. 2571 are incorporated herein by this reference. 3. Council adopted the City's current Comprehensive Plan/Development Regulations Amendment Process codified in Chapter 20.04 PTMC on December16, 1996 (Ordinance No. 2559). Adoption of this chapter implemented the GMA requirement to establish procedures for plan and development regulation amendments (§ 36. 70A.130 and 36.70A.470 RCW). All findings, recitals and other provisions of Ordinance No. 2559 are incorporated herein by this reference. 1 Ordinance 2825 4. Chapter 20.04 PTMC establishes a process for consideration, no more frequently than once per year, of potential amendments to the Plan, including the Official Land Use Map, and the Zoning Code, including the Official Zoning Map. The process codified in Chapter 20.04 PTMC solicits public involvement in identifying suggested plan and development regulation amendments, and provide ample opportunities for meaningful public comment on the proposed amendments. Early, continuous and meaningful public participation is achieved through broad dissemination of proposals and alternatives, opportunity for written comments, public meetings after effective notice, provisions for open discussion, information services, and consideration and response to public comments, consistent with the requirements of the GMA (§ 36.70A.035, 36.70A.130, and 36.70A.140 RCW). 5. Pursuant to the procedures outlined in Chapter 20.04 PTMC, the Comprehensive Plan has been subject to five annual amendment cycles. Council adopted the first sequence of amendments to the Plan's Land Use Map and consistent amendments to the Official Zoning Map on September 15, 1997 (Ordinance No. 2606). The second and third sequence of amendments to the Plan, including significant legislative amendments to the narrative text, tables, goals, policies, and Land Use Map of the Plan, and amendments to the text, tables, and Official Zoning Map of Title 17 PTMC was adopted by Council on December 7, 1998 (Ordinance No. 2670) and November 15, 1999 (Ordinance No. 2716) respectively. The fourth sequence of amendments included amendments to the Land Use and Zoning Maps and was adopted by the Council on November 6, 2000 (Ordinance No. 2749). A fifth update included amendments to the Comprehensive Plan, Urban Waterfront Plan, Land Use & Official Zoning Map, and Title 17 PTMC, adopted by Council on November 19,2001 (Ordinance 2782). 6. This ordinance (Ordinance No. 2825) represents the sixth annual comprehensive plan amendment cycle. The 2002 update includes significant legislative amendments to the text, tables, goals, policies, and Land Use Map of the Plan, and amendments to the text, tables, and Official Zoning Map of Title 17 PTMC. 7. As set forth in the findings below, the opportunities provided for meaningful citizen participation employed in this review and amendment process is wholly consistent with the requirements of the GMA (§ 36.70A.035, 36.70A.130, and 36.70A.140 RCW) and the procedures set forth in Chapter 20.04 PTMC. 8. During its regularly scheduled meetings in the spring of 2002, Planning Commission held a public meeting to become familiar with the review and amendment procedures established in Chapter 20.04 PTMC, and to begin to identify potential amendments to the Plan and Title 17 PTMC. 9. On April 15, 2002, the Planning Commission forwarded its recommended findings on the annual review and assessment of the Comprehensive Plan to the Building & Community Development Director. The Commission's findings follow: 2 Ordinance 2825 #1 - Population growth within the City has been 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 ofthe goal of accommodating 35.22% of the County's population growth. The City and County should reassess this population distribution either at the time of the 10 year update, or sooner if needed (such as corresponding to a Hadlock-Irondale Area UGA designation). #2 - 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 ofthe 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 - There 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 - The majority ofthe 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 - 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 - The City should focus on implementation steps and strategies outlined in 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 hopefully improve the local situation. We recommend that the Council consider revising the comprehensive update cycle to every two or three years with a focus on implementation in the interim years. #7 - The Growth Management Act has been amended since adoption of the City's comprehensive plan in 1996. Corollary amendments should be made to the Comprehensive Plan. Staff s recommended revisions are to be included in the 3 Ordinance 2825 preliminary docket for consideration by the Planning Commission and City Council. 10. On My 15,2002, Planning Commission and City Council held a joint workshop to become familiar with the nine suggested amendments received prior to the May 1, 2002 closing date. 11. On May 30th, 2002, and after timely and effective public notice, the Planning Commission held an open record public hearing to accept public testimony regarding which suggested Plan and Zoning Code amendments should be placed on the final docket for formal review and consideration, to deliberate upon the testimony received, and to prepare its findings, conclusions, and recommendations for the advice of the City Council, all in a manner consistent with the requirements of20.04.060 PTMC. 12. At a regular meeting held on June 17,2002, and after timely and effective public notice, the Council held an open record public hearing and deliberated upon the final docket recommendations of the Planning Commission (as required under 20.04.060(D) PTMC). Council adopted the final docket consisting of nine suggested amendments and two formal amendments. 13. After timely and effective public notice, the Planning Commission held two workshop meetings, August 29,2002, and September 12,2002 to review and discuss the proposed amendments to the Plan, Shoreline Master Program, Land Use/Zoning Map and Zoning Code. 14. After timely and effective public notice, the Planning Commission held a series of open record public hearings on September 26, and October 3 to accept public testimony on the proposed suggested amendments to the Plan. For Amendments 1-5 and 7-8, the Commission deliberated and formulated findings, conclusions and recommendations for the advice of the Council. Deliberation for Amendment #6 was continued to October 24, 2002. 15. On October 10,2002, an appeal ofthe SEPA Responsible Official's Threshold Determination was filed with the Building & Community Development Department. 16. After timely and effective public notice, the Planning Commission held an open record public hearing on October 10, 2002 to accept public testimony on the proposed formal amendments (Pak, LUP02-048 and Kelly, LUP02-097) to the Plan and Shoreline Master Program. In regards to the Pak proposal, Planning Commission, deliberated and formulated of findings, conclusions and recommendations for the advice of the Council. Due to the SEP A appeal, Planning Commission voted to continue the hearing for the Kelly Appeal and Comprehensive Plan/Rezone to November 21,2002. Chair Thayer opened public testimony for those who could not attend the November 21 hearing. Testimony was received from Ms Gabriella Ashford. There being no other testimony, the Chair closed public testimony pending the November 21,2002 hearing. 4 Ordinance 2825 17. On October 24 of 2002 Planning Commission concluded their deliberations and formulation of findings, conclusions and recommendations on Amendment #6, Revise Setbacks/Lot Coverage for Corner Lots. The Planning Commission reviewed and approved findings, conclusions and recommendation that were then transmitted to the City Council in a Memorandum dated October 24, 2002 (Attachment A). 18. After timely and effective public notice, the City Council held a public workshop on October 28,2002, to become reacquainted with the eight suggested amendments and the Pak proposal. 19. On November 4, and after timely and effective public notice, the Council initiated an open record public hearing to accept public testimony on the Planning Commission's recommendations. For the Formal Amendment by Ron Pak (LUP 02-048) and Amendments 1 through 4, Council concluded the open record public hearing and began deliberation upon the testimony received to formally adopt, adopt with modifications, or reject the various findings, conclusions and recommendations ofthe Planning Commission. Council voted on these five items and directed staff to prepare and revised findings for the decision on the Pak proposal (LUP02-048). The hearing was continued to November 12,2002, for Amendments 5 through 8. 20. On November 12,2002, and after timely and effective notice, the Council concluded the open record public hearing and began deliberation upon the testimony received to formally adopt, adopt with modifications, or reject the various findings, conclusions and recommendations of the Planning Commission for Amendments 5 through 8. Council voted on these four items. Council directed staff to prepare and ordinance for adoption of the 2002 Comprehensive Plan Amendments (excepting there from the Kelly proposal). 21. The Council hereby incorporates by this reference the findings, conclusions and recommendations adopted by the Planning Commission during its meeting of October 24, 2002 (Memorandum dated October 24, 2002) relating to revisions to the Comprehensive Plan, Port Townsend Municipal Code, Official Land Use and Zoning Maps to the City of Port Townsend. The Planning Commission's findings, conclusions and recommendations are adopted, or adopted with modifications as follows: Amendment #1 Rezone Blocks 170 and 171 of the Eisenbeis Addition (Quasi-Judicial) Council adopts Planning Commission's recommendation to approve the Comprehensive Plan Amendment to rezone Blocks 170 and 171 ofthe Eisenbeis Addition lying southerly of Discovery Road from R-II to R-IV. And, to update the acreages by zoning district, listed in Table IV -2 onhe Comprehensive Plan to reflect the change. The Council hereby adopts and incorporates by this reference the findings, conclusions and recommendations adopted by the Planning Commission (Memorandum dated October 24, 2002) and finds that they are consistent with the requirements for amending the Plan set forth in Chapter 20.04 PTMC. 5 Ordinance 2825 Amendment #2- Revise Comprehensive Plan Text to be Consistent with Recent GMA Amendments Council adopts Planning Commission's recommendation to revise the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Element to reflect recent GMA amendments, specifically to: · Add new policy 1.6 to the Land Use Element to address the frequency of Plan review for conformance under GMA. (Exhibit 2-1, page 5). · Add new policy 2.2 to the Land Use Element to specifically refer to the use of 'best available science' when reviewing and revising the PTMC (Exhibit 2-1, page 6). · Repeal Policy 17.5.30fthe Land Use Element and replace with new Policies to clearly reflect that the goals and policies of the city's Shoreline Master Program are to be considered as part of the Comprehensive Plan while the shoreline use and development regulations are to be considered part of the City's municipal code (Exhibit 2-1, page 8). The Council hereby adopts and incorporates by this reference the findings, conclusions and recommendations adopted by the Planning Commission (Memorandum dated October 24, 2002) and finds that they are consistent with the requirements for amending the Plan set forth in Chapter 20.04 PTMC. Amendment #3 - Revise Lot Coverage in P/OS and P-I Districts Council adopts Planning Commission's recommendation to modify the zoning code to be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan standards to allow maximum lot coverage of 25% in the P/OS(B) zoning district and to revise both the Comprehensive Plan and zoning code to increase the allowable maximum floor area ration from 3 square feet (sf) of gross floor area per 10 sf of lot to 3 sf of gross floor area per 1 sf in the Historic District and 2sf of gross floor area per 1 sf of lot elsewhere. The Council hereby adopts and incorporates by this reference the findings, conclusions and recommendations adopted by the Planning Commission (Memorandum dated October 24, 2002) and finds that they are consistent with the requirements for amending the Plan set forth in Chapter 20.04 PTMC. Amendment #4 - Remove FUGA Language from the Comprehensive Plan Council voted to accept Planning Commission's recommendation to remove references to the Port Townsend Final Urban Growth Area (FUGA) as including the area known as Glen Cove. Council voted to adopt the amendments to the Comprehensive Plan as recommended by staff and as further modified by Planning Commission during the September 26, 2002 hearing and to adopt revisions to Title 17, Zoning, Port Townsend Municipal Code, deleting reference to the FUGA and the C-IV Regional Commercial District. The Council hereby adopts and incorporates by this reference the findings, conclusions and recommendations adopted by the Planning Commission (Memorandum dated October 24, 2002) and finds that they are consistent with the requirements for amending the Plan set forth in Chapter 20.04 PTMC. 6 Ordinance 2825 Amendment #5 - Revise Density of R-III and R-IV Zoning Districts Council voted to accept Planning Commission's recommendation to revise the maximum density for the multi-family zoning districts to allow calculation of density to be based on either bedrooms or units and to include a footnote that reflects that one method or the other (either bedrooms or units) shall be applied to the entire parcel. The Council hereby adopts and incorporates by this reference the findings, conclusions and recommendations adopted by the Planning Commission (Memorandum dated October 24, 2002) and finds that they are consistent with the requirements for amending the Plan set forth in Chapter 20.04 PTMC. Amendment #6 - Revise Setbacks/Lot Coverage for Corner Lots Council adopts Planning Commission's findings, conclusions and recommendations (Memorandum dated October 24, 2002) relating to the following amendments to the Comprehensive Plan/PTMC Title 17, Zoning: · Increase front-yard setbacks for garages to 20-feet in the R-I, R-II, and R-III zones · Reflect a maximum lot coverage of 40% in R-II Council finds that the Planning Commission's findings and conclusions are consistent with the requirements for amending the Plan set forth in Chapter 20.04 PTMC. Amendment #7 - Revise Zoning Use Tables to Allow Group Homes Outright in Certain Zones Council adopts and incorporates by this reference Planning Commission's findings, conclusions and recommendation (Memorandum dated October 24, 2002) to approve amendments to the definitions and use tables in the zoning code (PTMC Title 17) to differentiate group homes for the disabled and emergency shelters from residential treatment facilities and to allow group homes outright in certain zones. Council finds that the Planning Commission's findings and conclusions are consistent with the requirements for amending the Plan set forth in Chapter 20.04 PTMC. Amendment #8 - Strike the 50% Rule for ADUs Council voted to accept Planning Commission's findings, conclusions and recommendation (Memorandum dated October 24, 2002) to adopt amendments to PTMC 17 striking the 50% rule from the current code requirement that limits Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) to "less than 50% of the total floor area of the main residence or 800 square feet whichever is less". Council finds that the Planning Commission's findings and conclusions are consistent with the requirements for amending the Plan set forth in Chapter 20.04 PTMC. Ron Pak - Indian Point Amendments (LUP-02-048) During the November 4,2002 Council voted to divide the question. Council voted to accept Planning Commission's findings, conclusions and recommendation (Memorandum dated October 24, 2002) on the following: 7 Ordinance 2825 A) Deny requested amendments to Section 4.106 Port Townsend Urban Waterfront Special District, Introductory Text (3rd Paragraph) and Policy l(a). B) Deny amendments to Section 4.106 Port Townsend Urban Waterfront Special District, Performance Standard #9 b (iii) giving exception to the 50% rule. Council voted to modify Planning Commission's findings, conclusions and recommendation (Memorandum dated October 24, 2002) on Question C. Planning Commission had recommended: I· I C) (1) Recommend denial of amendments to the SMP Appendix D, Examples of Water-Oriented Uses, Water-Enjoyment Uses (Page 104) to include "conference centers ", (2) Approval of Revisions to the definition of water enjoyment use as suggested by staff; and (3) Approval of revisions to 4.106, Policy 1b (Exhibit P-14) as suggested by Staff. Council voted to deny all of the amendments including those suggested by staff. Council hereby adopts the following findings and conclusions: a. Circumstances related to the proposed amendment and/or the area in which it is located have not substantially changed since the adoption of the Port Townsend Comprehensive Plan. b. Assumptions upon which the Port Townsend Comprehensive Plan is based are still valid and no new information is available which was not considered during the adoption process or any annual amendments of the Port Townsend Comprehensive Plan. c. The proposed amendment does not reflect current widely held community values. The language in the Shoreline Master Program proposed for amendment was adopted in 1992 under Ordinance 2320. Ordinance 2320 responded to widely held community values as expressed in a statistically validated 1991 Citizen survey. Nothing has been entered into the record that would indicate a change in community values since the 1991 survey. d. The proposed amendment is contrary to the goals of the Shoreline Management Act. RCW 90.58.020 states in part "uses shall be preferred which are... unique to or dependent upon use of the state's shoreline.. . shall be given priority for single family residences, ports, shoreline recreations uses including but not limited to parks, marinas, piers, and other improvements facilitating public access to the shorelines of the state, industrial and commercial developments which are particularly dependent on their location on or use of the shorelines of the state and other development that will provide an opportunity for substantial numbers of the people to enjoy the shorelines of the state." 22. The Council finds that the Plan and Zoning Code amendments adopted herein have been subject to environmental review and threshold determination in compliance with the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) (Chapter 43.21C RCW, and Chapter 197-11 WAC) 8 Ordinance 2825 and Chapter 19.04 PTMC. On September 26,2001, the City's SEPA Responsible Official issued a mitigated determination of Non Significance (MDNS) for the eight suggested amendments. An MDNS was issued for the Pak proposal on August 28, 2002. A Mitigated Determination of Non Significance was issued for the Kelly proposal on September 25, 2002. The Kelly determination was appealed on October 10, 2002. An Addendum was issued on October 14,2002 and a final MDNS was issued on November 14,2002. A separate ordinance shall be prepared for the Kelly proposal (LUP02-097) upon conclusion of council's deliberation. 23. The Council finds that the Plan and Zoning Code amendments adopted in this ordinance are true to the original vision and goals of the Plan, while accommodating some reasonable and modest change that is entirely consistent with the Community Direction Statement contained in Chapter III of the Plan, and the review and amendment criteria set forth in 20.04.080(A)(3) and (4), and (B)(3) PTMC. 24. Pursuant to PTMC Section 20.04.020, the amendments have been considered concurrently and Council has considered the cumulative effect of all items. 25. Consistent with the requirements of the GMA, Building and Community Development Department staff forwarded the proposed amendments to the Plan and Zoning Code to the State of Washington Department of Community Trade and Economic Development (DCTED) for review and comment more than sixty (60) days prior to the adoption of this ordinance (§36.70A.I06). No substantive comments were received from DCTED prior to the adoption of this ordinance. 26. This ordinance has been prepared in conformance with the goals and requirements of the GMA (Chapter 36.70A RCW) and is externally consistent and compatible with the 13- state-wide planning goals contained within the GMA (§ 36.70A.020 RCW). 27. This ordinance has also been reviewed against the requirements of the County-Wide Planning Policy for Jefferson County (CWPP) and has been found by the Council to be in conformance therewith. 