Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutM 051479 -""--. --"'- BOARD OF JEFFERSON COUNTY COMMISSIONERS District No. 1 District No. 2 District No. 3 commissioner Commissioner Commissioner A. M. O'Meara, Chairman B. G. Brown, Member Carroll M. Mercer, Member Clerk of the Board Engineer Secretary Betty J. Anderson, Auditor Milt Sanstrom, P.E. Jerdine C. Bragg M I NUT E S -------- May l4, 1979 Hearing Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan Hearing called to order by Chairman O'Meara with all members present. David Goldsmith briefed the audiance on the proceedures that have taken place up to this date. David Cunningham explained the process in some what more detail. He told the Board that the opportunities of public participation has been overwhelming, "the witness to the fact that there has been a lot of public participation are the number of people here tonight, which are very few". There has been countless Planning Commis- sion meetings where the goals and policies were being formulated. News releases over the years and 400 copies of the plan have been distributed throughout the County last August. Five informal community meetings were held to explain and go over the plan. After all that, the Planning Com- mission began it's official public hearings which took 3 nights, 3 weeks apart. After public testimony was received and hearings closed the Plan- ning Commission took 2 additional nights deliberating the testimony. Cunningham said that he felt the public testimony was good and constructive. Cunningham went on to explain that the plan has basically 3 components l) discription of the kinds of resources the County has both natural and cultural; 2) whats happening by the way of growth and development; 3) goals and policies section. Chairman O'Meara asked the audiance if there was anyone unfamiliar with the plan and if they had any questions. No one responded. Before the Board received testimony from Pedro Tama, David Cunningham explained that after the Planning Commission closed their hearings and before they began deliberating, Pedro Tama submitted information to the planning staff that seemed reasonable. The plainning staff in turn brought up the issue he submitted and the Planning Commission deliberated it. The Prosecuting Attorney advised that Mr. Tama's testimony was inadmissible because the hearing was closed. It was not appropriate at the Planning Commission's level of hearings but should be bro~ght up at the Board of Commissioners' hearing. Pedro Tama gave the following test- imony. Mr. Tama showed an alternative plan to planning area #2, Quimper Peninsula. He reiterated Cunningham's statement and added that the Planning Commission unanimously approved this version before knowing the procedural problems. Tama explained that there has been consistent public testimony throughout the hearings that the proposed optimum devel- opment map for the Quimper Peninsula was inadequate in some respects or went to far in some ways. After the first public hearing Cunningham and Goldsmith presented a revised optimum development plan that isolated an agricultural area in the center of the peninsula to be designated as rural. After the second hearing, further testimony suggested the change good but it did not go far enough. Mr. Tama's proposes to extend the area in the center of the Quimper peninsula that is designated rural or resource production. At this time Mr. Tama submitted his testimony in writing to be part of the records. Referring back to his written testimony Mr. Tama went on to explian his plan. As far as the growth and development taking place in the County, on page 27 of the Draft Comprehensive Plan it states that 1977 growth rate was approximately 4%. In the last year growth rate has doubled to 8%. He asks if the County should encourage this rate and is it a desirable growth rate. On page 33 it talks of growth in the County and the three factors being most important l) rate; 2) total number of population; and 3) distribution of density. The most econ- omical way occurs at a growth rate of 3 to 4 percent. Mr. Tama sees this as a conflict and feels that we should have a policy that discour- ages an 8 to lO percent growth rate, or discontinue policy trying to keep it to 4%. ,VOI_ 5 rAG> 849 - Rearing, May l4, 1979 Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan Page 2 Another factor besides the rate is the total number of people living in the County. The plan states that a population above 25,000 the costs for services become more expensive. With the present growth rate the County should be reaching that level within 10 years. At that time will the population be abled to be slowed down or will the County want to. Mr. Tama recommends the following planning principles be applied to the Quimper Peninsula: 1. That Suburban designation be applied to those areas where this kind of growth is well established or has recently begun to develop. 2. That, in order to encourage compact growth patterns, Suburban be further extended to include the most attractive areas for that kind of development, to wit, along the Peninsula's coastal borders between the waterfront and the main adjoining roads (or ridges). 