Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutM080194 ::!:!:::!:!:::!:::!t:::!:!:::::!:!:::!:::!::::t:!:!:!:!:!:::::!:::!:!:!:::::!:!:::::!:!::t:flE:::;:::~;E:;:;:;;;R;:;:;;;;S;:;:;;;~U!:;::~P;Æ~;N;:;;;:::~:::!:;B:;:;::;;;;neR:::;::;;:D;:;:;:;;!:::!~~:::::*~;M;:\;:;::M:::;;;:;:;':;;S;:;:::;:;S:;:;:;;;':;~;N;:;::;:;E:::::;:;:B;:;:;:;;g::!:!:::!:::::::::!:!:::::::!:!:::!:::!:::::::::::!:::!:!:::!:!:!:::::::::::]:!:!:::!::::::::: ..................................................~; EU: ... .~l'..~V:W.. :;:1::::1:::. WM.. ....~E...~~. .. ..... w. . .. Q:................................................. MINUTES WEEK OF AUGUST 1, 1994 Chairman Robert Hinton called the meeting to order. Commissioners Glen Huntingford and Richard Wojt were both present. GMA Update: Associate Planner Lesa Barnes reported that the hearing on the Zoning Ordinance was held last week with the period for submitting written comments to be held open until Friday August 5, 1994. The consultant met with the Tri Area Com- munity Planning Committee last Saturday. They went through the maps of the area. Their next meeting is scheduled for September 10, 1994. Quentin Goodrich, who attended the Tri Area Community Planning meeting reported that four separate groups worked on developing proposals and three of the four plans were very consistent. Senior Planner James Holland then reviewed population projections for specific areas in the County and how they relate to the City consultant's population projections. Gary Rowe suggested that the adoption of the population projections be placed on the next GMA Steering Committee meeting agenda. Steve Ladd, James Holland and Gary Rowe will draft a population proposal from the County to be presented at that meeting. Roger Blaylock reported that the existing conditions report is available for review. He suggested that the Board review the report and get back to him with their comments. Suzanne Drum reported that Henderson and Young has moved their presentation on the level of service standards to September 7, 1994. Next Thursday, August 11, 1994 from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. is the concurrency workshop. Penny Herrick, Planning Commission Chairman, reported that the Planning Commission has been meeting regarding their goals. A draft should be ready later today. They want to have them ready to go out for review by the Community Groups at their "second Tuesday" meeting. \/'" 'UI_ 20 fAG~ OJ.299 ..: ..:::é~¡i :::::::::::::"::::::::~ Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of August 1, 1994 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD: The following items were commented on: The funding of regional services by the City and County and how that will impact the swimming pool programs; the need for more time to work on the funding for swimming programs; several people spoke on the value of the swimming programs and urged the Board to set up a Task Force to review the funding issues; and the need for more recreational facilities in the south part of the County. BUSINESS FROM COUNTY DEPARTMENTS PLANNING AND BUILDING DEPARTMENT Adoption of Zoning Ordinance: Rick Sepler reported that the changes discussed at the last meeting have been made and a clean copy of the Zoning Code is ready for approval and signing. The findings have been updated as the Board requested. Commissioner Huntingford asked how long the Interim Zoning Code is in effect? Rick Sepler reported that it expires September 1, 1994. Commissioner Huntingford moved to adopt ORDINANCE NO. 09-0801-94 to be effective September 1, 1994 or when the maps are adopted whichever is sooner and that the Interim Zoning Ordinance is repealed upon the effective date of this ordinance. Commissioner Wojt seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. Housing Authoritv Request for Extension of Time to Complete Work: Alex Mintz, Housing Authority Board member, reported that the Housing Authority feels they can have the needs assessment component completed by August 31, 1994. Commissioner Huntingford moved to approve a time line extension for the Housing Authority for the completion of the needs assessment to August 31, 1994 as requested. Commissioner Wojt seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. Planning Commission Findings & Recommendation: Zoning Redesignation; General Use to General Commercial: 2.5 Acres Adjacent to Rhodv Drive where it intersects with Four Corners Road and Airport Cutoff: Michael and Susan Graves. Applicants: Roger Blaylock, Senior Planner, reported that the Planning Commission recommends that this request for a zone redesignation of approximately 2.5 acres of property currently zoned General Use to General Commercial, be denied. This property is adjacent to the Tri Area business district. The Planning Commission feels this request should be sent to the Tri Area Community Planning Committee for their consideration in their comprehensive planning process. They should address the issue of extending the commercial area through to the intersection. The Planning Commission included in their findings: 1) Policy 17 of the Tri Area Community Plan limits the commercial area. This plan is outdated (adopted in 1982) and has not been updated in a timely fashion, 2) this area is outside the Tri Area UGA boundary and 3) a majority of the Planning Commission finds merit in designation of commercial at the intersection of Rhody Drive and Four Corners Road. The Board can accept the recommendation of the Planning Commission or they can set their own public hearing to consider the merits of the rezone