28. Based upon the foregoing findings, the Council finds that adoption of the following amendments to the text, goals, policies and tables of the Land Use Map of the Comprehensive Plan, and the text, tables and official Zoning Map of Title 17 PTMC will promote the public health, safety and welfare of the citizens of Port Townsend and should be approved. 9 Ordinance 2825 BASED UPON the foregoing FINDINGS, and based upon the record before the Port Townsend Planning Commission and City Council, the City Council hereby ordains as follows: SECTION 2 ADOPTION OF AMENDMENTS TO THE LAND USE MAP OF THE PORT TOWNSEND COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND COROLLARY AMENDMENTS TO THE OFFICIAL ZONING MAP OF THE CITY OF PORT TOWNSEND. Pursuant to the City's authority under Chapters 35A.63 and 36.70A RCW, and concurrent with the adoption of this ordinance, the City Council hereby adopts an amended Official Comprehensive Plan Land Use and Zoning Map for the City of Port Townsend, which are marked as Attachment C and D, attached hereto and by this reference made a part hereof. The provisions of Title 17, Zoning, of the Port Townsend Municipal Code shall govern the administration, applicability, and interpretation of the Official Zoning Map, as amended. Pursuant to Amendment #1, both maps reflect a rezone of Blocks 170 and 171 of the Eisenbeis Addition lying southerly of Discovery Road from R-II to R-IV. Pursuant to Amendment #4, the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map has been amended to remove reference to the Potential Unincorporated Urban Growth Area. SECTION 3 ADOPTION OF AMENDMENTS TO THE TEXT AND FIGURES OF THE PORT TOWNSEND COMPREHENSIVE PLAN The text and figures ofthe Port Townsend Comprehensive Plan are hereby amended as set forth in subsections 3.1 through 3.5, below. SUBSECTION 3.1: Pursuant to Amendment #2, Chapter IV, Land Use Element, of the Port Townsend Comprehensive Plan is hereby amended as depicted herein in strikeout and underline format. All other language in the Chapter shall remain in full force and effect. Page IV -16: The following new policy shall be inserted Policy 1.6, with the existing Policy 1.6 renumbered as Policy 1.7. The new policy shall read as follows: "Bef!inninf! in 2004. and at least once everv seven (7) vears afterwards. conduct a thorouf!h review of this Plan to ensure that it fullv conforms with the reauirements of the GMA. as reauired under RCW 36. 70A.130." Page IV -17: The following new Policy 2.2 shall be added, with the following policies renumbered accordingly. "Use 'best available science' when reviewinf! and revisinf! the Environmentallv Sensitive Areas chapter of the PTMC to ensure that the functions and values of environmentallv sensitive areas are adeauatelv protected. and f!ive special consideration to measures needed to preserve salmon fisheries. " 10 Ordinance 2825 Page IV-33: Policy 17.5.3 shall be repealed and replaced with a new Policy 17.6, 17.6.1, and 17.6.2, which shall read as follows: "Recoflnize that the floals and policies of the Citv's SMP are considered part of this Comprehensive Plan. and that the shoreline use and development reflulations of the SMP are considered part of the Citv's development reflulations. 17.6.1 When the Citv's SMP is comprehensivelv reviewed and revised consider incorTJoratinfl the floals and policies of the SMP within a Shoreline Manaflement Element of this ComlJrehensive Plan. 17. 6.2 When the Citv's SMP is comprehensivelv reviewed and revised consider codifvinfl the shoreline use and develolJment reflulations of the SMP within the Port Townsend Municipal Code. " SUBSECTION 3.2: Pursuant to Amendment #3, page IV-14 of Chapter IV, Land Use Element of the Comprehensive Plan is hereby amended as indicated in the following strikeout and underline language. All other language in the Table shall remain in full force and effect. Table IV-I: Land Use Designations - Suggested Uses, Densities & Building Heights Land Use Land Uses Allowed Minimum Maximum Density or Lot Building Designation Density Coverage Height (feet) P/OS (B) Mixed Public Facility Not 1 Square Foot of Gross Floor 35 & 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 Maximum Lot cov@rag@ of 1J5% SUBSECTION 3.3: Pursuant to Amendment #4, Chapter IV, Land Use Element, Chapter VII, Capital Facilities & Utilities Element, Chapter VIII, Economic Development Element, and Chapter IX, GMA & CWPP Consistency, are hereby amended as depicted by strike-out and underline language in Attachment D hereto. SUBSECTION 3.4: Pursuant to Amendment #5, the text found on page IV -7 of Chapter IV, Land Use Element of the Comprehensive Plan, is hereby amended as follows: 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: 11 Ordinance 2825 Residential Designations: Low Density: R-I (SF) up to 4 d.u. per acre (i.e., 10,000 s.f. minimum lot size) Medium Density: R-II (SF) up to 8 d.u. per acre (i.e., 5,000 s.f. minimum lot size) Medium Density: R-III (MF) up to 24 bedrooms or 16 units whichever is greater, per 40,000 s.f. area High Density: R-IV (MF) 25 to 40 bedrooms, or 24 units whichever is greater, per 40,000 s.f. area SUBSECTION 3.5: Pursuant to Amendments #5 and 6, Table IV -1 found on page IV -13 of Chapter IV, Land Use Element ofthe Comprehensive Plan, is hereby amended as follows: TABLE IV-I: LAND USE DESIGNATIONS - SUGGESTED USES, DENSITIES & BUILDING HEIGHTS MAXIMUM BUILDING LAND USE LAND USES MINIMUM DENSITY OR DESIGNATIONS ALLOWED DENSITY LOT HEIGHTS COVERAGE (Feet) 4 Dwelling Units Single-Family per Acres; Houses, Maximum Lot R-I Duplexes, Not Specified Coverage of 30 Triplexes & 35%, except 40% where an ADD is Fourplexes included on the lot Single-Family Houses, 8 Dwelling R-II Duplexes, Not Specified Units per 30 Triplexes & Acre Fourplexes Single-Family Houses, 24 bedrooms or Duplexes, 16 Dwelling Triplexes & R-III Fourplexes; Not Specified Units whichever 35 Condos, is greater per Townhouses & AGt=e-40,000 sf Apartments 40 bedrooms or Condos, 24 Dwelling R-IV Townhouses, & 17 Dwelling Units whichever 35 Apartments Units per Acre is greater per AGt=e-40,000 sf 12 Ordinance 2825 SECTION 4 ADOPTION OF AMENDMENTS TO THE TEXT AND TABLES OF TITLE 17, ZONING, OF THE PORT TOWNSEND MUNICIPAL CODE. The text and tables of Title 17, Zoning, of the Port Townsend Municipal Code are hereby amended as set forth in subsections 4.1 through 4.9, below. SUBSECTION 4.1: Pursuant to Amendment #3, Table 17.24.030 is hereby amended as depicted herein in strikeout and underline format. All other language in this Table shall remain in full force and effect. Maximum Floor Area Ratio PTMC 17.24.030 Public, Park and Open Space Zoning Districts - Bulk, Dimensional and Density Requirements P/OS(B) Public Mixed Use 1 sf of gross floor area per 1 -l-(} sf of lot District P/OS - Park or Open Space 1 sf of gross floor area per 10 sf of lot P-I Public Infrastructure 3 sf of gross floor area per .L -l-(} sf of lot in the Port Townsend Historic District; 2 sf of gross floor area per 1 sf of lot elsewhere SUBSECTION 4.2: Pursuant to Amendment #4, the following text and tables of Chapter 17.20, Commercial Zoning Districts, are hereby amended as depicted herein in strikeout and underline format. All other language in this Chapter shall remain in full force and effect. Delete Subsection 17.20.010 (B)(5) concerning the C-IV Regional Commercial District as follows: 5. C IV R@gional Commercial. Th@ purpose of this district is to provide areas for diyefsifi@d commercial activiti@s which serve a broader regional clientele. The uses generally attract traffic from a broader area than the general commercial district, and are usually larger in scal@ than in other comm@rcial districts. This district accommodates large scale retail stores, shopping centers, and specialty stores. Th@ C IV district has not been applied to areas within the present city limits, although it may be applied to portions of the unincorporat@d GI@n Cov@ area, if designated by Jefferson Coooty as part of Port Townsend's final urban grovfth area (FUGA). Revise Table 17.20.020, Commercial Zoning Districts - Permitted, Conditional and Prohibited Uses to delete the C-IV column: 13 Ordinance 2825 Table 17.20.020 Commercial Zoning Districts - Permitted, Conditional, and Prohibited Uses Key to table: P = Permitted outright; C = Subject to a conditional use permit; H = Subject to conditional use requirements for historic structures; X = Prohibited; N/A = Not applicable DISTRICT C-II C-II(H) C-III G-W APPLICAPLE REGULA TIONS/NOTES FOOD SERVICE USES Bakeries, retail P P X P X PTMC 17.20.030, Commercial bulk, dimensional and density requirements. Confectioneries P P X P X Same as above. Drinking establishments X P X P X Same as above. (bars, cocktail lounges, night clubs, and taverns) Microbreweries P P X P X PTMC 17.20.030, Commercial bulk, dimensional and density requirements. The manufacturing component within any microbrewery located within a mixed use zoning district must be subordinate and accessory to a primary retail use. Other food service P P P P X PTMC 17.20.030, Commercial bulk, establishments including dimensional and density requirements. coffee houses, A manufacturing component may be delicatessens, ice cream permitted within any such use; parlors, juice bars, etc. provided, that it is subordinate and accessory to a primary retail use (e.g., coffee roasting, meat curing, etc.). Within the C-II(H) zoning district, food service uses must be subordinate and accessory to a medical services establishment. Restaurants with drive-in X P X X X PTMC 17.20.030, Commercial bulk, or drive-through service dimensional and density requirements. Restaurants without drive- P P X P X PTMC 17.20.030, Commercial bulk, in or drive-through dimensional and density requirements. MANUFACTURING USES 14 Ordinance 2825 Apparel and other related X C X H X PTMC 17.20.030, Commercial bulk, products manufacture and dimensional and density requirements. assembly PTMC 17.84.060, Additional approval criteria - Conditional uses in historic commercial structures. Electrical and electronic X C X H X Same as above. goods manufacture and assembly Fuel storage facilities X C X X X Same as above. Furniture and fixtures X C X H X Same as above. manufacture and assembly Computer equipment X C X H X Same as above. manufacture and assembly Key to table: P = Pennitted outright; C = Subject to a conditional use pennit; H = Subject to conditional use requirements for historic structures; X = Prohibited; N/A = Not applicable DISTRICT C-II C- II(H) C-III G-I¥ APPLICAPLE REGULATIONS/NOTES Custom, art and craft work X C X H X Same as above. Medical and optic goods X C C H X Same as above. manufacture and assembly Printing, noncommercial P P X X X PTMC 17.20.030, Commercial bulk, dimensional and density requirements. Mini-storages and mini- X C X X X Same as above. warehouses Welding and fabrication X C X X X Same as above. Wholesaling X C X X X Same as above. OFFICE USES Banks X P X P X Same as above. Business services X P X P X Same as above. Financial institutions X P X P X Same as above. Offices, business and P P P P X Same as above. professional Offices, medical P P P P X Same as above. Veterinary hospitals C P X C X Same as above. RECREATIONAL AND CULTURAL USES Amusement devices, up to P P X P ~ Same as above. five Amusement parks or X C X X X Same as above. centers Arcade, amusement X P X X X Same as above. Art galleries P P X P X Same as above. Bowling alleys X P X X X Same as above. Health clubs, dance X P X P X Same as above. studios, martial arts studios Libraries X C X C X Same as above. Museums X C X P X Same as above. Recreation, commercial X P X X X Same as above. Stadiums, arenas and X P X C X Same as above. assembly halls Theatres, not including X P X P X Same as above. 15 Ordinance 2825 drive-ins RESIDENTIAL USES Apartment houses X P X P X PTMC 17.20.030, Commercial bulk, density and dimensional requirements; and Chapter 17.36 PTMC, Multifamily Development Standards. Boarding houses (six or X P X P X Same as above. fewer roomers) and lodging and rooming houses (seven or more roomers) Multifamily dwellings X P X P X Same as above. Owner/operator residences P P P P X PTMC 17.20.030, Commercial bulk, dimensional and density requirements, such uses shall only be allowed if clearly subordinate and accessory to a primary commercial use. Residential treatment X X P X X PTMC 17.20.030, Commercial bulk, facilities dimensional and density requirements COMMERCIAL RETAIL USES Antique and gift sales X P C P X Same as above. Apparel and accessory X P X P X Same as above. stores Automobile sales and X P X C X Same as above. service establishments, new or used Boat sales and rentals C P X C X Same as above. Building materials, garden X P X C X Same as above. and fann supplies stores Convenience stores C P X C X Same as above. Fanner's markets X P X P X Same as above. Flea markets X P X P X Same as above. Food stores and grocery P P X P X Same as above. stores Furniture, home X P X P X Same as above. furnishings, and appliance stores General merchandise P P X P X Same as above. stores Mobile, manufactured and X P X X X Same as above. modular housing sales Motor vehicle sales X P X C X Same as above. Motor vehicle supply X P X X X Same as above. stores Office supplies and X P X P X Same as above. equipment Phannacies and medical P P P P X Same as above. supply stores Plant nurseries, X P X X X Same as above. landscaping materials, greenhouses (commercial) Regional retail X X X X P All uses permitted in the C-II district are establishments permitted so long as the structure and use meeting the definition for "regional 16 Ordinance 2825 retail. " Specialty stores P P C P X PTMC 17.20.030, Commercial bulk, dimensional and density requirements SERVICE USES, HEALTH Hospitals X X P X X PTMC 17.20.030, Commercial bulk, dimensional and density requirements. Preferred uses in this district are medical related. Massage clinic or center X P P P X Same as above. Nursing, rest or X X P X X Same as above. convalescent homes Offices, medical X P P P X Same as above. SERVICE USES, LODGING Apartment hotels X X X P X Same as above. Bed and breakfast inns X X X P X Same as above. Hotels/motels X P X P X Same as above. Lodging houses X X X P X Same as above Tourist homes X X X P X Same as above. PERSONAL SERVICE USES Child day care centers, X P P X X Chapter 17.52 PTMC, Day Care child day care facilities, Facilities; and PTMC 17.20.030, and preschools Commercial bulk, dimensional and density requirements Funeral parlors and X P X X X PTMC 17.20.030, Commercial bulk, mortuaries dimensJonal and density requirements Laundromats P P X P X Same as above. Laundry services X P X P X Same as above. Other personal services C P X P X Same as above. SERVICE USES, MISCELLANEOUS Automobile rental X P X X X Same as above. agencies Automobile towing X P X X X Same as above. services Automotive repair X P X C X Same as above. establishment, minor repair Car washes X P X X X Same as above. Catering establishments X P X P X Same as above. Colleges and universities C C X C X Same as above. (public or private) without students in residence Equipment rental services, X P X P X Same as above. commercial Mini-storages and mini- X P X X X Same as above. warehouses Printing, commercial X P X P X Same as above. 17 Ordinance 2825 Radio and television X P X P X Same as above. studios (including recording studios) Schools, commercial X P X P X Same as above. Service stations, C P X X X Same as above. automotive and marine Servicing of personal P P X P X Same as above. apparel and equipment Small appliance repair X P X P X Same as above. shops Truck, trailer and X P X X X Same as above. recreational vehicle rental PUBLIC FACILITY USES Electrical distribution X C X X X Same as above. substations Municipal improvements P P P P P Same as above. Offices, government X P P P X Same as above. Recycling facilities, minor P P P P I! Same as above. Stormwater retention, P P P P I! Same as above. detention, and treatment facilities Telephone exchange X P P P X Same as above. TEMPORARY USES Contractor offices P P P P I! Chapter 17.60 PTMC, Temporary Uses; and PTMC 17.20.030, Commercial bulk, dimensional and density requirements. Christmas tree sales P P P P P Same as above. Carnivals/circuses P P P P I! Same as above. Outdoor art and craft sales P P P P I! Same as above. Parking lot/sidewalk sales P P P P I! Same as above. Rummage sales P P P P I! Same as above. Retail or service activities P P P P I! Same as above. conducted out of temporary structures and/or trailers Swap meets X P X P X Same as above. OTHER USES Accessory buildings and P P P P I! Same as above. structures Churches X P X X X Same as above. Conference centers X P X C X Same as above. Docks and piers for X P X P X Same as above. pleasure craft Ferry landings X P X P X Same as above. 18 Ordinance 2825 Fraternal organizations X P X P X Same as above. Garage, public parking X P C C X Same as above. Personal wireless service N/A N/A N/A N/A WA Refer to Chapter 17.78 PTMC, Personal facilities Wireless Service Facilities, for list of permitted, conditional and prohibited uses and other substantive requirements. Radio and television C C C C G Such facilities are allowed in all zoning towers districts subject to the conditional use permit requirements of Chapter 17.84 PTMC; however, such facilities are prohibited within the limits of the Port Townsend National Register Historic District; and PTMC 17.20.030, Commercial bulk, dimensional and density requirements, expect as provided in applicable Federal Communications Commission rules and regulations. Satellite dishes, P P P P P Satellite dishes and antennas shall meet noncommercial, and the requirements of PTMC 17.20.030, antennas Commercial bulk, dimension and density requirements, except as provided in applicable Federal Communications Commission rules and regulations. Revise Table 17.20.030, Commercial Zoning Districts - Bulk, Dimensional and Density Requirements to delete the C-IV column: Table 17.20.030 Commercial Zoning Districts - Bulk, Dimensional and Density Requirements DISTRICT C-I C-II C- II(H) C-III b-I¥ RESIDENTIAL Owner/operator Owner/operator or Owner/operator Multifamily No r0sid@Btial REQUIREMENTS esidences allowed multifamily esidences allowed esidences allowed üs@s are allowed subject to the esidences allowed above commercial above the ground :~.¡., ro n T -0 requirements above the ground uses subject to the floor àistfiGt below floor subject to the requirements requirements below below MINIMUM LOT 5,000 sf 5,000 sf 5,000 sf 5,000 sf 5,000 sf SIZE FRONT YARD None None None None 45' @xc@pt: 30' SETBACKS with sid0 or rear parking 19 Ordinance 2825 REAR YARD 5' except: none 10' except: 15', + 10' except: 15', + None, except: 10' 20' @xc@pt: 1 SETBACKS when contiguous 5' for each 5' for each when contiguous additienal foot fur with another building floor building floor with an R-II or R- @ach foot of commercial above 2 stories, above 2 stories, III zoning district building H@ight zoning district when contiguous when contiguous OY@f 30' '.'ihoo !with an R-I or R-II with an R-I or R-II abmting a zoning district zoning district residential zoning distfiGt SIDE YARD 5' except: none No minimum on No minimum on No minimum on 20' @xcept: 1 SETBACKS when contiguous interior lot lines; interior lot lines; comer lots or additional foot for with another 5' minimum 5' minimum interior lot lines; each foot of commercial otherwise except: otherwise except: except: 10', + 5' byilding height zoning district 10', + 5' for each 10', + 5' for each for each building ov@r 30' wh@n building floor building floor floor above 2 abütting a above 2 stories, above 2 stories, stories, when residential zoning when contiguous when contiguous contiguous with distfiGt !with an R-I or R-II with an R-I or R-II an R-I or R-II zoning district zoning district zoning district MAXIMUM None 75,000 sf None None ~ BUILDING SIZE MAXIMUM 2 stories, up to 3 stories, up to 3 stories, up to 50' or as specified ~ BUILDING 35', whichever is 35', whichever is 35', whichever is by Ch. 17.28 HEIGHT less less less PTMC MAXIMUM 1 sf of gross floor 2 sf of gross floor 2 sf of gross floor 3 sf of gross floor 1 sf ef gross floor FLOOR AREA area per 2 sf of lot area per 1 sf of lot area per 1 sf oflot area per 1 sf of lot area p@r 3 sf øf lot RATIO GREENBELT When abutting an When abutting an When abutting an When abutting an '.