3. That Rural designation be applied only to areas having already established ownership patterns of from 1 to 4 acres per unit. 4. That, in order to discourage sprawling growth patterns, the remaining areas be designated Resource Production with densities of 1 unit per 5 acres or less intense. Michael Bowe said he believes the plan to be over all a fair plan. Mr. Bowe stated "The people here only represent a small number of people that are actually very interested in this plan". Not everybody can be present at every meeting. Mr Bowe believes that somethings have to be evaluated by the Board. They must act as soon as possible, conservatively and with minimum growth. Limit the sprawling. He also feels that the Board should put legal limits in growth because the the growth rate is higher than 8%. Robert E. DeWeese expressed his appreciation to the response of the Planning Commission and Planning Staff. He directed his statement toward the impact of the Northern Tier pipeline, feeling that there is a good statement in the proposed Comprehensive Plan to keep out oil ports and oil in general. He would like the County Commissioners to continue to be heard at the public hearings. Thomas E. Jay told the Board for as long as it took, the plan as it stands is a good plan. He complements the Planning Commission. The emphasis on resource production and keeping a sound resourse as a basis for County economics is a very good thrust. He added that the mention of herbicide use is OK because it is poen ended enough to see change. Mr. Jay feels that what the plan needs is a very deeply researched in- ventory map of the County so as to dnow where the acquifer recharge areas and valuable soils are. Randall R. Tyler also feels that the Planning Commission & Staff did a good job on the plan. He is concerned with the Planning Area #2. The people who own land in this area Mr. Tyler feels, would like to see that it remains a rural area. He said that a revision of the plan called for 5 units per acre but that anything excess of that must be consistent with the plan, which doesn't leave an idea of what the ultimate density is. He explained to the Board that he is not a no growth advocate but is concerned with managing growth in a proper way. He showed maps indi- cating property ownership and septic tank suitability. Stating that the areas that have limited use of septic tanks should be looked at very carefully concerning development. The next overlay he showed was of the resources that should be looked at for conserving. Mr. Tyler said that he basically could endorse something like Mr. Tama's plan with resource production area expanded out in certain areas plus a provision that allows for more intensive development on &nething like a plan unit devel- opment basis. David Cunningham brought up an item to be considered by the Board for adding to the plan. Transportation and storage of hazardous cargo of waste and radioactive materials. He feels there should be some policy addressing this problem. Tom Jay asked about the airport and why was it not in the plan. Cunningham explained that 2 or 3 alternatives were presented to the Plan- ning Commission for deliberation but they took no stand on the issue. Mr. Pedro Tama made a recommendation regarding the airport. He felt the Planning Commission duct the issue and hopes the Commissioners will choose to face it and make a recommendation. He advised the Board of the 2 alternatives that were given to the Plannining Commission. l) Add a policy worded as follows: At least one air terminal in Jefferson County should meet minimus FAA standards and be adequate to accomodate scheduling commuter and cargo service. 2) 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. He recommends #2 for adoption. VOL 5 rAG: 850 & , . Hearing, May 14, 1979 Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan Page 3 Judith Walls asked when this plan will be adopted. David Goldsmith explained once more the procedures for adopting the plan. Mrs. Walls made a recommendation that the Comprehensive Plan be adopted as it now stands and any additions or deletions be added by addendum at a later date. Ann Sigmann said that she has reviewed the airport study done 3 or 4 years ago which stated it would take more than a million dollars to fix the airport up to FAA standards. She commented that George Randolph told her that the federal government is not interested in fund- ing the airport. With no other comments from the audiance, Chairman O'Meara officially closed the hearing. PUBLIC HEARING DRAFT JEFFERSON COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN WEST-END ANNEX MINUTES May l7, 1979 7:30p.m. Meeting called to order by Chairman A.M. O'Meara with Commissioner Carroll Mercer present. Commissioner B.G. Brown was unable to attend. Planning Director, David Goldsmith was also in attendance. Planning Director Goldsmith critiqued the proposed plan for those present. At the conclusion of the overview, no questions were asked regarding the proposed plan because persons appearing stated they did not feel concerned or particularly involved due to the relatively slow growth of the area. In- stead, they had questions and concerns about other matters. At this point, Chairman O'Meara closed the hearing and proceeded with open discussion on the following: (l) Fire Protection Needs: no fire protection except from Queets (8 miles) and Kalalock (l3 miles). Fire protection on the Hoh Indian Reservation is in- adequate because of lack of hose. The Board will contact Chief Doubek, Emer- gency Services Director, as to the availability of a new fire hose for the Reservation. (2) Weight Scales for logging trucks: Loggers are hauling excessing loads, but limit cannot be in forced because the Deputy Sheriff has no means of weigh- ing the loaded trucks. The Sheriff will be notified of the problem, and re- quested to send out the extra set of scales from the courthouse. (3) Correction of dangerous intersection off highway lOl: Due to the contour of the highway at the intersection of highway lOl and the Clearwater road, vision is impared to the west when making a right turn. They request this dangerous situation be rectified by improving the grade of the highway and possibly making turn lane. Board will ask the County Engineer to contact the State for improvement of the highway in this area. (4) "No Overnight Camping" signs for Hearst Creek Park: Campers are taking advantage of the park and staying several days and weeks at a time which necessitates considerable cleanup. Board will advise the County Engineer to send out "No Overnight Camping" signs to help eliminate the problem. , per~ons attending the hearing: Barbara & Taft Williams, Donna George, J:~l')~Ce,~Enl?k,_ Cll.fford A. Hay, Heather McManus, Harry Paget, Jack COrey and Denls & Nell Adams. ., Meeting adjoured. ,VOL 5 pAC:851