Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout111491 Min • ly Towns*, Aftl�- f Planning Commission Zi. 0 Water St., fort Townsend, WA 98368 206/385.,3000 " .I Conjed �_.Y ..00 PCOMM Meeting love b r 14, 1991 . . I I. RLI. CALL Chair Ron Losec called the meeting to order at 7:35 . . Other members present were Bob Rickard, Lois Sherwood, Cindy Thayer, Daren Erickson, Jim Tavernakis and Mark welch. Also present were councilmembers John Cli a (also Mayor-elect) and Sheila Westerman, councilrnember -elect Cindy Wolpin and Bob Sokol and staff members Michael Hildt and Dave Robison. II. APPROVAL OF MINUT S: Minutes of October 24 1991 Ms. Erickson moved that the minutes be approved as written. lir. Rickard seconded the motion and all were,i n favor. .. - III. COMMUNICATIONS: Current Mail -None, 1V. OLDBUSINESS: A. Growth Management 1. Introduction and Overview r Ir. Hildt briefly discussed me'of the planning requirements the City aces 1n the corning years, . Mr. Robison discussed the Growth Management Act I HB 2923), which became effective in 1990. He said the four main components of CMA I are making 13 required policy decisions, defining the urban growth area, identifying resource lands and critical areas and updating the comprehensive plan. ; Mr. Robison moved on to discussing Growth Management II HB 1025). He said this Act clarified and expanded GMA I. He said one of the most significant components of GMA► II is the requirement of counties to work with cities in adopting county-wide planning policies. w Planning Commission Minutes of November- 14, 1991 Page 2 A lengthy 4iscussion ensued regarding the relationship between the city and county in working to address growth management issues. Councilme ber Forma Owsley entered the meeting at this time, 8:45 p.m. . A draft ofdinance addressing critical areas will be presented to the Planning Commission in January and the City Council in February for anticipated adoption by March 1, 1992. B. Administrative Appeal Procedure Ordinance 1. Staff Deport Sepler Mr. Sepler reviewed the draft ordinance. Some discussion ensued over the appeal process and the proposed fee in the draft ordinance. 2. Public Testimony: none. 3. Commission Discussion Mr. Rickard expressed some concern over the proposed $100 fee for initiating the appeal process. Ms. Thayer said she too thought the appeal fee requirement should be deleted. Ms. Erickson suggested a $25 appeal fee to cover mailing and copying costs but low enough to s not to burden a possible appellant. Mr. Rickard made a motion to accept the ordinance with the following changes 4 1. Section 3.01 be amended to require a $25 appeal fee. 2. Section 3.02 be amended to have a 25 day comment period instead of 15 days. . Section 3.03 " e resolved' be deleted. Lois Sherwood seconded the motion. Roll was called and all ere"in favor; the motion carried. Ms. Erickson moved to adjourn the meeting. All were in favor; the meeting was adjourned at 10:40 p.m. Signed, Katherine M. Johnson Administrative Assistant