itself. Chairman Hinton noted concern that the Tri Area Community Planning Committee may not adopt a plan for up to a year. Mark Huth advised that the County should either accept the Planning Commission recommendation to deny the request or hold their own hearing. VOL 20 fAct o i.300 Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of August 1, 1994 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Commissioner Huntingford explained that the applicants are family and he excused himself from this deliberation. Commissioner Wojt asked if the Board would be looking at modifying the Tri Area plan if they held a hearing on this rezone request? Mark Huth reported that the hearing would be on whether the area should be redesignated under the Interim Zoning Ordinance. Commissioner Wojt moved to adopt the Planning Commission's recommendation. The motion died for lack of a second. Chairman Hinton then moved to hold a public hearing on this redesignation request. Commissioner Wojt seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. Commissioner Wojt moved to set the hearing for August 15, 1994 at 3:00 p.m. Chairman Hinton seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. Prosecuting Attorney Mark Huth re: Discussion of Valley Hills Subdivision Moratorium: Prosecuting Attorney Mark Huth explained that due to a Class 3 Forest Practice Permit violation on this property, then owned by Citifor, the Board ordered a moratorium on all building permits for the parcel per RCW 76.09.060 (3). Since then the current property owner (Resource Developers) has submitted a subdivision application for the portions of the property to the north and south of the moratorium area of the parcel. The County Subdivision Ordinance says in the Applicability Section "Parcels in the same ownership having contiguous boundaries shall be considered a single parcel for the purpose of this ordinance and may not be further divided through the short subdivision process." This has been interpreted to mean that if a 10 acre parcel was to be divided into 5, 1 acre lots, the remaining 5 acres is a lot of the subdivision. The provisions of RCW 76.09.060 (3) say". . . the County may deny all permit and sub- division approvals related to non-forestry uses of land subject to the application (the Forest Practices application.)" If less than the entire parcel was harvested under the Forest Practices application and the County refuses to grant any permits on the unharvested portions, the moratorium has been extended beyond the harvest area. The question, Mark Huth pointed out, is should the subdivision application be allowed to go forward for the unharvested portions of the property? The applicant was asked how they determined what portions of the parcel were not subject to the Forest Practices application. They replied that they had taken aerial photographs and determined the boundary of the Forest Practice application maps and left that area out of their subdivision application. The question before the Board is did the County intend for the moratorium to be in effect for the entire parcel or only for the portions subject to the Forest Practice application? Chairman Hinton noted that Citifor was advised, regarding what was applicable for their Forest Practices Permit, by the Planning Department. He noted that it was his intent that the entire parcel be included in the moratorium. Commissioner Wojt asked if the issue is that a lot cannot be created out of the portion of the parcel not covered by the Forest Practice Application, according to the County's ordinance? Mark Huth indicated that is correct. Commissioner Huntingford stated that he agrees with Chairman Hinton that the provisions of the Subdivision Ordinance should be followed. Commissioner Huntingford moved to continue the moratorium on the entire Citifor parcel. Commissioner Wojt seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT Bob Nesbit. Assistant Director of Public Wor,ks and Prosecuting Attorney Mark Huth re: Chimacum Road Project: Mark Huth reported that federal funding has VOL 20 fAGË o i301 Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of August 1, 1994 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . been received for a road project on Chimacum Road which will require moving of the City waterline. An interlocal agreement was proposed by the City which would require the County to assume responsibility for any interruption in City water service, damage, etc., from the waterline being moved. This is not acceptable to the County. The City has been granted a County franchise for their waterline and under the provisions of that franchise the County can require them to move their waterline. The waterline should be moved by the City before the road project is completed. The Board directed that an agreement be negotiated which would include no liability to the County for the waterline and if that doesn't happen in a timely manner, then the provisions of the franchise be invoked and a deadline for the waterline move be established. Gary Phillips re: Grant Proposal: Quilcene Community Well: Gary Phillips reported that there is a $25,000 grant available to rural communities through the USDA Forest Service Rural Community Assistance Program. This grant would allow the development and drilling of a well in Quilcene to take the place of the contaminated well which provides water to 12 homes and businesses. The County must apply for the grant on behalf of the Quilcene community. He reported that there is a location identified for such a well. After further discussion of the grant application, the possible location of the well and the future water needs of the Quilcene community, Commissioner Huntingford moved to have Jefferson County be the lead agency and approve the Chairman signing the grant applica- tion for this USDA grant. Commissioner Wojt seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES: Commissioner Wojt moved to approve the Minutes of July 18, 1994 as submitted. Commissioner Huntingford seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. APPROVAL AND ADOPTION OF THE CONSENT AGENDA: Commis- sioner Wojt moved to delete item 5 and approve and adopt the balance of the Consent Agenda items as presented. Commissioner Huntingford seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. 