PORT TOWNSEND — The city of Port Townsend hosted a virtual workshop as a part of its ongoing effort to engage with the public on its comprehensive plan update.
The workshop Wednesday evening centered around discussions of three scenarios for housing and zoning within the city.
The joint city council and planning commission meeting saw 54 attendees at one point, said Emma Bolin, the city’s director of planning and community development.
“It’s all about for the future of our community,” Mayor David Faber said at the virtual meeting. “Making sure that we’re taking the sufficient steps to plan for necessary growth in this community, including planning for not just the housing component, but transportation, economic development and environmental impacts. There’s various chapters of the comprehensive plans, but it’s pretty comprehensive, you know?”
Bill Grimes of SCJ Alliance, a consulting firm working with the city on its comprehensive plan update, presented a slideshow at the meeting. After Grimes’ presentation, virtual attendees broke out into groups to discuss the scenarios.
Grimes outlined five phases, plotting progress for the city as it moves toward its update deadline at the end of 2025.
The five phases include gathering a baseline, considering the options, choosing a direction, strategizing for implementation and adopting a plan.
The city currently is in the direction phase of its plan, Grimes said.
As the city works to clarify its direction for housing development, it has honed in on three alternative approaches to how it will seek to influence the next 10 years.
Feedback at previous outreach events has steered the city and SCJ Alliance toward a “nodes-focused approach,” which would center development on several major crossroads around the city, outlined in a previous comp plan.
Bolin described nodes as cross streets clustered with higher-density zoning.
“Our zoning currently has (nodes) at Jackman, where the fairgrounds are, Howard Street and Hastings, F and San Juan, Kearney Street and Sims, and Discovery and Rainier,” Bolin said.
Three approaches
Alternative A is the lowest-impact option, a somewhat status quo, Grimes said. New construction would occur within current codes, with updates made to comply with state housing zoning regulations.
In addition to the likelihood that this option would fail in providing enough housing, especially affordable housing, it would make transit hard to justify due to low density. Further, this option makes for low tax revenue, Grimes said.
Alternative B would focus development intensity on nodes. It would zone for higher density and encourage the development of compact build forms, townhomes and two- and three-story apartment buildings.
This higher-density option likely would draw infrastructure investment in amenities for pedestrians and bikers, as well as small open spaces, Grimes said.
Alternative B may require building skills that are not widely possessed by the local construction workforce, Grimes said.
Alternative C is the option which aims for the highest density focused on the city’s nodes. It would encourage three- and four-story buildings at the node centers. Zoning would be set for higher minimum density.
This option is designed to lead to better amenities, mixed-use builds and improved transit services. Higher tax revenue per acre could be expected with Alternative C, Grimes said.
“I think we heard that there was a lot of support for option C,” Bolin said. “But some people felt that option B was really good and might be more of a near-term option. (We heard) that option C would help us deliver on density and also help preserve other areas of the city for open space and forestry and recreational uses. Some people even said that option C was more like a 50-year scenario.”
Breakout sessions
About an hour into the workshop, attendees were given an opportunity to engage the three alternatives in breakout sessions. Attendees were asked to fill out feedback forms and discuss which of the alternatives they favored.
Participants were asked to consider the three options while framing them in how well they achieve a list of values Grimes had put together based on feedback from early outreach events. Values listed were: housing affordability, ecosystem compatibility, arts and culture, diverse social identities and fiscal balance.
Groups also were encouraged to consider values they would add.
Each group included a reporter who presented the group’s prevailing preference following the 30-minute breakout session.
Reporters were assigned from attending city council members and members of the planning commission.
Faber acted as reporter for one of the groups. He said those who did respond said alternative C met the most values.
Faber said the group spent much of its time considering additional values.
Some additional fundamental values emerged from the discussion groups, Bolin said. They included welcoming and encouraging a diverse population, acknowledging indigenous people, valuing young families, valuing the Salish Sea, valuing marine trades and historic preservation.
“We heard things about ecosystem compatibility, that sprawl is not good for that,” Bolin said. “The denser options would help mollify concerns about ecosystem compatibility, and (we heard that) people commuting into and out of the community is not great.
“We also heard about concerns in this neighborhood, about how they would feel about densification. We talked about the pre-platted nature of Port Townsend and how, even though it may look like a farm field, it was platted to be much more dense.”
Victoria Sonntag, a member of the Port Townsend planning commission, reported for the second group, and said there was a strong consensus that Alternative B would meet most of the values best.
Sonntag said the group also was open to Alternative C, and expressed that Alternative B should be implemented in a way that wouldn’t rule out C in the future.
________
Reporter Elijah Sussman can be reached by email at elijah.sussman@sequimgazette.com.
