Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout01-31-1979x ?�4 Jefferson County Planning Commission COURTHOUSE e PORT TOWNSEND, WASHINGTON 98868 f , MINUTES. OF JANUARY-314111.99` { I. OPENING BUSINESS II. DRAFT JEFFERSON COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN III. ADJOURNMENT IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES NOTE: This meeting was tape recorded and the tapes are on file with the Jefferson County Planning Department. �e. I. OPENING BUSINESS The meeting was called to order at 7:35 p.m. by Chairman Randolph. Members present were Karl Randolph, William Sevenson, Harry Pollard, Eva Taylor, Finis Stevens, Norris Short, and Richard Kenyon. A quorum was declared by Chairman Randolph. Representing the Planning Department staff were Director David Goldsmith, Associate Planner Carol Saari, and Secretary Laura Southmayd. Guests were Michael Bowe, Joseph Daniels, Randy Tyler, Jerry J. Gilbert, Ron Sikes, Lloyd L. Hansen, Grace McMillen, Joe Clarkson, Pedro Tama, Rick Dennison, Larry Dennison, Robert Haugland, Penny Hubbard, Leslie Strag, Kathryn Jenks, Lois Flury, Jack Germeau, Karen.Clarkson, Mark Kosloff, Rachel Nathanson, Francis E. Ludwig, Ruth Short, Kris DeWeese, Jake Germeau, Caroline Germeau, Carol Walterscheidt, A. Zamperin, Dwayne Lewis, Judith Walls, Janet Burr, S. Watkins, Lawrence E. Costello, Jane McCormick, Kathleen Hayes, Darlene Smelt, Ruth Millman, Sanoi Kolemaine, Stacey E. Thompson, Brent S. Shirley, Tom Foley, David Cunningham, Janeen Hyden, Steve Hayden, and Port Townsend Leader Reporter Anne Sigman. Minutes of January 7, 1979, were approved after the guest list was corrected. The names Janeen Hayden, Steve Hayden, and Levi Ross were added to the list. II. DRAFT JEFFERSON COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN Chairman Randolph re -opened the public hearing which began January 3, 1979. A brief summary of the development of the draft Comprehensive Plan was made by David Cunningham. He also reviewed the proceedings of the January 3, 1979, public hearing. In response to the concerns expressed at the hearing on specific policies in the plan, a memorandum dated January 29, 1979, from the Planning Deport- ment su gested •alternatives to those policies, (0opy attached to the official minutes . The audience was asked to make comments on the memorandum. Kathy Jenks asked that the third alternative policy for the herbicide control issue be accepted. She said over three hundred signatures are on a petition to stop herbicide spraying along roads, and circulation of the(W.tiaion is not I, - complete. Joe Clarkson endorsed alternative one, issue one; alternative three, issue two; alternative two, issue three; alternative two; issue four; alternative three issue five;.alternative three, issue six; alternative -two, issue seven,. alternative four, issue nine; and alternative two, issue ten. Larry Dennison asked•that a policy be made to emphasize resource production. The policy would state "The County shall intend to do a study of the historical uses of agriculture practices of the County and determine the feasibility of future agricultural practices." -1- L • Michael Bowe asked that the fourth alternative on the major energy facilities issue be accepted as a policy. He endorsed the use of wood residues as an enemy means. Steve Hayden. asked that alternative three of issue two designate where commerical mails should be located. Penny Hubbard said she felt both the alternatives for the -strip commercial issue wm too weak, and another alternative should be made. A memorandum from the Planning Department dated January 31, 1979, su gested a change to the optimum development map and changes to it's legend, copy attached to the.official minutes). David Cunningham illustrated the suggest change to the Quimper Valley on the map. The audience again was asked to make any comments they might have. Randy Tyler asked that the Cape George area be designated rural. He said this designation would coincide with current City of Port Townsend zoning along the -City limits. Also, it reflects the desires of the residents in the area as they indicated in a recent public hearing held by the Public Utility District on a proposed water system. He said a four percent rate of growth, a1ongri Wfth high density designations, conflicts with the intent of, the plan to have'a reasonable rate of growth in the County. Rick Dennison asked that a provision be made to discourage speculators who might make the cost of land and the tax base increase. Such a pro- vision could be made by designating lower densities. Karen Clarkson asked that stronger wording be used to describe suburban. Joe Clarkson questioned why the interior of the Toandos Peninsula was designated rural when it's use is actually resource production, and future use of the area