Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutM040494 MINUTES WEEK OF APRIL 4, 1994 Chairman Robert Hinton called the meeting to order in the presence of Commissioners Glen Huntingford and Richard Wojt. Request for Fundinl!: Port Hadlock Teen Center: Community Services Director David Goldsmith reported that the Port Hadlock Teen Center has submitted a request for $10,000 in funding for Center operations. The County provided the Center $6,000 last year for start up funding. There will be some funding through the State after July 1, due to a law passed for teen programs. (Research, after the meeting, found that the Senate bill containing this funding did not pass). Commissioner Huntingford recommended that the full amount not be approved now. The County could help with a part of a match for other funding in the future. Commissioner Wojt stated that he would like more information on the effectiveness of this Center. The Board then met in Executive Session with Prosecuting Attorney Mark Huth regarding potential litigation. GMA Update: GMA Project Manager Steve Ladd presented and reviewed the revision of the draft Forest Lands Ordinance. Commissioner Huntingford moved to set a hearing on this draft ordinance for Monday evening April 18, 1994 at 7:00 p.m. in the Chimacum area (location to be determined by facility availability.) Commissioner Wojt seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. The discussion then turned to the need to provide the community planning groups with information on densities that may impact their planning efforts. PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD: Comments were received on proper- ty tax statements and the way the taxes are distributed. APPROVAL AND ADOPTION OF THE CONSENT AGENDA: Commissioner Huntingford moved to approve and adopt the consent agenda as submitted. Commissioner W ojt seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. - -; ~ø fAG!.61i .-. Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of April 4, 1994 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . THE CONSENT AGENDA - Continued: 1. Findings, Conclusions and Approval #LP07 -93 Rhododendron Estates; Located in Chimacum at the Southwest Corner of Rhody Drive and Ander- son Lake Road; Tom Graves and Steve Gratzer, Applicants: 2. Final Approval; Art Price Short Plat #1 SPll-92; Two Lot Short Plat; Griffith Point; Art Price, Proponent: 3. Final Approval; Art Price Short Plat #2 SP12-92; Three Lot Short Plat; Griffith Point; Art Price, Proponent 4. AGREEMENT and Sworn Statement of Compliance re: Health Department Services for the Coordinated Prevention Grant #G9400242 (Solid Waste); State Department of Ecology 5. RESOLUTION NO. 35-94 re: Establishing a Name for a Private Road; Ash Loop (Off of South Discovery Road) 6. AGREEMENT re: Project #SWI021 Conduct Used Oil Collection and Recycling Program; Placement of Third Waste Oil Tank on Pope Property; Pope Resources 7. Approval of Community Center Grant Request; Tri Area Community Center; $2,817.47 Total Vinyl Ena Montana's $1,344.00 plus tax Mini Blinds McCrorie's 576.19"" Draperies Petrick's 570.00"" Two Mats McCrorie's 123.42"" 8. RESOLUTION NO. 36-94 re: Authorizing Project #CHl125; Courthouse Office Renovation and Transfer of Funding 9. Accept Resignation; Transportation Advisory Board; William S. Marlow 10. CONTRACT, Addendum re: Labor Contract Wages for Public Works Department; Teamsters Local #589 11. RESOLUTION NO. 37-94 re: Establishing Land Use Administrative Duties 12. Accept Resignation; Parks Advisory Board; Al Giersch BUSINESS FROM COUNTY DEPARTMENTS: PLANNING AND BUILDING DEPARTMENT Hearinl! Examiner's Recommendation re: Conditional Use Permit #IZA94-0009; Operate a Bed and Breakfast as a Home Business in the General Use Zone; Upper Hoh Road, West Jefferson County; John and Susan Hunt: Commissioner Wojt asked if the Hunt's have water? Mr. Hunt reported they have drilled a deep well and have a lot of water. They are working with Tillman Engineering to do what is necessary to get the water system approved. Commissioner Wojt moved to adopt the hearing examiner's recommendation to approve conditional use permit #IZA94-009 as submitted. Commissioner Huntingford seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. Hearing Examiner's Recommendation re: Conditional Use Permit #IZ-64-93; Construct a Church (Two phase project) on a 3.6 acre site in a Commercial Center; Location North of Port Ludlow :. (''\1t 20- f~!"612 Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of April 4, 1994 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Villal!e Center; Northwest District Council of the Assembly of God (Morninl!side Fellowship): Commissioner Huntingford asked if the access issue with Bluebird Land has been settled? Jerry Smith reported that it has been resolved. Commissioner Huntingford moved to approve the #IZ-64-93 as recommended by the Hearing Examiner. Commissioner Wojt seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. Proposed Ordinance Desil!natinl! Mineral Lands: Senior Planner James Holland presented a map which shows the mineral lands that would be designated under the draft ordinance as presented. Commissioner Huntingford moved to hold a combined hearing on the Forest Land Ordinance and the Mineral Land Ordinance on April 18, 1994 at 7 :00 p.m. in Chimacum (location to