Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 10/30/1990 . . . AGENDA PORT ANGELES PLANNING COMMISSION 321 East Fifth Street Port Angeles, W A 98362 October 30, 1990 7:00 P.M. I. CALL TO ORDER D. ROLL CALL ill. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Meeting of October 10, 1990 IV. PUBLIC HEARINGS: 1. PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT - DEL HUR. INC.. Del Guzzi Drive: Proposal to develop a planned residential development on property located on Del Guzzi Drive, adjacent to Ennis Creek, between State Route 101 and Lindberg Road. (This item is continued from the August 30, 1990, meeting.) 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. 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. Planning Commission: Larry Leonard, Chair; Ray Grover, Vice..Qlair; Bill Anabel; Roger Calls; Jim Hulett; Bob Philpott. Planning Staff: Brad Collins, Planning Director; Sue Roberds, Planning Office Specialist. . . . Planning Commission Agenda Page 2 v. COMMUNICATIONS FROM mE PUBLIC VI. STAFF REPORTS VD. REPORTS OF COMl\1ISSION MEMBERS VID. ADJOURNMENT NOTES: The Planning Commission will not, except at the discretion of the chairman, commence a new hearing after 10 P.M Project files and applicable City land use regulations may be reviewed prior to the public hearing in the Planning Department. Copies of all material in the files are available at a cost of $.25 per page. . . . MINUTES Planning Commission Port Angeles, Washington Special Meeting October 30, 1990 I. CALL TO ORDER: The meeting was called to order at 7:15 P.M., by Vice Chairman Gruver. II. ROLL CALL: Members Present: Ray Gruver, Roger Catts, Jim Hulett, Bob Philpott, william Anabel and Larry Leonard (arrived late). (One Commission vacancy.) Staff Present: Brad Collins, Sue Roberds, Craig Knutson, Gary Kenworthy and Bruce Becker. III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Bob Philpott noted a correction in the Minutes of the October 10, 1990, meeting. commissioner Hulett moved to amend the Minutes of October 10, 1990, by correcting the address of Linda Debord, as 1309 East Seventh Street (page 7 ~ last paragraph). Bob Philpott seconded the motion which passed unanimously. IV. PUBLIC HEARING: PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT - DEL HUR. INC.. Del Guzzi Drive: Proposal to develop a planned residential development on property located on del Guzzi Drive, adjacent to Ennis Creek, between State Route 101 and Lindberg Road (continued from August 30, 1990). Mr. Collins explained the background of the site plan presently proposed for review by the Planning Commission. noting that the plan was submitted in response to items of concern listed at the August 30, 1990, meeting of the Planning Commission. Mr. Collins noted that there are several options open to the Commission: (1) Act on one of the plans as proposed, by either approving or conditioning those plans with findings and conclusions to support that action; (2) Deny the PRD by denial of both submitted plans, citing findings and conclusions for the action; (3) Provide direction to the applicant to modify the present site plan and continue the item to the next Planning Commission Minutes Special Meeting October 30, 1990 . Page 2 available meeting of the Commission for consideration. Jim Hulett questioned staff as to the construction of retaining walls as noted by the Public Works Department in the staff memorandum. Mr. Hulett said he thought the Uniform Building Code dictated requirements for that construction and would be considered in review of building plans. In response to questions from the Commission concerning the number of playgrounds and location of parking areas for PROs, Mr. Collins answered that there are three (3) playgrounds proposed by the applicant rather than the two (2) as noted in the staff report, and the parking specifications are no different for PRDs than for other developments; however, it is within the Planning Commission's purview to review the proposal and determine whether the parking is convenient to sites within the PRD. . [Larry Leonard joined the meeting at 7:30 P.M. and assumed the Chair.] Mr. Leonard apologized for his tardiness and briefly reviewed the public hearing process, Mr. Collins answered questions from the Commissioners regarding lot acreages, fencing, space between buildings, detention ponds and the number of units in both Plan A (the original submittal) and Plan B (submitted October 23, 1990). There being no further inquiries from the Commission, Chairman Leonard opened the public hearing. . Tom Goeltz, Davis, Wright, Tremaine, Seattle, Washington, land use attorney for the