¥h@n abatting an REQUIREMENTS R-I or R-II zoning R-I or R-II zoning R-I or R-II zoning R-I or R-II zoning R I or R II zoning district, any permi iistrict, any permi district, any permit district, any permi . . . , ~, r application must application must application must application must 3f1plication must be accompanied be accompanied be accompanied be accompanied b@ accompani@d by landscape plans by landscape plans ~y landscape plans by landscape plans ' _In_. -,IT r to obscure and to obscure and to obscure and to obscure and to ObSCW'8 and limit access limit access limit access limit access limit acc@ss MAXIMUM FENCE Front = Max. bldg. Front = Max. Front = Max. Front = Max. T:'____ A' HEIGHT* height applies bldg. height ~ldg. height bldg. height C;An 0' Side = 8' except: ~ applies applies applies In 0' max. bldg. height ~pplies when Side = Max. bldg. Side = Max. bldg. Side = Max. bldg. ~butting another height applies height applies !height applies ommercial except: 8' when a except: 8' when a except: 8' when a zoning district side yard setback ide yard setback side yard setback Rear = 8' except: is required is required . s required !max. bldg. height Rear = 8' Rear = 8' Rear = Max. bldg. applies when !height applies ¡abutting another except: 8' when a ommercial ear yard setback ~oning district is required SUBSECTION 4.3: Pursuant to Amendment #4, the following text and tables of Chapter 17.22, Marine-Related and Manufacturing Zoning Districts, are hereby amended as depicted herein in strike-out and underline format. All other language in this Chapter shall remain in full force and effect. 20 Ordinance 2825 Revise Subsection 17.22.010 (B) Purposes to remove reference to the final urban growth area (FUGA) as follows: B. The purposes of each specific manufacturing and marine-related district are as follows: 1. M/C - Mixed Light Manufacturing and Commercial. This district accommodates small- scale manufacturing businesses, along with associated and subordinate on-site retailing. The purpose of this district is to provide for manufacturing and commercial enterprises which do not predominate within either the light manufacturing or commercial land use categories. These are uses which may combine aspects of both on-site manufacturing and retailing (e.g., specialty crafts or artisans). Manufacturing to commercial floor area ratios are necessary for this district to ensure that certain uses do not dominate at the expense of others. The M/C district occurs in areas south of Sims Way and west of Thomas Street. The district may also be appropriate for significant portions of the Glen Cove area,--if designated by Jefferson County as part of Port Tovms@nd's final urban grovi1:h area (FUGA). 2. M-I - Light Manufacturing. The M-I district provides for light manufacturing, processing, fabrication, and assembly of products and materials, warehousing and storage, and transportation facilities. This district has not been applied to any areas within the city, although it may be appropriate for portions ofthe Glen Cove area, if designated by Jefferson County as part of Port Towns€:md's final urban growth area (FUGA). 3. M-II(A) (Boat Haven) - Marine-Related Uses. This district accommodates a variety of uses including marina, recreational boating, manufacturing, assembly, haul out, and repair. The M-IIA district occurs primarily on port-owned lands at the Boat Haven. It is intended for larger scale and more intensive water-dependent or marine-related uses at the Boat Haven. Uses within the district that also lie within the jurisdiction of the Port Townsend Shoreline Master Program (i.e., within 200 feet of the shoreline) are subject to the policies and standards of both this title and the Port Townsend Shoreline Master Program. 4. M-II(B) (Point Hudson) - Marine-Related Uses. Similar to the M-IIA district, this district accommodates a variety of marine-related uses, but on a less intensive scale, appropriate to Point Hudson. This district promotes mixed use projects which incorporate water- oriented uses, consistent with the historic, marine-related character of the area. Uses within this district that also lie within the jurisdiction of the Port Townsend Shoreline Master Program (i.e., within 200 feet of the shoreline) are subject to the policies and standards of both this title and the Port Townsend Shoreline Master Program. 5. M-III - Heavy Manufacturing. The M-III district accommodates heavy manufacturing activities including processing, fabrication, assembling of products or materials, and bulk storage. This district is intended to provide for the continuation and development of heavy manufacturing enterprises in locations where they will be compatible with other similar uses, and which do not negatively impact adjacent land uses. This district has not 21 Ordinance 2825 been applied to any areas within the city, although it may be appropriate for portions of the Glen Cove area, if designated by J@fferson County as part of Port TO\\,nsend's final urban growth area (FUG.!\). An example includes but is not limited to the Port Townsend Paper Mill. SUBSECTION 4.4: Pursuant to Amendment #5, the text of Subsections 17.16.010(B) (3) and (4) of page 17-37, is hereby amended as depicted herein in strike-out and underline format. All other language shall remain in full force and effect. 3. R-III - Medium Density Multifamily. The R-III district accommodates smaller scale multifamily structures (e.g., five to 12 dwellings per structure) at a density of up to 24 bedrooms, or 16 units whichever is greater, per 40,000 square feet of land area. The intent of this district is to provide a broad range of housing opportunities; to provide a variety of housing types and styles; and to provide for development with a density and configuration that facilitates effective and efficient transit service. Although multifamily development is encouraged in these areas, single-family residences continue to be an allowed use. This district includes areas along arterial and major collector streets with existing or planned transit service. 4. R-IV - High Density Multifamily. This district accommodates larger scale multifamily structures (e.g., 10 to 24 dwellings per structure) at a density of not less than 25 bedrooms per 40,000 square feet of land area, or more than up to 40 bedrooms, or 24 units whichever is greater, per 40,000 square feet ofland area. A minimum density has been specified for this district in order to discourage use of this land for subordinate, lower density development; single-family dwellings are not permitted in this district. This district includes areas designed to be compatible with adjoining uses; to provide for development with a density and configuration that facilitates effective and efficient transit service; and to enable provision of affordable housing. SUBSECTION 4.5: Pursuant to Amendment #5, the maximum housing density in Table 17.16.030 is hereby amended as depicted herein in strike-out and underline format. All other language in this Section shall remain in full force and effect. District R-I R-II R-III R-IV Maximum 4 8 24 bedrooms, or 40 bedrooms, or Housing Density (10,000 sf oflot (5,000 sf oflot 16 units. 24 units ( unitslbedrooms area per unit) area per unit whichever is whichever is per 40,000 greater, per greater , per square foot area) 40,000sf of lot 40,000 sf oflot area area SUBSECTION 4.6: Pursuant to Amendment #6, setback and lot coverage requirements in Table 17.16.030 are hereby amended as depicted herein in strike-out and underline format. All other language in this Section shall remain in full force and effect. 22 Ordinance 2825 Table 17.16.030 Residential Zoning Districts - Bulk, Dimensional, and Density Requirements DISTRICT R-I R-II R-III R-IV MINIMUM FRONT 20' except: 10' except: 20 feet 20' except: 10' 20' except: 10' YARD SETBACKS 50' = barns and for garages with w/side or rear w/side or rear agricultural vehicle access parking/garages; parking; no setback buildings facing a street right- garages with vehicle for multifamily of-way and access facing a structures located 50' = barns and street right-of-way within 200 feet of agricultural must be setback 20'; an abutting mixed buildings no setback for use zoning district multifamily structures located within 200 feet of an abutting mixed use zoning district MINIMUM REAR 20' except: 10' except: 10' except: 15' except: YARD SETBACKS 50' = barns and 100' = barns and no setback for 20' if directly agricultural agricultural multifamily abutting an R-I or buildings, and 100' buildings structures located R-II district; no if abutting an R-II, within 200 feet of an setback for R-III, or R-IV abutting mixed use multifamily zoning district. zoning district structures located within 200 feet of an abutting mixed use zoning district MINIMUM SIDE 5' except.;. 5' except.;. 5' except.;. 15' except: YARD SETBACKS 10' = abutting a 10' = abutting a 10' = along a street 20' if directly street r-o-w; 20 feet street r-o-w; 20 feet r-o-w; 20 feet for abutting an R- I or for garages with for garages with garages with vehicle R-II district; no vehicle access vehicle access access facing a setback for facing a street right- facing a street right- street right-of-way multifamily of-way and of-way and and structures located 50' = barns and 100' = barns and no setback for within 200 feet of agricultural agricultural multifamily an abutting mixed buildings and 100' buildings structures located use zoning district if abutting an R-II, within 200 feet of an R-III, or R-IV abutting mixed use zoning district zoning district MAXIMUM 30' 30' 35' 35' BUILDING HEIGHT MAXIMUM LOT 25% 35%, except 40% 45% 50% COVERAGE where an ADD is included on the lot MAXIMUM FENCE Front = 4'; side = Front = 4'; side- Front = 4'; side = Front = 4'; side = HEIGHT* 8'; side abutting a 8'; side abutting a 8'; side abutting a 8'; side abutting a public r-o-w = 4'; public r-o-w = 4'; public r-o-w = 4'; public r-o-w = 4'; rear = 8' rear = 8' rear = 8' rear = 8' SUBSECTION 4.7: Pursuant to Amendment #7, the definition of residential treatment facility as found in Section 17.08.060 is hereby amended as depicted herein in strike-out and underline format. All other language in this Section shall remain in full force and effect. 23 Ordinance 2825 Residential treatment facility" means a facility that provides both a residence (for varying periods of time) and a care component. Among such facilities are group homes for the disabled, emergency or homeless shelters (including facilities or homes for victims of violence), recovery homes, and group homes, and orphanages. Such facilities do not include halfway houses. In such a facility, services, equipment, and safety features necessary for the proper care of residents is normally provided. Such services may include: A. Supervision and assistance in dressing, bathing, and in the maintenance of good personal hygiene; B. Care in emergencies or during temporary illness, usually for periods of one week or less; C. Supervision in the taking of medication; and D. Other services conducive to the residents' welfare. SUBSECTION 4.8: Pursuant to Amendment #7, Table 17.16.020 Residential Zoning Districts - Permitted Conditional and Prohibited Uses, found on page 17-39 is hereby amended as depicted herein in strike-out and underline format. All other language in this Table shall remain in full force and effect. 17.16.020 Residential Zoning Districts - Permitted, Conditional and Prohibited Uses Key to table: P = Permitted outright; C = Subject to a conditional use permit; X = Prohibited; N/A = Not applicable DISTRICT R-I R- R- R- APPLICABLE II III IV REGULA TIONS/NOTES SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL USES Accessory dwelling units P P P X Ch. 17.48 PTMC, Accessory Dwelling Units; and PTMC 17.16.030, Residential bulk, dimensional and density requirements. For ADUs in the R-III zone, the ADU shall be counted toward the maximum housing density as provided in PTMC 17.16.030 Adult family homes (for 6 or P P P P PTMC 17.16.030, Residential bulk, fewer adults) dimensional and density requirements. Emergency Shelter (six or P P P P Same as above. - - - - fewer adults) Group homes for the disabled (six p P P P Same as above. or fewer residents) - - Manufactured homes (on P P P X Ch. 17.64 PTMC, Manufactured and individual lots) Mobile Home Parks. Manufactured homes are prohibited within the limits of the Port Townsend National Register Historic District, but allowed on individual lots in R-I, R-II, and R-III zoning districts; and PTMC 17.16.030, Residential bulk, dimensional and density requirements. Mobile homes and trailer homes X X X X (on individual lots) 24 Ordinance 2825 Modular Homes P P P X PTMC 17.16.030, Residential bulk, dimensional and density requirements. Modular homes are constructed in accordance with the Unifonn Building Code and are considered a type of single- family dwelling. Single-family dwellings P P P X PTMC 17.16.030, Residential bulk, (including duplexes, triplexes, and dimensional and density requirements. fourplexes which meet the base density requirements of the applicable district) Cottage housing developments P P P X PTMC 17.16.050, Cottage housing; Ch. 18.20 PTMC, Binding Site Plans MUL TI-FAMIL Y RESIDENTIAL USES Apartment houses X X P P Ch. 17.36 PTMC, Multifamily Residential Development Standards; and PTMC 17.16.030, Residential bulk, dimensional and density requirements Boardinghouses (six or fewer P P P P Same as above. roomers) Lodging houses (seven or more X X P P Same as above. roomers) Congregate care of assisted living X X P P Same as above. facilities (with seven or more dwelling unitslbedrooms) Foster homes P P P P Same as above. Key to table: P = Permitted outright; C = Subject to a conditional use permit; X = Prohibited; N/A = Not applicable Fraternities, sororities and student X X C C Same as above. cooperatives Halfway house X X X X See definition PTMC 17.08.030 Multifamily dwellings X X P P Same as above. Nursing, rest, or convalescent X X P P Same as above. homes (seven or more persons) Residential treatment facilities C C P P "Group hOffi8S" æ"8 consià8r8d an including group hOffi8s for th8 "8ss8Btial public facility" wd8r R-CW disabl8d (for six or ÜW18r 36.7QA.200; "...th8ir siting cannot b8 r8sid8nts) pr8chHl8d by d8Y81opm8Rt r8gulations..."; and PTMC 17.16.030, R-@sid8ntial bulk, diffi8nsioBal and Q@flsity r@quÏr@ffitmts. Residential treatment facilities X X P P "Group homes" are considered an including group homes for the "essential public facility" under RCW disabled (for seven or more 36.70A.200; "... their siting cannot be residents) precluded by development regulations..."; and PTMC 17.16.030, Residential bulk, dimensional and density requirements. SUBSECTION 4.9: Pursuant to Amendment #7, Table 17.18.020 Mixed Use Zoning Districts- Permitted, Conditional and Prohibited Uses, found on page 17-48 is hereby amended as depicted herein in strike-out and underline format. All other language in this Table shall remain in full force and effect. 25 Ordinance 2825 Table 17.18.020 Mixed Use Zoning Districts - Permitted, Conditional and Prohibited Uses DISTRICT I C-I(MU) C-II(MU) I Applicable Regulations/Notes RESIDENTIAL USES (Mixed with other permitted nonresidential uses) Apartment houses P P PTMC 17.18.030, Mixed use bulk, dimensional and density requirements: and Ch. 17.36 PTMC, Multifamily Residential Development Standards. Attached single- P X PTMC 17.18.030, Mixed use bulk, family residences dimensional and density (i.e., duplexes, requirements. triplexes and fourplexes Boarding houses P P Same as above (four or fewer roomers) and lodging and rooming houses (fie or more roomers) Detached single- X X family residences Group homes for P X PTMC 17.18.030, Mixed use bulk, - - the disabled, dimensional and density attached (six or requirements "Group homes" are fewer residents) considered and "essential public facility under RCW 36.70A.200;"...their siting cannot be precluded by development regulations.."; and PTMC 17.18.030, Mixed use bulk, dimensional and density requirements. Multifamily P P Same as above dwellings Residential C C "Group homes" are considered and treatment facilities "essential public facility under including group RCW 36.70A.200;"...their siting homes for the cannot be precluded by disabled -(seven or development regulations.."; and greater ) PTMC 17.18.030, Mixed use bulk, dimensional and-density requirements.. 26 Ordinance 2825 SUBSECTION 4.4: Pursuant to Amendments #6 and #8, Section 17.16.020 - Residential Zoning Districts, Permitted, Conditional, and Prohibited Uses, is hereby amended as depicted herein with strike-out and underline. All other language in this section shall remain in full force and effect. "17.16.020 Permitted, conditional and prohibited uses - Accessory dwelling units. C. Accessory Dwelling Units - Limitations on Use. One accessory dwelling unit (ADU) may be established as an accessory use to a single-family residence provided the following conditions are continuously met: 4. ADUs established in an outbuilding shall not exceed 800 square feet in floor area, and under no circumstance shall the total lot coverage of the primary residence along with the ADU exceed the standard allowed in the underlying zoning district. exceed 35 percent ofth@ total lot area. Additionally, no f~DU shall b@ established in an outbuilding constructed after March 6, 1995, if the total floor area ofth@ portion of the outbuilding occupied by the ADU exceeds 50 percent of the total floor area of the main residence building. " SECTION 5 TRANSMITTAL TO DCTED The City Clerk shall transmit a copy of this Ordinance to the State Office of Community Development (OCD) within ten (10) days of adoption of this ordinance. SECTION 6 PREPARATION OF REVISED COMPREHENSIVE PLAN COPIES Copies of the Revised pages of the Port Townsend Comprehensive Plan and Urban Waterfront Plan, incorporating the changes to the plan narrative, tables, policies, figures and Land Use Map set forth in this ordinance shall be prepared by Port Townsend Building and Community Development Department staff and available for public inspection within thirty (30) days of the adoption of this ordinance. SECTION 7 CODIFICATION OF AMENDMENTS TO TITLE 17, ZONING, OF THE PORT TOWNSEND MUNICIPAL CODE Copies of a revised Title 17, Zoning, ofthe Port Townsend Municipal Code, codifying the amendments set forth in this ordinance, shall be prepared under the supervision of the City Clerk and available for public inspection within one-hundred and twenty (120) days ofthe adoption of this ordinance. 