be determined by facility availability.) Commissioner Wojt seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT Hearinl! Examiner Recommendation; Petition to Vacate a Portion of Sixth Avenue (Between Lot 48 in Block 3 and Lot 25 in Block 18 in the Plat of Irondale); Brian and Tomi Tucker: Commis- sioner Huntingford excused himself from the deliberations because the ap- plicant is his sister-in-law. Commissioner Wojt moved to approve the vacation as recommended by the Hearing Examiner. Chairman Hinton seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. Prosecutinl! Attorney Mark Huth and Wally Pedersen re: Proposed Boundary Line Adjustment; Trail's End Plat: Prosecuting Attorney Mark Huth reported that he has reviewed an application for a lot line adjustment in the Trail's End Plat. The County's Subdivision Ordinance and the State statute both allow Boundary Line Adjustments as an exemption to subdivision requirements when the following criteria have been met: 1) The platting is between platted and unplatted lots, 2) No additional lot, tract, parcel, site, or division are created, and 3) No lot, tract, parcel, site, tract or division is created which contains insufficient area and dimension to meet minimum requirements for width and area of a building site. He continued by noting that a lot is defined by State law and County Or- dinance as "a fractional portion of land, sufficient in area and dimension to meet applicable land use requirements." The County's Subdivision Ordinance includes wording that the lot must meet the provisions of the Comprehensive Plan, applicable community plan, and on-site sewage regulations. Mark Huth added that two of the lots described in the application for the Boundary Line Adjustment do not meet the criteria to be considered lots, because they are vacated portions of rights-of-way. He then read from the application for Tax Parcel 950100915 property description which says "that portion of vacated South Beach Drive lying southerly of block 9. . ." Tax Parcel 721162024 is identified as "that portion of platted Ferry Street being approxima- tely 60 feet in length and 60 feet in width lying between Block 9 and Block 8 and Lot 9 of Block 9 of the Trails End Home~ites First Addition. " When . 20 -Ga3 Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of April 4, 1994 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . right-of-way is vacated the property title reverts to the abutting land owner. The Ferry Street vacation would have reverted title back to the abutting land owners of the lots on either side of it. The vacated right-of-way becomes part of the abutting lots and cannot be reconfigured into a separate lot. The same is true for the vacated right-of-way in the Trails End Homesites. Wally Pedersen pointed out that one of the pieces of property was sold by the County at a public auction 10 to 12 years ago and was purchased by the Buchmann's. He feels this property should be constituted a lot because it was sold by the County and anyone could have purchased it. Jeff Chapman, Assessment Operations Manager for the Assessor's Office reported that the legal descriptions submitted by Mr. Pedersen and Mr. Buchmann do not match what the Assessor's records show. Mark Huth added that a tax parcel is not necessarily a lot. Jeff Chapman reported that the vacated right-of-way was attached to the tidelands parcel instead of the adjacent uplands parcel. Mark Huth reported that however this happened there is a confused ownership pattern. Wally Pedersen stated that he is willing to amend his Boundary Line Adjust- ment request to six lots. He is willing to have an engineer legally describe all the parcels. The Board concurred that Mr. Pederson have the Boundary Line Adjustment application redrawn for six lots and have an engineer prepare legal descriptions for the lots. Veterans Relief Application: Commissioner Wojt moved to approve the application for the Veterans Assistance Fund as submitted by the American Legion in the amount of $478.63. Commissioner Huntingford seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. Re-appointment to the Olympic Area Al!ency on Al!inl! Advisory Council: Commissioner Huntingford moved to re-appointment Henry Redkey to another three year term (term will expire April 21, 1997) as a Jefferson County representative on the 03A Advisory Council. Commissioner Wojt seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. Definition of Official Control and PI ann in I! Commission Review of Proposed Forest Land Desil!nation Ordinance and Proposed Mineral Land Desil!nation Ordinance: Prosecuting Attorney Mark Huth reported that the definition of official control in the Planning Enabling Act is very broad and he recommended that the Board have the Planning Commission review and report on the draft forest lands and mineral lands ordinances. The Board concurred that the forest land and mineral land ordinances be sent to the Planning Commission for their review and a report. HEARING re: Appeal of Final Mitil!ated Determination of Non- Sil!nificance; Creekside Lonl! Plat LP05-92 and Ironwood Lonl! Plat LP06-92 (Continued from March 21, 1994): Associate Planner Jim Pearson reported that additional information has been submitted by Pope Resources (dated March 30, 1994 - see attached) r.egarding both Creekside and Ironwood Long Plats with