proponent, was present. Mr. Goel tz requested the Commission come to a decision at the meeting as this was the fourth time the proposal has been considered. He stated that Plan A is still the preferred choice of the applicant; however, Plan B is an effort to respond to the Commission's concerns expressed at the August 30th meeting, and is less impactive on Ennis Creek. The single-family housing east of the Creek has been eliminated from the PRD and there will be no development on Lot 2. The lot will either be dedicated to the City in perpetuity, a homeowner's association, or whatever entity the City sees best. Mr. Goeltz stated that he hoped that was in keeping with the Planning Commission's intent at the August 30, 1990, meeting. . Planning Commission Minutes Special Meeting October 30, 1990 Page 3 Ed Linardic, 1319 Dexter Avenue North, Seattle, Washington, architect for the proposal, briefly responded to some of the questions directed to staff prior to opening of the public portion of the meeting. He noted that the trail along Ennis Creek had been deleted; the parking is as close as possible to those sites served; fencing is as in Plan A, but can be extended along Del Guzzi Drive if requested; the retaining walls will meet the 150-foot setback required and the par course can be routed to meander through the development if desired. An open space definition is not contained in the Code; therefore steep slopes are not specifically excluded from being calculated as open space. He further stated that the applicant is willing to try to save as many trees of 4" caliper and above as possible, and invited staff to walk the site with the developer to that end. Mr. Linardic said the plan well exceeded the required 30% open space and there would be no problem in reducing the grade of parking areas or height of retaining walls, in response to Public Works' concern. . Jim Mantooth, 2238 East Lindberg Road, stated that the EIS prepared for the 1985 annexation stated that an earth tone solid cedar fencing would be used. Dr. Mantooth noted that fencing deficiencies are in both submittals, and the proposal is for cyclone fencing. He stated that the developer should be required to extend the fencing to eliminate access to the Creek. Mr. Catts questioned Dr. Mantooth as to other areas outside of this project in this area where access to the Creek could be gained by anyone who so desired. . Dr. Mantooth answered that there are no other dense developments in this area, but the Creek can be accessed by private land owners with large acreages. He stated that this project would artificially increase water drainage to surrounding properties which should not be allowed. He presented a map indicating the impervious and open space areas proposed in the current site plan. He said there is as much as a 45% grade on large amounts of the open space designated areas. If there are 10 acres of open space, at least 30% (3 acres) should be easily accessible. Areas should not be designated as open space if they are not easily accessible by a large number of people. High density is hazardous to environmentally sensitive areas landwise, and this is a very dense development. He requested the rezone be denied because the proposed PRD is not suitable to this site. Richard Terrill, 3123 Old Olympic Highway, stated that only by trekking through the Creek area can one begin to realize the fragile ecosystem that exists. He stated the . Planning Commission Minutes Special Meeting October 30, 1990 Page 4 site proposal should fit the environment rather than adapt the environment to fit the site plan; parking should be screened from the street and fenced and runoff from the parking area should be filtered; removal of all vegetation should not be permitted and buildings should be built around mature trees; no diversion of water to surrounding properties should be allowed and the developer should be required to upgrade Lindberg Road due to the impact of 500 or more cars per day. In closing, Mr. Terrill stated that this is not the right project for this site. . Kent Brauninger, 903 East Park Avenue, was present. Mr. Brauninger stated that he represented Save Our streams and his hope was to convince the Commission, staff and applicant that the proposal is wrong for this site. Mr. Brauninger presented slides of a devastating landslide which occurred in 1969-70 of the roadway from the Olympic National Park Service Headquarters to the Heart Of The Hills. He was concerned that a comparable slide could occur in the proposed PRD area due to the similarity soil composition and topography as well as the like removal of vegetation to accommodate the