Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 06/15/1994 . AGENDA CITY OF PORT ANGELES PLANNING COMMISSION 321 East Fifth Street Port Angeles, W A 98362 Special Meeting June 15, 1994 7:00 P.M. I. CALL TO ORDER II. ROLL CALL ill. APPROV AL OF MINUTES: None. IV. OLD BUSINESS: 1. REVIEW OF AGENCY COMMENTS ON DRAFT COMPREHENSIVE PLAN . V. COMMUNICATIONS FROM mE PUBLIC: VI. STAFF REPORTS VD. REPORTS OF COMMlSSION MEMBERS: Vill. ADJOURNMENT All correspondence penaining to a hearing item received by the Planning Department at least one day prior to the scheduled hearing will be provided to Commission members before the hearing. PUBLIC HEARING PROCEDURE: Spokesmen for the proponents and opponents will be given an opportunity to speak to the request. Information submitted should be factual, relevant and not merely duplication of a previous presentation. A reasonable time (10 minutes) shall be allowed the spokesman; others shall be limited to short supporting remarks (5 minutes). Other interested parties will be allowed to comment briefly (5 minutes each) or make inquiries. The Chairman may allow additional public testimony if the issue warrants it. Brief rebuttal (5 minutes) for proponents and opponents will be heard separately and consecutively with presentation limited to their spokesman. Rebuttal shall be limited to factual statements pertaining to previous testimony. Comments should be directed to the Board, not the City Staff representatives present, unless directed to do so by the Chairman. ~ Members: Orville Campbell, Chsir, Bob Winters, Cindy Souders, Bob Philpott, Unda Nutter and Tim German. Planning Staff: Brad Collins, Director; John Jimerson, Associate Planner; Sue Roberds, Office Specialist, David Sawyer, Sr. Planner. . . . MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION Port Angeles, Washington 98362 Special Meeting June 15, 1994 7:00 p.m. I. CALL TO ORDER Vice Chair Campbell called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. D. ROLL CALL Commissioners Present: Bob Philpott, Orville Campbell, Linda Nutter, Cindy Souders and Tim German Commissioners Absent: Bob Winters Staff Present: Brad Collins and David Sawyer Public Present: Art Dunker, Ida McKeown lli. APPROV AL OF MINUTES There were no minutes presented for approval. IV. REVIEW OF AGENCY COMMENTS ON DRAFT COMPREHENSIVE PLAN Director Collins and Senior Planner Sawyer led a discussion with regard to the attached agency comment responses. The Commission discussed the responses but decided that no changes were necessary to the draft document which would be presented to the City Council at its June 21, 1994, meeting. V. COMMUNICA TIONS FROM THE PUBLIC: None. VI. STAFF REPORTS: None. VD. REPORTS OF COMMISSION MEMBERS: None. VID. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 9:30 p.m. ~~ B . d Collins, Secretary Orville Campbell, Vice Chair Attachment PREPARED BY: Sue Roberds . . . AGENCY COMMENTS RECEIVED ON COMPREHENSIVE PLAN Department of Community, Trade and Development Received 05-23-94 1. Your urban growth cuea is not cleculy defined on your land-use map nor are future densities and intensities of land use clearly defined GMAC: No response. PLANNING COMMISSION: Concurs with the Planning Department's response. PLANNING DEPARTMENT: Staff recommends replacing the second paragraph under General Comments in the Growth Management Element with the following. "Early in the planning process the City agreed with the County to address only areas within the current city limits in the City's Comprehensive Plan and to work with the County on a Joint Comprehensive Plan for the Urban Growth Area. On April 13. 1993. the Board of Clallam County Commissioners adopted an Interim Port Angeles Urban Growth Area (see Figure 10). When completed. the Joint Comprehensive Plan for the Port Angeles Urban Growth Area wiD identifY land use designations and locations. " 2. How you plan to serve your urban growth area is not shown. GMAC: No response. PLANNING COMMISSION: Concurs with the Planning Department's response. PLANNING DEPARTMENT: The UGAextends further to the east than recommended by the City and as a result the City's ability to adequately service the UGA is questionable and has not been fully analyzed. 3. The plan and the EIS refer to travel forecasts. We could not find them. GMAC: Staff to research and include. PLANNING COMMISSION: Concurs with the Planning Department's response, PLANNING DEPARTMENT: The travel forecasts are in Table 19 (p. II-95) and Figure 24 (p. II-96) of the DEIS. 4. Better coordination regionally in the area of transportation planning and level of service . . . standards needs to be shown. GMAC: Staff to research and explain. PLANNING COMMISSION: Concurs with the Planning Department's response. PLANNING DEPARTMENT: Goal B, Policy I of the Capital Facilities Element identifies a daily average level of service D or better for all arterial streets in the City. Goal A, Policy 5 of the Capital Facilities Element calls for the development of a Streets, Bikeways and Pedestrian Walkways Comprehensive Service and Facility Plan will further study the issue of additional level of service requirements for specific locations and Goal B, Policies 8 and 19 call for coordination with both county and state transportation efforts. 