Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02-20-1979Jefferson County Planning Commission COURTHOUSE PORT TOWNSEND, WASHINGTON 98268 MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 20, 1979 0 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 0 Jefferson County Planning Department. OPENING BUSINESS Chairman Randolph called the meeting to order at 7:35 p.m. Members present were Karl Randolph, Norris Short., Finis Stevens, Dorithe Harrington, Harry Pollard, Richard Kenyon, and William Svensson. 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 David Cunningham, Port Townsend Leader Reporter Anne Sigman, Steve Hayden, Levi Ross, Kris DeWeese, Randy Tyler, Jean Anderson, Anita. Lockhart, Rick Dennison, and Larry Dennison. II. DRAFT JEFFERSON COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN' - Chairman Randolph noted the meeting is January 7, 1979. Public testimony was Harrington noted she would not vote on at the previous meetings. continued from January 31, 1979, and taken at those meetings. Dorithe any issues because she was not present William .Svensson moved to eliminate the action taken January 31, 1979, on - issue six described in a memorandum from the Plannin Department staff dated January 29, 1979, (copy attached to official minutes: In addition, he asked that the Commission adopt a policy which would read "More consideration shall be given to future alternatives to herbicidal control in lieu of mechanical means; and should attempt to phase�iout, if possible, herbicidal use, and the County should determine where it is especially hazardous." Rick Kenyon seconded the motion. A letter from Donna Daubenberger and Marge Abraham, dated February 12, 1979, was distributed to members. They asked that the Commission endorse the discontinuation of herbicide spraying in the County. Members discussed the issue and alternative policies proposed. Wil.l.iam Svensson amended his motion on adopting an alternative policy to read "More consideration shall be given to alternative herbicidal control with the intent of eliminating use of herbicidal techniques." Rick Kenyon seconded the amend- ment. With a vote of three opposed and two favoring, Rick Kenyon and Harry Pollard, the motion did not carry. Members continued their deliberations on issues presented in the January 29, 1979, memorandum. William Svensson moved to accept alternative two, issue seven. There being no second the motion was withdrawn. Harry Pollard moved to accept alternative one, issue seven. Finis Stevens seconded the motion and upon a vote it carried unanimously. Finis Stevens moved to accept alternative one, issue eight. Norris Short seconded the motion. It carried with a unanimous vote for approval. William Svensson moved to accept alternative four, issue nine. Rick Kenyon seconded the motion and upon a vote it carried with four in favor and one opposed, Norris Short. Finis Stevens moved to accept alter- hattve two, issue ten. William Svensson seconded the motion and upon a vote it carried with unanimous approval. Members deliberated on suggested.revisions to the optimum development map and it's legend as stated in a memorandum from the Planning Department dated January 31, 1979, (copy attached to official minutes). William Svensson moved to accept the suburban designation alternative proposed in the memorandum, -1- With a change that would read "... to,*:seruet-,actual-popu.lation increases; but not to promote those increases Harry ftllmidi seconded the motion and upon.a vote it carriedisunanimoutly. Finis Stevens moved to accept the rural designation alternative proposed in the memorandum.. Willi -am Svensson seconded the motion and upon a vote it carried unanimously. Finis Stevens moved -to - accdpt the resource production designation alternative proposed. William Svensson seconded the.motion and aeon a vote it carried with unanimous approval. Before deliberations began on the suggested designation change of urban/sub- urban to resource production for the Quimper Valley, David Cunningham introduced new testimony. In a letter to the Commission dated February 19, 1979, Pedro Tama asked that the Quimper Peninsula be detiganted according to specific criteria. This criteria he outlined. Suburban designations be applied to areas with the same established density and to areas most desired for that kind of development. Rural designations be applied to areas with the same established density. Resource production designations be applied to the , remaining areas. The Planning staff submitted a map illustrating the suggested changes to the Peninsula using the criteria