Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 11/10/1993 . AGENDA PORT ANGELES PLANNING COMMISSION 321 East Fifth Street Port Angeles, W A 98362 November 10, 1993 7:00 P.M. I. CALL TO ORDER D. ROLL CALL m. APPROV AL OF MINUTES: Meeting of October 27, 1993 IV. PUBLIC HEARINGS: . STREET V AeA TION REQUEST - STV 93(11)06 - HALLER. Portions of West Fourth Street and "I" Street: Request for vacation of a portion of West Fourth (1500 Block) Street and a portion of "I" Street (abutting Blocks 125 and 130). 2. HIGHLAND eOMMUNITIES FINAL PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DEVEWPMENT (PRD) AND PLAT: Pinal approval for Phase I and Phase II of the proposed planned residential development and plat, located between Lauridsen Boulevard and Melody Lane. 1. V. COMMUNICATIONS FROM mE PUBLIe VI. STAFF REPORTS VD. REPORTS OF THE eOMMISSION vm. ADJOURNMENT . Planning Commission: Bob Winters, Chair; Cindy Souders, Vice Chair; Roger CaliS; Bob Philpott; Orville Campbell; Carl Alexander and Linda NuUer. Planning Staff: Bl"lId Collins, Planning Director; Sue Roberds, Office Specialist; David Sawyer, Senior Planner; Iohn Jimerson, Associate Planner. . . . Planning Commission Agenda Page 2 PUBLIC HEARING PROCEDURE: Spokesmen for the proponents and opponents will be given an opportunity to speak to the request. Information submitted should be factual, relevant and not merely duplication of a previous presentation. It is helpful if the speaker identifies his/her interest in the issue. A reasonable time (10 minutes) shall be allowed the spokesman; others shall be limited to short supporting remarks (5 minutes). Other interested parties will be allowed to comment briefly (5 minutes each) or make inquiries. The Chairman may allow additional public testimony if the issue warrants it. Brief rebuttal (5 minutes) for proponents and opponents heard separately and consecutively with presentation limited to their spokesman. Rebuttal shall be limited to factual statements pertaining to previous testimony. Comments should be directed to the Planning Commission, not the City Staff representatives present, unless directed to do so by the Chairman. . . . MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION Port Angeles, Washington 98362 November 10, 1993 7:00 P.M. I. CALL TO ORDER Chair Winters called the meeting to order at 7:08 P,M. II. ROLL CALL Members Present: Linda Nutter, Cindy Souders, Bob Philpott, Orville Campbell, Carl Alexander and Bob Winters. Members Excused: Roger Catts Staff Present: Sue Roberds, John Jimerson, Brad Collins, Gary Kenworthy and Bruce Becker. Public: Earl T. Fox, Jerry Newlin, Mr. and Mrs. Gerald Powell, Daisy McInerny, Ken McInerny, Dave Milligan, Tim German, Al and Helen Mangan, Marvin Dailey and Steve Luxton. m. APPROVALOFMThmT~ Commissioner Philpott noted a typographical error on page 8 Finding No.2, "with" should be "which". Commissioner Souders moved to approve the minutes of the October 27, 1993, meeting as corrected. Commissioner Nutter seconded the motion, which passed unanimously. IV. PUBLIC HEARINGS STREET V AeA TION REOUEST - STY 93(11)03 - HALLER. A portion of West Fourth Street and 1tI" Street: Request for vacation of a portion of West Fourth Street (1500 Block) and a portion of "I" Street (abutting Blocks 125 and 130). Commissioner Alexander announced that he owns property one block away from the proposed area and so for appearance of fairness, he removed himself from the meeting room. John Iimerson referred to a letter on the dais in which the applicant stated that he would be unable to attend the meeting, and asked the Commission and City Council to continue the public hearings to December 8, 1993, and December 21, 1993, respectively. Chair Planning Commission Minutes November 10, 1993 Psge 2 . Winters asked if anyone in the audience had attended to speak to this item. There being public that wished to give comment, the public hearing was then declared open. Earl T. Fox, 1534 West Fourth Street, stated that he is the owner of Lots 9 and 10, in the block directly south of the area requested for vacation. His family has cared for the bluff area, which would be that portion of fI[" Street being requested for vacation, for two generations. He has personally cleaned the area up and prepared a play area for his and neighboring children at the site. It is a heavily wooded area that offers habitat for deer, raccoon and birds. The bluff area at this location ("I" Street) is a sheer drop of approximately 75 to 100 feet at its northernmost edge. There have been several landslides in past years at this location, recently (four years ago) a slide occurred directly to the east, and within the past three years a slide occurred to the west of this location. A portion of "1" Street in this area is so unstable