5. Outside funding sources for your capital facilities plan need to be identified GMAC: Staff to research and include. PLANNING COMMISSION: Concurs with the Planning Department's response. PLANNING DEPARTMENT: Public Works staffis researching this item. 6. Specific targets for your fair share of affordable and low-income housing and a more directive housing policy (using "shaWI instead of "should" in the policy statements) would strengthen the plan. GMAC: Staff to research fair share numbers for possible inclusion and leave II should It in statements as is. PLANNING COMMISSION: Concurs with the Planning Department's response. PLANNING DEPARTMENT: Staff does not recommend including specific numbers of housing units in the Comprehensive Plan and Goal B, Objective 1 of the Housing Element addresses the need to identify what is an adequate supply of affordable and low-income housing units. Staff agrees with the GMAC that the "shoulds" stay unchanged. 7. Policies for allowing and siting special needs housing need to be identified. GMAC: Staff to draft a residential services definition. PLANNING COMMISSION: Concurs with the Planning Department's response. PLANNING DEPARTMENT: Goal C, Policy 1 of the Land Use Element addresses residential services. Staff recommends adding the following definition to the Definitions 2 . . . chapter. Residential services: "Residential services" shall mean the providing of residential care on a daily or live-in basis including special needs housing such as group homes. adult -care homes and day-care facilities. 8. Your EIS mentions resource lands (forest and mineral), but they are not shown on your land use map. These should be identified The GMA requires that cities which designate resource lands within their city limits need to establish a transfer of development rights program for these lands. GMAC: Staff to research and include if necessary. PLANNING COMMISSION: Concurs with the Planning Department's response and notes that the Comprehensive Plan as written is consistent with Urban Growth Area Policy 9 ofthe County-Wide Planning Policy. PLANNING DEPARTMENT: Although the Draft EIS states there are "several forest land holdings both inside the City of Port Angeles and within its urban growth area" (p. TI-25), Figure 11 of the DEIS which identifies these holdings shows only one small area within the City's limits. Goal B, Policy 9 of the Conservation Element addresses the issue of transfer development rights. 9. We had trouble determining whether enough water and sewer capacity are available for the planning period. The specific location in your plan where this information exists needs to be identified. GMAC: Staff to research and include. PLANNING COMMISSION: Concurs with the Planning Department's response and also notes the City's slow projected growth rate should allow more than adequate time to complete the service and facility plan before any critical situations arise. PLANNING DEPARTMENT: Goal A, Policy 5 of the Capital Facilities Element calls for the development of a Water Comprehensive Service and Facility Plan which will at a minimum include an inventory of current facilities, measurements of current and future service capacities,> the determination offuture service and facility improvements necessary to serve the twenty year vision of the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map, and a financial feasibility analysis. 3 . . . 10. We are also concerned that one unit per acre is listed as an urban density. Unless there are environmental constraints, we are concerned that this density does not support efficient delivery of urban services. GMAC: No response. PLANNING COMMISSION: Concurs with the Planning Department's response. PLANNING DEPARTMENT: Residential density is addressed in two places in the Comprehensive Plan. It is first addressed in Goal A, Policy 7 of the Growth Management Element where it states that one unit per acre should be urban/suburban and be used as a demarcation between rural and urban for the purposes of establishing or amending the P AUGA. This policy reflects the community's opinion that one unit per acre is not rural and it should be noted that the Comprehensive Plan does not establish one unit per acre as the primary density for any location inside or outside the City. The second and primary place where density is addressed is in the Land Use Element. In the General Comments section, the density limitations for low, medium and high density residential designations are defined. These designations include upper limits on densities which the City's development regulations may allow within that designated area, they themselves do not set the density limits but rather establish maximum limits for the purpose of utility and service planning. To emphasize this concept, staff recommends Goal D, Policy 1 of the Utilities and Public Services Element be changed to read as follows. "Urban services should be designed for the maximum