1. Memorandum of Understanding re: Jefferson County PUD Municipal Oversight of Alternative On-Site Sewage Systems; Jefferson County PUD #1 2. AGREEMENT, Interagency re: Recreational Shellfish Program; State Department of Health 3. AGREEMENT re: Training to Parents and Child Care Providers and Recreational Opportunities for Clients of the Division of Development Disabilities; State Department of Social and Health Services 4. AGREEMENT #94-002-23 re: Water Quality Improvement Loan; Kenneth Merritt and Denise Andlovec, Applicants 5. DELETE RESOLUTION NO. _ re: Creating a County Project Designated as CR1143; Widen and Resurface with Bituminous Surface Treatment; Boardwalk Place from M.P. 0.00 to M.P 0.12 and St. James Place from M.P. 0.00 to M.P. 0.19 6. RESOLUTION NO. 84-94 re: Establishing the Name for a Private Road; Last Camp Road 7. RESOLUTION NO. 85-94 re: Establishing the Name for a Private Road; Shine Ridge Road 8. RESOLUTION NO. 86-94 re: Changing the Name of a Private Road; Camber Drive to Camber Lane VOL 20 ~AGf 0:1302 Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of August 1, 1994 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9. Letter of Agreement; Integrated Emergency Management Course Participation; Emergen- cy Management Institute 10. AGREEMENT re: Equipment Rental and Gas Sale Agreement; Animal Shelter; Sunshine Propane 11. Request for Third Quarter Allocation; Domestic Violence/Sexual Assault Program Intent to Transfer County Property: Commissioner Wojt moved to approve RESOLUTION NO. 87·94 setting the public hearing for the intent to transfer several parcels of surplus County property to the City of Port Townsend for August 22, 1994 at 2:00 p.m. Commissioner Huntingford seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. HEARING re: Building Permit Appeal; G.E. Development; Fire District #6: Chairman Hinton explained that the Attorney for Fire District #6 has notified the Board that he is not available to be at this hearing and has asked that the issue of fire flow not be addressed until he can be present. The Chairman advised that only testimony on the building permit will be taken today. He opened the public hearing, read the hearing procedures, and asked the following questions: Q) Is there anyone in the audience who objects to the participation of any of the County Commissioners in these proceedings? A) There was no objection from anyone in the audience. Q) Do any of the Commissioners have an interest in this property or issue? A) All three Board members answered no. Q) Do any of you stand to gain or lose any financial benefit as a result of the outcome of this hearing? A) All three Board members answered no. Q) Can you hear and consider this in a fair and objective manner? A) All three Board members answered yes. Q) Has any member of the Board engaged in communication outside this hearing with opponents or proponents on the issue to be heard? A) Commissioner Wojt answered no. Chairman Hinton said that this process has not required any legislative determinations because it was the issuance of a permit. He reported that he has discussed the permitting of this project with Gary Hilbert and Elmer Paul. Prosecuting Attorney Mark Huth asked Chairman Hinton if any of the conversations he had with Mr. Hilbert or Mr. Paul would cause him to be unable to make a fair decision on this matter? Chairman Hinton answered that they would not. Commissioner Huntingford stated that he has also talked with Mr. Hilbert and Mr. Paul, but his discussions were general in nature (i.e. about level of service standards and what public water systems are, and changes that may need to be made to the ordinance) and not specifically about their project. Mark Huth asked if Chairman Hinton made any guarantee that permits would be issued for the project? Chairman Hinton answered that he advised them as far as his understanding of the ordinance and statutes, that he personally didn't see any problem getting everything permitted through the building permit process. Mark Huth directed that since the Fire District can't be here today and their attorney requested that the hearing be continued on their behalf, fire flow should not be discussed today by members of the audience or the Board. After reviewing the hearing notice, Mark 'JOl 20 tAt! 01303 Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of August 1, 1994 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Huth confirmed that no testimony can be taken on fire flow, but that comments can be taken on the 10 building permits that have been applied for, but not yet issued. Commissioner Wojt moved to continue the hearing to Tuesday August 16, 1994 at 9:30 a.m. on the Fire District's appeal. Commissioner Huntingford seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. Mark Huth reported that Mr. Paul and Mr. Hilbert have proposed