that it sinks and has to be maintained by the City. There being no further public comment at this time eomrnissioner Philpott moved to continue the public hearing to the regular meeting of December 8th, 7 PM, City Hall. Commissioner Souders seconded the motion, which passed 5-0. Commissioner Alexander rejoined the meeting. . HIGHLAND COMMUNITIES FINAL PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DEVEWPMENT (PRD) AND PLAT: Final approval for Phase I and Phase II of the proposed planned residential development and plat, located between Lauridsen Boulevard and Melody Lane. Commissioner Philpott announced that he lives in the direct area of the planned residential development, and in order to be consistent with his previous action in this matter, he asked to be excused due to an appearance of fairness, and because there were no other action issues on the agenda. Mr. Philpott was excused from the remainder of the meeting. Mr. Collins stated that the Planning Department cannot recommend approval of the revised final PRD and plat due to the reasons explained in the Department's November 10,1993, memorandum. He then reviewed that memorandum. Mr. Collins used a colored map on the wall to illustrate where the geologic hazard and ravine areas are located on the property, answering questions from the Commission. Commissioner Nutter asked if the buffer area had been disturbed. Mr. Collins answered that the buffer area had been disturbed during the course of construction in excess of what should have occurred. There has been disturbance of the soil but no major moving of dirt at the top of the buffer area. There was some misunderstanding as to the protection that was required in the top of the bench area. That area was not designated by flagging, so no one recognized the bench area. Unless these required buffer areas are reduced those areas that were disturbed would need to be revegetated and restored. . Tim German, 2025 West Twelfth Street, stated that he and his partner had worked hard to mitigate concerns of the neighbors, the public and the City in this development. He distributed written rebuttal to the Planning Department's November 10, 1993, Planning Commission Minutes November 10, 1993 Page 3 . memorandum. He summarized that staff and the applicant have come to agreement on the geologic hazard and buffer and ravine setbacks. He believes that the plat and PRD as submitted are in conformance with the preliminary approval given in 1992, and that it can go forward at this time to the City Council for approval. The issue at this point is an interpretation of Section 17.70.040 of the Port Angeles Municipal Code (FAMC), which reads "The Planned Residential Development Ordinance states that there may be a modification of setbacks except.,. setback areas required by underlying zoning districts along the exterior property lines of the PRO." He believes that application is for the entire PRD even after it is replatted into smaller lots within itself. In this case, that assumption would allow a seven-foot side yard setback along the entire eastern side of the platJPRD. (Staffs interpretation is that once the property is further defined by platting, each lot within the PRO then becomes a separate lot within the larger PRD, with its own newly reconfigured front, rear and side yards.) The original plan included two- story homes on these lots. The neighbors and the Commission voiced concerns that two- story homes would block view corridors. Therefore, they consented to build one-story homes, but that reduces the square footage of the homes, unless the footprints are enlarged which in turn reduces the setback. The plan showing building footprints was not considered to be definite and unchangeable. It was felt the buildings could be expanded to the minimum setbacks for the zoning district, if necessary. If the staffs interpretation of yard requirements is upheld, it would change what is shown as side yards (7') to be rear yards (minimum 25'setback requirements). It would be unreasonable to require redesign of the plat. . Mr. Collins stated the City Attorney concluded that if the Planning Commission agrees with the applicant's interpretation that the exterior property line can have a seven-foot setback, the project can be recommended for approval to the City Council citing the findings and conditions from the Planning Department's October 13, 1993, staff report with the addition of one conclusion as provided by the applicant which reads lIThe PRD exterior setback lines are for the site as a whole and not for lots that may be part of a subsequent subdivision. " Commissioner Souders asked why the buffer had been impinged upon. Mr. German stated that the contractor had cleared up to the top of the bench before it was discovered that another sensitive