27 Ordinance 2825 SECTION 8 EFFECTIVE DATE This ordinance shall take effect and be in force 5 days following its publication in the manner provided by law; except relating to that portion of Amendment #6 as follows: increase front- yard setbacks for garages to 20-feet in the R-I, R-II, and R-III zones, namely _[see p. 23]_, shall become effective February 1,2003. SECTION 9 SEVERABILITY In the event anyone or more of the provisions of this ordinance shall for any reason be held to be invalid, such invalidity shall not affect or invalidate any other provision of this ordinance, but this ordinance shall be construed and enforced as if such invalid provision had not been contained therein; PROVIDED, that any provision which shall for any reason be held by reason of its extent to be invalid shall be deemed to be in effect to the extent permitted by law. Read for the first time by the City Council ofthe City of Port Townsend, Washington, at a special business meeting thereof, held the 9th day of December, 2002. Read for the second time and passed by the City Council of the City of Port Townsend, Washington, at a regular meeting thereof, held this sixteenth day of December, 2002, and re- adopted with corrections at a regular meeting on January 6, 2003. Attest: Approved as to Form: ~~ John-Watts, City Attorney Passage: Publication: Effective: January 6, 2003 January 22, 2003 January 27,2003 Transmitted to Washington State Office of Community Development: (j;¡¡1/. /1 ,2003 28 Ordinance 2825 City of Port Townsend Planning Commission Waterman & Katz Building 181 Quincy Street, Suite 301A, Port Townsend, WA 98368 (360) 379-5081 FAX (360) 385-7675 c;;. To: From: Date: Subject: Port Townsend City Council Cindy Thayer, Port Townsend Planning Commission Chair October 24, 2002 Planning Commission Summary Report and Recommendations Regarding Year 2002 Comprehensive Plan Amendments I. INTRODUCTION In this year's Comprehensive Plan update process, the Planning Commission considered eight suggested amendments and two formal applications. These amendments can be grouped as follows: Sue:e:ested Amendments Proposed Amendments to the Land Use & Zoning Maps 1. Rezone Blocks 170 and 171 of the Eisenbeis Addition(Quasi-JudiciaJ) Proposed Amendments to the Comprehensive Plan and/or Zoning Code Text 2. Revise Comprehensive Plan Text to be Consistent with Recent GMA Amendments 3. Revise Lot Coverage in P/OS & P-I Zoning Districts 4. Remove FUGA Language from the Comprehensive Plan 5. ~evise Density ofR-III and R-IV Zoning Districts 6. Revise SetbacksILot Coverage for Comer Lots 7. Revise Zoning Use Tables to Allow Group Homes Outright in Certain Zones 8. Strike the 50% Rule for ADUs Formal Applications (Quasi-Judicial) Ron Pak - Indian Point Amendments (LUP-02-048) Kelly - Jefferson Transit Rezone (LUP-02-046) This memorandum summarizes each amendment and sets forth the Commission's recommendations, findings and conclusions for your consideration. We are confident that our recommendations represent sound policy guidance, true to the original vision and goals of the Comprehensive Plan, while accommodating some reasonable and modest change that we believe is entirely consistent with the Community Direction Statement (i.e., Chapter III of the PJan) and Chapter 20.04 PTMC. Throughout, we have paid particular attention to the specific considerations and findings required under PTMC 20.04.080 (A)(3): a. Whether circumstances related to the proposed amendment and/or the.area in which it is located have substantially changed since the adoption of the Port Townsend Comprehensive Plan; E~ A Findings, Conclusions, & Recommendations of the Planning Commission Year 2002 Comprehensive Plan Amendments Page 2 b. Whether the assumptions upon which the Port Townsend Comprehensive Plan is based are no longer valid, or whether new information is available which was not considered during the adoption process or any annual amendments of the Port Townsend Comprehensive Plan; and c. Whether the proposed amendment reflects current widely held community values. Where the Commission recommended rezoning of a limited area, the additional findings of Subsection 20.04.080(4), relating to "site-specific" requests, were applied. Specifically, a. The proposed amendment meets concurrency requirements for transportation, sewer, and water, and does not adversely affect adopted level of service standards for other public facilities and services, such as police, fire and emergency medical services, park services, and general government services. b. The proposed amendment is consistent with the goals, policies and objectives of the various elements of the Port Townsend Comprehensive Plan. c. The proposed amendment will not result in probable significant adverse impacts to the city's transportation network, capital facilities, utilities, parks, and environmental features that cannot be mitigated, and will not place uncompensated burdens upon existing or planned service capabilities. d.. In the case of an amendment to the land use map, that the subject parcels are physically suitable for the requested land use designation and the anticipated land use development, including but not limited to access, provision of utilities and compatibility with existing and planned surrounding land uses. e. The proposed amendment will not create a pressure to change the land use designation of other properties, unless the change ofIand use designation for other properties is in the long-term interests of the community in general. f. The proposed action does not materially affect the land use and growth projections, which are the bases of the Comprehensive Plan." g. The proposed action does not materially affect the adequacy or availability of urban facilities and services to the immediate area and the overall area of the city. h. The proposed amendment is consistent with the GMA, the adopted countywide planning policy of Jefferson County, any other appÌicable inter-jurisdictional policies or agreements, and any other state or local laws. We hope this document provides useful information for the City Council and the public in preparing for the hearing(s) to be held before Council in November. ß. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW & ASSOCIATED PUBLIC COMMENT · A Determination of Non Significance for the eight suggested amendments was issued on August 21, 2002. · A Determination of Non Significance for the Pak Amendments was issued on August 28, 2002. · A Mitigated Determination of Non Significance for the Kelly-Jefferson Transit Rezone was issued on September 25, 2002. Findings, Conclusions, & Recommendations of the Planning Commission Year 2002 Comprehensive Plan Amendments Page 3 Comments regarding environmental impacts were addressed in the DNS. Comment letters have been summarized for each amendment and have been attached as part of the record. III. PLANNING COMMISSION REVIEW Planning Commission conducted two workshops, August 29,2002, and September 12,2002, and the following open -record, public hearings: · September 26 Suggested Amendments 1-4 Seven Planning Commissioners were present at this hearing The Hearing was continued to October 3 for items 5-8 · October 3 Suggested Amendments 5-8 Five Planning Commissioners were present at this hearing. · October 10 Formal Applications · October 24 Continuation of October 3 Hearing Staff reports containing background materials, suggested options, and recommendations were provided to the Commission. Several members of the public submitted written and! or oral testimony. The record forwarded to Council includes the Planning Commission Packets from the Hearings (i.e., the staff reports), SEP A documentation, written testimony received, and Planning Commission minutes. IV. FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE PLANNING COMMSSION Amendment #1" Rezone Blocks 170 and 171 of the Eisenbeis Addition (Quasi-Judicial) Description of the Suggested Amendment· Rezone Blocks 170 and 171 of the Eisenbeis Addition lying southerly of Discovery Road from R-II to R-IV (Exhibit 1-1, Vicinity Map). A rezone requires amendments to the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map and the Zoning Map. Public Comment: One letter was received in opposition to the proposal. (Exhibit 1-3). Mr. Scott Maxwell's letter states his opposition to rezoning Block 170 and 171 of the Eisenbeis Addition (Amendment #1) and to placement of a group home in the area (Amendment #7). It should be noted that Amendment #7 is not site-specific (i.e., there is no proposal to place a group home on Blocks 170/171). During the Hearing, October 3, 2002, Mr. Maxwell spoke in opposition to the rezone and the property owner, Mr. Glen Norcross, spoke in favor. Recommendation: Recommend approval of the requested rezone of Blocks 170 and 171 of the Eisenbeis Addition lying southerly of Discovery Road from R-II to R-IV. Update the acreages by zoning district, listed in Table IV-2 of the Comprehensive Plan to reflect the change. Vote Summary: 7-0-0 " Findings, Conclusions, & Recommendations of the Planning Commission Year 2002 Comprehensive Plan Amendments Page 4 DiscussionIRationale: The Housing Element of the Comprehensive Plan references a shortage ofland appropriately zoned for multi-family development (page V -2) and a lack of affordable rentals (page V-3). According to Table IV-2 in the Land Use Element, the R-IV zoning district consists of only 18 acres (not including platted rights-of-way). An additional 155 acres ofR-III land exists, however the R-TII zone allows for either multi-family or single-family development. Much of the development within R-III has been single-family residential. Several Comprehensive policies encourage a variety of housing types, multi-family housing, affordable housing and rentals. Consistent with Policy 7.9 of the Land Use Element, the site is located in an area that is conducive to walkinglbicycling, and it is in close proximity to a school and transit services. Discovery Road, a designated scenic collector, forms the property's northerly boundary. Surrounding uses include Towne Point Mobile Home Park and a church across Discovery to the north, multi-family developII)ent northeasterly side of the site, across Discovery Road. To the south, Block 173 is zoned single-family residential; Block 172 is zoned R-IV. Grant Street Elementary School is located directly east of the site, offering useable open space when school is not in session. No environmentally sensitive areas are known to exist on-site. Findings & Conclusions: 1. Circumstances related to the proposed amendment and/or the area in which it is located have substantially changed since the adoption of the Port Townsend Comprehensive Plan. In 1997, Blocks 177 & 178 of the Eisenbeis Addition, located southerly of the proposed rezone property, were down zoned from R-IV to R-TI (Ordinance 2606), resulting in the loss of approximately 2 acres ofland available for multi-family housing. 2. Assumptions upon which the Port Townsend Comprehensive Plan is based are still valid. A shortage of multi-family development and a lack of affordable rentals still exist within the city limits. 3. Provision of a variety of housing types and affordable rentals is a widely held community value. 4. The proposed amendment meets concurrency requirements for transportation, sewer, and water, and does not adversely affect adopted level of service standards for other public facilities and services, such" as police, fire and emergency medical services, park services, and general government services. . Blocks 170 & 171 of Eisenbeis Addition are located within Tier 1, "areas that are currently characterized by urban development and densities, which are provided with the full range of public facilities and utilities". An area of roughly the same size, Blocks 177 and 178, was recently down zoned fÌ'om R-IV to R-TI. 5. The proposed amendment is consistent with the goals, policies and objectives of the various elements of the Port Townsend Comprehensive Plan, which encourage multi-family housing (e.g. Housing Element Goals 1,2,4; Land Use Element Policies 7.1, 7.2, 7.9, and 7.12). 6. The ,City issued a DNS finding that the proposed amendment will not result in probable significant adverse impacts to the city's transportation network, capital facilities, utilities, parks, and environmental features that cannot be mitigated, and will not place uncompensated burdens upon existing or planned service capabilities. 7. The subject parcels are physically suitable for the requested land use designation and the anticipated land use development, including but not limited to access, provision of utilities and compatibility with existing and planned surrounding land uses. Blocks 170 & 171 of Findings, Conclusions, & Recommendations of the Planning Commission Year 2002 Comprehensive Plan Amendments Page 5 Eisenbeis Addition are located along a designated arterial and are within Tier 1, "areas that are currently characterized by urban development and densities, which are provided with the full range of public facilities and utilities". Proposed multi-family zoning is co~patible with surrounding residentially zoned properties and the Grant Street Elementary School. 8. The proposed amendment will not create a pressure to change the land use designation of other properties, unless the change ofland use designation for other properties is in the long- term interests of the community in general. A majority of the surrounding land has been developed. Conversion of additional land to multi-family residential within this vicinity would not be contrary to the long-term interests of the community in general. 9. The proposed action does not materially affect the land use and growth projections that are the bases of the Comprehensive Plan. R-IV multifamily zoning within Tier 1 is encouraged by the plan. This up zone would effectively balance the 1997 downzone of Blocks 177 and 178. 10. The proposed action does not materially affect the adequacy or availability of urban facilities and services to the immediate area and the overall area of the city. Blocks 170 & 171 of Eisenbeis Addition are located within Tier 1, "areas that are currently characterized by urban development and densities, which are provided with the full range of public facilities and utilities". An area of roughly the same size, Blocks 177 and 178, was recently down zoned rrom R-IV to R-II. 11. The proposed amendment is consistent with the GMA, the adopted coUntywide planning policy of Jefferson County, any other applicable inter-jurisdictional policies or agreements, and any other state or local laws. AMENDMENTS TO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TEXT AND/OR DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS Amendment #2- Revise Comprehensive Plan Text to be Consistent with Recent GMA Amendments Description of the Suggested Amendment - Amend the goals and policy-text of the Comprehensive Plan to reflect recent amendments to the Growth Management Act (GMA) since 1995: Following is brieflist, please refer to Exhibit 2-1 for more detail: · Add new policy 1.6 to the Land Use Element to address the rrequency of Plan review for confonnance under GMA. (Exhibit 2-1, page 5). · Add new policy 2.2 to the Land Use Element to specifically refer to the use of 'best available science' when reviewing and revising the PTMC (Exhibit 2-1, page 6). · Repeal Policy 17.5.3ofthe Land Use Element and replace with new Policies to clearly reflect that the goals and policies of the city's Shoreline Master Program are to be considered as part of the Comprehensive Plan while the shoreline use and development règulations are to be considered part of the City's municipal code (Exhibit 2-1, page 8). c_ " Findings, Conclusions, & Recommendations of the Planning Commission Year 2002 Comprehensive Plan Amendments Page 6 Public Comment. A letter was received from the Department of Ecology (Exhibit 2-2). DOE encourages the city to include amendments to stormwater policies. Staff requested that the referenced sections of the Stormwater Program be sent to the city. When received, they will be forwarded to Public Works for consideration in development of the Stonnwater Master Plan. No public testimony was received during the hearing. Recommendation: Recommend approval of the revisions as shown in Exhibit 2-1. Vote Summary: 7-0-0 DiscussionlRationale: The objective is to revise our goals and policies as needed to more fully reflect the requirements of the Growth Management Act as amended. Findings & Conclusions: 1. Circumstances related to the proposed amendment and/or the area in which it is located have substantially changed since the adoption of the Port Townsend Comprehensive Plan. Since adoption of the Plan in 1996, the GMA ha been amended in a number of significant respects. Revisions to the Plan are intended to more fully implement the requirements of the Act; 2. Assumptions upon which the Port Townsend Comprehensive Plan is based are still valid, however recent amendments to the GMA constitute new infonnation which was not available nor considered during the adoption process or any annual amendments of the Port Townsend Comprehensive Plan; and 3. Compliance with the GMA is a widely held community value. Amendment #3.- Revise Lot Covera2e in P/OS and P-I Districts Description of the Suggested Amendment: Currently, the allowable lot coverage for the PIGS B district set forth in the zoÍ1ing code conflicts with that listed in the Comprehensive Plan. The proposal is to modify the zoning code to be CQnsistent with the Comprehensive Plan standards to allow maximum lot coverage of25% in the PIGS (B) zoning district. In the P-I zone, the proposal is to revise both the Comprehensive Plan and zoning code to increase the allowable maximum floor area ratio from 3 square feet (sf) of gross :floor area per 10 sf of lot to 3 sf of gross floor area per 1 sf in the Historic District and 2sf of gross :floor area per 1 sf of lot elsewhere. The proposed :floor area ratios are 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). Public Comment - None Recommendation: Planning Commission voted unanimously to divide the question. A. P/OS (B) Public!Mixed Use Vote Summary: 4-3-0 to approve· DiscussionlRationale: Planning Commission recommends modifying the zoning code to be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan standards for the PIGS (B) district to allow a maximum lot coverage of25% in the PIGS (B) zoning district. In most cases, PIGS (B) properties will be utilized for uses requiring no structures, such as when used for stonnwater purposes. However, Findings, Conclusions, & Recommendations of the Planning Commission Year 2002 Comprehensive Plan Amendments Page 7 in situations such as the city water tower site, structures are needed for the public good and lot coverage of up to 25% may be required. Minority Report: "This district occurs on lands used to provide public utilities, facilities, and services which also provide valuable natural and open space functions."(page IV-II, Comprehensive Plan). Several of the Planning Commission members expressed concern over the uses permitted in the P/OS(B) zoning district (i.e., RV parks, public parking garages, government buildings) that appear inconsistent with the intent. Although lot coverage would be limited to 25%, associated impervious surfaces (i.e., parking lots) could conswne larger areas. A minimum open space requirements should be considered for the district. Allowable uses within the district should be revisited. B. P-I Public Infrastructure Vote Summary: 7-0-0 to approve DiscussionlRationale: The PubliclInfrastructure (P-I) zoning district occurs on lands used for public facilities and services including public utilities, schools, libraries, and government buildings (See Exhibit 3-2, Permitted, Conditional, and Prohibited Uses). With planning underway for reconstruction of the fire department building and construction of the city hall annex, BCD has become aware of inconsistencies and problems with the bulk and dimensional tables of the zoning code and Comprehensive Plan for the P-I. For the P-I district, the Comprehensive Plan recommends maximwn lot coverage of 45% while the zoning code pennits a maximum of 3 square feet of gross floor area per 10 square feet of lot size. Apart ftom the fact that plan uses lot coverage as a measurement while the zoning code uses floor area ratio, both these bulk and dimensional criteria are much too low for the types of uses pennitted in the P-I zoning district. For comparison sake, the C-III Historic Commercial district permits a floor area ratio of3 square feet of floor per 1 square foot of land. This high ratio encourag~ multi-story buildings in our historic commercial district.. The C-II district permits 2 square feet of gross floor area per 1 square foot of land. Planning Commission agrees with BCD staff that it highly likely that the P-I floor area ratio was adopted ftom another community's zoning code without full consideration of whether another community's standard would fit Port Townsend. Many communities have zoning codes that do not encourage multi-story buildings and that require significantly larger oft:street parking areas than does Port Townsend. The current code would make it extremely difficult for the City to reconstruct the Fire Hall to meet seismic requirements or build the new City Hall annex downtown. The current P-I standards could also prevent future public projects including schools, a police facility, or criminal justice facility. Planning Commission supports BCD's request to modify the floor area ratios for the P-I zone 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). P-I projects located in residential districts (such as schools or future transit! city shop facility) are likely to have floor area ratios much lower than the 3: 1 or 2: 1 ratios mentioned above. When P-I projects are located in residential districts, landscaping, buffering standards, and stormwater detention and treatment standards imposed during the environmental review (SEP A) process would limit building size and lot coverage to be more Findings, Conclusions, & Recommendations of the Planning Commission Year 2002 Comprehensive Plan Amendments Page 8 consistent with the surrounding residential properties than those public buildings located in commercial districts. Suggested Findings & Conclusions: 1. Circunistances related to the proposed amendment and/or the area in which it is located have not substantially changed since the adoption of the Port Townsend Comprehensive Plan; 2. Assumptions upon which the Port Townsend Comprehensive Plan is based are still valid. However, recent planning efforts, associated with the city hall annex and fire department, have revealed inconsistencies between the Comprehensive Plan and the zoning code and problems with the bulk and dimensional requirements. These inconsistencies and issues were not considered during the adoption process or any annual amendments of the Port Townsend Comprehensive Plan; and 3. Consistent and practical regulations are widely held community values. The revisions are necessary to facilitate construction of public buildings that will serve the citizens of Port Townsend. Amendment #4 - Remove FUGA Lan2Uae:e from the Comprehensive Plan Description of the Suggested Amendment: Pursuant to the Growth Management Act (GMA) counties, rather than cÌties are responsible for designating urban growth boundaries. The limits of urban growth areas (UGAs) are adopted at the time the County adopts its Comprehensive Plan. In June of 1995, the Joint Growth Management Committee recommended a "preferred" conceptual alternative for the unincorporated portion of the Port Townsend Final Urban Growth Area (FUGA) and directed that this alternative be included in the Comprehensive Plans for both the County and City. The city included portions of the Glen Cove area beyond the present city limits within a conceptual final urban growth area (FUGA). The city's Comprehensive Plan clearly states that additional information and analysis was needed to refine and modify the conceptual FUGA boundary to ensure consistency with GMA and Growth Management Hearings Board decisions. . The County is currently processing an amendment to their Comprehensive Plan that would enlarge the boundaries of the Glen Cove Limited Area of More Intensive Rural Development (LAMIRD) and would modify the development standards (bulk, dimensional, lot coverage, and use standards) in this LAMIRD. In June of2001, the city docketed two amendments to revisit the conceptual FUGA language. While one was recommended by the Planning Commission for adoption, neither amendment was adopted by the City Council. During the 2002 Comprehensive Plan amendment process, Planning Commission member Alice King sponsored placing the 2001 Planning Commission supported FUGA amendment on the docket once again. This suggested amendment did survive the docketing process and is before you once again. The form of the amendment is identical to that recommended for adoption by the Planning Commission in 2001, with the exception of MID language that was adopted by City Council noted. Findings, Conclusions, & Recommendations of the Planning Commission Year 2002 Comprehensive Plan Amendments Page 9 For 2002, suggested amendment #4 removes references to the Port Townsend Final Urban Growth Area (FUGA) as including the Glen Cove area. The amendment as shown in Exhibit 4- 1, has the following major components: 1. Replaces references to the Port Townsend FUGA with up to date language recognizing that Port Townsend has an urban growth area that coincides with its city limits and that Glen Cove is currently designated as a LAMIRD by Jefferson County. 