Wahkiakum County Comprehensive Plan Steering Committee
Meeting Summary
September 15, 2004
Members Present Others Present
Richard Erickson Melissa Taylor, CWCOG
Tom Doumit Terry Irving, Planning Commission
Other Members
Bill Coop Delvin Fredrickson
Joe Florek Frank Webb
Ruth Edmondson David Vik
Leroy Burns Andy Lea
Bob Jungers
Kyle Gribskov
1. Project Update
Melissa reported that development of the sub-area plans is in full swing. She and Erin Dahlquist have prepared a map proposing future land use for Puget Island for tonight’s meeting, as well as a narrative plan draft for the Island. If this approach is found suitable to the committee, other sub-area plans will be developed along these lines. Tom and Richard expressed concern that more members of the committee need to be involved, particularly at this stage of the plan’s development. Melissa agreed that, while the meeting schedule has gotten off-track recently due to other related community meetings, we need to follow up with the other members, particularly as we near the “finish line.”
2. Group Discussion
Copies of the draft Puget Island sub-area plan were distributed.
Comments and suggestions were offered during review of the draft document:
§ Tom was pleased to see suggestions for an “airpark” residential development, as this has long been something he believes would be of interest. He has discussed this concept with a few folks who are familiar with small plane landing requirements, and thinks that the Island may have too much fog on a routine basis, which would create visibility problems. Another area he initially thought would be a good location would be somewhere between Skamakowa and the wildlife refuge area, but it would probably have frequent fog conditions, too. He has heard that Columbia Land Trust is looking at property in that area, as well. Upland areas would probably offer more suitable locations for airstrips, as they offer clearer atmospheric conditions.
§ Richard mentioned the development of a 1700-foot strip in Skamakowa, with 5-acre lots surrounding it. This was something that the community seems pleased with.
§ A “floating museum” is a good visitor attraction that would be suitable for the island (in lieu of the “fishing village” language used in the text). Several “retired” commercial fishing vessels could be restored to create this type of heritage/visitor site.
§ Tom likes the “toolkit” approach of the plan implementation section, but he believes that it still is too complex and needs to be revised for more clarity.
§ There was general agreement on an issue with the terminology of a “conservation subdivision” and “open space design”. This approach to land development is actually much more flexible than it initially seems. Tom suggested that a different name could be used that would more accurately describe the concept and help overcome the initial resistance many people may have due to the choice of words. This term should indicate that we are talking about a method of land development, not a method of conservation or “locking up” of open space.
§ Richard liked the use of the graphics to show the difference between conventional subdivision development and the alternative being suggested, which will help retain community character. He wants to see more of that “user-friendly” approach in the document.
§ Melissa pointed out that, since the county already has subdivision regulations, this alternative development style could be promoted simply by amending the current subdivision regulations to permit it. Using natural features of the site as design guidelines offers a good tool for keeping the “rural feel” of the county, instead of creating subdivisions that look like “Anywhere, USA.”
Review of the map for Puget Island (a freestanding map; not part of the document)
§ Need to find out more about where the old bridge over Welcome Slough used to be located. This is the area that the committee identified in a previous meeting as the location for a neighborhood/tourist/retail service area. Activity area needs to be moved south and west of location on the map.
§ The pedestrian bridge appears to be in about the right location.
§ Parking for the floating museum could be a problem, especially on Little Island/Birnie Slough. Richard mentioned that several people have tried to develop nearby properties, but the sticking point always seems to be the prohibition against parking areas constructed outside of the dike.
§ It was suggested that parking areas might work on adjacent properties located inside the dike, with a designated crossing. Not the optimal solution, but perhaps it could be designed to be as convenient as possible.
§ Other locations for the floating museum could be at the foot of the JBH Bridge, or further down East Little Island Road. Locations for a dock that would allow people to walk along and board the boats was discussed. There are some weather/wind issues potentially with the location near the entry to Little Island
§ Location of a Water/Wind Park received extended discussion. There was some concern about neighborhood impacts along East Birnie Slough, if placed along that point. Richard observed that wind surfers aren’t known as a group that contributes significantly to visitor spending. He wondered if they would travel to the Island to windsurf, or if they would continue to park along SR 4 where access is more convenient. There was some discussion about a suitable location off of SR 4, such as the old motel at Nassa Point, but there were none that offered direct access off of the seaward side. Jones Beach is used this way; this could be acquired and graded for this type of recreational facility. Flandersville was suggested as the ideal site. Richard mentioned that he and some others have started marketing water access for wind surfers off of private property for a fee; it will be interesting to see if there are any takers. Generally, the group agreed that a privately developed park that served this market niche would be the preferred approach, but that the location indicated for consideration should stay, as it does serve the purpose of indicating potential commercial development of a site with good wind.
§ Use of existing barns and other structures for marine related industry was discussed, particularly in the Hendrickson Road area. Terry pointed out that there was little likelihood of adequate depth for a dock in this vicinity. He mentioned a situation where a dock had been proposed, but the state requirements for a minimum 10 foot clearance between the dock and the water at low tide meant that the dock needed to be 180 feet long, which wasn’t feasible. Some barns on the island are being used as commercial warehouse space, which does give some economic return.
§ Other possible locations for marine-related industry were difficult to pinpoint. There was reluctance to consider “heavy industrial” types of marine industry on the island itself, although there are suitable areas in the county. One type of use that was of interest is an educational/scientific/research or similar marine-related activity that would promote, or at least complement tourism and other “island-friendly” activities.
§ Attracting dollars from Oregonians via the ferry would be a good addition to the vision of the island and its economy.
§ Richard suggested that we “call out” scenic view locations on each sub-area plan, so that wayside pull-outs or parks could be incorporated. Melissa mentioned one such “pocket park” south of State Road, although it doesn’t offer a panoramic vista for scenic enjoyment.
§ Generally, there are three categories of land designations in the text, and shown on the map. These are: 1) Optimal Development Areas that present few, if any constraints; 2) Potential Development Areas, where there are potentially some challenges to development of certain sites; and 3) Limited Development Areas, which have multiple or severe site constraints, typically environmentally sensitive areas. The group agreed that this was a useful approach that they would like to use throughout the plan.
§ There were questions by all present concerning the wetland designations throughout the island. These areas appear in categories 2 and 3 (described above). The amount of area seems to be extensive, and presents some limitations on the degree of development, and therefore, the economic return. Melissa explained that these are the same wetland areas as shown on the National Wetland Inventory and referenced in the county’s current Critical Areas Ordinance. They are currently regulated with buffers and setbacks, which vary, depending upon the type and functional value of a particular wetland. The federal government has placed restrictions on all wetland development for several years, and has delegated authority to regulate these lands to the state. The Department of Ecology is the permitting and regulatory authority in Washington State. Since the Growth Management Act was passed in 1991, this authority has been further delegated to counties and other units of local governments; hence, the requirement for local regulation of wetlands and other critical or sensitive areas. There was some question as to whether a diked area would fall under the same regulatory requirements applied to other areas. Melissa offered to follow up on this, and to look for some user-friendly information that the committee could use for public discussion of this issue.
3. Committee Questions/Comments/Suggestions
Noted in above comments on Draft Plan text and map.
4. Upcoming Meetings
The next regularly scheduled meeting will be October 6, 2004 at 6:30 p.m. in the county courthouse, to revisit the Puget Island plan, and perhaps to take a look at a Grays River Draft.
5. Adjourn
The meeting adjourned at approximately 8:45 p.m.
0265 Steering Committee Meeting Summary 09 15 04
Page 3