planned density and/or land use intensity of a given area as designated on the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map." II. Although we like the way you have allowed a variety of densities in various zones, we are concerned that in the absence of specific policies, not enough land for affordable, low income, and special needs housing will be available over the life of the plan. GMAC: No response. PLANNING COMMISSION: Concurs with the Planning Department's response. PLANNING DEPARTMENT: As noted above, Goal B, Objective 1 of the Housing Element addresses the need to identify what is an adequate supply of a variety of housing opportunities. Ifit is determined not enough land is appropriately zoned for such a purpose, _ then an. amendment to the. Zoning Map consistent with. the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map would be considered. 4 . . . Department of Ecology Received 05-23-94 12. Include Hazardous Waste Handling Facilities on page 35 under "Essential Public Facilities". GMAC: No response. PLANNING COMMISSION: The Planning Commission recommends changing the definition for essential public facilities in the Definitions chapter as follows. * * * Solid waste handling facilities Hazardous waste facilities In- Patient . . . It PLANNING DEPARTMENT: Staff concurs with the Planning Commission response. 13. Include the following item on page 80 under "Policies. " 4. Public facilities of county-wide or statewide in nature (i.e., solid or hazardous waste facilities), must meet existing state laws and regulations requiring specific siting and permit requirements. GMAC: Include proposed change. PLANNING COM:NIISSION: The Planning Commission recommends adding the following Goal D, Policy 4 to the Capital Facilities Element. 1... Essential public facilities of a county-wide or state-wide nature. must meet existing state laws and regulations requiring specific siting and permit requirements consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan. PLANNING DEPARTMENT: Staff concurs with the Planning Commission response. 14. Comprehensive plans need to identify the consistencies/inconsistencies between the plans already in place (i.e., Ground Water Management Area Plans, Coordinated Water System Plans). GMAC: No response. PLANNING COMMISSION: Concurs with the Planning Department's response. 5 . . . PLANNING DEPARTMENT: Staff considers such plans as development regulations/plans and will be reviewed for consistency with the Comprehensive Plan after the plan is adopted. 15. Comprehensive plans should include a general evaluation of potential future water sources for meeting projected growth and ensure they are protectedfrom incompatible land uses. GMAC: No response. PLANNING COMMISSION: Concurs with the Planning Department's response. PLANNING DEPARTMENT: As noted above, Goal A, Policy 5 of the Capital Facilities Element calls for the development ofa Water Comprehensive Service and Facility Plan which will at a minimum include an inventory of current facilities, measurements of current and future service capacities, the detennination of future service and facility improvements necessary to serve the twenty year vision of the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map, and a financial feasibility analysis. 16. The Department of Ecology's Water Resources Division submitted a three page general questionnaire regarding water issues and stated. . . We would like the City to address the following questions in their Comprehensive Plan. The City could reference a Water System Plan (as required and approved by the Department of Health) if such a plan addresses these questions. The City may also reference other plans that address these questions. If a question does not apply to the City, please state why. GMAC: No response. PLANNING COMMISSION: Concurs with the Planning Department's response. PLANNING DEPARTMENT: As noted above, Goal A, Policy 5 of the Capital Facilities Element calls for the development ofa Water Comprehensive Service and Facility Plan which will address the issues in the questionnaire. Washington State Department of Transportation Received 05-23-94 17. Travel was not estimated in this plan. Land use was not addressed in the Transportation Element. GMAC: Staff research the EIS and Henigar & Ray Traffic Report and include information 6 . . . available. PLANNING COMMISSION: Concurs with the Planning Department's response. PLANNING DEPARTMENT: Travel and land use were addressed in the DEIS which is referenced and included as Appendix A. The travel forecasts are in Table 19 (p. 11-95) and Figure 24 (p. 11-96) of the DEIS. 18. The Capital Facilities Plan does address LOS on an overall level stating that streets will have an LOS of D. It does not appear that the Comprehensive Plan has addressed LOS on either local roads or state highways. GMAC: Staff explain how Capital Facilities Element addresses street LOS. PLANNING COMMISSION: Concurs with the Planning Department's response. PLANNING DEPARTMENT: As noted above, Goal A, Policy 5 of the Capital Facilities Element calls for the development of a Streets, Bikeways and Pedestrian Walkways Comprehensive Service and Facility Plan will further study the issue of additional level of service requirements for specific locations and Goal B, Policies 8 and 19 call for coordination with both county and state transportation efforts including level of service standards for State Highways. 