area existed on the property. He stated that Planning staff is in agreement with the site's environmental sensitive areas protection at this point. Those areas are now clearly delineated. Commissioner Nutter questioned why the developer would think he could observe a side yard setback for a site when that site was then subsequently subdivided into individual lots which would then have their own, new front, side and rear lot setbacks. Mr. German answered that he was given the information in his initial contact with the Planning Department and that that information was placed on the plat and never challenged. . Commissioner Winters stated that the submittal appears to now state a ten-foot setback as being proposed on the east line. Mr. German concurred and stated that there is a ten- foot easement running along the eastern boundary for utility purposes. Mr. German Planning Commission Minutes November 10, 1993 Page 4 . noted a memorandum from the Light Department indicating the developers may wish to change the wording of the easement from ten feet to five feet on the east side of Lots AS, A21 and A22, abutting Highland Drive. Mr. German then reviewed his response to Items Nos. 2 - 5 of the Planning Department's memorandum and indicated that agreement had been reached with staff on these items. . Commissioner Souders stated that in the original staff report for preliminary approval (March, 1992) staff recognized that the front and rear setbacks were reduced to as little as seven feet. Mr. Collins answered that the report indicated that we needed to have additional setback area, that seven feet would not be consistent with the requirement, though this information does not appear to have been acted upon. He said that he believed that the City overlooked the seven-foot setback line, since the line was only noted at the bottom of the plat saying "minimum building setback lines". Building footprints are relied upon in a PRD to identify setbacks from any line, since there are no required setbacks except from exterior property lines. We relied on the building footprints to show all of the setback lines and had understood that the primary setbacks that are shown on the PRD are in fact twenty-five feet. Some pop-outs are shown as less than twenty-five feet from the rear lot lines, and we noted that we couldn't vary from that, but the City did not locate the building pop-outs back to the twenty-five foot line. In review with the City Attorney, it was determined that the building footprints were approved in the preliminary PRD and that we would respect that oversight and allow the buildings to occur as their footprints are shown on the PRD' It wasn't until after the October 13th Planning Commission meeting when the revised plan was submitted showing the buildings within ten or seven feet of the property lines that that seven-foot setback line was brought to our attention as still having been on the preliminary plat. It was an oversight on the City's part. The Department relied on the building footprints to represent the specific building locations, and believes that that is what the Planning Commission did as well. The side yard setback was originally given to the developer as seven feet when there was only one parcel of property to speak of, not following subdivision of the property. Mr. German stated that if the seven-foot side yard setbacks are not allowed, the open space of the project will be affected. Perimeter setbacks are not included in the calculation of open space. If the perimeter setbacks change to become rear yards, and are increased from seven feet to twenty-five feet, the minimum open space requirements will not be met. Open space for the project was calculated to the seven-foot setbacks throughout the proposal, except for single-family lots. . The applicant added that if this 11 + acre site would have been developed to its underlying wning requirements, as a multi-family development, an apartment building could have been constructed of up to 300 units, within seven feet of the side property lines, with no public hearing. The current development proposal is far less impactive than what would be allowed, and the density is one-half of the allowed for the RHO zoning designation. Mr. German asked that the Commission forward a favorable recommendation to the City Council with the findings and conclusions as he had noted previously. Planning Commission Minutes November 10, 1993 Page 5 . Gerald Powell, 718 Elizabeth Place, stated that he realized the density is less than what could be allowed under the underlying zoning designation (RHD). He is happy the developer has not decided to construct apartments. He believes the project is driven by dollars and cents. If the developer would redesign the eastern portion of the site to take two