Three Lakes Neighbors for Responsible Growth
Meeting May 24, 2004
Three Lakes Community Church
Minutes of Meeting

Status Report on Panther Lake Ridge Project

Bev Setzer made a presentation and led a discussion on the status of the Project application.  Rick has picked up the comments from the County Planning Office, although there are still more to be put in the file.

The County has notified the submitters of the need for revisions.  The Preliminary Review of Drainage was “Denied”, and the DPW (Department of Public Works?) review was “Disapproved”.  Because of the large number of comments submitted (51), the Comments deadline has been extended.  Bev spoke to Ryan Larsen, who suspects that there will be a mitigated determination of non-significance.  Once that happens we would have 2 weeks to appeal the determination.  This is before the public hearings.  Interestingly, there may be conflicts with the ordinance that limits the number of lots to 30 (they applied for 32).  We need to review the County Codes to find any violations that we can, and bring those to the County’s attention.

There were 51 comments submitted, which is a high number for applications of this type!  Undoubtedly the high number of comments had an effect on their action, since they know someone is paying attention.  Most developments get few or no comments.  They did not do a complete traffic study, but only ran a formula to determine that the road is “adequate”.  Adrian has requested a record of accidents on 163rd in the last 5 years.

The GeoTech report evaluates impacts on the Wetlands and discussed the detention facility impacts.  Apparently there is a code violation outstanding; the Code Enforcement Officer informed us that the culvert was put in without a permit.  There is a County ordinance that defines an alternative method to the detention pond.  We need to evaluate that ordinance and see whether we want to request that they use the alternate method.

Because the Application was returned for revisions, it is on hold until those revisions are made.  This may give us a reprieve of 30-60 days or so.

We should check political contributions on the web to find out if the developer has donated to county council members.


Bev asked the question as to whether we wanted to organize.  There was overwhelming response in favor.  Because Bev turned in the comments in the name of the group, she had used the organization name “Three Lakes Neighbors for Responsible Growth” and there was not objection to using that name.

Bev called for volunteers or nominations for Officers.  Rob nominated Bev for President. After some discussion and a little bit of arm-twisting, Mistelle Wolfer volunteered for Vice President, Margaret Crossman for Treasurer, and Rob Stitt for Secretary.

These Officers were elected by Acclamation (sometimes known as “The Railroad”).

The next meeting will be held as needed.  A notice will be sent by e-mail, so check your e-mail regularly.  Rob will be setting up a new e-mail server with an improved method for sending messages. Details on that will be sent out by e-mail when it is ready.  A phone tree has been set up for those who don’t have e-mail.

The Big Picture   

Presentation by Kristin Kelly of “1000 Friends of Washington”.

There is a County Comprehensive Plan update in progress.  We should all get involved in this process.  They are considering three choices:  Alternative 1, the current situation, would locate 87% of growth in urban areas, 13% in the county, with no urban growth area expansion; Alternative 2 would retain the same rural/urban mix, but allow population growth in the south county urban growth area, Alternative 3 would change the mix to 80% Urban/20% rural and increase the Urban Growth area by 11.5 square miles. There will be hearings June 1 and June 3.  Comments can be submitted until June 18.  A flyer on this has been sent out to the e-mail list.

Kristin went on to point out that the County is $500 million behind on fixing roads in the county. As rural development increases, they (we?) have three choices:  concentrate growth in the existing urban clusters; lower the level of road service; or raise taxes to pay for it.  The developers have to pay some, but their share is probably too low.

Minutes respectfully submitted by:

Rob Stitt