Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout11-05-1975Jefferson CountyPlanning Commission UOURTHOUBE PORT TOWNSEND, WASHIN®TON 98368 MINUTE$ OF NOVEMBER 5, 1975 I. OPENING BUSINESS II. CORRESPONDENCE/COMMUNICATIONS III. NEW BUSINESS A. Short Plat Application #30-75, Freeman and Barrett" B. State Environmental Policy Act C. Base Data Project Report on Soil Suitability IV. OLD BUSINESS A. Comprehensive Plan V. NEXT MEETING VI. ADJOURNMENT Ii. • 0 OPENING BUSINESS Chairman Karl. Randolph brought the meeting to order at 7:35.p.m. Members present were Karl Randolph, Fin -is Stevens, Ed Wainwright, Norris Short, Harry P611ard, and Fred Lester'.,. A quorum of six (6) was declared by Chairman Randolph. Representing the Planning Department were Director David Cunningham and Assistant Planner Tbm..:Aumock. Guests were Mr. and -Mrs. Arthur Freeman, Short Plat applicant;.Jefferson- -Port Townsend Regional Council Resource Planner David Goldsmith; Soil Conservationist Ken Johnson and Chet Jahn$. 4 The minutes of October 1, 1975 were approved as written. CORRESPONDENCE/COMMUNICATIONS Association of Planning Officials article from the October 1976 issue of ASPO, 'Agri -Zoning, How they're gonna -keep 'em down on the farm" by Dennis E. Gale and Harvey Yampolsky. The Planning Association of Washington Conference of.October 2-4 in Van- couver, Washington as reviewed by Director -of Planning.David Cunningham. Highlighting the Conference was an evaluation by developers on regulations and policies.governTng land development. Developers wished to see direc4i tions made in: (1) Good development standards, eliminating some "red tape" in permit processing. (2) Ordinances state time limits on.review-and approval times. (3 Planning staffs -have their recommendations sent to Planning Commission -members and developers.one week before Bearings for review purposes. (4) Allowance of developers to discuss with Planning Departments options in private. (5) To require persons who testify in Pub- lic Hearings to be under oath, eliminates slander. (6) A code of behavior be made for Planning Commissions, to prevent badgering. (7) Hearing examiners be hired to do administrative work for Planning Commissions on new developments. (8) Subdivision Regulations and other regulations related to development be more flexible; planned unit development, added density, etc. III. NEW BUSINESS A. Short Plat Application #30-75, Freeman and Barrett: Assistant Planner Tom Aumock explained to the members the proposed subdivision. He noted the applicant has asked for a variance from the 60 foot legal access provision. to provide a 40 foot legal access. Mr. Aumock stated the application for a variance is in conformance with Section 8 of the Subdivisien Ordinance due to :(a) size of property and (b) it meets all Olympic Health District standards. The Commission questioned the applicant and discussion ensued. A.motion was made by Ed Wainwright to recommend to the Board of County Commissioners to approve the variance in that (a) extraordinary conditions or unusual circum- stances.peculiar to the property and not the result of,the action tf the applicant, and (b) that a literal enforcement of the regulations would result, in -unnecessary and undue hardship, and (c) that Justice could be done and the public interest secured by the granting of a suitable variance.. The motion was seconded by Harry Pollard and approved by a unanimous vote. B. State Environmental Policy Act: The new SEPA Final Gu delines,,:a, 62 page document by the Washington Pollution Control Board, was reviewed -by David Cunningham. Whereas SEPA states "when a project is a major project having significant effect on the environment an Environmental Impact Statement shall be made". It was the one State law that does not give some State agency the, authority to make administrative and procedural .regulations. Therefore -the new SEPA Final Guidelines tells how counties -and cities are going to declide when'an impact statement is necessary and how to prepare it. The authoritive State agency is the Council on Environmental Policy. Local government will have to adopted local regulations in compliance' with the new SEPA Guidelines. It was suggested by Chairman Randolph that a workshop be'scheduled and to have someone to interpret the,new regulations at that time. C. Base-D.4tac-Project Report on Soil Suitability: Director of Planning _David Cunningham reviewed findings of the Soil Suitability stuAy done by the Conser- vation.Service in which soil suitability for septic tanks was found for the entire County. Technical data was presented by Soil Conservationist Ken Johnson. IV. OLD BUSINESS A. Comprehensive Plan,.- Director of Planning David Cunningham reviewed findings on data collected from building permits and real property transactions for 1960, 1965 and 1970-1975. Findings presefited,were-dn area development, cost, mobile homes, resident and non:resident areas and rentals. A preliminary draft of "Housing and Residential Development" was .reed by Mr. Cunningham. Discussion followed on the findings and policies of -this provision of the Comprehensive Plan. A motion was made by Finis Stevens to drop policy number 10 of the draft. The motion was seconded by Ed Wainwright and -approved by unanimous vote. General discussion on the Commprehensive Pl ahpresented . a tentative time schedule for workshops, public meetings, data colleeti_ony approval, and completion -of the Comprehensive Plan. V. NEXT MEETING The next meeting is scheduled for December 3, 1975. H.I. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at approximately 10:00 p.m. R pectf y Submitted,, Laura Southmayd, Sec tart' O f• . AOUSINd ANb RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT Housing, or the provision of residential dwellings, will continue to be a basic need of Jefferson County's citizens. - Housing is a tangible commodity and, therefore, its production is generally responsive to the fluctuations of supply and demand. An adequate supply of housing can be constrained by such factors as hand, labor, money, and materials' costs; availability of land with desire -able soil* and slope conditions; the accessibility of.utilities, roads,, schools, and commerciAll services. A detailed analysis of building permits .issued from 1960 through 1975 provides the best indicator of the production and distribution of residential units being added to the County's housing supply. The most.,signi.ficant trends. are as follows: -The City of Port Townsend has consistently been the volume leader , currently accounting for 29% of all building permits. Planning Area 7 (Port Ludlow, Mats Mats, Oak Bay) is second and accounts for 15% of countywide building permits, and Planning Area 2 (Cape George, Beckett Point, Four Corners, Protection Island) currently represents 11% of the .total :permits -The majority of expensive homes tend to be located in Port.Ludlow and Cape George Colony. -All -areas have developed more permanent homes than second-, homes. -mobile homes accounted.for less than 10%'of units permitted in 1970. Today, five years later, mobile homes .represent 22% of all new housing starts in Jefferson County. Due to zoning constraints in Port Townsend, virtually all new mobile homes are sited in the unicorporated areas of Jefferson County, primarily in the Tri-Cities area and Quilcene. -There is very little housing built for rental'purposes anywhere in the County with the exception of several small, federally subsidized projects in Port Townsend. -The areas having the highest percentage of resident owners are Tri-Cities and Quilcene. -Three areas have a high percentage of non-resident owners indicating a relatively high-level of second -home development. These area are Planning Area 8 (Tala Shores, Paradise Bay, Shine), Planning Area 9 (Dabob, Tarboo Drainage, Toandos Peninsula) and Planning Area 11 (Brinnon). -The mixture of resident and non-resident owners in Port Ludlow, .Oak Bay, Cape Geor:•ge, and, barrow- . = stone Island indicates that these.areas are desireable as both permanent home and second,home..-r .. locations: a } Building`permit•trends are depicted graphically _ 1W.t.abld t:�. '. In '1974, the Jefferson County Planning Department conducted a housing analysis entitled.. "dousing in ` Jefferson County; A Summary of Problems and Prospects„"...- Into -the 1980's" (R.R. Tyler) . ' The- :Study.. was updated, in November of 1975 and contains the following findings: -Demand for -singl,e-family homes' ills primarily.' into two categories, the $18,000 - $22,000 range,= and the $30,000 and above group." 'While there seems to be demand for both ranges in Port Townsend, only the higher .ranges were noted for. the Port Ludlow area, and only the lower ranges=for the ` Tri-Cities area. Available rental units appear to be'Almost-*"non-- existent. D emand seems to be 4C-$100 per month_.. levels or less. While no actual vacancy survey of rental -units has been conducted, a number..of factors indicate very low vacancy rates and a significant amount of pent -up -demand, particularly at low rent... levels. -Since 1969,-mortgages through local -lending institutions have steadily increased from 280 in -1969 to almost 500 in 1975. -The average.mortgage in 196.9 was $20,450 and is presently near $35,000. It should be noted that these figures do 'not ref lect a money invested by out -of -county lenders :for .: dwellings constructed .in Jefferson County. -Demand forecasts indicate that *between 197$'and 1980 it will be necessary -to produce 7$6.hous.ng units to accomodate projected.normal population growth. 586 will be necessary to .satisfy owner demand and 200 units for renter demanded Additional housing demand would: be`significaritly Increased due to the U.S. Navy Is. Trident project and/\ or.'futther development of the Indian Island Annex. If., for instance, Jefferson County receives 10% of the projected Trident -related population, the net housing demand between. 1975 and 1980 could more than double. -The primary constraints affecting the ability to supply future housing needs are: a continued adequate supply of potable, domestic water, particularly from groundwater sources; soil suitability for septic tanks; high interest rates and availability of mortgage funds. POLICIES: With the foregoing factors in mind, the following policies appear reasonable for :.> future housing and residential development in Jefferson County:• 1. A broad range of housing types and densities should be available for -Jefferson County residents. The diversification of housing types should satisfy a variation of. lifestyles and economic capabilities. 2. The amount of land allocated for residential development should be reason"ily scaled,to reflect demonstrated and projected demand.. 3. Concentration of residential devBlopment..should be related to employment center,. transportation systems, and public facilities such as water supplies and sewage disposal.. The efficient. provision of " roads, utilities, drainage,_ emergency services, refuse disposal, schools, and r ,other* community. services is deemed. necessary to sound residential development. 4. Residential development should be.located, designed,,,_ and constructed with respect to such'natural conditions as soil -capability, geologic features, probability of flooding, and.topography. 5. Groundwater resources and groundwater recharge areas' should be protected from residential wastes -such as septic tank effluent. 6. Residential communities shoulcl.be effectively, . separated from adverse conditions originating frond industrial operations, highways., airports, and the like. 7. Residential development -,should hot 4 tructe `6n prime, agricultural %or forest` land, -or upon ` areas- .o f. marinbV:resource 3.pfoducti6n._.,such as commercial, clam or oyster beaches. 8. Residential development,including mobile home -parks, - should follow the principles and standards of the Jefferson County Subdivision Ordinance and the Shoreline Management Master Program. 9. A mixture of various types and densities of w, residential dwellings is encouraged"',, particularly -in planned unit resident-' develo m *R _ I :.Moblle and modular homes should be treated on can equal basis with other siAe residences Ns erta'ns to-requiremention,'1otsi e , wat r s ply an sea.t. a''�Th s•prin ip need t abile homes10 ed w i mobi homwhen a local._."comet deve o s ies -and - standards for ile homes. I1: , Innova 3.V s residential development with respect' to architectural and structural -design, utilitiess•' systems, and site layout is encouraged.'-.- Codes }; and standards -should conta;: n sufficient 'flexibility to permit innovation and•experimentation. ' 12. The public and private sectors should cooperate,',.-.,"";-`, and take positive steps toward bolstering.the local housing construction industry. -.Programs should be undertaken which stimulate residential development and whichwill assure an adequate supply of housing for Jefferson County •citizens. , `f.