development. Pesticides and herbicides, once absorbed by the heavy vegetation buffer, could flow freely into the Creek causing chemical pollution. No fence can keep a child from going under or around a fence, if they choose to do so. Tom Shindler, 499 Little River Road, was present representing the Olympic Trails Coalition. Mr. Shindler encouraged the adoption of a trail at this time or anytime in the future along the Creek noting that the trail would provide a constituency for protection of the Creek. The Creek trail could connect to other trails forming a network of trails desired to serve people of all ages, physical capabilities or handicaps and personal preferences. Marie Gruebel, 315 West 15th street, was concerned with degradation of greenbelts in the name of progress. She noted that Ennis Creek has survived where other like areas of the City have not. She urged the Commission to vote to protect the precious inheritance that we have and urged repeal of the rezone. . Jessica Wesler, 911 South Cedar, noted that a proposal of this type might be needed but should be placed elsewhere in the City. She urged the Commission to deny the PRO proposal and return the area to single-family zoning. Bob Dalton, 812 East 7th Street, stated that he has lived in the area for 47 years and the salmon fishing has been saved due to the restoration efforts by local residents. 150 feet is a required riparian zone on both sides of the Creek. Uncontrolled development should not be allowed on . Planning Commission Minutes Special Meeting October 30, 1990 Page 5 Ennis Creek. Pat Wennekens, 399 Norman street, Sequim, representing the Twanoh Chapter of the Sierra Club, stated concerns over the sedimentation pollution which would occur in the Creek. He stated that sedimentation pollution would destroy the food source in the stream and that during the construction phase, extensive retaining ponds would be necessary to protect the Creek from that erosion. Culverts are considered point source pollution and requires an NPDES permit. Clay Rennie, 401 East vista View, stated that the state is losing 30,000 acres of environmentally sensitive area per year. He did not think that local planning commissions are doing their homework and that is why Initiative 547 is on the ballot at the present time. . Don Rudolph, 1013 East Third street, was present representing the Olympic peninsula Research Association. Mr. Rudolph stated that the Association supports the Ennis Creek development because of the area's need for housing. He urged the Commission to give the proj ect the okay. The Planning commission recessed for 10 minutes, reconvening at 9:30 P.M. Linda May, 29 Golf Course Road, stated that the proposed density is too high for this area. Rentals are needed for the city, but this site is too fragile. The development doesn't fit the site and the site doesn't fit the development. Allen Busenbark, 619 East Park, retired head of the Clallam County Soils Conservation Service, noted that the bulk of the site sits on clay which compacts easily and becomes very hard very quickly when subjected to construction activity and building. The effect of additional water on the stream would raise the level of the stream and cause more erosion as well as chemical pollution. He stated that soils tests are necessary. . Duane Wolfe, 2106 East Fourth street, President of the Peninsula Golf Club was present representing the Board of Directors of the Golf Club. Mr. Wolfe stated that the Peninsula Golf Club has recently reached agreement with the developer on certain issues such as fencing, and are presently working on a proposal to develop retention ponds to help alleviate some of the problems on the hill. Thelma Durham, 673 Reservoir Road, apologized to the Commission and the applicant for the tone of the speakers at the public hearing. She stated that she can understand the desire of the surrounding property owners . Planning Commission Minutes Special Meeting October 30, 1990 Page 6 to protect their environment because of its beauty and seclusion from mUlti-family development. Mrs. Durham stated that she has been the recipient of 10 - 15 calls a day this past summer from homeless people desperately in need of housing. Although it is of the utmost importance to protect the environment, it is also very important to provide housing and that need is a desperate one. Matt Skerbeck, 2630 Masters Road, stated that the city is desperately in need of housing. He said that the developer appears to have tried to comply with the concerns expressed by extremist groups. There are hundreds of miles of creeks on the Peninsula, and this proposal would be a