exhibits regarding watér. The first five pages are responses to ,_ 20 UCl614 . - Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of April 4, 1994 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . questions that were raised at the March 21, 1994 hearing, Exhibit A deals with water rights and obligations, and Exhibit B is material from the program- matic EIS for Port Ludlow. A fax was also received which is a comparison of the Olympic Environmental Council Exhibit B and the Pope Resources records. Jim Pearson explained that he and Environmental Health Director, Larry Fay, have prepared an analysis of the original Exhibit A "Water Rig-hts vs. Oblig-a- tions." It was important in their analysis to insure that the figures presented are consistent with the Environmental Impact Statement which was adopted by Jefferson County. In a letter from Wendy Wrinkle (page 498 of the EIS) item 4 states "DOE (the Department of Ecology) concludes that the total annual water requirement for Port Ludlow, not including the proposed development program shall be 411 acre feet per year. This is 54 acre feet less than the 465 acre feet allocated by water right." This leaves 54 acre feet per year to be used for the development program. The proposed development program requires an additional 90 gallons per minute (or 145 acre feet per year). Fifty four acre feet per year is available, therefore at buildout an additional 90 acre feet would be required to complete the proposed development program. He then noted that the original Exhibit A indicates that a total 318 acre feet per year are necessary for the buildout at Port Ludlow, while the EIS states that 411 acre feet per year are necessary. The report of examination for well #14 at Port Ludlow lists the various wells, their water right numbers and the gallons per minute for that well. Gallons per minute is an instantaneous rate. You can pump a well to that rate, but the rate is higher than what the well can be pumped at over the entire year. This is the rate the well can be pumped at peak times. The figure for acre feet is the total that can be pumped from the well in one year. On wells number 1 and 12 the water rights have been cancelled. If the gallons per minute for the well are totalled (2, 3, 4a, 9, 4n and 13) the instantaneous pumping rate is 654 gallons per minute (maximum that can be pumped on a peak day.) Well 14 can be pumped at 400 gallons per minute, but it is a supplemental water right and cannot exceed the existing water rights that have been granted and are in effect. Table 5 from the EIS indicates that the capacity needed to serve sold, but unbuilt lots (in gallons per minute) is 652 gallons per minute (peak day use.) The EIS estimates that 120 gallons per minute is required as the yearly average use for present connections. If that is multiplied by the 860 dwelling units, it yields 172,800 gallons per day. This is more than the 137,600 gallons per day listed on Exhibit A. Larry Fay added that the number they arrived at was using the average annual use listed on Table 5 of 120 gallons per minute converted into gallons per day. Larry Fay reported that in their analysis they tried to look at the water rights (the annual yield and the instantaneous demand to meet the needs of the water system design for the subdivision), and the existing condition demands from the EIS, and then establish a baseline. In the response to the Wrinkle's letter 411 acre feet per year are projected and adding in the approved plats you come up with a figure of 444 acre feet per year. Figuring, with the design flow of 160 gallons per day, per unit, for the commitments to date and current proposals, yields 342,560 gallons per day while Exhibit A indicates 307,360 gallons per day. Adding in 11 acre feet for Creekside and 17 acre feet for Ironwood, gives 472 acre feet per year. The existing water rights are for 465 acre feet per year which leaves a deficit of 7 acre feet per year. The instan- taneous (peak day use) pumping rate is 713 gallons per minute (gpm) with the use from the water rights of 654 gpm. _ 2(tr.~~815 Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of April 4, 1994 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . David Cunningham stated that last week information was presented by the GPLCC in their appeal of this MDNS and a continuance was granted because Pope Resources hadn't had time to review that information to develop a response. Now, the same thing is happening again. New information has been presented that Pope hasn't had any time to review it. He would like a continuance of a week to be able to go over these figures. Jim Pearson added that he and Larry Fay took Exhibit A, presented at the last hearing, and plugged the EIS figures into it. Steve Hayden reported that the Greater Port Ludlow Community Council (GPLCC) did not appeal the MDNS, it was the Olympic Environmental Council. He also asked that a time be set for analysis of the information that has been presented. He suggested setting a week from today as a deadline for analysis of existing information. He added that they raised a new issue at the last hearing based on information from the State Department of Health which was issued after the EIS was published. He asked that the State Department of Health be asked to come up and discuss where they got their figures. Larry Fay pointed