lots and make one larger lot out of each of themt with larger homes in the center of those lotst it would add to the area and there would be no concern about setback requirements. He stated that a ten-foot side yard setback is unreasonable as it does not even allow for emergency maintenance and/or repair in the event it is needed, between the proposed homes and existing homes to the east. Chair Winters asked Gary Kenworthy, City Engineer, if ten feet is sufficient for maintenance and repair of the existing eight inch sanitary sewer line at the eastern property edge. Mr. Kenworthy answered that ten foot is absolute minimum, wider would be more desirable. Marvin Daly, 704 Elizabeth Place, asked what type of landscaping is required along the eastern edge of this development. Mr. Collins answered that preliminary approval requires intensive landscaping of the eastern perimeter of the site. If the rear yards become only ten feet in depth, then that would mean that there would be intensive landscaping over the sewer line that exists in that ten-foot area. . Mr. Collins indicated by overhead illustrations the lot lines in question. When this was approved, he believes the staff and the Planning Commission were under the impression that they were approving the patio homes with essentially twenty-five foot rear setbacks, as is required by zoning requirements, with the exception of the pop-outs, based on where the buildings were represented to be by the building footprint illustration. He further stated that the wording concerning the "minimum building setback line" was lost in the other myriad of issues as the PRD was being processed, but that it was never the intention of staff that the buildings would cover the entire lots. The reference in Appendix "A" of the applicant's submittal to "... setbacks as small as seven feetlt is specific to three sites, Lot A15 and Lots 18 and 20, but not to all other lot sites. The City's PRD Ordinance does not allow for reductions of other than interior PRD lot lines: no exterior lot line reductions are allowed. He didn't believe it was understood that the building footprints would be relocated from how they were shown on the preliminary drawings. The only way the proposed PRD/plat could be approved as not in conflict with the City's PRD Ordinance would be to define what are shown as rear yards to the patio homes as side yards. . Mr. Collins believes the City Attorney is most comfortable with the notion that we have approved a site specific development plan with the building footprints as shown. To the extent that those setbacks do not meet the rear yard requirements, that's a mistake. We are required to live with that mistake because we approved those building footprints. The City Attorney indicated that because of the seven-foot minimum building setback line, it could be to interpreted that what was originally approved was that buildings could be moved to within seven feet of that property line, notwithstanding the sewer line issue, Planning Commission Minutes November 10, 1993 Page 6 . with the understanding that that is a side yard and not a rear yard. This may not be the best interpretation, but it is a possible interpretation, given the fact that we failed to remove that line. Mr. Collins stated that if a variation in the site specific footprints is to be permitted, we have to address the issue that this must be a side yard, not a rear yard. He noted that all of the information including the information submitted in Appendix" A" and the mitigation measures provided by the applicant refers to the exterior property lines as rear yards; the staff reports all refer to those areas as rear yards; there was no reference anywhere except in the preliminary discussions about the site as a whole where the setback areas are referred to as anything but rear yards. The other issues addressed can be resolved. Mr. Collins added that Chair Winters noted some changes which need to be made to the mylar should be required. The Commission took a five-minute break. at 9: 15 pm. The meeting reconvened at 9:20 pm. Mr. Collins showed a short video of the environmentally sensitive areas and of the areas of Lots AI, 2, 3 and 4, where a building pad has been excavated, which indicates the relationship of that area to Mr. Powell's house and his neighbors. . Mr. German stated that they have tried very hard to address everyone's concerns and will continue to do so. He answered the question raised earlier by Mr. Powell that extensive marketing study shows larger homes don't sell well in this area, so they will not be developed. There is a per unit cost to develop land. When the number of units are reduced, it takes that cost up. The infrastructure and improvements have already been done, it is too late to redesign the proposal. The