2. Supports the creation of industrial zoning within the Glen Cove LAMIRD. 3. Recognizes that Jefferson County is reviewing the feasibility of establishing a UGA for the Irondale Hadlock area. 4. Directs the city to conduct an analysis of vacant commercial, industrial, and residential lands and determine if additional land is needed for these land use categories. It also recommends if such lands are needed that the city first looks to land within the existing city limits for rezone before seeking to expand the city's UGA. 5. Deletes references to an expanded "Community Serving UGA" that would include a portion of the Glen Cove area. 6. Deletes the C-IV Regional Commercial zoning district that was slated for portions of the Glen Cove area ifit in fact became part of the city's UGA. 7. Recognizes the City/PUD transfer of the Glen Cove water system (city now owns and manages this system). 8. Updates references to joint planning by the city and county, and encourages both jurisdictions to cooperate if the Port Townsend UGA is extended into unincorporated Jefferson County. 9. Deletes references to a Main Street "retail plan" to protect the Port Townsend C-III commercial historic district from potential impacts of regional commercial development in the Glen Cove area. At the September 26, 2002, Hearing, staff suggested additional modifications, reflected in Exhibit 4-11 and summarized as follows: 1. Replace references to "as of the time of this writing (200 1 )," with, "as of the time of this writing (2002)." 2. Replace references to 5-year Comprehensive Plan update set to occur in 2002, with 7-year Comprehensive Plan update set to occur by 2003/2004. 3. Recognize that the city has acquired the Glen Cove water system from the PUD. Public Comment - Please refer to Exhibits 4-3, 4-6, 4-8, 4-9, and 4-10. At the September 26 hearing, Mr. John Lockwood spoke in favor of the amendment as presented by staff Recommendation: A) Adopt the amendments to the Comprehensive Plan as indicated in Exhibit #4-11 as further modified by Planning Commission during the September 26, 2002 hearing. B) Adopt revisions to Title 17, Zoning, PTMC, as shown on Exhibit 4-12, attached. These revisions delete reference to the FUGA and the C-IV Regional Commercial District. Vote Summary: 7-0-0 Findings, Conclusions, & Recommendations of the Planning Commission' Year 2002 Comprehensive Plan Amendments Page J 0 DiscussionIRationale - Circumstances related to the proposed amendment have substantially changed since the adoption of the Port Townsend Comprehensive Plan. The conceptual Final Urban Growth Area language is now out of date given planning steps the County has taken since 1996. Suggested Findings & Conclusions: 1. Circumstances related to the proposed amendment have substantially changed since the adoption of the Port Townsend Comprehensive Plan. The Growth Management Act was amended in 1996 with RCW 36.70A.070 5( d) to allow designation oflimited areas of more intensive rural development. Jefferson County created the Glen Cove Light Industrial/Commercial Limited Area of More Intense Rural Development (LAMIRD) with the adoption of its Comprehensive Plan in 1998. The Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan does not include a "preferred conceptual alternative" for a Port Townsend Final Urban Growth Area. When the County Comprehensive Planwas adopted in August of 1998, the final urban growth area of Port Townsend remained at the city limits and did not expand into the Glen Cove FUGA. The City limits define the Port Townsend UGA. The most recent ~tudy released by the County, Glen Cove Land Use Operations: A Strategic Analysis by Earth Tech in September 2001, recommends expansion of a Limited Area of More Intensive Rural Development (LAMIRD). The proposed amendatory language addresses the need to delete conceptual Final Urban Growth Area language fÌ'om the Plan and addresses more recent developments by Jefferson County (designation of Glen Cove as a LAMIRD, progress towards UGA designation in other parts of the Jefferson County). References in the City Comprehensive Plan to a conceptual Final Urban Growth Area are no longer appropriate. 2. Are the assumptions upon which the Port Townsend Comprehensive Plan is based still valid? Some assumptions supporting the creation of a FUGA including Glen Cove are no longer valid. Port Townsend does continue to be the urban center for eastern Jefferson County. However, several of the assumptions delineated in the Land Use Element, page N-2 are no longer valid. An example is the statement that a shortage ofland available for commercial and manufacturing development still exists within the City limits despite the upzones directed by the Plan. The Annual Assessment conducted by the Planning Commission earlier this year: · did not find a shortage of commercial or manufacturing land within the City limits. · did not find that "parcels in town tend to be too small and ftagmented to support economic development," · nor that parcels in the City large enough to support commercial and manufacturing development "encompass environmentally sensitive areas" or "tend to be located in areas which are removed fÌ'om existing regional transportation corridors. " Findings, Conclusions, & Recommendations of the Planning Commission Year 2002 Comprehensive Plan Amendments Page J J In fact the Assessment found that commercial property had been developed at a slower rate that had been envisioned and recommended that the City Council look at in:&astructure needs in order to encourage economic development within the city limits. Page N-2 also contains the assumption that "if commercial and manufacturing growth is to continue in Glen Cove, then it should be within the City's FUGA." With the creation of the Glen Cove LAMIRD in 1988 and the decision by the County to direct light industrial growth to that LAMIRD, this assumption is also no longer valid. 3. City records pertaining to the initial adoption of the Port Townsend Comprehensive Plan in 1996 show that city staff and planning commissioners were concerned over the lack of public involvement in the issue of Glen Cove and an expanded UGA. In the last two Comprehensive Plan amendment cycles, the city has received testimony opposing a commercially oriented Glen Cove UGA. As for reflecting widely held community values, community assessments that have been conducted such as PT 2020 have shown that at least among those concerned enough to respond to the survey, a walkable small town with local shopping districts was preferred over rim development. Amendment #5 - Revise Density ofR-III and R-IV Zonin2 Districts . Description of the Suggested Amendment: Revise the maximum density for the multi-family zoning districts to allow calculation of density to be based on either bedrooms or units. The current proposal is a hybrid of the fonner code that used a unit calculation and the 1999 amendments that changed it to a bedroom calculation. The 1999 revisions have had the unintended effect oflowering allowable densities in some cases. Projects proposing multiple bedrooms within a unit are penalized under the new density calculations. The proposed . amendment would change the density requirements to: . R-III 24 bedrooms or 16 units whichever is greater/40,000 sf oflot area . . R-N 40 bedrooms or 24 units whichever is greater/40,OOOsf oflot area Public Comment: No public testîmony was given at the hearing. No public comment letters were received, however, Planning Commissioner Alice King submitted written concerns and options to BCD staff (Exhibits 5-3 & 54). Ms. King is concerned that calculating density by bedrooms could be abused. She feels that if the intent is to promote the availability of smaller units, it could be better accomplished through other means (e.g., density bonuses) (Exhibit 5-3). The current proposal does not introduce calculation by bedrooms. That shift was made in 1999. Planning Commission and staff were not supportive of the 1999 amendments arguing that 'The City's zoning code is typical of zoning codes throughout the country, setting a maximum density by units rather than bedrooms. Municipal Research & Services Center could not find an example of a city that used bedroom per acre as a measure of density. Administrative problems were imminent.' Staff also noted that density bonuses were available through the PUD process (Chapter 17.32 PTMC). Findings, Conclusions, & Recommendations of the Planning Commission Year 2002 Comprehensive Plan Amendments Page 12 Council approved the change from units to bedrooms, reversing the Planning Commission's recommendation and finding that the amendment would encourage and accommodate affordable housing and a variety of housing types. Excerpts from Ordinance 2716 are attached as Exhibit (5-2). Recommendation: Approve the amendment as proposed in Exhibit 5-1. Additionally, the Planning Commission recommends the city implement, through future updates of the zoning code, Policy 4.2.2 of the Housing Element that reads: 4.2.2 Offer density bonuses to builders who provide low-income housing in market rate developments. Link the amount of bonuses to the level of affordability (i.e., the lower the cost or rental rate per unit, the greater the bonus). Grant density bonuses only in instances where all of the following conditions are satisfied: a. The developer agrees to sell or rent the units to qualifying residents (i.e., low income and very low income households); b. The developer ensures the continued affordability of the units for a mumnwn of40 years; and c. The units are of an innovative design and compatible with existing neighborhood character. Vote Summary: 5-0-0 DiscussionlRationale: The current proposal is a hybrid of the fonner code and the 1999 amendments and may provide more flexibility to developers. The 1999 revisions have had the unintended effect of lowering allowable densities in some cases. Projects proposing multiple bedrooms within a unit are penalized under the new density calculations. Looking back at the minutes from 1999, it appears that the provision of affordable rentals, efficient land use, and the ability to fluctuate with market demand were the key goals. Several alternatives are available. We are supportive of alternatives that meet the ''key goals", especially those alternatives that take "bedrooms" out of the equation. Suggested Findings & Conclusions: 1. Circumstances related to the proposed amendment and/or the area in which it is located have not substantially changed since the adoption of the Port Townsend Comprehensive Plan; 2. Asswnptions upon which the Port Townsend Comprehensive Plan is based are still valid, however, it has been determined that the 1999 amendments had the unintended effect of lowering allowable densities in some cases. This is new infonnation which was not considered during the 1999 annual amendments of the Port Townsend Comprehensive Plan; and 3. The Commission deems it desirable to extend flexibility to developers of multi-family development in the interest of encouraging affordable housing and a variety of housing types. Findings, Conclusions, & Recommendations of the Planning Commission Year 2002 Comprehensive Plan Amendments Page 13 Amendment #6 - Revise Setbacks/Lot Covera2e for Comer Lots Description of the Suggested Amendment: Originally, the item was to amend Comprehensive Plan and PTMC to reduce side-yard setbacks and increase lot coverage in the residential zoning districts. . · Reduce or Delete the required 10-foot, side-yard setback along street rights-of-way in the R-I, R-II, and R-III zones . Reconsider fÌ'ont-yard setbacks in the R-I, R-II,.and R-III zones . Reflect a maximum lot coverage of 40% in R-I · Reflect maximum lot coverage of 40% in R-II After researching setbacks, receiving comments, and discussing the item during the August 29, 2002 Planning Commission workshop, staff expanded the notice to include possible increases in the front-yard setback requirements. Public Comment: One comment letter was received in support of the proposed amendments (Exhibit 6-3). Public Works and PSE have expressed concern over reduced setbacks. Puget Sound Energy's letter refers to required aerial clearances between electric conductors and buildings and between pad-mounted transformers and structures. PSE advocates that the city maintain a ten-foot setback in order to avoid the need for a case-by-case analysis of electrical clearances. Maintenance cr~ws in Public Works expressed that the existing ten-foot setbacks facilitated maintenance of utilities. Dave Peterson, City Engineer noted that the existing ten-foot setback for garages is often not adequate resulting in cars blocking sidewalks. "You may officially be able to count 2 garage spaces as meeting the on-site parking but in practice it does not work that way." For example, at the new house on Monroe at Garfield, cars park in fÌ'ont of the garage, blocking the sidewalk rather than inside the garage as was proposed by the applicant. He suggests that garages be setback 20-feet fÌ'om the fÌ'ont property line to resolve the problem. Dave is not necessarily opposed to reducing side yard set backs. "A zero setback might be alright as then it is clear there is not room to park in fÌ'ont of the garage - as in the "n~ traditional concept" Ms. Linda Streissguth ofPSE testified in support of the staff recommendation at the October 3 Hearing. Recommendation and Vote Summary: The motion was divided. A) Plamiing Commission recommends denial of the request to reduce setbacks. The Commission does, however recommend that some flexibility be incorporated into the PTMC to allow for minor encroachments into setbacks and averaging of front-yard setbacks in non-conforming neighborhoods. Vote: 4- I -0. B) We recommend that setbacks for garages with doors facing the street be 20-feet. This increased setback would not apply to garages facing on alleys. Vote: 5-0-0. Findings, Conclusions, & Recommendations of the Planning Commission Year 2002 Comprehensive Plan Amendments Page 14 C) Approve change of maximum lot coverage to 40% in R-II where the lot accommodates an ADU. Deny the maximum lot coverage change in R-I. Vote: 5-0-0. DiscussionIRationale: After reviewing our setback requirements against other jurisdictions, we found our setbacks are relatively minimal. Public Works and PSE have both expressed concern over reduced setbacks due to conflicts with utilities. An increased setback for garages fronting on streets is recommended to reduce the number. of cars blocking sidewalks as well as de- emphasizing garages as the primary focus of a residential façade. The Commission does support reasonable, minor encroachments into the setback area either through amendments to the code or through a simplified process. This could be accomplished on a case-by-case basis through adoption of a new "Administrative Adjustment" procedure. Adoption of a new section to Title 20 would not require amendments to the Comprehensive Plan and could be processed on a separate timeline. Other than the request by the applicant, staff has not received comment that the existing lot coverage allowances are a problem. Commissioner Berg made a motion to increase the lot coverage in R:II with the intent of making it easier to construct an ADU. The Commission . . would like to encourage ADUs as they provide a unique, affordable housing type. The request to increase lot coverage in R-I by 15% was not recommended. The R-I district is underlain by soils that are known to present poor drainage conditions. Suggested Findings & Conclusions: a. Circumstances related to the proposed amendment and/or the area in which it is located have not substantially changed since the adoption of the Port Townsend Comprehensive Plan, however, the Commission has received new infonnation which was not previously considered. Staffhas reported that the current ten-foot getback for residential structures, specifically garages, does not accommodate cars parked in front of the garage. This can result in cars blocking sidewalks. An increased setback for garages fronting on streets is recommended to reduce the number of cars blocking sidewalks as well as de-emphasizing garages as the primary focus of a residential façade. b. Assumptions upon which the Port Townsend Comprehensive Plan is based are still valid. c. Provision of a variety of housing types and affordable housing is a widely held community value. The Comprehensive Plan advocates development of ADU's as they offer an alternative/affordable housing type. In support of this goal, the Commission recommends allowing additional lot coverage (total 40%) for ADUs proposed in the R-II zoning district. An increase inlot coverage is not appropriate in the R-I due to the presence ofimpenneable soils over a majority of this district. Findings, Conclusions, & Recommendations of the Planning Commission Year 2002 Comprehensive Plan Amendments Page 15 Amendment #7 - Revise Zonin2 Use Tables to Allow GrouD Homes Outri2ht in Certain Zones Description of the 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. Public Comment: None. Recommendation: Recommend approval of amendments as shown in Exhibit 7-1. Vote Summary: 5-0-0 DiscussionlRationale: The amendment is needed to resolve the code's apparent inconsistency with the Washington Housing Policy Act. Our zoning code currently requires a conditional use pennit for the siting of group homes. According to Municipal Research & Services Center (MRSC) this may not be permitted under the Washington Housing Policy Act (WHP A). MRSC recently reviewed the issue of group homes and concluded that, "No city may enact or maintain an ordinance, development regulation, zoning regulation or official control, policy, or administrative practice which treats a residential structure occupied by persons with handicaps differently than a similar residential structure occupied by a family or other unrelated individuals. " Our Comprehensive Plan, Housing Element, states: Policy 4.4: Allow group homes in all residential zones in the community. Set zoning standards that ensure that the size of a group home (i.e., number of residents and staff) is compatible with zoned densities and available transportation and servicés. Policy 5.4: Allow group homes, shared living residences, accessory dwelling units (ADUs), and similar housing types, which serve special needs populations in all residential areas. In addition, we wish to simplify the process for siting emergency shelters (e.g., for battered women) for groups of six or fewer adults. Suggested Findings & Conclusions: 1. Circumstances related to the proposed amendment and/or the area in which it is located have not substantially changed since the adoption of the Port Townsend Comprehensive Plan; 2. Assumptions upon wñìch the Port Townsend Comprehensive Plan is based are still valid, however recent review of the Washington Housing Policy Act (WHP A) by Municipal Research & Services Center revealed that our code might be found inconsistent with the Findings, Conclusions, & Recommendations of the Planning Commission Year 2002 Comprehensive Plan Amendments Page 16 WHP A. The review by MRSC presents new information which was not cOlísidered during the adoption process or any annual amendments of the Port Townsend Comprehensive Plan; and 3. Consistency with state law and provision of group homes and emergency shelters reflects current widely held community values. Amendment #8 - Strike the 50% Rule for ADUs Description of the Suggested Amendment: BCD proposes to strike the 50% rule from the current code requirement that limits Accessory Dwelling Units (ADDs) to "less than 50% of the total floor area of the main residence or 800 square feet whichever is less". The size limit of 800 square feet would remain. Public Comment: None. Recommendation: Recommend Approval of amendments as shown in Exhibit 8-1. Vote Summary: 5-0-0 DiscussionlRationale: The Port Townsend Comprehensive Plan encourages accessory dwelling units, or ADD's: Housing Element. Goal 5 Policy 5.4: Allow group homes, shared living residences, accessory dwelling units (AD Us), and similar housing types, which serve special needs populations in all residential areas. (Emphasis added) Housing Element - Implementation Strategy . 