benefit to the community. will Word, 1339 East Lauridsen Boulevard, stated that he agreed that housing is a critical need in this area, but felt those areas that draw people to the area should also be protected. . Ron Richards, 313 East Twelfth Street, stated that the city has gone a long way down the wrong road. He said it is time to tell the developer that the Creek and our watershed are greenbelt, and fish runs and the steep slopes that are being endangered all dictate that this development not be approved at this site. He said that the fencing proposal is ludicrous; the clay retention basins will not work; there is a fish run problem and a concern of obstruction of the fish ladder under the Highway. The need for housing does not allow the City to ignore the other situations which city officials are bound to consider. Mr. Richards also expressed concern over a potential appearance of fairness problem because there are two realtors on the Planning Commission. Mr. Richards said the City constructed Del Guzzi Drive and the associated utilities, at a cost of about $700,000 he thought, which is in effect a loan to the developer to be paid back by tax assessments over the next ten years. He questioned the open-mindedness of the City when there would be a potential conflict to protect the ci ty IS investment. . In response to a question from Commissioner Leonard concerning the effectiveness of the retention ponds, Mr. Richards said that his reason for the statement that the ponds would be ineffective was from his background as a chemical engineer and simple common sense. He stated that due to the composition of the soil in the area, water would quickly saturate and continually overflow from the ponds particularly in the rainy season, rendering the ponds ineffective. Jim Walton, 333 Viewcrest Avenue, stated that although . Planning commission Minutes Special Meeting October 30, 1990 Page 7 Ennis Creek is not a large creek by comparison, it is a good fish run creek. He noted the economic value of the fish run in the Creek. He further stated that it is difficult to keep people contained in a relatively small area particularly when a creek is nearly in their backyard. In response to a question from Commissioner Leonard, Mr. Walton indicated that although the Department of Fisheries stated that a 150-foot buffer would be sufficient, in his opinion it would not be. Mike Dougherty, a Port Angeles resident, stated that the atmosphere provided for children is too restrictive for children living in the PRD. The school district has not been consulted in this proposal and he was of the opinion that a new school bus might be needed due to the increased number of school aged children. . Michael Hare, 1225 Deer Park Road, stated that he is not happy with the growth that has occurred in the city in the past few years. There are more stop lights, more fast food restaurants, and the area looks too much like too many other towns. He questioned whether this area is hurting for land to develop housing in, and stated that Port Angeles does not need housing in the Ennis Creek Valley. Jim Nelson, 1121 West 17th Street, supported what had previously been said by Dr. Jim Walton, concerning the need to preserve fisheries in the area for socio-economic reasons. . Robbie Mantooth, 2238 East Lindberg Road, noted the concerns previously expressed by the Planning Commission in review of this PRD proposal. She stated that a significant reduction in the density would reduce the impact to the area. The City has given the developer enough time to show good faith and no further time or money should be spent to review a plan that will not work without a decrease in density. She urged the City to take the appropriate action and deny the proposal. Mrs. Mantooth noted for the record that she had not objected to the 1985 annexation or single-family proposals for this site but said the site plan for development proposed in the annexation indicated development at a density nowhere near that at which the current proposal requests. Mrs. Mantooth stated that if the Planning commission proceeds with the rezone, it is unlikely that the courts will allow it to go through. From the evidence now available, there is no reason to turn what should be the responsibility of local public officials to the courts. She urged the Commission to take the appropriate action. Jan Hare, 2136 East Lindberg Road, noted that in her Planning Commission Minutes Special Meeting October 30, 1990 . Page 8 recollection, the members of the peninsula Golf Course had not voted on a stand for or against the project. She said she has no objection to single-family or multi- family