will tend to be for resource production because of the soils and water table. Jerry Dolan asked why the area east of Anderson Lake was designated urban/sub- urban instead of resource production. David Cunningham explained that the soils favor residential development, a Port Townsend-Chmacum (County Road 12) by-pass road!ip,proposed for the area, and future water expansion is best suited for the area. All these elements will promote residential development. Lois Flurry asked that buffers along roads be shown on the. optimum development map. Leslie Sirag asked that developments provide a percentage of the land for open space. She asked that land ow d by timber companies be shown as resource production and that they reeive no special tax breaks. - Pedro Tama noted that under,a suburban designation, projects in excess of five units per acre must be subject to the special condition of complying with the Comprehensive Plan. Since all projects must comply with the Comprehen- sive Plan, a stricter condition should be specified. He asked that the four percent growth rate designated in the plan as an average rate of growth for the County be 1essed6d.. A lesser rate would encourage slower growth. In .the -2- same respects, lesser densities then those designated should be made. He asked that the suburban designation be changed to one unit per acre. The lesser density would allow the communities, through their development plans, decide if they want a higher density. Janeen Hayden said she would like to see lesser densities applied to both the suburban and rural designations in order to promote slow growth. Chairman Randolph asked the audience for any further testimony. Joe Clarkson said he supported the performance standard alternative of implementing the plan. Also, he supported light industry in the County. He=:asked that resource production projects be reviewed for their impacts in the same way as subdivisions, shoreline projects, etc. Joseph Daniels asked that lesser densities be designnted until communities did their development plans. He asked that the Mats Mats Bay area be designated rural. Michael Bowe supported the performance standard alternative for implementing the plan and encouraged community development plans. Rachel Natheson asked that more citizen input be incorporated in the plan. Larry Dennison asked that a new policy be made supporting an aquifer recharge study for the County. Chairman Randolph closed the public hearing. Members began their deliberations by acting on issues stated in the memoran- dum dated January 19, 1979. Norris Short moved to accept alternative one;, issue one. Rick Kenyon seconded the motion. Upon a vote it recieved unani- mous approval. Eva Taylor moved to accept alternative one, issue.two. -Firvis Stevens seconded the motion and upon a vote it received unanimous approval. Norris Short moved to accept alternative two, issue three. Harry Pollard seconded the motion and upon a vote it recieved unanimous approval. Rick XOnyon moved to accept alternative one, issue four. Eva Taylor seconded -the motion.and upon a vote it carried with unanimous approval. NNorH s Short moved to accept alternative three, issue five. Finis Stevens seconded the motion. Upon a vote the motion recieved unanimous disapproval. Finis Stevens moved to accept alternative one, issue five. Eva Taylor seconded the motion and upon a vote it recieved unanimous approval. Harry Pollard moved to accept alternative two, issue six. William Sevenson seconded the motion. lttOrd ed with a unanimous vote for approval. Because of the late hour members decided to continue their deliberations until February 20, 1979, at 7:30 p.m. -3- III. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 10:05 p.m. IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES These minutes are approved this 7th day of March 1979. rl Randolph, Chairman ..a s -a aura Soutnmaya, 5ecrry -4- ffLD p Jefferson County-Plonning Commission COURTHOUSE PORT-TOWNREND. WA9H[N13T13N 99968 MEMORANDUM .#2 �r=w TO: Jefferson County Planning Commission FROM: Planning Staff DATE: January 29, 1979 SUBJECT: Revised* Comprehensive Plan - Alternative Pdil.fcy Amend nts� On January.26, 1979, an initial Memorandum was issued containing Pion policy alternatives in.response to public testimony submitted at your January 3.,. I97,9, Public Hearing. Regretfully, that Memorandum contained some errors and was not quite'complete, Following is the corrected and complete version. I. ISSUE: GREENBELT BUFFER STRIPS FOR SINGLE -UNIT CONSTRUCTION. PLAN SECTION: Housing and Residential Development, pages 35-38 (no exftting,,.poli,cy for said subject matter) ALTERNATIVES: 1. Add no such policy. 