out that the figures are based on the assumption of a peak day use of 480 gallons per connection which is in the EIS. The State Depart- ment of Health, in evaluating a water system design, uses a figure of 800 gallons per day, per connection, unless there is justification from the water system plan for a number less than that. Pope is working on the water system plan now. Robert Krutenat added that one acre foot per year is approximately equivalent to 890 gallons per day and therefore 445 gallons per day is approximately 1/2 acre foot per year. Chairman Hinton noted that the appeal procedures are being reviewed, because it is not fair to anyone to have people come in not knowing what the appeal is about in the first place. Time is needed for preparation. Chairman Hinton then suggested that a deadline of one week from today be set for submission of any additional information with another week for review before it is put back on the Agenda. Jim Pearson reported that at the last meeting the Board asked that a work- shop with the Department of Health and the Department of Ecology be arranged. He explained that he has spoken with the DOE and a representa- tive can come to a meeting if given at least a week's notice and Carl Johnson from the DOH is willing to come if a meeting is set up. He asked if the Board would like a meeting with these representative before a decision is made on this matter? David Cunningham clarified that the issue being discussed is if there are adequate water rights to serve these two particular plats. The issue of whether or not there is adequate source keeps coming up. That was a topic of the EIS. Larry Fay reported that DOH is willing to come up and do a workshop for the Board regarding water. Clifford Hanson, Vice President of Robinson and Noble the groundwater geologists that did the groundwater analysis for the EIS, repqrted that the water rights for well #14 were issued as supplemental. - The "supplemental" " ... -20 Ut~616 ~ Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of April 4, 1994 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . portion is only for the acre footage. He explained that a water right has two numbers attached to it: instantaneous (gallons per minutes) usage and acre footage (the total amount of water that can be taken out in a year). If a well is capable of pumping 1,000 gallons per minute and is pumped all year long, it will produce a substantial number of acre feet of water, but almost no well in the State is ever pumped for that duration. The State can grant a well an instantaneous right upon demonstration that the well can produce a certain amount of water. The State is also charged with judging how much water can be put to beneficial use. Most water systems are short on peak day use, even though they may have plenty to get them through the year (acre footage). The supplement portion of the right is granted when a system can demonstrate that the water will be put to a broad beneficial use. The supplemental right allows a system to, in effect, "reserve water" for development that will happen at a later time. Jim Pearson clarified with Mr. Hanson that the supplemental rights, will allow an additional 300 gallons per minute of instantaneous withdrawal (on the Exhibit analysis), making it 954 gallons. The water rights allow this instan- taneous withdrawal with the acre footage not to exceed 465. Water rights are a Department of Ecology responsibility. Clifford Hay continued by noting that the Department of Health must look at the water rights to determine if a system can provide sufficient water for the health and welfare of the constituents within certain guidelines. According to WAC 246-290-200 the DOH is mandated to consider historical usage as the factor to consider in sizing subsequent growth. If there isn't any historical usage figures the DOH will use a figure that is from a similar area. Once usage data is established their estimated use figure is revised to the demonstr- ated consumption number. The EIS notes that Port Ludlow has 20 years worth of water usage records and the average is 160 gallons per day per connection. Mark Huth asked how the amount of water needed for fire flow is a determined? Mr. Hay answered that fire flow is a sizing factor when the delivery system is designed by an engineer. Fire flow is usually handled by storage. Chairman Hinton asked if there is not enough water in the system, who is ultimately responsible for fixing that problem? Mr. Hanson responded that the water purveyor has that ultimate responsibility. When a water purveyor provides a letter of water availability to a house or a business they are committing to provide that amount of water. Mark Huth pointed out that the question is who is responsible if the water purveyor has made the commitment, but the County has approved a subdivision. The County is responsible for making a finding that appropriate provision has been made for water in order to issue preliminary plat approval. Mr. Hanson reported that when the water availability analysis was made for the EIS, they tried to be conservative in estimating the amount of water available (utilizing the data), and generous in projecting the amount of con- sumption. If a water problem develops the water purveyor can restrict use (irrigation, etc.) or supplement public irrigation on the demand side. On the supply side the water purveyor can do things such as, enhance the amount of water going into the ground, or employ water reuse techniques, etc. Bob Krutenat pointed out that the RCW only allows municipalities and PUD's to reserve water rights for future use. Private water purveyors can only use water rights for current beneficial use. '401. 