Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutM012494 . . c.¿~ "'V "ÃÓ~ MINUTES WEEK OF JANUARY 24,1994 The meeting was called to order by Chairman Robert Hinton. Commissioner Glen Huntingford and Commissioner Richard Wojt were both present. COMMISSIONERS' BRIEFING SESSION: Rick Hert, North Olympic Visitor & Convention Bureau re: Re2ional Tourism: Rick Hert, Executive Director of the North Olympic Visitor & Convention Bureau updated the Board on the results of two contracts that the Bureau signed with Jefferson County in 1993. The funding for these projects came from the County through the Jefferson County Tourism Coordinating Council. The contracts provided funding for a tourism transportation study for the West End and for the operation of a visitors' center at Kalaloch. There was a brief discussion about the center and it was noted that 15,554 visitors stopped there between May and November. There is interest in staffing the visitors' center again this year. The Bureau is located in Clallam County and their funding comes from Forks, Sequim, Port Angeles and Clallam County. There is no direct funding from Jefferson County or Port Townsend, but the Bureau does make an effort to include Jefferson County in their Olympic Peninsula tourism promotion campaigns. This includes soliciting people in the film, TV and commercial industries, advertising group tours, promoting off season get-away packages at trade shows, and advertising in local magazines. The Bureau also provides hospitality training for businesses on the Olympic Peninsula. Rick Hert added that they have been tracking tourism figures on the Peninsula for the past few years. He explained that Jefferson County's tourism revenues have increased almost 30% in 1993. They feel that any projects that Jefferson County and Clallam County can work together on will save money and benefit everyone. Currently both Counties are advertising together in a Washington tourism magazine. Discussion of Port Townsend Community Center: There was a brief discussion about the Port Townsend Senior Association's concerns regarding management at the Center. Gary Rowe suggested that the Board meet with the Seniors and the Port Townsend Community Center Advisory Board to address these issues. Parks, Recreation and Facilities Program Manager Warren Stuerer will set up the meeting. PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD: Comments were made on the following: Residents from the Lake Leland area requested that they be included in the Discovery Bay Growth Planning boundaries and Darlene Morgensen requested a waiver on the APO list for a proposed short plat in Center Valley. .VOL 20 rAc~l96 . . Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of January 24, 1994 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . APPROVAL AND ADOPTION OF THE CONSENT AGENDA: Commissioner Huntingford moved to adopt and approve the consent agenda as presented. Commissioner Wojt seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. 1. Recommendation to Approve Claim #C-02-94; Vehicle Damage from County Vehicle $866.90; James P. Campbell 2. RESOLUTION NO. 15-94 re: Adoption of the Ludlow Watershed Action Plan 3. Final Subdivision Approval; Short Plat #SP08-92 (Morrell Short Plat); Two Lot Short Plat Located off of Center Road 4. AGREEMENT re: 1994 Indigent Defense Services for the Superior and District Courts; Clallam Jefferson Public Defender BUSINESS FROM COUNTY DEPARTMENTS: PLANNING AND BUILDING DEPARTMENT Discussion re: Request by Jefferson County Shoreline Mana2ement Advisory Commission: Associate Planner Jim Pearson explained the Shoreline Management Advisory Commission's request to resume work in February on four areas of the Shoreline Management Master Plan. This work has been stalled until the City of Port Townsend's recently adopted changes and proposed additional changes to the Master Plan are accepted by the Department of Ecology. The additional changes would allow the City to appoint a separate advisory commission. There is a Department of Ecology hearing scheduled on the proposal and a decision should be made in the next few weeks. Chairman Hinton stated that if the Department of Ecology approves the split, there would probably be a reorganization of the current advisory commission. Jim Pearson added that three board members have terms that will expire in March. Chairman Hinton suggested that the Shoreline Commission wait to continue their work until after they know the Department of Ecology's determination. Lowell Bogart, Chairman of the Shoreline Commission, explained that they could begin work on two areas of their request because these areas would not be affected by the DOE determination. These two areas are: 1) deletion of inappropriate references to the City of Port Townsend from the Jefferson County Shoreline Management Master Program; and 2) By-Laws -- specifying procedures for appointment to the Shoreline Commission, terms of office, and causes and procedures for removal from office. Chairman Hinton said he is concerned that there will be a definite shift in the membership of the Shoreline Commission if the proposed separation is approved by DOE. Commissioner Wojt stated that the Shoreline Commission should continue the work on the by-laws and deletions before the split occurs. Commissioner Huntingford asked for clarification on the current updating of the Master Plan? Jim Pearson explained the procedure for updating the plan is to