19. It does not appear that there has been any formal coordination in the document between the two elements. (public utilities and transportation) GMAC: Staff research and address. PLANNING COMMISSION: Concurs with the Planning Department's response and notes that Goal D, Policies 5 and 6 addresses coordination of utility and transportation right-of- ways and construction. PLANNING DEPARTMENT: The Comprehensive Plan requires both utility services (Utilities and Public Services Goal D, Policy) and transportation services and facilities (Transportation Goal A, Policy 6) to be consistent with the goals and policies of the Capital Facilities Element. 20. The Comprehensive Plan addresses improvements to local roads but does not mention "preservation" per se.- The Capital Facilities-Plan does address repair or replacement of capital facilities including roads. GMAC: Staff research and address. 7 . . . PLANNING COMMISSION: Concurs with the Planning Department's response. PLANNING DEPARTMENT: Goal D, Objective 6 of the Capital Facilities Element requires the City to develop and implement maintenance programs for all of its public facilities. Washington State Energy Office Received 05-23-94 21. Page 49, #4. This policy suggests the city should maximize southern exposures. The city should consider including solar access protection within the plan. The city's east/west street grid pattern encourages homes to have good solar access. GMAC: Reword policy to include 'lsolar efficiency". PLANNING COMMISSION: Concurs with the Planning Department's response. PLANNING DEPARTMENT: Staffrecommends adding "solar efficiency" to Goal B, Policy 4 of the Land Use Element as follows. It. . . should maximize southern exposures and solar efficiency, should offer. . .". 22. Page 50, Goal C. The city should also consider the location of medium and high density residential locations. These densities should be in areas that are served by transit and have good pedestrian and bicycle access. These densities are high enough to encourage alternatives to the single occupancy vehicle. GMAC: Staff research and reference Land Use Map and appropriate policies. PLANNING COMMISSION: Concurs with the Planning Department's response. PLANNING DEPARTMENT: Goal C, Policies 2,3,4, and 5 address location criteria for medium and high density housing. The Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map does designate areas for medium and high density development. 23. Page 53, #5. The intent of this policy is very good and provides the appropriate opportunity for the community to have input in the siting process. Chapter 80.50 RCW spells out that _. the Environmental Facility Site Evaluation Council has responsibility to permit liner facilities (oil pipelines and electrical transmission lines). These liner facilities may be difficult, if not impossible, to confine to the heavy industrial areas. GMAC: No response. 8 . . . PLANNING COMMISSION: Concurs with the Planning Department's response. PLANNING DEPARTMENT: Staff recommends this policy remain unchanged. 24. Page 55, Goal A. The policies that support this goal are very good Walking and bicycling are the most energy efficient modes of travel and have minimal environmental impacts. The city might want to consider a policy that encourages the provision of pedestrian and bicycle amenities. Those amenities could include benches, drinking fountains, clearly marked routes, and bike racks. GMAC: Include in Policy #l"bike racks, storage facilities, drinking fountains and benches", PLANNING COMMISSION: Concurs with the Planning Department's response. PLANNING DEPARTMENT: Staff recommends changing Goal A, Policy of the Transportation Element as follows. "Pedestrian and bicycle paths. bike racks. storage facilities. drinking fountains. and benches should be . . ,", 25. Page 58, Policy #14. The city might want to consider language about maximum off-street parking. In some cases parking requirements far exceed demand. Limiting the number of parking spaces will encourage citizens to walk, bicycle, or utilize the transit system. Reducing the amount of impervious surface conserves energy through less asphalt or other energy intensive construction materials. This can also help storm water runoff. GMAC: Include in policy the development of a program for reducing the reliance on the automobile for transportation and encourages the use of bicycle, walkways and transit with incentive programs for and from local businesses. PLANNING COMMISSION: Concurs with the Planning Department's response. PLANNING DEPARTMENT: Staff recommends changing Goal A, Policy 6 of the Capital Facilities Element as follows. " . . . encourage use of alternate modes of transportation such as the bicycles. walkways. and transit services including incentive programs for and from local businesses." 