sewer line easement area indicated will be landscaped as required. In response to Mr. Collins' comments, there are no dimensions on the building footprint drawings, they were just illustrative. The only dimensions and firm facts are on the plat. He restated that he believes this plan represents the conditions of preliminary approval. We've all learned a lot from this, some changes may need to be made to the ordinance following this experience. Commissioner Souders did not agree that the building footprint drawings were not dimensional. She remembered that building layouts were very specific. Mr. German answered that those layouts went from two story to one story, but the square footage was not reduced, therefore, requiring more site coverage. Commissioner Campbell noted that it is important to work with developers and they with staff in order to participate and make sure regulations are being complied with as they are intended. Commissioner Nutter asked Mr. German how he intends to rectify the problem of the clearing that was done, that shouldn't have been. Mr. German answered that those areas would be replanted. He added that the incursion was caused by an equipment operator error. . Gerry Powell, 718 Elizabeth Place, requested that no building setbacks be allowed less than ten feet around the circumference of the site. Planning Commission Minutes November 10, 1993 Page 7 . There being no further public comment, the public hearing was closed. Chair Winters asked Mr. Collins to explain the options available to the Commission. Mr. Collins responded that the Commission could recommend approval by citing the findings and conclusions contained in the October 13, 1993, staff report and by including the conclusion presented by Mr. German in his November 10, 1993, memorandum. A second option is to agree with staffs report of November 10, 1993, listing the ten findings and two or three conclusions for a recommendation of denial to the City Council. Alternatively, the applicant could be requested to make revisions as requested earlier for a recommendation at a future meeting. If the concern is that there is too much confusion involved, and that the preliminary plat was not adequate, a fourth option could be to ask that the preliminary approval be redone. Staffs recommendation is to come to a conclusion about what the Commission thought was approved and be consistent with that decision. Chair Winters summarized that it would seem the issue is whether the building footprints or the dimension setbacks prevail. The question is what did the Commission approve? Secondly, is it reasonable to consider that the easterly boundary is a side yard? . Commissioner Alexander asked staff what the percentage of common usable open space is for the project. John Jimerson answered that it is at or very near the allowable 30%. eommissioner Alexander noted that the compromise that has been reached on the western side may be acceptable. There have been errors in this development by the developers and the staff. He is concerned that subsequent phases of this development will be affected by a change in the setback as required. It may not be equitable to ask the developer to redesign his plan at this point. It doesn't appear that any of the plans submitted thus far have been correct. The applicant's understanding is that what was approved thus far was not site specific; however, staff is correct in saying a PRD is a site specific project, and not changeable. Commissioner Campbell stated that the building footprints cannot be considered adjustable. He suggested continuation for additional information from the applicant. A landscape plan and a topographical survey would be very helpful in this situation, and a landscape plan is a requirement of the preliminary approval. Commissioner Nutter did not feel that the eastern perimeter of the site could be considered side yards for abutting lots when the interior lots have been platted with varying front and rear configurations. The developer stated he feels the building footprints can be changed, but the front and side yards cannot be changed to his disadvantage, following platting of the property. She also expressed discomfort with a reduction of the required buffer areas. . Commissioner Souders said that accepting what is a rear yard as a side yard would be setting a dangerous precedent for future developments. She stated that although the developer said that what he represented previously was not final, the time and effort given to that discussion indicated to her that it was a firm proposal, not changeable, as stated by the applicant. The eastern perimeter lines have become rear yards for those lots Planning Commission Minutes November 10, 1993 Page 8 . now shown as platted in that area. Those areas which are shown