have the Shoreline Commission hold workshops to develop proposed changes and then hold a public hearing to take testimony on the changes. After the hearing, they would make changes and then the plan would be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners to be adopted. If the Board chose not to adopt the plan, they could hold their own public hearing. He added that the by-laws are not part of the Master Plan, but the number of members on the Shoreline Commission is outlined in the plan. Therefore, if the Board of Commissioners decides to decrease the number of members on the Commission, the plan would have to be amended. Commissioner Huntingford directed the Shoreline Commission to come back to the Board with recommendations on the deletions and by-laws. Discussion of Request from the Greater Port Ludlow Community Council for Reconsideration of Zone Chan2e Petitioned by Pope Resources: Chairman Hinton explained that a Planning Commission public hearing and a Board of County Commissioners' public hearing have been held on this petition. He added that this meeting is not a public hearing and is on the agenda for the Board to discuss the request from the Greater Port Ludlow Community Council. Prosecuting Attorney Mark Huth clarified that the issue before the Board is whether the Commissioners want to rehear the petition. Therefore, appropriate public comment would address . VOL 20 fAG~ 197 . . Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of January 24, 1994 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . only the reconsideration. He went on to explain that because of the emergency interim zoning ordinance this is a legislative action and the Board has the authority to reconsider, although they have already made their decision. Commissioner Huntingford stated that the facts from the January 3, 1994 hearing are still relevant. He explained that the Board considered the issues brought up by the Planning Commission. He still supports the County Commissioners' original decision. Commissioner Wojt agreed with Commissioner Huntingford, adding that since the area will be an "Urban Growth Area", it is necessary to allow for commercial zoning. Commissioner Huntingford added that when application for a specific development is made on this site, then concerns will be addressed and mitigated. Commissioner Huntingford made a motion to deny the request of the Greater Port Ludlow Community Council to rehear the petition. Commissioner Wojt seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous vote. Application for Dance License; Hadlock House Restaurant. Inc.: Commissioner Wojt moved to approve the 1994 dance license for the Hadlock House Restaurant, Inc. Commissioner Huntingford seconded the motion which carried by unanimous vote. Prosecutin2 Attorney Mark Huth re: Clarification on Chan2in2 Draft Critical Areas Ordinance Due to Public Testimony Received: Chairman Hinton asked if adding building permits for single family residences as a triggering device to the critical areas ordinance would require another public hearing? Prosecuting Attorney Mark Huth stated that this âddition is part of the record from the public testimony, The Board would not be required to have another hearing because of this addition, although they could chose to if they thought it was a substantia! change. Mark Huth suggested that the Board wait until the draft of the ordinance which will include the changes from the public testimony is available. After reviewing the document, they can make a' .decision whether to hold another public hearing. ' Request for Waiver of an Adjacent Property Owners (A PO) List; Mor2ensen Short Plat; Center Vallev Road, John E. Mor2ensen. Applicant: The County requires short plat applicants to provide a list of adjacent property owners for notification purposes. To have an Adjacent Property Owner list developed by a title company costs the applicant $75.00. Darlene Morgensen is requesting a waiver from this requirement because she has the necessary information on the five adjacent property owners near the Morgensen Short Plat. She presented this list to the Board during the Comment Period. After a brief discussion, Commissioner Wojt moved to waive the requirement that John Morgensen provide an APO list from a title company for this short plat. Commissioner Huntingford seconded the motion which carried by unanimous vote. HEARING re: Chan2es to Section 5 Interim Urban Growth Area Ordinance: Senior Planner James Holland reported that the level of service standards address provisions for utilities in the identified land types (i.e. urban growth areas and rural areas.) If a service is not listed in the level of service standards, then it is not specifically regulated by the County. He suggested that the word urban be added as follows: ", . , not to cause the extension of existing urban public infrastructure or the intensification of urban public services . , ." He also suggested, as an alternative, modifying Lines 11 and 12 as follows: ". . . not to cause the extension of urban public infrastructure" and to delete "or the intensification of public services." Chairman Hinton asked about deleting Section 5 altogether? James Holland reported that one of the requirements of GMA is to address the public services issue and Section 5 does that. Chairman Hinton opened the hearing for public testimony. Dave Robison, Staff Planner for the City of Port Townsend, submitted and read a letter from Mayor John Clise (see attached.) The City requests that the Board delete the phrase "approval of the Board of County Commissioners," and add clarifying language to Section 5 based on the Board's December 29 memorandum which makes it clear that urban levels of service will not be extended outside UGA's. VOL 20 rAc~198 ~ . . Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of January 24, 1994 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Julie Jaman, Quimper Community Planning Group, submitted and read testimony (see attached.) Ande Grahn, Jefferson County Planning Commission, submitted and read testimony (see attached.) Steve Hayden, Olympic Environmental Council, stated that he agrees with the testimony given. The wording that stated "approval of the Board of County Commissioners" is a barn door. There is no problem including language in the ordinance that electric utilities do not come under the provision of urban services. Bob Krutenant stated that he IS in favor of including an exclusion for electric utilities under the provision of services. Guy Rudolph stated that there are people in the community planning groups who feel they are not being represented in these issues. Hearing no further public comments, the Chairman closed the public hearing. Chairman Hinton stated that Section 5 should be more understandable and reasonable. Commissioner Wojt questioned the wording in Section 5 which says "Furthermore, nothing in this subsection is to be construed as restrictive or prohibitive of the infill of existing platted areas . . ." Prosecuting Attorney Mark Huth explained that only the densities provided for can be built to, assuming there are existing platted lots, but services can not be extended to more than the approved density. James Holland reported that development on existing platted lots would have to be at such a density that it could be supported by on-site services in a manner consistent with the level of service standards. Mark Huth reported that if the platted lots don't have services, then the services could not be extended to them. Commissioner Wojt stated that there are many lots platted in the County that don't have any building on them. If these lots can get water and provide for septic, then can be built upon even if the density is greater than one unit per acre. But, urban services would not be extended to those areas from the UGA. Any new subdivision would have to meet the density requirements of the Comprehensive Plan. Mark Huth suggested replacing public infrastructure with "urban governmental services" and striking "without approval of the Board of County Commissioners". Commissioner Huntingford moved to have the changes made as suggested and to place the ordinance on the February 7, 1994 consent agenda for approval. Commissioner Wojt seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote, Call for Bids; Two (2) New or Used 10 to 12.5 Ton 9 Wheel Pneumatic Rubber Tire Compactors: Commissioner Wojt moved to approve the call for bids and set a bid opening date of February 7, 1994 at 11:15 a.m. for two new or used 10 to 12.5 ton, 9 wheel, pneumatic rubber tired compactors. Chairman Hinton seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. The meeting was recessed at the end of the scheduled business and reconvened on Tuesday morning at 9:00 a.m. All three Commissioners were present. HEARING re: Review and Consideration of Hearïn2 Examiner Findin2s, Conclusions and Recommendation; Conditional Use Application #IZ-34-93 Arcadia Terrace; Multi-Family Development; Robert Ha2en, Applicant: Chairman Hinton read the hearing procedures and the following questions: Q) Is there anyone in the audience who objects to the participation of any of the County Commissioners in these proceedings? Mark Beaufait, Attorney, representing William and Janet Peters, asked that the Chairman not hear this request because of prior contact in connection with this project, with the applicant, Robert Hagen. VOL 20 rAG~199 . . Coµtmissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of January 24, 1994 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Q) Q) Q) Q) Do any of the Commissioners have an interest in this property or issue? A) All three Board members answered no. 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. Can you hear and consider this in a fair and objective manner? A) All three Board members answered yes. Has any member of the Board engaged in communication outside this hearing with opponents or proponents on the issue to be heard? A) All three Board members answered no. Commissioners Wojt and Huntingford answered "no." Chairman Hinton stated that he had several phone calls from Mr. Hagen over the past few months concerning the process for this project and the Planning Department. He feels he can consider this matter in a fair and impartial manner. Associate Planner Jerry Smith clarified that the following items are in the Commissioner's packets: An addendum report of the Hearing Examiner dated January 21, 1994; a copy of an aerial photo of the subject property; The letter from Elston, Brown and Beaufait dated January 21, 1994; A copy of Exhibit V; A letter dated January 23, 1994, from William and Janet Peters; A letter from PUD #1 of Jefferson County; A letter from Jefferson County Fire District #6. A booklet of pictures of the area was also submitted. · · · · · · Jerry Smith then added that the issues are availability of water and compatibility of this