stated. William Svensson moved to accept the suggested map change illustrated. finis Stevens seconded the motion and it carried with a vote for unanimous approval. Also, Pedro Tama asked that the policy in the plan reflecting that the County maintain a four percent growth rate be eliminated or be changed to reflect the anticipated growth shown on the optimum development map. Either one of these policy alternatives be chosen or the optimum development map be changed to reflect the desired growth rate in the policy. Finis Stevens moved to maintain the policy as written and the map as amended. Harry Pollard seconded the motion. Upon a vote it carried with unanimous approval. A Planning Department memorandum dated February 20, 1979, was reviewed by members, (copy attached to official minutes). The memorandum suggested motions that could be made in forwarding the Commission's recommendation to the County Commissioners. Members determined that the first three suggested motions had already been addressed" William Svensson moved_to accept the .fourth motion suggested on the memorandum. Finis Stevens seconded the motion and upon a vote it received unanimous approval. The Commission asked that the County Prosecuting Attorney be consulted on appropriate procedures to be considered in making the revisions to the plan , as moved. III. ADJOURNMENT The meting adjourned at 10:10 p.m. IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES These minutes are approved this 7th �I/e% (Carl W. Randolph, Chiarman - day of March, 1979. Laura Southmayd, Secretary -2- I •- THOSE ALTERNATIVES CHECKED WERE UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED AS POLICIES TO BE INCORPORATED IN TH::��AAFT JEFFERSON COUNTY COMPREHEM E `,,,;'. • ,• "N BY THE COMMISSION A1MHEIR JANUARY 31, 1979, PUBLIC hNIMING .„r„fi„y„ep�y.'�M.yS�..�..Hp+.,ti....�wY,'„�4+�Pj•. r Jefferson County Planning Commission COURTHOUSE PORTTOWNSEND* WASHING ION 98966 1. MEMORANDUM #2 TO: Jefferson County Planning Commission FROM:,, Planning Staff DATE: January 29, 1979 SUBJECT: Revised Comprehensive Plan - Alternative policy Amendments T On January 26, 1979, an initial Memorandum was -issued containing Plan 0014cv alternatives in response to public testimony submitted at your. January 3, 1979,. 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 existing policy for said subject matter) ALTERNATIVES: VC Add no such policy. 2. Add a policy wordedas 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: Yf. 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 commercial development,, or within one -eighth mile of the intersection of two or more arterial roads (see Optimum -Development Map), or within a planned -unit commercial mall." 3. Amend the second sentence of policy 2 to read as follows: ". . . adjoining property values. Therefore, commercial development should be located within one- -eighth mile of the intersection or within a planned unitcommircial mall." 77 fi , . January 29, 1979 • , Planning Commission Memorandum #2 page 2 ' •, III. INNOVATIVE TECHNOLOGY FOR UTILITY SYSTEMS PLAN SECTION: Utilities, pages 41-43 =1, ALTERNATIVES: 1. Add no such policy inasmuch as a similar one is contained among the dousing and W/ e� d ntia R i e l Development policies. Add a new policy worded as follows: "The-pplication 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 PIAIN.SECTION: Transportation/Circulation, pages 43-47 1 ALTERNATIVES: - • Y 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: TransportationjCirculation, pages 43-47 (no existing policy -on said subject matter) ALTERNATIVES: - 1 •s. ve. 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." V1. ISSUE: HERBICIDE CONTROL ALONG PUBLIC ROADS ' PLAN SECTION: Transportation/Circulation, pages 43-47 (no existing policy on said subject matter) ALTERNATIVES: Add no policy regarding the issue. Add a policy worded as follows: "Herbicides'used to-contral'weeds and brush along public roads should ngt: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 eWloyed in the control of weeds and brush along public roadways." CCCCM •3ainuary 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. Amend 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: PLAN SECTION: natter) ALTERNATIVES: EXPANSION OF EXISTING INDUSTRIES Industrial Development, pages 53-56 (no existing. policy for said subject 1. Add no policy regarding the issue. -. Add --a policy worded as follows: "Local industry is encouraged to expand and diversify.'" ;IX. ISSUE: MAJOR .ENERGY FACILITIES . Ai.AN 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 strictapplication of