The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About11-13-1974Jefferson County Planning Commission W'Irialr ■ _ _ _c ■ _ _ _ _ PLANNING COTNUISSION WORKSHOP METING OF NOVEMBER 13, 1974 Chairman Norris Short called the workshop meeting to order and introduced the Planning Commission members to the guests Members present: Finis Stevens, Chet Dalgleish, Fred Houghton, Ed Wain- wright., Karl Randolph, Eva Taylor Planning Department Staff: David Cunningham, Tom Aumock Guest from Brinnon (District No! 46): '%rilyn Loughead, Chairperson of the School Board Guests from Chimacui-a (District No. 49): John Ireland, Superintendent; CbAck Yoers, Chairman of School Board; Merle Meacham, Amber of School Board Guests from Port Townsend (District No. 50): John Kannar, Principal; Robert Prill, Chairman of School Board I. Opening Business In order to expedite the discussion regarding short and long range plan- ning for County school services, approval of minutes and reading of corres- pondence was. -suspended. II. W@rkop Discussion Affer introductory remarks by Chairman Short, Planning Director, David Owaiingh.% explained that the Planning Commission and Planning Department regard the provision of school facilities as a vital component of both long and bhort range planning. Mr. Cunningham explained that long-range community goals are exemplified in policies of the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan which is currently in the process of being updated. In the informal discussion that followed, it was suggested that long-range school facilities policies might address such items as the number of elementary, junior high, and high schools that should be provided at increased population increments; the maximum distance residen- tial ddvelopments should be located from school facilities; the des' -ill-t of developing parks and schools as integrated community facilities; the increased quality in education that might result from cooperation between ious school districts as relates to certain curricula- and special facilities. School District representatives were especially interested in such specific cooperative measures as a County wide vocational technical school. Chairman Comprehensive of the State Act requires Lure projects Norris Short explained that the policies outlined in the Plan become operative and meaningful through application Planning Enabling Act, R.C.W. 36.70. The Planning Enabling that the disposition or acquisition of certain capitok expendi- by special districts must conform to the Comprehensive Plan. David Cunningham, explained that short-range, or current planning, deals with providing essential community services for new developments on a project -by -project basis. The State Subdivision Law, R.C.W. 58.17, requires that the County may only approve proposed land subdivisions if adequate provisions are made for roads, water supplies, sewage disposal, drainageways, parks, and schools. Moreover, the Jefferson County Sub- division Ordinance contains a policy that the cost of services regaired by new developments should be borne by the subdivider and not the general taxpayers of the County. Mt. Cunningham demonstrated the method the Planning Department uses to pompute the number of school children a residential development will eventually generate. He pointed out that calculating the size of new school sites and amount of facilities the new development will require is not particularly difficult. However, the practical application of requiring developers to contribute their fair share toward these facil- ities in the inital development stages requires somewhat more sophisti- cated techniques. He explained that the County Subdivision Ordinance could contain a ber of alternative standards to alleviate undue growth pressure on local school district facilities. The alternatives include: - Dedication by developers of usable school sites of sufficient size and in appropriate locations to satisfy anticipated future needs; - Fees in lieu of the foregoing dddication of sites which feew could be deposited in a lump -sum or as residential sites are sold; - Dedication of land that could later be liquidated by school dis- tricts in order to acquire more desirable sites; - Contributions by developers of capital assets such as school buses or portable classrooms. Planning Commission Member, Karl Randolph, for discussion purposes, pointed out that much of the County's present tax base is derived from out - of -county propertyowners who contribute financially to communtiy services, but .who cause no user -demand on those same services. He suggested that perhaps their tax payments should be credited to them to suffice as their share of future bond and levy assessments and that resident taxpayers bear the post of existing school facilities, inasmuch as they are the ones -'who derive the sole benefits. It was concluded that the Draft Jefferson County Comprehendive Plan would contain policies with respect to providing necessary school facilities as the County continues to grow. These draft policies will be circulated to school district representatives for review. IYI! n . While most attending the meeting agreed that new land developments should not unduly pce burdens on local school districts, all seemed to conclude that a more definitive appraisal of school district needs and growth patterns should be undertaken prior to defesing a developer contribution formula. • The Planning -Department staff will consult with Mr. Howertoh of the Intermediate School District and Jefferson County School Districts in order to analyzd ,school di.stri.et; ;needs.: Meeting Adjourned: 10:10 p.m. Next :Meeting: fevember 20, 1974, Wednesday is 7:30 p.m. in the Courthouse. NOTE: This meeting was tape recorded and the tapes are on file at the Jeff- erson County Planning Department. -3- Jefferson County Planning Commission PORT TOWNSEND, WA13HINMTON 98368 WORKSHOP MEET ING AGENDA November 13, 1974 I.a Opening Business: Roll Call, Minutes II. Correspondence III. Meeting with School District Superintendents and School Board Chairmen to discuss land development and planning and their relationship to school districts' needs. IV. Further work on Comprehensive PLm Policies. V. Adjourn David Cunningham Is