project with neighboring uses. Mark Beaufait, Attorney representing William and Janet Peters, stated that they wouldn't be here if this project wasn't being granted special privileges. The Hearing Examiner's findings grant this project rights to approval without current water, and allows a full-density project without buffering or clustering. The neighbors are not opposed to a buffered, clustered project that matches the utility resources available to the site. The character of the area is shown in a drawing of the surrounding property (see attached). The proposed development would put 12 duplexes on a five acre parcel. The site plan for the project shows a looped cul-de-sac with a 25 foot buffer and a 25 foot setback. The neighbors feel the distances should be doubled. He then presented a 5" by 7" photograph of the area (see attached). This project is not in character with the area. By reducing the number of units to match the utilities, and by clustering, you would have a project in character with the area. The County has its own obligation to review and certify the availability of water. The project would be served by a tap from the Glen Cove water system which purchases water from the City of Port Townsend. There is commitment from the PUD for 16 units and that is all the County should consider approving at this time. The remainder of the project should be considered at a later time, as a separate application. There is no concrete proposal for new water at this time. The findings regarding the size and scope of the project should be changed by the Commissioners. Erwin Jones, Attorney representing Robert Hagen, stated that there is a contract with the public entity responsible for providing water in this area, The PUD has indicated that it is capable of furnishing water. The question on water discussed previously was if the PUD Manager had the authority to enter into a contract for water. The PUD has now submitted a letter indicating that they have ratified that contract. Alan Carman presented a copy of the contract and resolution from Jefferson County PUD #1 (see attached) and explained that this project is part of the Glen Cove Water system. The present usage of that water system has not exceeded 80% of the total contractual capacity of the system. The real amount of water available has not been exceeded. Chairman Hinton asked if there is water on the site? Alan Carman presented a copy of the "as built" drawing of the water system which has been accepted by the PUD as their property. Commissioner Huntingford clarified that the water system was installed by the project proponent and turned over to the PUD, and the proponent was then given a credit for that work by the PUD and paid the balance in cash. Vorol 2~APÁ~000 ,.A~~îl ~ . . . Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of January 24, 1994 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Mark Beaufait stated that the water system was installed without a permit, so the PUD has accepted an unpermitted water system. He added that the PUD has only accepted 16 current hookups and that is all that should be approved. The remainder of the proposal should not be approved. He stated that when the 800 gallons per day allocation applied to the total number of taps, the PUD goes over its allocation. Alan Carman stated that the daily rate is only 400 gallons per day. Commissioner Wojt asked where the 1.5 million gallons of water comes from? Alan Carman explained that the City is required to provide 1.5 million gallons per month and anything provided above that is assessed an additional surcharge. Commissioner Huntingford asked if there is a "Late Comers" agreement on this or if everyone pays the surcharge if the 1.5 million gallons is exceeded? Alan Carman answered that everyone pays. Commissioner Huntingford asked about the wording on Page 2 of the contract which says ". . .duplexing in 1 through 8 immediately"? Alan Carman explained that the proponent had the opportunity to purchase all 24 taps immediately, but because Mr. Hagen's construction schedule was for 16 units within eighteen months, the other taps would be available on a first come, first served basis. This system extension has been accepted as part of the PUD's Glen Cove water system and it will have water provided. Mark Beaufait repeated that the County has an obligation to review water availability and that only 16 units should be considered, not 24. Robert Hagen stated that he never asked for anything special. The approval of the 16 units and then the remainder in 18 months was suggested by him to the PUD, because he won't be building all the units at one time. He reported that he could have taken all 24 taps at that time, but he didn't because he believes he should only use what he needs when it is needed. Commissioner Huntingford asked Mr. Hagen what would happen if someone else took the remaining taps after the first units are built? Robert Hagen said he was not saying that. He explained that he took the 16 taps because that was the construction schedule for the next 18 months. He already had water for the other 4 duplexes to be constructed after the 18 months. He added that he was guaranteed water for 48 taps. Erwin Jones added that all of these issues were addressed by Mr. Berteig, the Hearing Examiner. Mark Beaufait added that they believe that Mr. Berteig made a legal error in recommending that the entire proposal be approved when there is not water supply to