20 uCl617 é ,,:t~¡¡~'1 Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of April 4, 1994 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Chairman Hinton noted that this issue is not going to be resolved today. The discussion turned to the need for submission of all information to the Planning Department by a certain date so that all parties could get copies to review, and the best way to get more information from the State Departments of Ecology and Health. Commissioner Huntingford moved to set the comment deadline for Friday April 8, 1994 to the Commissioners Office and that the hearing be continued to Wednesday April 13, 1994 at 3:00 p.m. The Planning Department will contact the State Department of Health and Ecology to have representatives at this meeting. David Cunningham reported that the Ironwood appeal involves the same water issues as well as some additional issues. He asked if a decision can be made on the other issues today? Hiller West reported that: · Conditions 2 and 8 relate to erosion control and removal of vegetation. Harvey Fleming submitted comments regarding the need to preserve trees on slopes exceeding 15% and also by the proponent regarding the lack of flexibility in the removal of vegetation. The Planning staff recommends that the geotechnical report be referenced as a basis for any review or condition- ing of clearing and removal of vegetation. The County has no ordinance authority to prohibit the removal of trees. There are geotechnical considera- tions related to slope stability and erosion control. · Condition 14 refers to impacts on parks and recreation. Parks and recrea- tion are an element of the environment and are therefore appropriate to refer to within the SEP A review. David Cunningham commented pre- viously that these items are also addressed as part of the plat review, and that is correct. The suggested SEPA condition to mitigate these impacts is to establish an agreement between Pope Resources and the County which can be developed during the plat review. Staff recommends that this condition be retained. · Condition 15 - correct to refer to Ludlow Water Company. This was simply an error. · Conditions 19, 20 and 24 should all be deleted because they are addressed under the preliminary plat review and are not necessary under SEP A. David Cunningham reported that with reference to Condition 8, the Depart- ment of Public Works doesn't review grading on specific lots, so to postpone being more specific or to use the guidance from geotechnical report on a lot by lot basis at the time of building doesn't happen. There needs to be a condition imposed on those lots as part of the subdivision approval. Linda Mueller, Pope Resources, questioned the wording in Condition 8 which she interprets as meaning that the developable area of each lot could not include an area where the slope exceeds 15%. She added that areas of 15% or steeper slope can be utilized for building as long as there is appropriate mitigation. VDt ~O fA(,~.618 Hiller West reported that the way condition 8 is currently written it does provide for grading on slopes exceeding 15%. The confusion occurs at the very end of the condition where there is a reference to reconfiguring proposed lots 11, 12 and 21 to ensure that sufficient area within each lot is available for Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of April 4, 1994 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . residential development outside of those slopes. The intent is to insure that lots that are approved provide sufficient buildable areas outside of steep slopes. Once the lots are approved, if development is still proposed within those steep slopes a geotechnical report can be submitted for review. This condition does not preclude building within areas of the lot that exceed 15% slope. David Cunningham said that there is confusion about steep slopes and unstable slopes. Steep slopes aren't necessarily unstable. The 15% ESA that is in the County's SEP A ordînance is an administrative threshold that says that an environmental checklist is required if there are slopes on a property that exceed that threshold. The issue of stability was raised and Pope Resources decided to have a geotechnical report done on these lots. Since the guidance of the geotechnical report is there, he stated it seems logical that more specific mitigation can be imposed on the plat. David Cunningham read the condition and explained that it says that "Revision of the proposed lot configuration for 11, 12 and 21, shall be provided as part of the final plat design to insure that sufficient area within each lot is available for residential development without encroachment within slopes exceeding 15%." This condition precludes any development on slopes exceeding 15% on these three lots, even if they are stable. Hiller West recommended that the language at the end of the condition be revised to say". . . is available for residential development and associated improvements; and further grading