26. The city might wcmt to add language about energy conservation in this chapter. They have already mentioned energy conservation briefly in other chapters. By adding energy conservation specifics in this chapter will help elevate its' importance. The city already operates a very successfi" conservation program through Light Department. 9 . . . GMAC: Include at some point a policy calling for the City to continue its successful conservation programs. PLANNING COMMISSION: Concurs with the Planning Department's response. PLANNING DEPARTMENT: Goal A, Policy 4 of the Utilities and Public Services Element addresses the City's energy conservation and recycling efforts. Department of Community, Trade and Economic Development Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation Received 05-23-94 27. In general, we recommend that the City, at some point in the near future, prepare a historic preservation plan element to be included as part of the Comprehensive Plan. Briefly, this plan element should identify a wide ranging set of goals, policies, and tasks for the community to work toward in protecting its heritage. GMAC: No response. PLANNING COMMISSION: Concurs with the Planning Department's response. PLANNING DEPARTMENT: Goal B, Policy 19 and Objective 10, and Goal C, Policy 2 of the Conservation Element address historic and cultural preservation. 28. We recommend that the City also undertake a comprehensive survey of historic and archaeological properties within the city limits and urban growth area. GMAC: No response. PLANNING COMMISSION: Concurs with the Planning Department's response and notes p. II-80 and 81 of the DEIS lists historical and cultural sites within the City and Figure 20 identifies such sites. PLANNING DEPARTMENT: As noted above, Goal B, Policy 19 and Objective 10 of the Conservation Element addresses historic preservation. 29. Page 49, Policy 4. All residential developments should. . . interesting natural features; significant..historic. archaeological. and cultural proverties:-should preserve and utilize. . GMAC: No response. PLANNING COMMISSION: Concurs with the Planning Department's response. 10 . . . PLANNlNG DEPARTMENT: Staff recommends changing Goal B, Policy 4 of the Land Use Element as follows. ". . . and interesting natural, historic, archaeological and/or cultural features, . . ." 30. Page 53, Goal1. To create open space for reliefwithin the urban landscape, to retain landscapes, to protect significant cultural resources. to preserve fish and. . . GMAC: No response. PLANNING COMMISSION: The Comprehensive Plan's description of the Open Space Land Use designation in the Land Use Element identifies open space features as natural, physical features. Historic and cultural properties do not meet such a description. The Planning Commission recommends Goals A and B and Policy B 1 be changed as follows. Goal A ". . . its natural, historical.. ami cultural. and archaeological amenities, and . . ." Goal B ". . . its natural, historical.. ami cultural. and archaeological amenities, and . . ." Goal B, Policy I It. . . natural, historical. aDd cultural. and archaeological amenities, and . . ." PLANNING DEPARTMENT: Staff concurs with the Planning Commission response. 31. Page 53, Policy 1. The City should further public interest by designating open spaces to preserve unique or major physical features, such as marine shorelines, . . . wildlife habitat, significant historic and cultural vroverties. and other environmentally. . . GMAC: No response. PLANNING COlMMISSION: As noted above, the Comprehensive Plan's description of the Open Space Land Use designation in the Land Use Element identifies open space features as _ natural, physical features. Historic and cultural properties do not meet such a description and the Planning Commission feels Goals A and B and Policy BIas recommended address historic and cultural preservation as desired. PLANNING DEPARTMENT: Staff concurs with the Planning Commission response. 11 . . . 32. Page 53, Policy 2. The City shall limit the use of and access to such natural areas and cultural oroperties to only that which does not . . . GMAC: No response. PLANNING COMMISSION: As noted above, the Comprehensive Plan's description of the Open Space Land Use designation in the Land Use Element identifies open space features as natural, physical features. Historic and cultural properties do not meet such a description and the Planning Commission feels Goals A and B and Policy B 1 address historic and cultural preservation as desired. PLANNING DEPARTMENT: StatTconcurs with the Planning Commission response. 