cover the entire proposal. He cited a PUD letter of December 3 which stated "we are essentially at capacity." Bill Peters, 370 Arcadia West, spoke about the character of the area. He stated that he doesn't believe Mr. Hagen is correct in his assertion. All of the people living out there do so because they enjoy the seclusion, the trees, and the whole rural ambience of the area. People move to a certain neighborhood for specific reasons, and shouldn't have that reason overturned for the profit of a single party, with no consideration of the neighbors. There was a petition circulated through the neighborhood which seemed to indicate a high level of support for the project. Several of the people were distressed to learn that the petition was being used as a statement of support. He then read a statement (see attached) signed by several residents of the area which clarified that the signers of the petition supported road improvements and not Mr. Hagen's project. Larry Gard, 51 Arcadia West, presented a copy of a petition which presented to the property owners in this area who were told it was for the affordable housing project. He added that Mr. Hagen was not involved with this petition. It was his project. He feels that these affordable housing units are good for the community. Mr. Gard added that the proposed road, preapproved by the County, would bring the road up to County specifications and then it would be turned over to the County. 1. C. Burris, 171 Arcadia West, introduced his surveyor to discuss the road. Bob Winters, a licensed surveyor, explained that he was just brought into this today and hasn't had much time to review the plans for this project. He stated he is concerned about the matter of two plans submitted which are not the same. He asked which plan is to be used? He asked the engineer to explain what changes there are to the plans for the final plan? He asked about the plans that don't indicate any vegetative buffering and setback on the south side of the proposed plat? He noted that the Arcadia West road easement is 60 feet from the property line which means that there couldn't be a vegetative buffer of 25 feet unless all of the property owners relinquish their rights to the easement. He said that the proposal calls for the extension of 3rd Street to connect to Discovery VOL 20 rAG~ 201 . . . Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of January 24, 1994 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Road, but due to a road vacation, a condemnation proceeding would be required. The two plans place the roadway in different locations. Chairman Hinton asked Jerry Smith to clarify this matter. Jerry Smith reported that each of the plans was given to the Hearing Examiner during his review. Exhibit 3 is the site plan and Exhibit 4 is the access plan. The other exhibit presented to the Hearing Examiner was Exhibit B which shows the 3rd Street construction. Chairman Hinton asked about the south buffer? Jerry Smith reported that both plans show a 25 foot buffer and a 25 foot setback. The SEP A conditions require a buffer around the entire perimeter of the site. Bob Winters stated that it was a 30 foot wide private easement and could not be considered as part of a buffer without relinquishment by the benefactors of the easement. Alan Carman reported that the original plan was prepared by NTI and at the time they believed that there was room for the 25 foot buffer on the property. The revised plan eliminated the buffer on the south part of the property, but a site obscuring fence was proposed in place of that. There is still a 25 foot setback on that side. The actual proposal was for buffering on three sides and a site obscuring fence surrounding the entire project. Chairman Hinton asked if the SEP A mitigation indicates that. Jerry Smith reported that the SEP A mitigation said, "The proponent shall buffer the development from adjoining land uses by supplemental plantings of fast growing native shrubs. Evergreen trees to create a screening buffer of sufficient height and quantity to reduce the visual exposure along the current road and cul-de-sac." Commissioner Huntingford asked if there is an existing house up against the Hagen property on the Peter's property? Mr. Peters reported that there is a cabin that they are occupying in this area.' Commissioner Huntingford asked how far that is from the property line? Mr. Peter:s answered 50 feet. Mike McClure, who works for the PUD, corrected Mr. Carman's statement that there 'is an eight inch water main serving this development. The existing water main is a six inch main. Alan Carman disagreed, stating that the water main was an eight inch main. Bob Winters stated that Mr. Burris wishes that Arcadia West not be used in the future by this development because of the condition of the road. He suggested that this project be conditioned to prohibit an access to Arcadia West in the future. Mr. Burris objects to the condemnation of 3rd Street when it was just vacated three months ago. Mr. Winters pointed out that the Hearing Examiner stated that the existing 3rd Street off of Jacob Miller Road could be used. Me. Burris spoke about the 30 foot easement and vacation. Larrv Gard stated that Third Street was originally planned as a 60 foot road and that all of the property owners except Mr. Burris deeded their portion of the easement to the County. Mr. Burris vacated his portion of the easement. He advocated the condemnation of that vacated