R.C.W. 80.50, the regulations of E.F.S.E.C.,- and the State Environmental Policy Act." 3. Amend.poli.cy .11 to read as follows: "Although Jefferson County recognizes the atl:.energy neels.of the.tate and Hiiion, 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 heeds of the state and `lation, but also recognizes similar needs related to food And fiber. Because of certain unique and abundant natural resources within Jeffer- son County, the County can playa 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 ,o• January 29, 1979 #' Planning Commission Memo ndum #2 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, liquified -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 this Comprehensive Plan." X. ISSUE: AGRICULTURAL PRESERVATION ANTI PRODUCTION PLAN SECTION: Resource Production., page 59, policy 1 .ALTERNATIVES: 1. Retain policy 1 as stated. 2. Amend policy 1 to read as follows: "Although forest products and marine resources are the most evident aspects of Jefferson Cdunty's future in resource production, the potential need for local and regional food sources po may Y 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." i • • • ♦ it x • • • • • • • i a • Jefferson County Planning Commission COURTHOUSE PORT TOWNSEND, WASHINGTON 9935E MEMORANDUM #3'" TO: Jefferson County Planning Commission --- FROM:% 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 are a response to the public testimony, are based upon the following criteria: - Soil Characteristics (suitability for septic tanks/drainfields; agricultural suit- ability; woodland suitability; potential for ponding and flooding; aquifer recharge potential; seasonal water table depth) i Geologic characteristics (slope stability; compressibility, mineral resources; waste disposal suitability) - T000graphic and slope conditions - Existing and planned roads and utility systems - Land ownership patterns - Land use and development patterns Comprehensive Plan policies In addition to the neap revisions for the "Quimper Valley" (c.ental portion of Township 30 North, Range 1 West), the following amendments are proposed for the Optimum Development Map Legend, Chapter 10, pages 66 and 67 Change to read: SUBURBAN: Areas of medium intensity development that will receive the earliest and/or moot 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 (6) 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 Housing and Residential Development, Utilities, and Energy Conservation and Facilities. January 31, 1979 Planning Commission Memorandum #3 Page 2 RURAL: Areas of low to medium intensity development normally served by individual wells 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 will focus a,round'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 sever systems and the special tax costs associated with such facilities. Densities of new residential developments will range from large acreage tracts up to one (1) dwelling unit per five (5) gross acres. ...a 4 .1 Jefferson County Punning Commission COURTHOUSE PORT TOWNSEND, WASHINGTON 98360 �MEMORANDUM #4 TO: Jefferson County Planning Commission FROM:, Jefferson County Planning Department DATE: February. 20, 1979 SUBJECT: Continued Deliberations on Proposed County Comprehensive Plan In order to facilitate the legal and procedural aspects of your recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners concerning the Comprehensive Plan, the following draft motions are submitted for your use. They are offered as suggestions, subject to your amendment as necessary: MOTION #1. "I.move that the text of the -August 1978 edition of the draft Jefferson County - Comprehensive Plan be amended as follows: .:. (insert here Alternative Policy Amendments from discussions of Memorandum ,#2 dated January 29, 1979) ..." MOTION #2 "I move that the text of the August 1978 edition of the draft Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan be amended as follows: ... (insert here Optimum Development 'dap Legend amendments from discussions of Memorandum #3 dated January 31, 1979) ,.." MOTION #3 "I move.that the Optimum Development Map contained in the August 197 hereto." 8 edition of the draft -Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan be revised as per Map Amen* chnent A attached MOTION #4 "I grove that both,the text and map of the August 1978 edition of the draft Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan, as amended by motions on February 20, 1979, be referred to the County Planning staff for preparation for this Commission's adoption and referral to the Board of County Commissioners on or about March 7, 1979."