33. Page 82, Policy (B)6. The City should promote the preservation of its historic properties as a tool to enhance the quality of life. GMAC: No response. PLANNING COMMISSION: Concurs with the Planning Department response. PLANNING DEPARTMENT: Staff recommends adding a Goal B, Policy 6 to the Economic Development Element as follows. I! The City should preserve and promote its historic and cultural properties as a measure of its quality of life. I! Puget Sound Water Quality Authority Received 06-06-94 34. Page 36, Definitions: Please add water quality facilities, including stormwater facilities, under the definition of Public Capital Facilities. GMAC: No response. PLANNING COMMISSION: Concurs with the Planning Department response. PLANNING DEPARTMENT: Stormwater facilities may not be of a size tbat serves a .county-wide or state-wide population and therefor does not meet the City's definition of a public capital facility as it is used in the Growth Management Act and the proposed Comprehensive Plan. 12 . . . 35. Page 49, Residential Goals and Policies: Include a policy to address new development and re-development stormwater controls as mandated in the Puget Sound Plan. It should also be clearly stated that residential development compatible with the environment includes the protection of wetlands and other critical areas. GMAC: No response. PLANNING COMMISSION: Concurs with the Planning Department response. PLANNING DEPARTMENT: Goal B, Policy 6 of the Capital Facilities Element addresses post-development stormwater run-off and requirements of the Stormwater Management Manual for the Puget Sound Basin. Goal B, Policies 1, 2, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9 of the Conservation Element address the protection of critical areas including wetlands. 36. Page 52, Industrial Goals and Policies: Both goal statements concerning industrial development should specify development consistent with the protection of the environment. Also, industrial development should be conducted in such a manner as to comply with all state environmental laws and use of best available technology. GMAC: No response. PLANNING COMMISSION: Concurs with the Planning Department response. PLANNING DEPARTMENT: Staff recommends the goals remain as written. These issues are adequately addressed throughout the Comprehensive Plan and specifically in the Conservation Element. 37. Page 65, Housing Element: Please ensure that new development and re-development stormwater controls are included as a policy under this element. (Also see comment for page 49). GMAC: No response. PLANNING COMMISSION: Concurs with the Planning Department response. PLANNING DEPARTMENT: As noted above, Goal B, Policy 6 of the Capital Facilities Element addresses post-development stormwater run-off and requirements of the Stormwater Management Manual for the Puget Sound Basin. Goal B, Policies 1, 2, 5,6, 7,8, and 9 of the Conservation Element-address.the protection of critical areas including wetlands. 38. Page 68, Conservation Element: We are very pleased at the number of policies and general goal statements that deal exclusively with resource and water quality protection. We recommend that the industrial use designation of the inside of Ediz Hook be compared to 13 . . . these goals and policies. We also suggest that a shellfish protection and restoration policy be included in the listed policies on these pages. GMAC: No response. PLANNING COMMISSION: Concurs with the Planning Department response. PLANNING DEPARTMENT: There was a significant discussion about what the appropriate land use designation is for the harbor during the GMAC's original work. Staff feels there are enough policies in the Comprehensive Plan to adequately protect the natural features of the harbor while allowing appropriately approved use of the area per the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map. Staffrecomrnends Goal D, Policy 4 of the Conservation Element be changed as follows. t! . . . aquatic habitats, including shellfish habitat and important. . ." Clallam County Commissioner's Office Received 05.27.94 39. On page 42, Policy 7, states that, "the city should recognize a density of one unit per acre as urban/suburban and should use this density as the demarcation between urban and rural for the purposes of establishing or amending the P A UGA". This policy should be amended to accurately reflect its associated Urban Growth Area Policy from the County-wide Planning Policy which reads "a density exceeding one unit per acre as urban/suburban". This is a critical distinction as there are large acreages of 1 acre density rural zoning on the margins of the PAUGA. The City Comprehensive Plan Policy as it is written would indicate that any land zoned at one acre density would be a likely candidate for inclusion in the PAUGA. The county feels very stronglv that this policv should be changed to be in line with the County-wide Planning Policy. GMAC: No response. PLANNING COMMISSION: The Planning Commission notes the policy quote referenced in the County's comment was taken out of context from Policy 4 of the County-Wide Planning Policy's Urban Growth Area Policies Section. The complete policy reads as follows. "4. The current County Comprehensive Plan identifies a density exceeding one unit-per acre as urbanlsuburban.