portion to allow the construction of the road. Howard Patterson, 1213 Blaine Street, Port Townsend, who is one of the owners of the Arcadia property, stated that the suburban designation allows up to five units per acre. He said he. expected slow, steady growth in keeping with the neighborhood. This project would increase the neighborhood population by five to ten times in the next 18 months according to the water plan. He asked what mechanism exists to enforce conditions on a project? Julie Jaman, representing the Quimper Planning Committee, said that the Hagen proposal was inappropriate for the rural nature of the Quimper Planning Area. She questioned the size of the water main, the differences between submitted plans, and which plan was approved by the Hearing Examiner? She also questioned taxpayers subsidizing the development through water and road improvements. Andrea Grahn, 1213 Blaine Street, Port Townsend, employed by Arcadia Country Inn stated that Erwin Jones said she was a member of the Planning Commission and he objected to her giving testimony because it was in conflict with her office. Ms. Grahn said that she would not be in conflict of office provided she stated clearly that she spoke as a representative of Arcadia Country Inn and was not representing the Planning Commission. The Chairman allowed her to continue. VOL 20 uc~202 ~ . . Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of January 24, 1994 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Andrea Grahn asked who is responsible for deciding that there is enough water for this property? She questioned the availability of water considering the State requirement of 800 gallons per day per tap. She spoke about a safety issue with egress onto Jacob Miller Road. Steve Havden, representing the Olympic Environmental Council, tied the issue to the Growth Management Act and the designation of Interim Urban Growth Areas and the appropriate densities outside Interim Urban Growth Areas. Colleen Pullen, 387 Arcadia, stated that the road is needed, but any road approved from this project would not benefit the other residents. Mr. Burris asked if PUD Resolution #170 was still in effect? He said that he was concerned because the resolution stated the PUD was not obligated to provide water for fire protection. Mark Beaufait said that there was a need to shift the southern boundary buffer to get it off the easement and that there should be adequate distance for the buffer. Bob Winters clarified his previous statement that Mitigative Measure #4 could mean that an alternative access to Discovery Road could be pursued. William Peters stated that according to the NTI map, the buffer strip that was retained on Arcadia West is actually off the property and would have to be moved onto the property. He said that a 25 foot buffer was not adequate and should be expanded. J. C. Burris said that there had been a contamination problem with silica in the water system. Erwin Jones stated that there has been a good deal of testimony about water. The organization that furnishes water is willing and able to furnish water. He said that the petitions don't control the decision process. The character of the neighborhood should be controlled by the current Comprehensive Plan and not by a standard that may be applied in a revised Comprehensive Plan sometime in the future. Mark Beaufait requested that this project be limited to 4 to 5 duplexes. The Hearing Examiner made a legal error when he approved 24 units when there is only water for 16 units. Erwin Jones said that no standards exist that says what the buffers should be and the density allowed in the Comprehensive Plan compelled that the buffers could not be larger. Hearing no further public comment, the Chairman closed the public testimony portion of the hearing. Commissioner Huntingford stated that he has concerns that he wants to discuss with the Prosecuting Attorney about the water, the PUD Commissioners statutory authority, the checklist presented in the Coordinated Water System Plan, the buffer, and what the Hearing Examiner's recommendation is that the buffer be around the entire project. Commissioner Huntingford then asked about the access? Jerry Smith reported that the Public Works Department has reviewed the proposed access. Bob Hagen said that originally there were two proposals for access. However, one would be a private road. Commissioner Huntingford stated another concern with the buffer is the possibility that there be no access to Arcadia West. He is not ready to make a decision on the proposal today. Commissioner Wojt stated that there is a question about whether the fire flow was based on an 8 inch or a 6 inch line? Mr. Hagen reported that he took all of the information regarding the waterlines to the Fire District for their review. Commissioner Wojt stated that he would like to see if what Mr. Hagen is saying can be verified. Mr. Hagen reported that the "as built" plan submitted listed the diameter of the pipe. VOL 20 UF 203 . . Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of January 24, 1994 . . . . . . . . . . '. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Commissioner Huntingford moved to set a special meeting for the continuation of this hearing to January 31 at 9:00 a.m. Commissioner Wojt seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. MEETING ADJO SEAL: ... f.. , ot JEFFERSON COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS VOL 20 r~r~ 204.