units in the area. Her objection is to the density proposed. Ann Murray, 1502 East Lauridsen Boulevard, stated concern over air pollution from the automobile exhausts and the double impact of that air pollution being increased without the trees to aid in filtering polluted air. She said she is certain the Commissioners realize the importance of the right for all species to exist in deliberating this proposal. Whatever we do in 1990, it is important to not have done it at the expense of non-human species. She said that possibly no development should be allowed east of Del Guzzi Drive, as it does not seem possible to develop that area without irreparable damage to species involved. In closing, she said that this project has four specific areas: human needs; human wants; non-human protection; and corporate profits. . Bill Williams, 1308 East Front, Apartment 7, stated that the area is too sensitive for development. overdevelopment can do irreparable damage to this sensitive area. David Howatt, 29 Golf Course Road, said he observed a heron fishing in the Creek and bobcat and black bear tracks all within two miles of the proposed development. There is no way a lS0-foot buffer can protect the habitat of these animals. The last surviving stream in Port Angeles is no place for the largest development in Port Angeles. He urged the Commissioners to build the project elsewhere other than in this sensitive area. There being no further testimony, Chairman Leonard opened the hearing to rebuttal, which, he noted, would be limited to rebuttal of statements previously made. . Duane Wolfe, 2106 West Fourth street, stated that he wished to correct an untruthful statement which had been previously made. He said that for the past several years he had been the City'S Finance Director, and had the knowledge to correct the statement indicating that the City has a $700,000 investment in the development. Mr. Wolfe said the City has no investment in the development. The City facilitated the establishment of Del Guzzi Drive and associated improvements through establishment of a local improvement district. Payment for the improvements is based entirely on assessments for that property. If those payments are not made, the debt will go into default but the City has absolutely no obligation. In response to a question from Chairman Leonard, Mr. Wolfe said that the new light signal on Highway 101 at . Planning Commission Minutes Special Meeting October 30, 1990 Page 9 Del Guzzi Drive was a requirement of the Department of Transportation. Ron Richards stated that from his knowledge of how LIDs are formed, it is that the government loans the money to the project which is paid back in taxes. He said the City built Del Guzzi Drive and the associated improvements and they might be paid back, but whether or not there is enough development to support a $700,000 road depends on how much development is there. Single- family development on the road might not payoff the investment, so you might have some reason to allow a higher density development than you should really have. . Following extensive discussion, City Attorney craig Knutson answered that bonds were sold to private investors, so the City is not putting up money for the LID. The money is being financed. Ultimately the property is on the hook for the pay back in the event of default by the developer. An obligation becomes a lien against the property, if the Obligation is not met, the property is subject to being foreclosed upon to payoff the debt. Mr. Knutson indicated that he is not a bond counsel, but the process was scrutinized by bond counsel as well as the underwriter's who are responsible for market ing the bonds and it was Mr. Knutson's understanding that if there was not enough value in the property, the bonds would not have been issued, regardless of how the property is developed. In response to a question from Commissioner Leonard, Mr. Wolfe stated that the LID bond is a special assessment bond. A special assessment bond pledges only the assessments against the property and the city acts only to facilitate the collection and payment of the bonds. If a default is made the bond holders have no recourse to the city. The city has up-front costs which are paid out of the proceeds of the notes; the notes are paid out of the proceeds of the bonds. There is no obligation to the city. Bill Wilbert, 13850 Bel-Red Road, Bellevue, Washington, stated that architects, engineers, biologists and other specialists had been consulted in the project proposal. Mr. wilbert urged the Commission to make a decision on the proposal. . Robbie Mantooth, 2238 East Lindberg Road, said