- Density is one factor that will form the demarcation between urban and rural for purposes of establishing an urban growth area. This does not preclude land currently zoned R (Rural) from a UGA It shall preclude urban growth outside UGAs, and shall permit 14 . . . urban densities inside urban growth areas." The Planning Commission points out this policy was agreed to by the various members of the Clallam County Growth Management Steering Committee because it only referenced the County's current Comprehensive Plan (in effect at that time). The policy goes on to state that density will be one factor in locating the UGA's boundary but does not state what that density should be, purposely leaving it open for detennination at a later date. Goal A, Policy 7 of the City's Growth Management Element simply states what the City feels that density should be and is therefore consistent with Policy 4 of the County-Wide Planning Policy as well as the goals of the Growth Management Act. PLANNING DEPARTMENT: Staff concurs with the Planning Commission response. 40. Growth Management Policy # 13 states that, "Urban services/facilities should be provided and constructed to meet the design and construction standards of the Cityl/, The County- wide Planning Policy recognizes that the city may not be the ultimate service provider in all portions of the UGA and that services and facilities construction standards should be those of the ultimate service provider. Policy # J 3 does not address the complexity of service provision within the UGA. What does the City expect of developers in the unincorporated UGA? There are areas in the UGA which may not be annexed within the 20 year time frame. There needs to be an honest evaluation of when annexation is likely to occur within the planning time frame in order to determine which urban services are to be provided within new development in the unincorporated UGA. GMAC: No response. PLANNING COMMISSION: Concurs with the Planning Department and notes that further analysis on how and when services are to be provided in the UGA is needed. PLANNING DEPARTMENT: Policy I (a-m) of the County-Wide Planning Policy's Joint Planning and Contiguous and Orderly Development Section calls for the development of a UGA Urban Services and Development Agreement which is to identify interim and ultimate responsible service providers and is to include a requirement that any capital improvement and/or public facility providing an urban service constructed and/or planned within a UGA meet all design and urban service requirements of the ultimate service provider. This policy does not suggest other agency may become the ultimate service provider within the City of Port Angeles, nor does it prohibit the City from being the ultimate provider of urban services within the UGA. The CWPP policy also does not establish a time frame in which the ultimate service provider must-assume responsibility for. providing such services. Tbe intent of Goal A, Policy 13 of the City's Growth Management Element is to insure compatibility between service systems which will eventually be the responsibility of the City after an area is annexed. This simply expresses tbe City's desire to continue its current policy to be the provider of urban services within its boundaries and should then logically be identified as the ultimate 15 . . . provider of urban setvices in areas that are eligible for annexation to the City (the PAUGA). To clarifY this, staff recommends adding the following new Goal A, Policy 13 of the Growth Management Element and subsequently renumbering the original Policies 13 -16 accordingly. 1..L The City should be the ultimate provider of urban services within the City limits and the PAUGA. Since the County-Wide Planning Policy clearly does not prohibit the City from being the ultimate provider of urban services in its UGA and the City's policies are simply stating its views on this issue, staff feels these two policies are consistent with Policy 1 of the County- Wide Planning Policy's Joint Planning and Contiguous and Orderly Development Section. 41. The City Comprehensive Plan does not address Urban Growth Area Policy #5 from the County-wide Planning Policy which indicates that "net densities will increase over current city densities as urban growth and development occurs within the UGA". GMAC: No response. PLANNING COMMISSION: As noted previously to Comment 10, early in the planning process the City agreed with the County to address only areas within the current city limits in the City's Comprehensive Plan and to work with the County on a Joint Comprehensive Plan for the Urban Growth Area. When completed, the Joint Comprehensive Plan for the Port Angeles Urban Growth Area will identify land use designations their locations and general types of allowed land uses and residential densities. PLANNING DEPARTMENT: Staff concurs with the Planning Commission. 42. The City Comprehensive Plan gives no recognition to the process used between the City and County for preparation and adoption of a joint comprehensive plan, particularly for the Urban Growth Area. We urge the City to adopt a policy in the City Plan that recognizes this joint process, and at such time as the City officially adopts the joint plan, all annexed lands will conti/me to be guided by the joint comprehensive plan for a period of at least one year, preferably longer. GMAC: No response. PLANNING COMMlSSION: A statement addressing the joint planning effort was recommended in response to Comment 1 from the State Department of Community, Trade and Economic Development. PLANNING DEPARTMENT: Staff concurs with the Planning Commission and suggests the City ask the County to formalize the process by which the City officially adopts the joint plan. 16 . . . 