2. Add a policy worded as follows: "Site planning for single -unit residential struc- tures should provide for maintenance or planting of greenbelt buffer strips along property boundaries." II'- ISSUE: DEFINITION OF "STRIP COMMERCIAL" PLAN SECTION: Commercial Development, page 38, policy 2 ALTERNATIVES: 1. Retain policy 2 as stated. 2. Amend the -second sentence.of policy 2 to read: adjoining property values. Therefore, commercial development should be located adjacent to existing coWercial , development,. or wfthi�n one -eighth mile of the intersection of two or re arterial. roads (see Optimum Development Map), or within a planned -unit caomrt:i..al mall.." 3. Amend the second sentence of policy 2 to read as follows.: ".:. . adjoining Property values. Therefore, commerci;l development should be lncated.within one- -eighth mile of the intersection or within' a planned unit• commirtiaY mall." A. 0 4, January 29, 1979 Planning Commission Memorandum #2 III. INNOVATIVE TECHNOLOGY FOR UTILITY SYSTEMS PLAN SECTION: Utilities, pages 41-43 ALTERNATIVES: 0 Page 2 1. Add no such policy inasmuch as a similar one is contained among the Housing and Residential Development policies. 2. Add a new policy worded as follows: "The application of innovative technology for utility systems is encouraged for various types'of land use, and for different sizes of development projects." IV. ISSUE: PRIVATE PURVEYORS OF PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION PLAN SECTION: Transportation/Circulation, pages 43-47 .ALTERNATIVES: 1. Add no such policy. 2. Add a policy worded as follows: "Public transportation systems and terminals should be primarily financed, owned, and operated -by the private sector when practicable." V. ISSUE: FUTURE IMPROVEMENT OF COUNTY AIR TERMINAL FACILITIES PLAN SECTION: Transportation/Circulation, pages 43-47 (no existing policy on sai.d subject matter) ALTERNATIVES: 1. Add no policy regarding the issue.' 2. Add a policy worded as follows:- "At least one air terminal in Jefferson County should meet minimum F.A.A. standards and be adequate to accommodate scheduled commuter and cargo service." 3. Add a policy worded as follows: "Air terminal facilities in Jefferson County should be maintained at a level satisfactory for recreational and private non-commercial use." r VI. ISSUE: HERBICIDE CONTROL.ALONG PUBLIC ROADS PLAN SECTION: Transportation/Circulation, pages 43-47 (no existing*policy on said subject matter) ALTERNATIVES: 1. Add no policy regarding the issue. 2. Add a policy worded as follows: "Herbicides used to-contral weeds and brush along public roads should not.be applied in areas where adjoining property owners have properly notified the County of their opposition to such practices, and have posted said property in compliance with County requirements." 3. Add a policy worded as follows: "Mechanical rather than. chemical means should.be employed in the control of weeds and brush along public roadways." t t y , ` January 29, 1979 Planning Commission Memorandum #2 VII. ISSUE: NEW INDUSTRIES PLAN SECTION: Industrial Development, policy 5, page 56 ALTERNATIVES: Page 3 1. Retain policy 5 as stated. 2. bend policy 5 by wording it as follows: "New industries in.the .County should be those which utilize local natural resources, maintian environmental quality., and whose labor requirements are compatible with local labor skills, particularly those of the unemployed." VIII. ISSUE: EXPANSION Of EXISTING INDUSTRIES PLAN SECTION: Industrial Development, pages 53-56 (no existing policy for said subject matter) ALTERNATIVES: I. Add no policy regarding the issue. 2. Add a policy worded as follows: "Local industry is encouraged to expand and - diversify;" IX. .ISSUE: MAJOR ENERGY FACILITIES PLAN SECTION: Energy: Conservation and Facilities, page 48, policy 11 ALTERNATIVES: 1. Retain policy 11 as stated. 2. Amend policy 11 to read as follows: "Jefferson County recognizes that the -need for major energy facilities is a matter of "greater -than -local" concern. Therefore, the location within the County of such facilities as oil refineries, oil ports, thermal or nuclear power plants, liquified natural gas ports, etc. and related facilities such.as pipelines and transmission -lines, is permitted, subject to. -the strict application of-R.C.W. 80.50, the regulations of E.F.S.E.C.., and the State Environmental Policy. Act." 3. Amend policy 11 to read as follows: "Although Jefferson.County--recognizes the altl:.