that she did not think a significant decrease in density has been made, that the elimination of the 84 bed-elderly facility and 25 multi-family units is not a significant decrease. There being no further comment, the Commission took a 10- minute break, reconvening at 10:50 P.M. Planning Commission Minutes Special Meeting October 30, 1990 . Page 10 Commissioner Catts questioned Mr. Wilbert as to his reasons for the selection of the property at Ennis Creek. Mr. Wilbert answered that there were no other properties in the close price range of this property or with its proximity to shopping, schools, hospitals and the infrastructure. Mr. Catts questioned whether soils tests had been done for specific building sites. Mr. Wilbert said there had been no specific site tests done due to the unknown areas of the buildings prior to an approved site plan. However, he said engineering tests had been done in seven different areas, which were submitted to the city. He answered specific questions about foundation plans. Mr. Catts asked whether the tennis courts encroach into the buffer zone, and if they would be lit. . Mr. wilbert answered that the tennis courts would not be lit, would be approximately 250 yards from the Mantooth property and surrounded by a 12-foot cyclone fence. In response to a further question from Commissioner Catts concerning the background of the proposal, Mr. wilbert said that in 1984, Del Hur anticipated doing a 114-unit single-family golf course development for the weal thy upper class. In September, 1989, Del Hur analyzed the housing situation in Port Angeles, and determined that there was a need for multiple family housing units and that a project of this type could meet that need. A condition of rezone of the property to residential multi- family to accommodate such a development included a condition of a successful PRD proposal. Jim Hulett questioned Mr. Wilbert concerning drainage. Mr. Wilbert responded that water from the site would be directed through a filtration unit and to the Creek itself. A hydraulics permit would be required. . . Planning commission Minutes special Meeting October 30, 1990 Page 11 . There being no further comment, Chairman Leonard closed the public hearing. Ray Gruver did not perceive that the developer had put together a project that would make sense for this property. He was not convinced that this project meets the community's needs in its present form. He said that comments from the public concerning the placement of multi-family structures along the west side of Del Guzzi Drive made a lot of sense. He added that environmental issues and density concerns had not been adequately taken into account by the developer. He said that his preference is to deny the PRD proposal without prejudice in order to give the applicant an answer, and to allow the developer to return at a later date with a PRD proposal suitable to the property. William Anabel stated that he is of the opinion that the particular setting for the PRD is wrong as presented. He said that the project is too ambitious a project for this location, and all development east of Del Guzzi Drive should be drastically reduced or entirely eliminated. He noted for the record that the Planning commission had taken a lot of implied criticism from the audience, and that is wrong. People have worked hard and brought up a lot of good points and the Planning Commission has worked very hard to review the proposals and all the information presented, as well as listening to the public's concerns. He said an apology was due the Planning Commissioners from most of those present. Bob Philpott noted that a project of this type is needed in Port Angeles. There is always going to be someone who does not want a project in their neighborhood, but these types of proj ects are needed in Port Angeles. Mr. Philpott said that Plan B has value because it protects the Creek environment more so than Plan A. Port Angeles will grow and change and the need for housing will grow with it. Jim Hulett spoke of his concern over the parking. He said that possibly there should be a reduction in the number of units rather than adjusting the units to the parking stalls. . Chairman Leonard questioned the reasons for denial of the project at this point. He said that in his opinion the developer had acted in good faith and had responded to the Commission's concerns as listed at the August 30th meeting. He did not see that there were areas the developer had not attempted to address or correct following the August 30th meeting. He said the Commission should have told the developer in August if the concerns expressed over the inappropriateness