as rear yards for lots along the eastern perimeter were considered rear yards. It was never the intention to create a zoning violation in this matter. Commissioner Campbell stated he did not believe it was the intent of the Commission or the staff to intentionally violate zoning regulations of the City in approval of this plat. Commissioner Alexander agreed that the intent of yard requirements are to buffer abutting lots and their uses from each other. He would like to see the western boundary showing the buffers and how they impact building areas. Commissioner Souders said she would like to review plans for rectification of the illegal clearing, landscaping on the perimeter and buffer areas for the top of the bank and the top of the bench. . Following lengthy discussion the Commission determined that they would like to have further information with specific topographic details and landscaping information. To that end, Chair Winters asked Mr. German if he would be willing to provide that information at a future meeting. Mr. German answered that he would not be willing to provide the requested information without seeking counsel at this time. He said he has already provided the requested information. Interpretation of what he considers side yards as opposed to what staff considers rear yards will mean the plat does not qualify for PRO approval because he then cannot meet minimum open space requirements. In response to a question from Chair Winters, Mr. Collins explained that the Phase I and II single-family home areas are not considered to be part of the common open space area calculations. There may be a problem in the cottage area calculations (lots Cl through C5)for open space which is a very irregularly shaped area. Commissioner eampbell moved that without the requested additional information a recommendation of denial of the final PRD and plat be forwarded to the City Council, citing the following findings and conclusions: FindinlS: 1. The request is for Final PRD and Plat approval for Phases 1 & 2 of the Highland Communities development. These phases consist of 26 single family lots with a recreational path, park area and a temporary grass open space. 2. The property is zoned Residential High Density (RHO). 3. At the time of preliminary approval, the proposal was reviewed with respect to zoning and subdivision ordinances and the Comprehensive Plan. 4. Preliminary PRD and Plat approval was granted on May 19, 1992. . 5. The proposal has been reviewed with respect to conformance to the approved preliminary plat and conditions of approval. Planning Commission Minutes November 10, 1993 Page 9 6. The utilities, drainage and roadway improvements have been provided. . 7. The proposed building footprints are inconsistent with the footprints on the preliminary approved preliminary plat. The rear yard footprints on Lots A 1- A 7 have been reduced to ten feet and the rear yard open space has been reduced to about 47% of the open space shown on the approved preliminary PRO plan. 8. The final plat shows building footprints within the 50 foot buffer wne from the top of the ravine on Lots Al4 and A15 and shows portions of the buffer wne on Lot A26 beyond the identified building setback line. No exception to the buffer requirement has been granted. 9. A geologic hazard environmentally sensitive area (bench) is located near the western property line. No determination as to the necessity for a buffer zone has been made. to. Disturbance of required environmentally sensitive area buffers has occurred. eonclusions: A. The proposed final PRD and Plat is not in conformance with the preliminary approved Plans. The homes on Lots Al - A 7 do not meet the setbacks and rear yard open spaces as previously approved. Most other footprints on the final plat also vary from the approved site plan. . B. The proposed final PRD and Plat is inconsistent with Section 17.70.040 PAMC as it would allow an increase in the encroachment of the buildings into the exterior rear yard setbacks. C. The proposed final PRD and Plat is not in conformance with the Environmentally Sensitive Areas Ordinance requirements for non-disturbance buffer areas protecting critical areas nor in conformance with the preliminary PRO and Plat conditions of approval for such. Commissioner Nutter seconded the motion, which passed 5-0. Mr. Collins noted the item would be on the November 16, 1993, City Council agenda, and that it is not a public hearing. Mr. German noted that he would be requesting a public hearing on this item. . Commissioner Souders expressed her concern that there could have been a more comprehensive review of this proposal in its preliminary stage. She urged that detailed findings, as are being written for more recent decisions, always be prepared for these types of applications. The