a project involving a number of previously platted lots. Previously a property trade was proposed for the benefit of GE Development and the County that covered some of this project area. As the project was being formulated by the developer, the County was going through the adoption process for the Interim Urban Growth Areas Ordinance (adopted January 10, 1994) required by the Growth Management Act. Following the adoption of this ordinance, but after the applicant had taken a number of action regarding their development, G.E. Development then applied for their building permits and to the Department of Health for their water system approval. They received approval of the water system this month (July 1994). The Interim Urban Growth Areas Ordinance prohibits the extension of urban governmental services outside Interim Urban Growth Areas. The definition of urban governmental services in the Growth Management Act includes domestic water supplies. The Board has directed that two building permits be issued on this project since there are two existing wells and that the lUG A Ordinance be amended to clarify what the intent was regarding urban levels of service as opposed to rural levels of service. The amendment to the ordinance will have to go through the public process before being adopted. There are 10 building permit applications pending for this project, so there is currently no need to appeal them. Walter Tabler. Attornev representing G.E. Development. asked that the Commissioners reconsider their decision made at the July 18, 1994 meeting. G.E. Development filed a lawsuit last week in Jefferson County Superior Court because they are threatened by the July 18 decision. G. E. Development wants these permits issued and if they are issued the lawsuit will go away. He then explained that this subdivision was approved in 1888 and G.E. Development purchased 44 parcels of the original subdivision and reconfigured them into 10 separate lots. These are fairly large lots with an overall density of less than one lot per acre over the entire project. In communications with County officials over the course of the project, the indication has been that there is no public water available in the area, but if they could get a water system approved by the State Department of Health, the building permits would be issued. When the original IUGA Ordinance was passed in January 1994, Mr. Paul and Mr. Hilbert again had discussions with the County and were told that the interpretation was that the interim ordinance had no effect because of the pre-existing subdivision. There is language in the ordinance to that effect. Section 5 of the Interim Ordinance which is controlling, was changed in February to prohibit extension of urban services. The original version of the interim ordinance indicated that new development occurring outside of interim urban growth areas shall be designed in such a manner as to not cause the extension of existing public infrastructure or the intensification of public services. This version does not use the word "urban." The February change says that "new development occurring outside of interim urban growth areas shall be designed in such a manner as not to cause the extension or intensification of existing urban governmental services as identified in the interim public level of service standards." Mr. Tabler stated that he feels this was a reflection that the Growth Manage- ment Act is aimed at preventing or limiting urban services in rural areas. This doesn't mean all public services. The County took a series of actions on this project, after enacting the Interim IUGA Ordinance, which indicate that they felt that this project was grandfathered and that the VOL 20 UG£ o i'304 Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of August 1, 1994 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . project should go forward: the County - 1) vacated the streets necessary for the project, 2) changed the street names and gave new addresses, 3) approved new tax parcels, 4) approved the road approach necessary for the project, 5) attended and charged G.E. Development for a meeting to prepare the application to the State Department of Health for approval of the water system, 6) assisted in submitting the approval request to the Department of Health, and 7) issued 12 septic system permits for 12 lots. In reliance on all of this, G.E. Development has spent over $400,000 in furtherance of the project. They have obtained the modular homes, sold 7 of the homes and are under contractual commit- ments to deliver those homes starting as early as August 15. There are two issues, Mr. Tabler continued, which could narrow the dispute and allow the Board to view this project in a unique context. The Board could interpret their previous ordinance as a matter of policy rather than as a matter of law. There is room for policy determination regarding what the original intent of the Board was in the enactment of the ordinance. Issue 1: Section 5, second sentence, says "Furthermore nothing in this subsection shall be construed as restrictive or prohibitive of the infill of existing platted areas lying outside of interim urban growth areas." This was the sentence relied on most by G. E. Development in determining that the infill of existing platted areas should go forward especially in circumstances where the development had advanced to the point it had with this project. Issue 2: A resolution could be passed to define what are considered Urban Govern- ment Services. This term comes from the Growth Management Act which defines it "to include