6. Allow accessory housing and special needs housing in single-family neighborhoods. Make use of existing housing by permitting a rental unit within a house or in a separate structure. Reduce zoning code barriers for transitional housing and other special needs housing types. (Emphasis added) The Port Townsend Zoning Code was amended in 1997 to allow ADDs outright in the R-I, R-ll, and R-TII zoning districts. ADD's require no additional off-street parking and may connect to the primary home's water and sewer connections to avoid the payment of system development charges (SDCs). ADDs may be located either within the primary residence or as a detached structure. The property owner must reside in either the ADD or the primary residence. Port Townsend's municipal code is considered quite progressive in its treatment of ADDs as compared to other jurisdictions in the state. The municipal code places size limits on ADDs located in detached structures. This limitation makes sense for a number of reasons including: avoiding overbuilding of single family lots and avoiding building large ADDs that could attract large households with multiple cars creating parking problems. To address the size concern, the PTMC limits ADDs in detached structmes to 800 square feet and no more than 50% the size of the primary residence, whichever is less. However, the 50% clause creates a problem when the primary house is less than 1,600 square Findings, Conclusions, & Recommendations of the Planning Commission Year 2002 Comprehensive Plan Amendments Page 17 feet in size. The result is that a homeowner with a 1,600 square foot house is entitled to an 800 square foot ADU, while an owner of a 900 square foot house is limited to a 450 square foot ADU. Provided that both properties can satisfY the maximum lot coverage of the zoning district, both property owners should be entitled to an equal sized (800 square foot) ADU. As the code is currently written, it penalizes those who own small primary homes. Suggested Findings & Conclusions: 1. Circumstances related to the proposed amendment and/or the area in which it is located have not substantially changed since the adoption of the Port Townsend Comprehensive Plan; 2. Assumptions upon which the Port Townsend Comprehensive Plan is based are still valid, however, problems have arisen in application of the 50% rule for ADUs codified in 17.16.020. The 50% rule has had the unintended effect of penalizing applicant's who have small primary residences. These problems present new information which was not previously considered; and 3. Provision of a variety of housing types and affordable housing is a widely held community value. FORMAL APPLICATIONS (QUASI-JUDICIAL) Ron Pak - Indian Point Amendments (L UP-02-048) Description of Proposal: A request to amend the Shoreline Master Program (adopted by reference in the Comprehensive Land Use Plan) to clarifY that the subject site is specifically excluded from Urban Waterfront Special District Performance Standards concerning ground floor uses, and to allow Conference Centers as water-enjoyment uses, and to clarifY that all water-oriented uses are encouraged in the Port Townsend Urban Waterfront Special District. The amendment may also require revisions to the Urban Waterfront Plan and Section 17.28.030 of the Port Townsend Municipal Code (PTMC). Please refer to the attached Explanation of Requested Amendment (Exhibit P-l) and Detennination of Non Significance (DNS) (Exhibit P-2) for a description of the proposal, vicinity map, and public comments received to date. Per the PTMC Definition 17.08.20: "Conference center" means a facility used for seminars, conventions, symposiums and similar uses, with meeting rooms and possibly food preparation and eating facilities. As an alternative to adding Conference Centers as water-enjoyment uses under Appendix D as suggested by the applicant, staff suggests amending the definition of water-enjoyment uses (Exhibit P-14). This alternative approach emphasizes the need to incorporate public access an enjoyment into the design. Findings, Conclusions, & Recommendations of the Planning Commission Year 2002 Comprehensive Plan Amendments Page 18 Public Comment: At the October 10th hearing, testimony was received from the applicant, Mr. Pak, his representative, Ms. Grahn, and from Mr. Randy Davis of the Department of Ecology. Mr. Davis also submitted written comments in response to the Notice of Pending SEP A Threshold Detennination. Mr. Davis posed several questions regarding the applicant's plans and purpose of the amendments (Exhibit P-2, Attachment C). The applicant's representative responded to Mr. Davis' letter (Exhibit P-2, Attachment D). Recommendation Divide the Question. A) Recommend Denial of Amendments to Section 4.106 Port Townsend Urban Waterfront Special District, Introductory Text (yrJ Paragraph) and Policy 1 (a). Vote Summary: 5-1-0 DiscussionlRationale: Water-oriented is an umbrella term and could be inserted here but, it does not seem necessary nor advisable. Policy la applies to the entire Port Townsend Urban Waterfront District. It does not require water-dependent or water-related uses; it merely encourages them. Given that water- dependent and water-related uses require a waterfront location it is prudent to encourage them, not to mention consistent with the Shoreline Management Act (RCW 90.58.020.7). Water- enjoyment uses are addressed in Policy 1 b. The net effect is that water-oriented uses are covered, and the hierarchy of water-oriented uses is reflected in the existing language. B) Recommend denial of amendments to Section 4.106 PTUW Special District, Performance Standard #9 b (iii) giving exception to 50% rule. Vote Summary: 6-0-0 DiscussionlRationale: Provision of water-oriented use on 50% of the ground floor does not appear onerous to staff. Water-oriented uses include restaurants available to the public; kayak rentals, charters, sale of marine oriented provisions and clothing, marine photography, printmaking and chart making. The applicant's vision of a conference center, art gallery and upscale restaurant on the ground floor would not appear contrary to the existing regulations. The proposed change reverses amendments adopted under Ordinance 2320 in 1992. The 1992 revisions were intended to encourage water-oriented uses over residential/transient accommodations. They were designed to meet the Department of Ecology's suggestions for encouraging mixed-use projects as "a tool for achieving increased water-dependent activities, civic revitalization and public access on the shoreline." These are still valid goals. C) Recommend denial of amendments to the SMP Appendix D, Examples of Water-Oriented Uses, Water-Enjoyment Uses (Page 104) to include "conference centers", Approval of Revisions to the definition of water enjoyment use and to 4.106, Policy 1 b (Exhibit P-14) as suggested by Staff. Vote Summary: 4-2-0 Findings, Conclusions, & Recommendations of the Planning Commission Year 2002 Comprehensive Plan Amendments Page 19 DiscussionlRationale: Under the existing code, it is feasible that a conference center (or mixed use commercial enterprise that included a conference center) that incorporated public access and enjoyment could be classified as a water-enjoyment use. Conference centers are consistent with the C-II, General Commercial zoning district and with the CrossroadslRegional Services Commercial District of Port Townsend Urban Waterfront Plan (UWP): ''The District has yet to develop enough of an identity to be considered as a destination." Encouraged Uses include water enjoyment, community commercial/retail services, motels, hotels, inns, visitor services, specialized services, multi-family housing. Note that several of the encouraged uses are non- water oriented. (See P 84 UWP)." However, if we simply add conference centers to Appendix D, we'd be assuming that all conference centers provide public access and enjoyment. To emphasize the need for public access an enjoyment, we support staff's alternative solution...amend the definition of water- enjoyment as follows: 105. Water...,enjoyment uses: A recreational use such as a park, pier, or other use facilitating public access as a primary character of the use; or, a use that provides for passive and active interaction of a large number of people with the shoreline for leisure and enjoyment as a general character of the use and which, through location, design and operation assure the public's ability to interact with the shoreline. In order to qualify as a water-enjoyment use, the use must be open to the public and most if not all of the shoreline oriented space in the jàcility must be devoted to the specific aspects of the use that foster shoreline interaction. Water-enjoyment uses may include, but are not limited to, restaurants, museums, aquariums, scientific/ecological reserves, resorts, conference centers and mixed use commercial enterprises provided such use conforms to the above requirements and the provisions of the Master Program., Minority Report: Two Commissioners felt that other opportunities existed for conference centers on upland sites. We have precious little vacant waterfront property. Ifit is to be used for a conference center, the conditional use criteria should be applied. If conference centers were considered water-enjoyment uses, a conditional use permit would not be required for their development within the Urban/Port Townsend Urban Waterfront designations. Findings & Conclusions: For A & B a. Circumstances related to the proposed amendment and/or the area in which it is located have not substantially changed since the adoption of the Port Townsend Comprehensive Plan; b. Assumptions upon which the Port ToWnsend Comprehensive Plan is based are still valid, and no new infonnation is available which wasnot considered during the adoption process or any annual amendments of the Port Townsend Comprehensive Plan; and Findings, Conclusions, & Recommendations of the Planning Commission Year 2002 Comprehensive Plan Amendments Page 20 c. The proposed amendment does not reflect current widely held community values. The language in the Shoreline Master Program proposed for amendment was adopted in 1992 under Ordinance 2320. Ordinance 2320 responded to widely held conununity values as expressed in a statistically validated 1991 Citizen survey. Nothing has been entered into the record that would indicate a change in community values since the 1991 survey. d. Proposed amendments would meet concurrency requirements and would not result in probable significant adverse impacts, however, e. They are inconsistent with the goals, policies and objectives of the various elements of the Urban WaterfÌ'ont, adopted by reference in the Port Townsend Comprehensive Plan as a subarea plan. f. The subject property is physically suitable for the uses proposed by the amendments (e.g., transient/residential with non-water oriented uses on the ground floor), however, such non-water oriented uses do not make appropriate use of the city's waterfÌ'ont shorelines and do not meet the city's goal of public access to the shoreline. g. The proposed amendment will not create a pressure to change the land use designation of other properties. Vacant land along the urban waterfÌ'ont is limited. h. The proposed action does not materially affect the land use and growth projections nor would it materially affect the adequacy or availability of urban facilities and services. 1. The proposed amendment is contrary to the goals of the Shoreline Management Act. RCW 90.58.020 states in part ''uses shall be preferred which are... unique to or dependent upon use of the state's shoreline.. .shall be given priority for single family residences, ports, shoreline recreations uses including but not limited to parks, marinas, piers, and other improvements facilitating public access to the shorelines of the state, industrial and commercial developments which are particularly dependent on their location on or use of the shorelines of the state and other development that will provide an opportunity for substantial numbers of the people to enjoy the shorelines of the state." For C · a. Circumstances related to the proposed amendment and/or the area in which it is located have not substantially changed since the adoption of the Port Townsend Comprehensive Plan; and assumptions upon which the Port Townsend Comprehensive Plan is based are still valid, however, b. New information is available which was not considered during the adoption process or any annual amendments of the Port Townsend Comprehensive Plan. The applicant, Ron Pak, has inquired into the classification of "conference centers". Conference centers are not currently mentioned in the Shoreline Master Program. The city seeks to clarify that conference centers may be classified as a water enjoyment use provided that such use confonns to the public access and enjoyment provisions of the Master Program. Findings, Conclusions, & Recommendations of the Planning Commission Year 2002 Comprehensive Plan Amendments Page 21 c. Including conference centers in the definition of water-enjoyment uses would ensure that public access/enjoyment features were inherent in any future application for a conference center. Access and enjoyment of the shoreline are widely held community values. d. The proposal meets concurrency requirements and would not result in probable significant adverse impacts to infÌ'astructure or place a burden upon service capabilities. Conference centers are no more intensive than other currently permitted uses in the Port Townsend Urban Waterfi:ont Plan (e.g., restaurants, mixed-use hotels, museums). é. Adding conference centers to the definition of water-enjoyment uses would be consistent with the goals, policies and objectives of the various elements of the Port Townsend Comprehensivé Plan. For example, the amendment is consistent with the goal to preserve and enhance shoreline access (Policy 3.8 of the Land Use Element). £ Pursuant to the Shoreline Master Program Use Classification Table, Commercial water- enjoyment uses are suitable uses in the urban, Port Townsend Urban Waterfi:ont, Suburban, and Conservancy Designations. g. The proposed amendment will not create a pressure to change the land use designation of other properties, unless the change of land use designation for other properties is in the long-tenn interests of the community in general. Vacant land of sufficient size to accommodate a waterfi:ont conference center is very limited. h. Conference centers are similar in intensity to other uses currently pennitted water- enjoyment uses (e.g., restaurants, mixed-use hotels, museums) The proposed action does not materially affect the land use and growth projections, which are the ~ases of the Comprehensive Plan and would not materially affect the adequacy or availability of urban facilities and services to the immediate area and the overall area of the city. 1. The proposed amendment is consistent with GMA, the county -wide planning policies and the Shoreline Management Act. In regards to preferred uses, RCW 90.58.020 states in part ". .. and commercial developments which are particularly dependent on their location on or use of the shorelines of the state and other development that will provide an opportunity for substantial numbers of the people to enjoy the shorelines of the state." Kellv - Jefferson Transit Rezone lLUP-02-046) "Friends of the Comprehensive Plan" have submitted an appeal of the Kelly- Jefferson Transit Mitigated Determination of Non Significance issued on September 25, 2002. Planning Commission will hold a Public Hearing to consider the SEP A appea1and (if the Planning Commission recommends denial of the MDNS appeal and/or amendment of SEP A decision) the merits of the proposal on November 21, at 7:00 P.M. Findings, Conclusions, & Recommendations of the Planning Commission Year 2002 Comprehensive Plan Amendments Page 22 . Respectfully submitted on behalf of the Port Townsend Planning Commission, ~--- ~ /i V//I ~þ~-~- 11 ~~/ Cin y ay" air .fi /ð/3ð k;;;; Date / / Exhibits Band C not scanned: EXHIBIT B LAND USE MAP EXHIBIT C ZONING MAP See City Clerk · 1 Attachment D: 2 Amendment #4 - Review and Amend FUGA Language 3 in Comprehensive Plan) 4 Note - added.language shown in boldlitalics and underline. stricken language shown in 5 sl'ikethrfJllgh held'itslies - 6 7 Section 1. Paf!e IV-2: 8 9 FiøaI- Port Townsend Urban Growth Area (~UGA) 10 11 Under the GMA, "urban growth" is defined as growth that makes intensive use of land for the 12 location of buildings, structures, and impermeable surfaces. The Act makes it clear that urban 13 growth must occur only within designated urban growth areas (UGAs), and that counties, rather 14 than cities, are responsible for designating UGA boundaries. 15 16 As of the time of this writing (200n (2002) the city of Port Townsend constitutes the only 17 formally designated UGA in Jefferson County. Jefferson County is in the process of conducting 18 studies to determine the feasibility of establishing a UGA for the Irondale and Hadlock area - 19 "Irondale UGA" and has established Glen Cove as possibl-Þ' a limited area of more intensive rural 20 development (LAMIRD) in the Glen C8~'e f:I1'eII. 21 22 During the J()().J 2003/2004 comprehensive plan amendment cycle (~7-year update). the city of 23 Port Townsend should conduct an analysis of vacant commercial. industrial. and residential lands 24 and determine if additional land is needed for these or other land use categories in the city. If it 25 is determined that additional land areas are needed for proiected growth. the city should seek to 26 rezone land within the existing city limits before identifying areas outside the city limits for 27 expansion of the city's UGA and potential annexation. 28 29 In conformance with the county-wide planning policies for Jefferson County. the city and the 30 county should continue to coordinate planning efforts. 31 32 Port To·.wsæd has mcluded partiofts of the Gleft Cove area beyoftå the presØÐt City limits \vithill 33 a coftceptua:t fiflal urban growth area (FUGf.). The area is looated immediately adjacØÐt aad to 34 the sOHtl¥.vest of the City, aloRg the S.R. 20 oorridor. The area is presently uR:Ïflcorporated and 35 falls 1::HKler the jurisdietioR of JefforsoH COI:l:ftty for plar~ïiHg and land use permit administration. 36 "A.a expaasioR oftae Port To·.\'ft5eRd FUGA is beiHg coftsidered for a Rumber of reasons: 37 0 Despite the in City UPZOHOS direeted by this PlaR, a shortage of laRd a'la:ilable f-or 38 oommercial and maoofaeturing dovelopmeHt still exists within the City limits. 39 0 Many of the parcels in tov¡:a which are a';ailable for commereiaJ. ood maDufact\:1ring 40 de'/Olopmoot tood ta be too small ood fragmeRted to support the ecoRom:Ïc developmeHt 41 Reeded in the cOmfl'H:l.nity. 42 0 Parools in the City which are large eRougß to support commercial and manufactl:lriHg 43 cW/Olopmoot are m many insmaces lHlsuitable because they: 44 0 ERCOmpasS eft'liroameBtally seRsitive areas (ESf.s) whieh coftstram 45 d6'/elopmeHt; and 46 0 Tood t-o be located in areas wbich are removed from existing regioool 47 . '..1 l' C'D ')i'llC" UT ~ troosportatlOR com...ors ,I.e., O.J:'\.. .::.v,olmS nay,. 