Wahkiakum County Comprehensive Plan Steering Committee

Meeting Summary

December 3, 2003

Members PresentOthers Present

Ruth EdmondsonMelissa Taylor, CWCOG

Karen BertrochCameron Edmondson

Terry Irving, Planning Commission

  1. Project Update

Melissa gave a brief project update on the status of the comp plan. After addressing resource lands & critical areas, the group needs to incorporate this with housing, economic development and land use elements. She predicted that this would be the most difficult piece of the plan; that is, how to preserve rural character given the need for economic development and the pressures for conversion of land to non-resource uses (residential development) rather than resource or recreational uses that are typical of rural areas. These are issues we must address early next year in order to create a meaningful plan.

  1. Group Discussion

There were some questions regarding what Growth Management Act requirements the county must comply with. Simply stated, these revolve around designation and protection of Resource Lands & Critical Areas, as defined by state statute and code, with guidance from recent case law.

Melissa suggested that the group give further consideration to the potential for addressing the Resource Lands & Critical Areas requirement through a land development approach such as the “conservation subdivision” outlined at the last meeting. This could ease the way for accommodating some land conversion in a way that maintains rural qualities and discourages incremental land conversions that are incompatible with resource uses.

Highlights of this concept were revisited. It includes development at densities comparable to traditional zoning. This approach includes:

Natural features are preserved as much as possible and used for other purposes, such as trails and stormwater runoff.

Unique features, such as agricultural buildings or scenic views, are kept intact. Buildings might be adaptively re-used for community or commercial use.

Streets follow natural contours rather than an abrupt grid pattern overlaid on a former farm field.

Lot lines are drawn in last (instead of first, as is typical) so as to maximize privacy, common open space, green infrastructure; and to minimize street length and infrastructure costs.

Melissa added that she had given some thought since the last meeting to the comment that we should focus on what people can do rather than what they can’t do or aren’t allowed to do. She outlined an approach used in Florida where people are given various options for ways to develop property, each with a corresponding number of points assigned. Those that most closely represent the concepts outlined in the comprehensive plan are assigned higher point values. Those that do not encourage the concepts in the plan receive lesser point values. Persons receive a development permit once their proposal can “score” a certain number of points, depending on its features. An owner wishing to develop a project significantly at odds with the plan would not be prevented from doing so, but would have to select some items that would improve their overall point score.