-energy nfeeds,of-the State and Nation, facilities to satisfy those needs should be sized and located in close proximity to the areas of energy demand. Therefore, energy facilities should only be established in. -Jefferson County at a scale. necessary to .satisfy the reasonably foreseeable needs of the County itself.''Major energy facilities "greater-than"local" in size, scale, or scope, are considered inconsistent with this Comprehensive Plan." 4. Amend policy 11 to read as follows: "Jefferson County respects the overall energy needs of the state and 'ration, but also recognizes simi.lar-needs related to food and fiber. Because of certain unique and abundant natural resources within Jeffer- son -County, the County can play a vital role in helping satisfy both the foregoing needs if certain limitations are placed on the type of energy facilities which. _ locate within the County. For .that reason, it is only those major energy facilities which utilize wind ^a January 29, 1979 Planning Commission Memorandum #2 Y Page 4 power, tidal action, solar power, and bio-mass conversion (particularly forest.pro-; ducts waste)which are considered consistent and compatible with this Comprehensive .Plan. The potential environmental and socio-economic jeopardy related to oil refin- eries, oil ports, -thermal or nuclear power plants, liquifed petroleum or liquified natural gas facilities, etc, is contrary to the necessary and efficient production of food and fiber as well as the general welfare of the citizens of Jefferson County. Proposed establishment of said facilities will be strictly construed to be inconsistent with t1.is Comprehensive Plan." X. ISSUE: AGRICULTURAL PRESERVATION AND PRODUCTION PLAN -SECTION: Resource Production,, page 59, policy 1 ALTERNATIVES: 1. Retain policy 1 as stated. «r 2. Amend policy 1 to read as follows: "Althoggh forest products and marine resources, are the most evident aspects of Jefferson "County's future in resource production, the potential need for local and regional food sources may very well revitalize the. County's agricultural base.. Therefore, emphasis on resource production in -Jefferson County should be focused'on forest products, marine.resources, and agriculture." J Jefferson County Planning Commission OOURTHOUBE PORT TOWNBEND, WASHINGTON 98968 NMORANDUM #3 TO: Jefferson County Planning Commission i:RtiM:' Planning Staff DATE: January 31, 1979 SUBJECT: .Revised Comprehensive Plan - "Optimum Development Map" At your public hearing on January 3,1979, testimony was presented relative to the•land use/intensity designations depicted on the "Optimum Development Map." The designations on the map in the Draft Comprehensive Plan,. as well as the revisions which area response to the public testimony, are based upon the following orfteria: - Soil characteristics (suitability for septic tanks/drainfields; agricultural suit- ability, woodland suitability; potential for ponding and flooding; aquifer recharge potential; seasonal water table depth) Geologic characteristics (slope stability; compressibility; mineral resources; waste disposal suitability) - Tono raphic and slope.conditions Existinq and planned roads and utility systems - land ownership patterns - Land use and development patterns Comprehensive Plan policies In addition to the !nap revisions for the "Quimper VaIl+ey" (centai portion of Township 30 Worth, Range 1 Wiest), the foliowing.amendments are.proposed for the Optimum Development Map Legend, Chapter 10,. pages 66 and 67 Change. to read:. SUBMAN., Areas of medium intensity development that will receive the earliest and/or more concentrated growth. The improvement of public services such as. water and sewer systems, roads, schools, parks, fire protection, and other emergency services will be emphasized to serve.expected population increases. Densities of new residential developments will range from large acreage tracts up to five (5) dwelling units per gross -acre for some individual projects. Projects in excess of five units per acre must be consistent with the policies of this Comprehensive Plan, particularly those related to !lousing and Residential Development, Utilities, and Energy Conservation and Facilities.' Y January 31, 1979 Planning Commission Memorandum #3 gage RURAL: Areas of low to medium intensity development nornally served by individual welli and septic tanks, although some small, "neighborhood" community water,systems will be developed. Roads and other public services will remain rural in character consistent with minimum -standards for health and safety. Densities of new residential developments will range from 'large acreage tracts up to (1) dwelling unit per gross acre for some individual projects. RESOURCE. -PRODUCTION: Areas of low intensity development such as forest lands. Uses, wi'tl focus around forest management, farming, watershed management, gravel and peat extraction, low intensity residential, and similar activities.. Residential, and recreational development should be complimentary with.the production capability on adjacent lands. •,These areas will not be subjected to�the.development of public water or sanitary sewer systems and .the special -tax costs associated with such facilities. Densities of neat res.identia,l developments,°will range from large -acreage tracts.up. to one.(1) dwelling unit per five (5) gross acres.