Commission and Council have always tried to be sensitive to developers' proposals and timelines and perhaps we should try to be more comprehensive and take more time in these situations. Wording that clarifies the PRD Ordinance requirements would be helpful as well. Planning Commission Minutes November 10, 1993 Page [0 . Commissioner Alexander stated that an exterior setback for a PRO should be made consistent with the maximum setback for the underlying zoning district~ which he thought was twenty-five feet for all residential zones, except the RS-7, Residential Single-Family District, which is twenty feet. Mr. Collins agreed with Commissioner Alexander and said such a clarification would be brought to the Planning Commission. Mr. Collins added that a proposed revision to the PRD requirements has been submitted by Mr. German and will be presented to the Commission at the December meeting. V. COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE PUBLIC Tim German, 2025 West Twelfth Street, said he had not intended to violate the required buffer area in the development of Highland Communities PRO. He expressed his frustration with the City's new Environmentally Sensitive Areas Ordinance which was developed and adopted during the process of this PRD approval. He invested heavily in the development based on the preliminary approvals. He felt the City's Attorney realized there were mistakes in that area and had provided an opportunity for compromise. VI. STAFF REPORTS . Brad Collins reported on the City Council's actions of November 2, 1993. He added that the housekeeping ordinance which was proposed for the current meeting will be set for January, 1994. He mentioned that two Commissioners' terms of appointment are due to expire in February, 1994, and asked Commissioner Nutter if she is interested in reappointment to the Commission. She indicated she would like to be reappointed. The second Commissioner, excused from the meeting, is Commissioner Catts. Mr. Collins also noted there is an American Planning Association (AP A) sectional meeting scheduled for December 2, 1993, at John Wayne Marina. He encouraged Commissioners to attend if possible. This is a meeting of planners and planning commissioners for the four county Peninsula area, so it will be a good local intergovernmental relations and educational opportunity. John Jimerson reported that the Shoreline Citizen Advisory Committee (SCAC) had met for the first time on November 4th. A half day workshop is set for December 9, 3 pm to 6 pm. He invited any Commissioners who wished to attend that meeting. A consultant, Makers Architecture and Urban Design, has been selected. VII. REPORTS OF THE COMMISSION . Commissioner Souders said she will be staffing a Watershed group booth at the Vern Burton Memorial Community Center (VBMCC) on December 7, 1993, for the Family Learning Night activity. With regard to the City's commencement ofrevising the current Shoreline Master Program, she contacted the Victoria Express operators concerning a harbor cruise to help the public visualize shoreline activities and get the public involved in development of the shoreline. She would like to be active in organization of that activity. Mr. Collins indicated the shoreline committee (SCAC) would be interested in . . . Planning Commission Minutes November 10, 1993 Page 11 such an activity as well. Commissioner Campbell stated that he would be on vacation from December 2nd through the 14th. He requested to be excused from the December 8th meeting. Commissioner Alexander stated the Capital Facilities Committee did not meet this week, but will meet on the 17th of November. vm. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 11:30 pm. Bra~ E~ffiry j>~ lA, Bob Winters, Chair PREPARED BY: Sue Roberds . AC170NS REGARDING PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Meeting of November 10, 1993 1. STREET VACATION REOUEST - STY 93(11)06 - HALLER. Portions of West Fourth Street and "III Street: Request for vacation of a portion of West Fourth (1500 Block) Street and a portion of "III Street (abutting Blocks 125 and 130). Applicant has requested continuation of this item until December 21, 1993. 2. FINAL PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DEVEWPMENT - HIGHLAND COMMUNITIES. Melody Lane: Final submittal for a planned unit development and plat. Please see memorandum attached to minutes . . (\ . PLEASE SIGN IN CITY OF PORT ANGELES Attendance Roster Type of Meeting Planning Commission Date :~~~ /~,/9~ Location 3 E. 5 h S r e - CitY all Name Acjdress c~ 7 # I~~'f w'-l~l kr# 1''';-/0 1;~ ~n 5. ~~ .~J/ (t.~ ..d, 1'6 fL-;:l ft- ,/ jJ J , ; ~.~ iA J ~ ::~~ i1'7k ~~~~ ~"'\ ) II h), ~ oJ . · ])(}.I~ NlfU.-/4/h.\ /735 \/-J Ut'h ~ VA. .::J)~ 1;.r::n'^~ ~II/~ .d jJfJ ----1JjcJ f d1au_~7~Lj ~b~ .