those governmental services historically and typically delivered by cities and includes storm and sanitary sewer systems, street cleaning services, fire and police protection services, public transit services and other public utilities associated with urban areas and not normally associated with non-urban areas." Cities are not in the business of providing class B rural oriented water systems. They are in the business of providing larger water systems. He feels the Board can make a policy determination that what the Board intended when they modified Section 5 was to preclude "urban" types of public services, but not to preclude "rural" types of public services. He suggested that the Board pass a resolution stating the following: '~s a matter of policy, the Board of Commissioners interpretation of the Interim Urban Growth Areas Ordinance, as amended, is to allow the issuance of building permits for projects using Class B water systems which have been approved by the State for projects with overall densities of less than one lot per acre on subdivisions that were approved prior to the exaction of the Interim Ordinance, outside of the Interim Urban Growth Areas." He feels this type of resolution would alleviate the most horrendous, immediate impacts to the people who purchased in these particular projects, as a stop gap measure until the Board can address more thoroughly how these issues will be handled. J.e. Burris. asked if this project is on the Glen Cove water system? Chairman Hinton answered that it is not. Gene Seton stated that he has a project, and all he is hearing discussed is a "governme- ntal" service. He asked about a private water system that serves more that six (6) houses? This is a private well, which they have the water rights for. They will install the system and it is in an already platted area. They will own this private water system. Crai~ Jones. Attorney. said that the question is what did the Legislature intend outside the urban growth areas? The issue in this case is for private stand alone systems in areas that are currently zoned for the building that is taking place, not extensions of urban governme- ntal services. If the zoning is still in place, shouldn't the people have the right to know whether or not they're going to be able to put in water systems to serve their property? Right now it seems that the County's position has gone so far to the extreme that you VOL 20 fAGf o :1.305 Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of August 1, 1994 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . can't have a church in the rural area because if the church drills a well and its' members use the water, it becomes a public water system. The PUD's are not allowed to do any further extension in the rural areas, yet the GMA does not make any mention of interfering with any of the statutory rights already granted to the PUD. What gives this County the right to interpret this in such a way that the PUD's have no ability to extend their system and no private systems can be developed? The County's position is that if one well is going to serve more than one lot, it is prohibited. The Coordinated Water Act says that there shouldn't be a lot of individual wells. The interpretation is that the only way that residential development can be done is if each house has its own well. Deborah Ingman stated that the project Gene Seton is talking about has been in the process for longer than two years. She and her husband waited for almost two years to get the water right. They have a lot of money into this. The Board is in the position of bankrupting people. If its inappropriate for smaller lot sizes in a rural area, there are other zoning alternatives call rural villages. Elmer Paul stated that it is stupid for the County to force developers to put a well on every lot. This would mean there would be 50 wells where four could handle it. This is ridiculous. Craig Jones pointed out that there are other people that live in the rural areas outside Urban Growth Areas that might want to develop their property and he asked that the process to make the necessary changes be started as soon as possible. WaIter Tabler. representing G.E. Development. stated that they agree that the County needs to deal with this in a thoughtful manner, but they also feel it's appropriate on an ad hoc basis for this project, for the Commissioners to interpret their earlier ordinance in the way suggested. G.E. Development can't wait for the process to amend the ordinance to be completed because they will suffer severe damages. There are not going to be many projects like that, but this project is one of them. Prosecuting Attorney Mark Huth advised that he feels Mr. Tabler's suggestion for a resolution is too broad to define which projects should or shouldn't be allowed to go forward pending amendment of the ordinance. He recommended that the Board take each project on a case by case basis. If they are considering allowing relief on any particular project that it be considered upon showing that the project had advanced prior to the adoption of the Interim Urban Growth Areas Ordinance. The evidence would have to be presented to show that the project performed the necessary functions to be considered. Commissioner Wojt asked how many subdivisions could be in this same position? Kent Anderson indicated that there could possibly be 15 subdivisions. Mark Huth added that subdivisions applied for before the adoption of the lUG A would be vested. The building permit could still be a problem. There could be commercial projects, such as a