43. The residential land use categories of medium and high density have lower limits that completely overlap the next lowest density category. Most comprehensive plans contain lower limits to each density level. Allowing single family residential to fill up your medium and high density residential categories does not promote increasing the net density of the city, promote affordable housing or encourage the efficient allocation of city services. For example, the city could allocate an area for high density residential and plan the sewer mains and roads to accommodate this density of development which is then developed at three units per acre resulting in a waste of city resources. GMAC: No response. PLANNING COMMISSION: See response to Comments 10 and 41. PLANNING DEPARTMENT: See response to Comments 10 and 41. 44. Under Commercial policy #E5 on page 51 it states that "commercial development outside the Highway 101 corridor should not be in a strip pattern". Not aI/ of Highway 101 corridor in the UGA is developed in a strip pattern. This policy would seem to allow the rest of this corridor to develop in a strip pattern. The western portion of the UGA still has some residential development and green spaces along the highway. The strip commercial nature of this corridor does not need to be repeated on the City's west side and could be de- emphasized elsewhere by differentiating between intensities of commercial use aI/owed along the corridor and providing for green spaces between neighborhoods where possible. GMAC: No response. PLANNING COMMISSION: Goal E, Policy 2 of the Land Use Element discourages strip commercial development within the City and see response to Comments 1) 41 and 42 regarding the UGA. PLANNING DEPARTMENT: Staff concurs with the Planning Commission response. 45. The Land Use Element requires guidance to be providedfor corrective actions to mitigate or cleanse discharges that pollute waters of the state, including Puget Sound or waters entering Puget Sound. The comprehensive plan should ine/ude a policy which addresses future acceptance of the Watershed Management Plan being developed for the Port Angeles Watershed. GMAC: No response. PLANNING COMMISSION: Concurs with the Planning Department response. PLANNING DEPARTMENT: Goal D, Objective 4 of the Utilities and Public Services 17 . . . Element specifically references the Watershed Management Plan. 46. Policy D3 states that, "The city should not extend urban services outside the city without annexation". This policy may create constraints to development in the unincorporated UGA, force development out to roral areas and actually impede the annexation efforts of the city. A better policy would require that users of city services in the UGA would sign agreement to support and not oppose city annexation efforts. Similar policies are used by many cities in Washington to advance their annexation efforts. GMAC: No response. PLANNING COMMISSION: The Planning Commission recommends this policy statement remain as is. It is a long established City policy that encourages rather than impedes annexation. Property owners who were not party to agreements as suggested by the County have challenged such annexation efforts in Cities which have used such an approach. PLANNING DEPARTMENT: Staff concurs with the Planning Commission response. 47. Clallam County summarized its letter with a conclusion section which listed "The most important issues to Clallam County that the City should address in adoption of the comprehensive plan. . .". They then listed each of the issues detailed above plus the following three issues: ,,* Transportation concurrency management system Linkage of transportation element to land use element Altemative route for Highway 101 - working together to identify solution" * * GMAC: No response. PLANNING COM:MISSION: Concurs with the Planning Department response. PLANNING DEPARTMENT: Transportation concurrency and multi-modal system planning are well established in the Comprehensive Plan including many policies in both the Transportation and Capital Facilities Elements. The linkage between the Transportation and Land Use Elements is indirect, except for impacts of commercial uses along arterial routes such as the alternate local crosstown route. Future comprehensive planning and service/facility planning will better address the linkage issue that concurrency requires. GOalB,Objective 7 oftheJransportation Element specifically commits the City to regional study ofU. S. 10 1 corridor future changes. However, designation of a specific route for a 10 I by-pass route or alternative routes is not done. To the contrary, the U.S. 101 by-pass route designated by the 1976 Comprehensive Plan is abandoned east of Race Street under this Objective 7. 18