of the . Planning Commission Minutes Special Meeting October 30, 1990 Page 12 proposal to the site were that genuinely felt, and that possibly there should not be any development, or more restrictive usage of the property east of Del Guzzi Drive. He said that a lot of time, effort and money had been expended on both the City's and developer's part due to that apparent oversight. Roger Catts was concerned that the proposal might not be entirely appropriate for the area. He said that the plans needed to be further revised, but that most of the concerns could probably be mitigated. He noted the testimony received concerning the stability of soils, chance of landslides and the fragile environment. At Commissioner Leonard's request, the Commission reviewed their instructions to the applicant from the meeting of August 30th, on areas requiring modification, issue by issue. It was the consensus that all of the concerns listed had been addressed by the applicant; however, density was not explicitly discussed, and the elimination of Lot 2 would not reduce the density significantly. . Bill Anabel suggested that single-family homes only should be allowed east of Del Guzzi Drive, and west of Del Guzzi Drive might be multi-family. Perhaps the condominiums could be cut down to accommodate the parking and provision of playgrounds should be further addressed. Very lengthy discussion ensued on the density. It was decided that the project should be considered on its own merits rather than on profit concerns. In response to Commissioner Leonard, Mr. wilbert asked the Planning Commission to make a decision without further delays. . Following extended discussion on the possibility of redesign of the PRD, Mr. Knutson informed the Commission that the developer's attorney had just informed him that a Plan "C" along the lines of what the Commission had been describing would not be acceptable to the developer. Mr. Knutson indicated that it was his opinion that the Commission's discussion would be valuable to the developer and to the City council and the public what type of PRO the Commission would consider to be acceptable, but that it might not be a worthwhile use of the Commission's time at this point to continue discussion at this point. Mr. Hulett stated that the only course of action apparently open to the Commission would be to direct staff to come back with findings and conclusions to deny the PRD, without prejudice. . Planning commission Minutes Special Meeting October 30, 1990 Page 13 Mr. Knutson said that the Commission could direct the staff to compose proposed findings and conclusions that would support a decision of denial. staff could also indicate in the findings and conclusions what level of PRO would be acceptable, which would give some guidance to explain the Commission's thinking on the subject. Bob Philpott spoke in favor of the possibility of modification to Plan B to cut out some of the units to bring the project in line with the parking provided. Ray Gruver said that he was not convinced that everything east of Del Guzzi Drive has to be single-family; perhaps a duplex or four-plex would be appropriate. Mr. Gruver said that the lower the density, the greater the probabili ty of reduction of the impact to the Creek, neighbors and community. He restated his support of greatly reducing the density on the east side of Del Guzzi Drive. The Commission reached a consensus to direct staff to prepare findings and conclusions to deny the PRD proposal at the November 14, 1990, meeting. 4It V. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 1:20 A.M. Secretary ~ 4It r\ . . . ~ e e .ol.04 NM\"() CITY of PORT ANGELES ATTENDANCE ROSTER TYPE OF ~1EETING DATE OF MEETING LOCATICN PLANNING COMMISSION CI'.lY fW.L ADDRESS: NAME: ( I Et;, P N ~ C W.elJ ~~{<.LI.s ~ .3! 'l JV {)MiItJ./ 3F--. ~ vtJ-Lt r\ . ,01.;4 Ntn"~ ------ Q,33l:l CITY of PORT ANGELEB30 ~NINN\flJ UI~) S313~N'11HOd ATTENDANCE ROSTER 'riPE OF ~1EETlNG DA.'IE OF MEETING I.OCATICN PLANNING COMMISSION [0 -30 - <1 6 CITY HALL ADDRESS: NAME: l< '- l(~ v1<:- J11 BAo~ _ G Hu 5'507 J;). ,do L--f~ ~~2. 9 10 IJ D A I) ~s rt- I- A , q '7OAl~1T t! 5 iJ4 "PA- lO /0 .urfJo.. lJl S k ~ A d-JO& \/1.1 yO! 7,4-, ;)~CT6 ~ .s.. I !.-o I ifJ1 ~ '2'1' ~y ~'A \J..I(A""eJ . // .~ ;;L ~ pI}- 0.if 5 e.r-heJr 7-~ 3 0 tIJ..~~e,r? P If #.::rb ~c:h~/f;Olj41-( 1/2... ~- 7~ p,l). I1Alal-A-a 4- (rklL~ /2zrA- lJe82- PAtUc.. . . . CITY of PORT ANGELES ATTENDANCE ROSTER .0(.. NN \ "G TYPE OF ~1EETING DAm OF t1EETING IOCATIOO PLANNING COMMISSION CITY HALL ADDRESS: NAME: -;-'0 ~B BU:. \{)~~ J I ( "' Pfj E.J.~ P /287-oeer-PtZl--!<: p(J /3)..0 [.Id A:r . Pq. r9C1(3 ~~~ P-tf.