  • Terry Irving commented that Puget Island is facing a great deal of pressure to convert land from agricultural to residential uses. Most of this is occurring outside of the dike. Sand is pumped in, creating wash problems. The island seems to be going the way of hobby farms.
  • Melissa reminded the group that the Comprehensive Plan should be revisited in a major update every 5-10 years, with an eye to how development pressures have changed since the last plan/update.
  • Terry reiterated his concern about the high cost of taking over a farming operation, given insurance, taxes, and the need for a profit. Land prices are not helping this situation. Upper-end homes on high-priced land don’t make farming any easier. When livestock gets loose, there is more of a liability.
  • Karen Bertroch observed that farming might vary by area, as to whether it is a hobby or a niche operation. She cited the Zimmerman’s organic vegetable operation near the Zerr property. Karen added that she liked the concept of a point system to give property owners flexibility in approach, but wondered how difficult this would be to implement. Melissa suggested that a manual could be created that illustrated the various approaches, along with the points assigned to each, so that staff basically assists them by answering questions or suggesting combinations that might work better for them.
  • Melissa stated that there are some other tools out there that might also help, such as Transfer of Development Rights (TDRs), although this particular one works best in an active, high-pressure land market. She added that some areas of the county where there were particular concerns might take a different approach than another portion of the county. This might differ based on particularly scenic areas, or areas where farming is more suitable due to land qualities, or a particular environmental issue, such as flooding. In any event, the warning “caveat emptor” (buyer beware) would always apply, as there is always the potential for unseen problems.
  • Terry Irving pointed out the potential for the changes in the floodplain mapping that was conducted many years ago. As more development occurs, the cumulative impact changes the actual location of the floodplain, as was the case in Centralia and Chehalis. There are issues of sedimentation along with flooding at the mouth of the Elochoman, Grays River, and Skamakowa. Why isn’t this talked about as a water quality issue for the Columbia? The flood control districts need funding to address sedimentation.
  • Karen observed that there is value to the Corps of Engineers, as well as state/federal agencies involved, as it restricts options. She is frustrated with these restrictions, since the county is used 80% for timber production, 10% is floodplain, and only 10% is developed land, mostly along the Columbia River. Where is the money to study the actual location of floodplains?
  • Melissa responded that there is an effort currently underway to study floodplain and flooding issues in Wahkiakum County through CREST. Various land use scenarios are of value in these types of studies, as the cumulative impact of long-term land conversions can be more accurately addressed. Our plan and its land use recommendations are to be incorporated into these efforts.
  • Terry expressed concern about the Washington side of the river between Cathlamet and Astoria, due to the proposal to deepen the channel for larger ships and increased shipping activity.
  • Ruth stated that many farmers find a second income essential, in today’s economy.
  • Terry added that dairying is facing a different set of circumstances, and is probably gone for good.
  • Karen commented that the land trusts along the Grays River place limits on ownership, which results in farms running down into a “natural”, non-productive state. Public access to water and forests is also needed. While the Columbia Land Trust allows fishing and hunting, the future is unknown. We don’t have a parks department in the county, and need recreational outlets. Some sort of county/trust partnership should be possible.
  • Terry mentioned that timber owners get tax breaks for public access, although in recent years the access seems to have dried up due to liability issues, vandalism, fires, etc. all of which are problems created by the public.
  • The group agreed that their comp plan “toolkit” should include

Public access to water and forest

Methods to preserve rural character

Productive uses of land

Preservation of historical and cultural assets

  • Terry Irving reiterated his concern that the county needs the right types of jobs to attract/keep young people in the county. They are also needed to step into volunteer roles for essential services, such as fire protection.
  • Karen Bertroch described a senior housing project at the Rosburg School that would include miniature golf, daycare, and a farmers market, with ancillary services in Rosburg as a “gateway to the west,” perhaps with some sort of living history park at the Grays River. The creamery building could accommodate retail sales, a farmers market, other activities for jobs, as well as recreational/commercial uses like kayaking on the Grays.
  • Terry commented that in the mid-50’s there were 30 business between St. James and the Ranch House. Ruth remarked that those were “entrepreneurial times.”
  • Karen pointed out the difference between those times and the “company town” mentality where people want their needs to be taken care of by the store/company/county/etc. A self-sustaining populace is needed. She added that some sort of public-private partnership on the Port 1 project could result in a motel, although there are lagoon issues.
  • Melissa asked if there was potential to make the lagoon less of an issue by careful siting and landscaping of both properties, at least in the mid-term. Karen responded with the suggestion of a city/port land swap as having some potential.
  • Karen mentioned using the floodplain environment to advantage for tourism promotion. For instance, weeping willows would do well along the Covered Bridge area. We have the largest beech tree in the state there. She also mentioned the potential of the fairgrounds/Vista Park area for “Skamakowa Harbor”.
  • Terry added that Ocean Shores has seen a good amount of growth, even though the area is brushy and has lots of sloughs. As one of the economic forum speakers mentioned, towns with initiative are growing. Those that don’t, aren’t.
  1. Committee Questions/Comments/Suggestions

Melissa distributed a discussion draft of policies for Resource Lands & Critical Areas. The group reserved these for future discussion, due to time constraints.

4. Upcoming Meetings

The next regularly scheduled meeting will be January 7th, 2004 at 6:30 p.m. in the county courthouse.

  1. Adjourn

The meeting adjourned at approximately 8:35 p.m.

0265 Steering Committee Meeting Summary 12 03 03

Page 1