48 0 A signifieaBt POrtiOH of the Gloo CO'1e area is currØÐtly zOHed for light mantlfaet\:1ring 49 ood eommereial uses 1::HKler the COlHlty'S zoning oode. IfmbaR commercial aRd 50 maßufaetHring growth is to coHtinue in Last printed 12/2/02 5:21 PM U:\jsurber\Comp2002\Ordinance fuga attachment.docfuga 1 Glen Cove, then it should be within the City's FUGA. 2 Finally, expansion of Port Townsend's FUG./\ into Glen Cove will assist in stemming the 3 flow of retail sales leakage to neighboring areas like Silverdale and Seqt1im, and help 4 promote a more balanced and vital eeonomy in aortheastcm Jefferson County. 5 6 In June of 1995, the Joint Grov,{h Management Committee (an adyisory committee comprised of 7 elected officials from both the County and City) r",commended a "prdèrred" coneØf)t1::1aI 8 altemati'¡e f-or the unincorporated portion ofthe Port TovlRsend FUG;... The Joint Grov.r-th 9 Management Committee (JGMC) directed that this alternative be iaeluded in the eompreheasive 10 plans of both the County and City. This coaeeptMaI alternative envisions the designation of an 11 expanded "Coml'B-\iBity Serving UG.'\." encompassing a portion of the GleB Cove area. The goal 12 ofthe alternative is to support CUfreBt eommereial and manufacturing eflte¡prises in Glen Cove, 13 and provide expanded opportunities for retailing and tlf)propriate manufacturing, cOflsistcnt with 14 the br'Ûader eommunity yision. This element includes goals and polieies which SMpport the 15 recommendations of the lGMC. f..dditioaally, the Land Use Mtlf) which accompanies this Plan 16 depicts the possible futa:re extent of the Mnincorpomted portion of the FUG..^.. (see the mtlf) pocket 17 at the back of this Plan). 18 19 In conformance '.vith the COMnty Wide Planning Pøliey for Jeff-erson County, the County and City 20 are coordinating their planning efforts to collect and aaalyze data, and determine an apfJropriate 21 FUG.^.. bmmdary. RoY/eyer, at the time of this '.vriting, additional information and analysis is 22 needed to refine and modify the conceptaaI FUGA boundary to ensure eOflsistency ',vith the 23 planning goals and priaciples of the GMA, as well as r",cent decisions by the Grovlth 24 Maaagement Heariags Boards. It is anticipated that Port TowflsCfld's FUG..'\. bOl.:1fl.dary will be 25 designated either at the time Jefferson County adopts its GM.'\. ComprehensiYe Plan, or in a 26 sOOseqt1ent amendment to that Plan. Ultimately, this proecss is likely to lead to the development 27 of joint planning, maaagement, and annexation policies før the unincorporated portion of the 28 FUGA. 29 30 Section 2. PaJ!e IV-3: 31 32 Land Use Map 33 34 The Land Use Map is also required by the GMA. The map represents the general future land use 35 patterns which are desired for the City of Port Townsend within the 20 year planning period. 36 The map is the City's "blueprint" for action and graphically depicts where various land uses 37 should be located. The goals and policies found within this chapter support and implement the 38 land use map. 39 40 The Port Townsend Planning Area 41 42 The "planning area" includes all of the lands within the present City Iimits~,and portions of the 43 Glen Cove area that have the potential to be included within the City's FUGA, as discussed 44 above. The City has been divided into 11 subareas, as indicated on Figure IV-Ion page IV-4. 45 The City has already prepared several subarea plans, such as the Urban Waterfront Plan, Gateway 46 Development Plan, and the Point Hudson Master Plan. The subareas used in the preparation of 47 this Plan build upon those previously established. 48 49 Section 3. PaJ!e IV-7: 50 51 Land Use Map Designations Last printed 12/2/02 2 U :\jsurber\Comp2002\Ordinance fuga attachment.docfuga 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 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. minimwu 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-IVMU with high density multi-family residential Commercial Designations: Neighborhood Commercial: General Commercial: Hospital Commercial: Historic Commercial: Regional Commercial: C-I C-II C-II(H) C-III C IV Marine-Related & Manufacturing Designations: Mixed Light Manufacturing and Commercial Light Manufacturing: Marine-Related Uses: Marine-Related Uses: Heavy Manufacturing: M/C M-I M-IIA (Boat Haven) M-IIB (Point Hudson) M-III Section 4. Paf!e IV-10: C IV RegioBal Commereiah The pW}3Ðse of this desigI'lation is to pro'lide ar",as for diversified eommereiaI aethities whieh serve a broader regional e1ientele. The l:1ses generally attraet traffie from a brElaàer area thB:fl. the general commereial designatiofl, Bftd are l:1sl:1lllly larger in seale thB:fl. in other commercial distriets. This desigI'lation aeeomæodates large seale retail stores, shElfJping centers, B:fl.d specialty stores. The C IV designation has not beOR applied to areas within the preseRt City limits, although it be eould be applied to portions Elf the Glen CO'/e area, if desigI'lated by Jeffersofl COl:1nty '.vithin Port TO\YÐ.sefld's Final UrbB:fl. Grov.1h .:\rea (FUG"^~). Marine-Related & Manufacturing Designations M/C - Mixed Light Manufacturing & Commercial: This district accommodates small scale manufacturing businesses along with associated and subordinate on-site retailing. The purpose of this designation is to provide for manufacturing and commercial enterprises which do not fit neatly under either the light manufacturing or commerciallabel (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 M/C designation has been applied to areas south of Sims Way, and west of Thomas Street. Last printed 12/2/02 3 U:\jsurber\Comp2002\Ordinance fuga attachment.docfuga 1 This distriet may also be appmpriate for sigaifieant portions of the Glen Cove area if a FUGf~ 2 larger thafl the preseftt City limits is designated. 3 4 M-I - Light Manufacturing: The M-I designation provides for light manufacturing, processing, 5 fabrication and assembly of products and materials, warehousing and storage, and transportation 6 facilities. The designation is appropriate for light manufacturing uses similar to those proposed 7 for the Port Townsend Business Park. No areas of town are currently proposed to receive this 8 designation.:.-, although it may be appropriate for portions of the Glen Cove ffi"ea. if an expaflded 9 Port TO''vflsend FUGA is approved. 10 11 Section 5. Paf!e IV-II: 12 13 M-III - Heavy Manufacturing: The M-III designation accommodates heavy industrial activities 14 including processing, fabrication, assembling of products or materials, and bulk storage. This 15 designation has not been applied to any areas within the current City limits.:.-, although it may be 16 appropriate f-or portions of the Glen Cove ffi"ea.. An example includes the Glen Cove LAMIRD. 17 (e.g., the Port TOVIfl5end Paper Mill) should it be designated as part of the City's FUGf~. 18 19 Section 6. Paf!e IV-12: 20 21 CM-PUD - CommerciallManufacturing: This overlay designation applies only in areas zoned 22 for commercial or manufacturing development (i.e., C-I, C-II, C-III, G-I¥, M/C, M-I, M-IIA, M- 23 IIB and M-III). The designation allows business and industrial park developments to vary from 24 the prescriptive standards of the zoning code. The designation is intended to promote innovative 25 and well designed commercial and light manufacturing developments which are supportive of the 26 City's economic development strategy. Standards for this type ofPUD should allow variety in 27 terms of the mixture of commercial and manufacturing uses, patterned after the Port Townsend 28 Business Park PUD approved in 1993. The minimum acreage necessary for a CM-PUD should 29 be substantially larger than for either the R-PUD or MU-PUD designations (e.g., 10 acres). 30 31 Section7. Paf!e IV-14: 32 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% 33 TABLE IV-I: CONTINUED R-II I Sinl!le-Familv I Not I 8 Dwelling I 30 Last printed 12/2/02 4 U:\jsurber\Comp2002\Ordinance fuga attachment.docfuga Houses, Specified Units Per Duplexes, Acre Triplexes & Fourplexes R-III Single-Family Not Specified 16 Dwelling 35 Houses, Units Per Duplexes, Acre Triplexes & Fourplexes; Condos, Townhouses & Apartments R-IV Condos, 17 Dwelling 24 Dwelling 35 Townhouses Units Per Acre Units Per Acre & Apartments C-I/MU Upper Floor Not 2 Square Feet of Not Specified Residential & Specified Gross Floor Area Ground Per Floor I Square Foot of Neighborhood Lot Commercial C-II/MU Upper Floor Not 3 Square Feet of Not Specified Residential & Specified Gross Ground Floor Area Per Floor Community I Square Foot of Commercial Lot C-I Small Scale Not 1 Square Foot of 35 Neighborhood Specified Gross Floor Area Retail & Per Professional 3 Square Feet of Offices Lot C-II Medium Scale Not 1 Square Foot of 35 Auto Oriented Specified Gross Floor Area Commercial Uses Per 1 Square Foot of Lot C-II(H) Medical Clinics, Not 1 Square Foot of 35 Nursing Homes Specified Gross Floor Area Doctor's & Per Dentist's 1 Square Foot of Offices, & Lot Pharmacies 1 Last printed 12/2/02 5 U:\jsurber\Comp2002\Ordinance fuga attachment.docfuga 1 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 I Square Foot of Urban Waterfront Floor Lot Plan General Retail G-I¥ Large Seale Auto Net Mffi{imum Lot # OrieB:teå Retailißg; Sf!eeitìed Coverage of 90% Shopping Centers & Mini Malls LAND USE LAND MINIMUM MAXIMUM BUILDING DESIGNATIONS USES ALLOWED DENSITY DENSITY HEIGHTS OR LOT (Feet) COVERAGE M/C** Small Scale Not I Square Foot of 35 Manufacturing Specified Gross Floor Area with Per Associated On-Site I Square Foot of Retailing Lot M-I** Light Not I Square Foot of 35 Manufacturing, Specified Gross Floor Area Processing, Per Fabrication I Square Foot of & Assembly; Lot Warehousing & Storage M-II(A) Marine-Related Not I Square Foot of 35 Uses at Specified Gross Floor Area the Boat Haven Per I Square Foot of Lot M-II(B) Marine-Related Not I Square Foot of 35 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 Last printed 12/2/02 6 U:\jsurber\Comp2002\Ordinance fuga attachment.docfuga 1 TABLE IV-I: CONTINUED P/OS Existing City, Not Not Not Applicable County & Applicable Applicable State Owned Parks & Recreation Areas P/OS(A) Potential Not Not Not Applicable (Overlay Open Space & Applicable Applicable Designation) Trails Network; Residential & Passive Recreational Uses P/OS(B) Mixed Public Not I Square Foot of 35 Facility Specified Gross Floor Area & Passive per Recreation 4 Square Feet of Uses Lot poi 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 * This table is intended only to provide information and guidance in the preparation of revisions 3 to the Zoning Code (i.e., Title 17 PTMC). 4 5 6 Last printed 12/2/02 7 U:\jsurber\Comp2002\Ordinance fuga attachment.docfuga 1 Section 8. Page IV-15: 2 TABLE IV-2: THE LAND USE MAP - ACREAGE WITHIN EACH LAND USE DESIGNATION* LAND USE LAND AREA LAND AREA IN ACRES DESIGNATION IN ACRES Less Platted Rights of Way and Marinas R-I 775 541 R-II 2,196 1,531 R-III 249 173 R-IV 35 21 C-IIMU 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-I¥U G G WC 84 69 M-Iu 0 0 M-II(A) Boat Haven 94 45 M-II(B) Point Hudson 24 12 M-IIIu 0 0 P/OS 611 479 P/OS(A)**æ NIA NIA P/OS(B) 90 86 P-I 175 147 3 * Totals include lands within the Port Townsend City limits only. 4 ** Thøse laaà lise designatiofls eoüld be applied to portiofls of the GleR Cove area~, if a FUG..^... 5 larger thaø. the Port To\Yfl.seaà City limits is designated. 6 **.æ 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. Last printed 12/2/02 8 U:\jsurber\Comp2002\Ordinance fuga attachment.docfuga 1 Section 9. Page IV-20: 2 3 Policy 4.11: Work with Jefferson County to identify future park and recreational facility 4 needs within the ullilleoTflomtød pmiioll of the Port Townsend~ Fiaal UrblHl 5 Growth Area (FUGA). and facilities within Jefferson County which will serve 6 Port Townsend residents. 7 8 Section 10. Paf!e IV-24: 9 10 Commercial Lands 11 12 Goal 8: To provide adequate commercial land 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 prøyellt reduce retail 16 leakage, reduce vehicle trips out of town, enhance the tax base, and improve the 17 livability ofthe community. 18 19 Poliey 8.9: Coopømte ',vith Jefførsoll CO\:1flty to smdy the possibility of allO\villg regional 20 commercial l:1ses, alollg with the primary light ma.nufaetl:1rillg aad associated 21 comml:1llity serviag commerdaIl:1ses, ill the ullillcoTflorated portioll of the Port 22 TovlÐ:selld Fillal UrblHl Grov¡th Area (FUG.^..). 23 24 Policy 8._2..t.{): 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 pròposed 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 8.1!LH: 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 8.10.1t-ht- 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 8.10.4H.4 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. Last printed 12/2/02 9 U:\jsurber\Comp2002\Ordinance fuga attachment.docfuga 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 8.10.5~ 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 southerly extent of the floteRtialuRiRcorporated POrtiOR of the Port To';mseRd FUGA. Section 11. Parle 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.-# should be located ';¡ithiR the uRincorpemted POrtiOR of the Port TO',Vfl:seBd Final UebaR Grovlth Area (i.e., the GleR Cove 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. Paf!e IV-30: Policy 13.4: Amend the Comprehensive Plan annually to incorporate the updated Capital Facilities & Utilities Element. 13.4.1 Process all proposed amendments to the Comprehensive Plan (including rezone applications) concurrent with the annual update of the Capital Facilities & Utilities Element. 13.4.2 ERsure Encourage. where appropriate. that proposed amendments to the Plan which affect the unincorporated lands adiacent to the City's portioR of the Final Urban Growth Area (FUGA) are subject to separate public hearings before the Jefferson County and Port Townsend planning commISSIons. 13.4.3 Confonn with the applicable provisions of the County-Wide Planning Policy during interlocal planning. Section 13. Paf!e IV-32: IifltaI 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 UGA to encompass unincoI1'orated lands adiacent to Port Townsend nor. does it support a stand-alone Glen Cove UGA. Additional analysis of the city's vacant lands inventory and growth proiections shall occur every.§. 7-years beginning with the comprehensive plan update in JfJDJ-2003/2004. At the time of this writing the city limits of Port Townsend constitute the city's UGA. additioRal iRformatioR and 8:ftalysis arc needed to refiRe 8:ftd modify the eOBeeptual FUGA bOO£dary to eHsare consisteney with the planniRg goals and prineiples of the GMA, as well as recent deeisioRs by the Growth MaRagemeRt HeariRgs Boards. It is anticipated that Port TO'NRsend's FUGA bOl:1fidary will be desigRated either at the time JeffersoB Last printed 12/2/02 1 0 U:\jsurber\Comp2002\Ordinance fuga attachment.docfuga 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 Couaty adopts its GMA Compreheasive Plan, or ia a subsequent amendment to that Plan. This pr<>cess is likely to lead to the deyelopmeH:t of joint plæmiag and managemeH:t polieies forthe UGA. It is aelrno',vledged that ultimate authority to enaet an expaßded FUG}.. boundary rests with the Jeffersoß Ceuaty Board of Commissioners.] Goal 16: To pr<>mote 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 adiacent unincorporated areas. establish an expanded "eommuaity serving" fiaal urban grovlth area (FUGf~) ',,,bieh is pr<>vided with adequate urban publie facilities and serviees. Paliey 1(i.1: Consider using Jefferson County's existing light manufaeturiag and eommereial (},fIe) zoaiag bouadary ia the Gloo Cove area as the boundary for the \:1flineorporated portioa of the FUG"^~. Policy 16.1.~: Support lieht industrial and accessorv commercial zonine in the Glen Cove LAMIRD the establishment 8f an Nni'æ81'lJ81'tlIed Glen C8ve LAMIRD and indNSÚ'Îal ¡;8nin~ within the L'H/IRD 1. Support CUITeH:t commereial and manufacturiag eH:terpnses in the Glea Co','e area, and pr<>'lide expan:ded opportuaities for retailiag and appropriate manufaeturing, eoasistent with the br<>ader eommunity yision. 16.1.1.M Participate and support county sub-area planning efforts in the Glen Cove LAMIRD fH'etI. Cooperate with Jefferson County to study the possibility of allowing up to t',vo loeations (i. c., approximately 20 total aeres) f-or regional retail use v+'ithin the \:1fliaeorporated portion of the FUG"^~. 16.1.2 .~ Encourage the establishment of Ensure that zoning designations within the Glen Cove LAMIRD(I) the uaiaeorpomted portioa of the FYGA to support diversified manufacturing and small busiaesses (e.g., small scale "clean" industry) and accessory commercial uses. Policy 16.2 ~: Support the County in limiting bimit new residential and incompatible commercial uses within the unincorporated portion of the Glen Cove LAMIRD(I) of the FUG.^~. (Nate: Port TOWflsooà has more than adeE¡uate land eapaeity to accommodate pr<>jeeted population gfO,;lth over the 20 year plaftRiag period additiOfial high deasit',' resideH:tial areas are ußB.eeessary). Policy 16.3 ..4: The City is in the proeess of acquiring has acquired the PUD's public water system serving the Glen Cove area. The city should manage the Glen Cove water system to pr<>mote industrial and accessory commercial uses in the Glen Cove LAMIRD(I) and the city should discourage inappropriate urban type development in designated rural areas. EaoofØ that adequate pttblic facilities and utilities are provided ì-vithia the uaineorpomted portion of the FUG"^~. Implement the FUGA policies coÐtaiaed within the Capital Faeilities & Utilities Element of this Plan. -l- f~t Û1e time of Û1is '."lritiflg, Oetober 200 I, the C0Wlty is exploring laad ase OptiOBS f{)f GleB Cove iBelüàing its offieial àesigBatÌoB as 1\ L^~MIRD. Last printed 12/2/02 11 U:\jsurber\Comp2002\Ordinance fuga attachment.docfuga 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 oS: Work with Jefferson County and the Jefferson Land Trust to designate open space and trail connections through the unincorporated portion~ of Jefferson County the FUGl'~ (i.e., consistent with Chapter 36.70A.160 RCW). 16.§4.1 Coordinate with Jefferson County to extend a 50 to 100 foot open space buffer along S.R. 20 from the City limits to Old Fort Townsend Road the southerly extent of the poteRtial uDÌßcorporat-ed portion of the Port TowÐseoo FUGA. Section 14. PaQe VII-2: Scope The scope of this plan primarily addresses land within the existing City limits, although some references to unincorporated Jefferson County policies for the potential future UßÏßeorporated portion of the Port TovÆseOO FiÐal UrbaB GrO\vth ;\rca (FUG,A~) have been included. This plan element covers all public capital facilities of the City of Port Townsend, consistent with the County-Wide Planning Policy for Jefferson County (CWPP #4). This element also addresses essential public facilities. Section 15. PaQe VII-5: 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 1" 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. (,7I.[-ete: This 'Nould include the 1::HHncorporated portions of the fiRal urban gr<Y.vth area (FUGA) if designated). 2.4.3 Designate all remaining areas as "Tier 3." Section 16. PaQe VII-8.9: Unincorporated Areas Served bv the City URineorporated Final Urlum Crowth ;\rea (FUCl'...) GoalS: To ensure that adeqaat-e urban level public facilities and utilities are only extended into UGAs and LAMIRDs and otherwise extended only if consistent with official land use designations. provided v.'ithia the UßÏßcorporat-ed portion of the FUGA. Poliey 8.1: Cooperate vJith JeffersØB County to develop "mirror image" plans, regalatioÐs and desigR stafldm'ds for the UßÏßcorporated portion of the FUGA. l'~ssure that Ie' leis of service for public faeilities in the l:Hl:Ì:ßcorporated portion of the FUGA ar-e OOÐ:sisteRt ,:lith or identieal to the City's level of seMee standards. Polie}' 8.2: ,A~dopt iater1øeal agreemeRts ·.vmeh ideÐtify the appropriate provider of publie faeilities aBd seryiees withia the UßÏßeorporated portion of the FUGA. Last printed 12/2/02 12 U:\jsurber\Comp2002\Ordinance fuga attachment.docfuga 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 Ceordiflate with JeŒerson Cmmty and ether apf)ropriate agencies and efltities to gradually phase the pf{)'Iisiofl of facilities, services and milities in the l:lnÏ:neoff>orated portion of the FUG.'\.. Paliey 8.3: Paliey 8.4: Coordinate joim planning and permit rC'iÏcw with Jeffersofl Coumy. If necessary, establishjoim plannmg and permit processing agr-eemems with Jefferson. Cm1flty. Paliey 8.5: Establish imerlocaI agreeæen.ts '.vith Jeffersofl C01mty regaroiflg the provisiofl of mbafl water, wastewater, stormwater and tma.sportatiofl serviees to the l:lflineefj)ørated portiofls of the FUGA Policy 8. 