within slopes exceeding 15% would be conditioned consistent with the geotechnical report." David Cunningham noted that they don't want to allow anyone to build on slopes that are unstable nor do they want to be unduly restrictive from limb or tree removal for views onto the golf course. Hiller West answered that staff recommends that condition 2 be expanded to say that "Removal of diseased and dangerous trees be allowed and that selective thinning of vegetation on slopes exceeding 15% be in accordance with an approved geotechnical report." The County doesn't have the authority under current ordinance to preclude thinning or removal of vegetation on slopes exceeding 15%. The County does have the authority to require a geotechnical report as a basis for any condition on thinning or vegetation removal. David Cunningham questioned whether there is anyone in the County qualified to approve a geotechnical report. He suggested that wording be added to the condition stating that the geotechnical report must be prepared by a licensed geotechnical expert and submitted to the County. David Cunningham stated this is the first time the County has required them to enter into (as stated in Condition 14) an agreement with the County regarding the provision for' recreational facilities. The State subdivision statute requires that the County see that adequate recreational and open space are provided for. He asked that the County judge whether their proposal meets this requirement or not. The Subdivision Ordinance requires a 10% land area set aside for Open space and that is the condition regarding parks and recrea- tion. Open Space alone doesn't address all recreational impacts. Prosecuting Attorney Mark Huth inteIjected that under SEP A there must be an impact, and then in order to mitigate that impact, the County must have adopted policies that specifically address it. In order to approve the sub- division (through the Subdivision Ordinance) the County must make certain . -'20 u£I~619 Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of April 4, 1994 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . that there is adequate provision for parks and recreation. Any mitigation must be reasonable. He feels that if this condition is going to say "enter into an agreement" the County should know what is going to be agreed to. He feels this condition is too vague. Commissioner Huntingford noted that at this time the County doesn't have a park plan for that area and Pope Resources has provided parks in their planned development. He questioned what the County would ask Pope to provide, other than the Open Space? Davíd Cunningham stated that it is clear to him that condition 14 isn't an appropriate condition. Commissioner Hun- tingford moved to delete condition 14. Commissioner Wojt seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. Commissioner Huntingford noted that he agrees that conditions 15, 19, 20 and 24 should be corrected or deleted as recommended. The discussion turned back to condition 8 and whether or not the wording means that building could happen on portions of the lots that are over 15% slope. Mark Huth stated that he feels either the lot reconfiguration should be required or a geotechnical report should be required. The way the condition is currently worded seems to be at cross purposes. Since Pope Resources has already done the further study (submitted a geotechnical report) he agrees with David Cunningham that there is no need to require that these lots be reconfigured, only that they be condi- tioned according to the geotechnical report. The mitigation measures will be redrafted as directed. Commissioner Wojt moved to continue this hearing on the Ironwood plat to April 13, 1994 at 3:00 p.m. Commissioner Huntingford seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. Critical Areas Ordinance: Steve Ladd asked the Board for direction on the draft Critical Areas Ordinance. After discussing some of the issues, Commissioner Huntingford stated that he would like more time to look into issues on the Ordinance before givíng any direction. The meeting was recessed at the conclusion of the scheduled business and reconvened on Tuesday morning with all three Board members present. Approval and Sil!ninl! of AGREEMENT; Kiwanis Camp at Jefferson County's Beausite Lake Park; Northwest Kiwanis Camp: Bill McHugh, President of the Northwest Kiwanis Camp Board thanked the Board for their consideration and efforts. They will provide the County with more information during the construction of the camp facilities. They are hoping that the camp will be ready for operation by 1998. They then presented slides of the camp area. Commissioner Huntingford stated that he is proud to be a part of this project which he feels will benefit the whole northwest as well as Jefferson County. He then moved to approve and sign the agreement with the Northwest Kiwanis Camp. Commissioner Wojt seconded the motion which carried by a un- animous vote. VtJL 20 tAu.62n Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of April 4, 1994 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Board then met in executive session with Prosecuting Attorney Mark Huth regarding potential litigation. SEAL: JEFFERSON COUNTY D OF COMMISSIONERS MEETING ADJOURNED d/(Yffltè Lorna L. Delaney, Clerk of the Board ATTEST: Vll _ 20 U(,: 621.