church, that could have this problem. Kent Anderson added that there are RV Parks, home businesses, etc. that could face this same problem. Commissioner Huntingford pointed out that the County-wide Planning Policies say that inside a UGA the density is more than one unit per acre, while outside the IUGA's one unit per acre is considered rural. This project is less than one unit per acre so this would not be providing an urban service. This is a rural water system. This needs to be addressed when the ordinance is amended. Kent Anderson pointed out that on a case by case basis each project could be reviewed for such things as: Have they got the water rights for the well? did they get the water system approval? and when was it issued? etc. VOL 20 UŒ o l~OG Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of August 1, 1994 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Commissioner Hinton noted that it is obvious from the two amendments to Section 5 of the lUG A Ordinance that the Board wrestled with the terminology and the text of the ordinance in an attempt to clear up the misconceptions discussed today. It was not the intent of staff or the Board to preclude these types of water systems outside of the UGA's. He explained that personally he was looking at the City water system within the Tri Area when this ordinance was being developed. It was his understanding that the extension or intensification of the City system outside the UGA would be prohibited. RCW 19.27 requires builders to prove that they have adequate water supply before they can get building permit approval, and it also gives Counties and Cities the right to authorize these people to hook up to public systems if it's feasible. He reported that he has read this ordinance and he sees a conflict with the text of the ordinance and the matrix. The matrix doesn't allow these Class B systems outside the UGA except on a condition to mitigate impacts on critical areas and health and safety factors. Anytime you preclude these types of systems and require individual wells instead, that is a health and safety risk. He feels that Section 3 of the lUG A clearly exempts any project from the Level of Service Standards if it doesn't require a triggering application approved by the legislative authority (County Commissioners.) This plat was approved in 1888. Section 5 also very clearly refers to "public" services and infrastructure. G.E. Development's water system and many of the Class A water systems (Pope Resources, Kala Point, Bridgehaven) are all privately funded systems. With all of that in mind, and considering that G.E. Development has gone through the process including: the construction of the streets, approved septic systems, construction of the well and approval, he feels that they should be able to have their building permits approved so they can proceed with their project. The discussion continued regarding how projects would be reviewed on a case by case basis. Mark Huth suggested that it would be a good idea to have some criteria developed for this type of review. The idea of a rural village was suggested, Mark Huth explained, but the Central Growth Management Hearings Board has said they will not look kindly upon a rural activity center (Pierce County's version of a rural village). They indicated there are two designations: urban and rural and that's it. This will make it tough on rural counties to provide any flexibility and reasonable regulation which can both funnel growth and still allow opportunities to exist outside of Urban Growth Areas. Craig Jones added that the problem is that there is no way to know what plats may have similar problems. When a lot is in an old plat, there is no approval necessary until everything is ready to go for a building permit. There is no way to know today how many of these lots there are. He asked how long written comments will be accepted to provide suggestions on how to amend the ordinance? Mark Huth reported that this is not a hearing and anyone can submit written comments on anything they want. He suggested that it would be best to submit written comments at the public hearing on the amendment to the ordinance. Kent Anderson reminded everyone present that the Board has directed the Planning Department staff to draft an amendment to the IUGA Ordinance with a definition of public water system to be taken to a public hearing. They are working on this. Hearing no further public comments, the Chairman closed the public hearing. Commissioner Huntingford moved that staff approve the 10 building permits for G.E. Development and to direct staff to develop criteria for reviewing other projects that may have the same problem (i.e. what is the density of the area is, how far along the project is toward completion, is the property platted) on a case by case basis and that an amendment to the JUGA ordinance be developed and taken to public hearing within 60 days, regarding a definition of public water systems. Commissioner Wojt seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. IJOL 20 ~Ar;r Oj~07 Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of August 1, 1994 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The meeting was recessed at the conclusion of the scheduled business for the day. The meeting was reconvened on Tuesday morning with all three Board members present. The Board met with the Planning Commission as a continuation of their July 19, 1994 work~hop. ! ~rYlMA~ ~ Lorna L. Delaney, Clerk of the Board JEFFERSON COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ~~~innan VOL 20 rAr,r o 1 ~08