6: Cooperate with Jefferson County to contain mban growth within appropriately designated UGAs, ensuring that commercial and manufacturing areas outside of UGAs: a. Are rural in character, scale and intensity; b. Are served at a rurallevel of service; c. Do not accommodate businesses and services that directly compete with uses within UGAs; or d. Are approved Major Industrial Developments (MIDs), which Mills are pennitted and approved consistent with GMA and interlocal agreement between the City and Jefferson County providing for siting and pennitting criteria. [Ord. No. 2783, s 2.1, (November 19,2001)]. Section 17. Page VII-i5: Public Health & Safety Goal 18: To assme proper disposal of wastewater to protect ground and surface water supplies. Policy 18.1: Ensme that all existing and new development within the Port Townsend Fffial Urban Growth Area (:µUGA) is supplied with adequate wastewater collection and treatment facilities. Section 18. PaQe VII-i5: System Development & Management Goal 19: To efficiently develop and manage the City's wastewater collection and treatment system. Policy 19.1: Encourage infill development and the gradual, phased expansion within the Port Townsend Fiftal Urban Growth Area (:¡<:UGA). Policy 19.6: Establish standards for wastewater collection and treatment facility design. 19.6.1 Design the wastewater collection system to convey the peak daily flow based upon a 20 or 50 year growth forecast and infiltration/inflow allowances. Last printed 12/2/02 13 U :\jsurber\Comp2002\Ordinance fuga attachment.docfuga 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 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 Fffial Urban Growth Area (FUGA). Section 19. Paf!e VII-16: System Development Phasing Goal 20: To coordinate wastewater facility planning with land use, environmental, economic development, and growth management objectives. Policy 20.1: Tier wastewater system infrastructure improvements and service extensions in a manner consistent with Policy 2.5 of this element. Policy 20.2: Do not extend the wastewater system into areas outside the Port Townsend Fffial Urban Growth Area (FUGA). Section 20. PaQe 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 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. 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. Last printed 12/2/02 14 U:\jsurber\Comp2002\Ordinance fuga attachment.docfuga 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 9.3 - Consistent with county-wide planning policy #7.4, establish, through an Inter-local Agreement with Jefferson County, a process for reviewing applications and siting criteria for Major Industrial Developments (MID) as defined by RCW 36.70A.365. Policy 9. 4 Expand existing commercial and manufacturing zones only after assessing and mitigating adverse environmental impacts. Policy 9.5: Encourage the infill of existing commercial and manufacturing zones before considering the expansion or creation of new zones. Policy 9.6: Provide effective separation of conflicting land uses through buffering, setbacks, zone uses allowed, and transition zones. Policy 9.7: Achieve a greater balance between housing and employment opportunities. Policy 9.8: Assure that implementing regulations permit cottage industries within residential areas, consistent with the character of the surrounding neighborhood. Policy 9.9: Promote development of planned office, business and industrial parks, while conserving unique physical features of the land and maintaining compatibility with other land uses in the surrounding area. Policy 9.10: Encourage neighborhood mixed use centers where small scale commercial development (e.g., professional services offices, restaurants, or retail stores) may occur in residential neighborhoods, consistent with the goals and policies of the Land Use Element of this Plan. [Ord. No. 2783, s 2.1, (November 19,2001)]. Section 22. Paf!e VIII-15.16: Commercial Historic District Revitalization Port Townsend's plan for revitalization of the Commercial Historic District identifies three important areas of involvement for City govemment. First, the City's plan should ensure the provision and maintenance of appropriate public improvements in the Commercial Historic District. The quality of the physical link between public and private spaces is crucial to the proper functioning of the Commercial Historic District - and its businesses. Public improvements should help create an inviting environment for shoppers, with clearly marked streets, convenient shopping places, well-lit sidewalks and good pathways between parking areas and stores. Public improvements should provide basic infrastructure and services in a manner that is visually compatible with the nature of the functions they support. In order to implement the Commercial Historic District revitalization policies of this element the City should develop a comprehensive public improvements program which is tailored to the specific needs of the district while reinforcing private projects. Second, the City's plan should provide adequate parking and parking management to meet the needs of customers, merchants, employees, visitors and residents. It should be regulated to encourage turnover of customer spaces and to discourage abuse by long-term parkers. In order to ensure well designed, maintained and managed parking in the Commercal Historic District, the City should develop a parking management strategy. The parking management strategy should take into account not only the numbers and locations of parking spaces, but also methods of Last printed 12/2/02 15 U :\jsurber\Comp2002\Ordinance fuga attachment.docfuga 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 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: 1. In cooperation with the Main Street Program and merchants, develop a comprehensive public improvements program for the Commercial Historic District which is tailored to the specific needs of the area while reinforcing private projects. 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 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 permits. 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 fmd 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. Cofttmet with the Main 8trect Program to de'¡elop a "Retail Plaa" to protect and eBhanec retailing in Port TowRsefI,d's Commereial Histone Distnet. The plan should examine the Last printed 12/2/02 16 U:\jsurber\Comp2002\Ordinance fuga attachment.docfuga 1 likely impacts of large scale regioflaI eommereial development ia the Glea Co'le ar-ea oa 2 Port Tov;nsefld's Commereial Histone District. "\dditioflally, the Plan sfloald 3 recommend potefltialland use and zOfliflg teelm.iqucs which might be l:1sed to miflimize 4 the ad'¡erse effects of r-egioaal eommer-eial (kwelopment on Commereial Histone District 5 retailers. 6 7 Section 23. Pa!!e IX-i.2: 8 9 CONSISTENCY WITH THE 13 GMA GOALS 10 11 Goal #1 - Urban Growth. Encourage development in urban areas where adequate public 12 facilities and services exist or can be provided in an efficient manner. 13 14 The Plan contemplates the poteßtiaI desig-Ratiofl of a fiaaI \:lrban gro'¡Æh area (FUGA) larger than 15 the current City limits. The Plan proposes a "eonccptual FUGA" for further r€'¡Ïe'¡; and analysis 16 that comprises approximately 600 aeres of the GleR Cove area ia l:1flincorpoæted Jeffersoa 17 CO\:lnty. If desig-Rated, Jeffersoa COl:1flty and the City of Port Townsead would eooperate to 18 pro'lide the full range of \:lrban publie services withifl a 20 year planniflg honzoa. Û1:ttside the 19 FUGl~ bO\:lftàary within the County's sole j\:lnsdictiofl, iafrastmcture woald be provided at a 20 "rural" level of service, and de'/elopment deflsities woald bc "rnml" ifl charaeter. 21 22 The Chapter IV - "The Land Use Element" and the Future Land Use Map establish land use 23 designations and densities sufficient to accommodate the'population growth expected to occur 24 over the next 20 years (i.e., 5,510 additional residents by 2016). The Plan promotes higher density 25 areas through the designation of Mixed Use Centers surrounded by distinct neighborhoods. The 26 Plan encourages higher density retail, service businesses and multi-family residential 27 development in areas where adequate transportation facilities, sewer, and water service already 28 exist or are planned. 29 30 Goal #2 - Reduce Sprawl. Reduce the inappropriate conversion of undeveloped land into 31 sprawling, low density development. 32 The Plan contains goals, policies and implementation strategies that encourage compact, efficient 33 urban growth, and the phasing of growth within Port Townsend, and the potefltial uniflcorporated 34 portiofl of the City's FUGA, through the use of "growth tiers." The Plan designates mixed use 35 centers surrounded by higher density residential areas at five key locations throughout town. The 36 Plan also connects lands with development constraints (e.g., wetlands, drainage corridors, and 37 steep slopes) with some of the City's remaining forested areas in an effort to create a City-wide 38 system of interconnected open spaces and trails. One of the central objectives of the Plan is to 39 attempt to retain the existing small town character of Port Townsend by encouraging new 40 development in and around the mixed use centers, rather than dispersed widely throughout the 41 City. 42 43 Goal #S - Economic Development. Encourage economic development throughout the state that 44 is consistent with adopted Comprehensive Plans; promote economic opportunity for all citizens of 45 this state, especially for unemployed and for disadvantaged persons; and encourage growth, all 46 within the capacities of the state's natural resources, public services, and public facilities. 47 48 The Plan designates significant areas within the City limits for commercial and manufacturing 49 development, and antieipates thc desig-Ration of additioflal commercial and æanufaetming land 50 withifl the potential fut\:lre Uftincorpomted POrtiOfl of the FUG"^~. Many of these areas are already Last printed 12/2/02 1 7 U :\jsurber\Comp2002\Ordinance fuga attachment.docfuga 1 provided with a full range of urban services to facilitate development, or would be provided with 2 these facilities within the 20 year planning horizon. 3 4 One of the major emphases of the Plan is to address the current "jobs/housing imbalance" in Port 5 Townsend and provide more "family-wage" jobs. An Economic Development Element has been 6 included (see Chapter VIII) within the Plan to facilitate economic growth and development 7 consistent with community and environmental values. The Economic Development Strategy 8 stresses the importance of promoting our local training and education capabilities, and 9 encouraging specific sectors of the local economy including: marine trades; small business and 10 diversified, environmentally friendly manufacturing; and sustainable, year-round tourism. The 11 Strategy also seeks to revitalize Port Townsend's Commercial Historic District and upgrade the 12 City's telecommunications infrastructure for the jobs of tomorrow. The overall goal of the Plan is 13 to facilitate the provision of at least 2,700 more "family wage" jobs by the year 2016. 14 15 Goal #8 - Natural Resource Industries. Maintain and enhance natural resource-based 16 industries, including productive timber, agricultural, and fisheries industries. Encourage the 17 conservation of productive forest lands and productive agricultural lands, and discourage 18 incompatible uses. 19 20 Because of Port Townsend's status as an urban growth area under the GMA, no agricultural, 21 mineral, or forest "lands of long tenn commercial significance have been identified or designated 22 within the City. Only a small portion of the City's current land base is currently devoted to 23 agricultural or forestry industries (approximately 75 acres of the City's total land base are 24 considered "current use agriculture," while fewer than 6 acres are considered "current use 25 timberlands"). Very few areas within the City contain "prime" agricultural soils suitable for 26 fanning. 27 28 Consequently, the Plan directs that natural resource lands be protected through a combination of 29 public and private initiatives ranging from open space tax incentives to voluntary conservation 30 easements. The Plan allows and encourages agricultural uses in the least developed portions of 31 town, and directs that lower density residential areas allow certain agricultural uses "outright." 32 Chapter IV - "The Land Use Element," instructs the City to consider adopting a "right to fann" 33 ordinance to protect agricultural uses in these areas. The Land Use Element also contains policies 34 which would allow mineral resource extraction and timber harvesting within the City limits, 35 subject to certain conditions. 36 37 Finally, the Plan recommends that the Port Townsend Paper Mill should be left outside of the 38 City's poteatial fuhue FUGA, and zoned for "resource-related" manufacturing uses. The Plan 39 suggests that compatible light manufacturing and accessory commercial uses be located in the 40 area west of the Glen Cove Mill site, inside the poteatial unincorporated portiOR of tbe FUGA 41 Glen Cove LAMIRD. 42 43 Section 24. Page IX-6. 7: 44 45 CONSISTENCY WITH THE COUNTY -WIDE PLANNING POLICY 46 47 The GMA requires that counties planning under the Act adopt County-Wide Planning Policies in 48 cooperation with the cities within the county. The County-Wide Planning Policy for Jefferson 49 County (CWPP) was developed and adopted by Jefferson County and the City of Port Townsend 50 in December of 1992. The CWPP is to be used as a framework for the Port Townsend and 51 Jefferson County Comprehensive Plans, to ensure that the plans are consistent with each other. Last printed 12/2/02 18 U:\jsurber\Comp2002\Ordinance fuga attachment.docfuga 1 The policies also establish a foundation for detennining consistency of individual plans with the 2 requirements of the Growth Management Act, and provide direction to coordinate the provision 3 of public facilities and services throughout the community. 4 The City of Port Townsend's Comprehensive Plan has been evaluated for consistency with the 5 CWPP and is found to be substantially consistent with the policies. The following discussion 6 briefly summarizes how the Comprehensive Plan elements arc consistent with the CWPP. 7 8 9 Policy #1. Policy to Implement RCW 36. 70A.I1O - Urban Growth Areas. 10 11 By mutual agreement, the County and City have prepared and adopted a Joint Population 12 Forecast and Allocation for use in Growth Management planning. The land capacity analysis 13 conducted for the Plan concluded that Port Townsend's current corporate limits contain enough 14 undeveloped land suitable for residential uses to accommodate 100% of the population allocated 15 to the City under the adopted population forecast (i.e., 5,510). I.Jtho1:1gR Port Townsend contains 16 enough vacant residentialland to accommodate the projected 20 year population increase,- ,a-A 17 shortage of land süitable served with adequate infrastructure and zoned for commercial and 18 manufacturing development still exists within the City limits. During the 2002 2003/2004 ~ 7- 19 year comprehensive plan update the city shall conduct a vacant lands inventory and review 20 growth proiections for commercial and manufacturing development. The city should seek to 21 rezone land within the city limits before seeking to expand into unincorporated Jefferson County. 22 Conseq1:1efttly, the Plftfl inch.¡des portions of the adjaccÐt and unincorporated Glen Cove area 23 within the City's coaceptuaI final urbftfl gro·.vth arca (FUGA). 24 Located immediately adjaceÐt and to the southwest of the City, along the S.R. 20 corridor, the 25 area prcseÐtly falls 1:1nder the jurisdiction of Jefferson Cou-Ðty for plæming and land use permit 26 aè:m.inistratiofl. If designated, Jeff-erson C01:1Ðty and the City of Port Tov;nsood \yould cooperate 27 to provide the full range of arb an pablic services within a 20 year plæm.ing horioon. Outside tHe 28 FUGA boaftdary within the County's sole j1:1risdietion, infrastruetare v;ould be provided at a 29 "mrel" level of service, ftfld developmcÐt densities would be "mral" in charactcr. No u-ndevelopcd 30 rcsideÐtial areas are proposed for inclusion in the unincorporated portion of the FUG.^.. Instead, 31 this portion of the preposed FUG.^~ is iÐtcnded to pro'áde sufficicÐt dcye10pable land for 32 commercial ftfld maIltlfactaring uses to süstain a healthy local economy. 33 34 Policy #3. Policy on Joint County and City Planning within Urban Growth Areas. 35 36 At the time of this writing. Port Townsend's city limits define the urban growth boundary. There 37 is no unincOIJJorated UGA within which to conduct ioint planning with Jefferson County. 38 However. if the City's UGA is expanded then the City and the County should engage in the ioint 39 planning and pennitting activities outlined in county-wide planning policy #3. 40 Plæming fer the potentiaIl:1Rineorporated portion of the Port TovlRsefld FUGI. is still in its 41 formative stages, and mach work remains to be done. Howe'/er, the City's Plftfl does coÐtain 42 policies ·.....hich speeifically address the unincorporated portion of the FUG.-\.. 1ft particular, a 43 poliey S'I:lbsectioft has been iRcluded within Chapter VII "The Capital Facilities & Utilities 44 Element," ';;flieh is iRteaded to enSüfe that adeqaate public facilities ftfld atilities ·..;ill be provided 45 withifl. the \iftÌfieorporated portioft of the FUG.^., if designated. This S'I:lbsection establishes 46 frame·¡..orl( policies for joint planfling ftfld permit administration, inelading en'áronmentaI reyiev; 47 (i.e., SEP I.) aad deeision makiftg ffi:1thority for unineorporated lands located within the Port 48 Townsend FUGA. 49 50 Policy #7. Policy on County- Wide Economic Development and Employment. Last printed 12/2/02 19 U:\jsurber\Comp2002\Ordinance fuga attachment.docfuga 1 The Port Townsend Comprehensive Plan includes an Economic Development Element (see 2 Chapter VIII) with major areas of emphasis including: training/education: marine trades: 3 diversified manufacturing and small "clean" business including cottage/home businesses: 4 sustainable year-round tourism. community retail. commercial historic district revitalization. and 5 telecommunications infrastructure that pays partie\:11ar atteation to the needs of nonserviee sector 6 busiaesses and manufaeturiag. The Element is intended to create at least 2,700 "family wage" 7 jobs within the next 20 years. Specific sectors ofthe local eeoaomy '.'thieh are ef}cotiraged by the 8 Elemeftt iae1ude: the MariBe Trades; Diversified Mamtfaeturiag &, Small B\:1siaess; Community 9 Retail; aRd year fO\:1nd Tooosm. 10 Chapter IV "The Land. Use Elemeflt," S\:1ggests that Port Tø>..vnseBd's FUGA sho\:11d iaclude 11 eommercial and ffiaffilfaeturiBg zoned lands ia the l.iRiacorporated Glefl Cove area. WheR 12 provided vlith adequate publie iflfrastruet1:1f'e, this area eould provide S\:1ffieient laRd for the 13 commercial, retail, and mamlfaeturiRg development needed ifl oortheastem JeffersoR County. 14 Beeoose of Port Towflsend's status as a UGA and regional serviee and retail center, it is 15 antieipated that the 1:1flineorporated portiofl of the .FUGA will iaeæde some land zoned for larger 16 seale "regional" retailüses. 17 18 Policy #9. Policy on Fiscal Impact Analysis. 19 20 Fiscal impacts are addressed through Chapter VII - "The Capital Facilities & Utilities Element." 21 Chapter IV - "The Land Use Element," has been coordinated with the Capital Facilities & 22 Utilities and other elements of the Plan. The assessment includes projected revenues and 23 expenditures, and an analysis of the fiscal-impacts of providing governmental services to 24 accommodate the projected population growth. 25 Numerous incentives and nonregulatory options (e.g., density bonuses, priority permit processing, 26 open space tax incentives, etc.) have been identified as alternatives to regulatory programs in the 27 implementation of Comprehensive Plan policy. 28 Finally, it is antieipated that Jefferson County and the City of Port Townsend have the option of 29 wiJ:l....àe developing interlocal agreements to address the issues of tax revenue sharing and the 30 provision of regional services if an unincorporated UGA is designated adjacent to Port Townsend 31 and if annexation occurs in this area withia the potentialüniacorporated portions of the Port 32 Tovlflsend FUGA. 33 34 Policy #10. Policy on Use, Monitoring, Review and Amendment. 35 36 The County-Wide Planning Policy for Jefferson County has been used consistently in the 37 development of the Port Townsend Comprehensive Plan. Additionally, the Joint Growth 38 Management Committee has served as the regional oversight body during the development of the 39 Comprehensive Plan. , ftftd has fe"lÍewed and pr{wided advisery reeammcaclatiofls oa the shape 40 and substance of Port TÐwasend's proposed PUG!... 41 42 43 Last printed 12/2/02 20 U:\jsurber\Comp2002\Ordinance fuga attachment.docfuga