00623r'.
r;
R
4
`. RECEIVED
EXHIBIT 3
KINDERFAT
The Owner, Reid Properties, Inc., formerly SierT)6� JHAFFQS
Construction Co., hereby applies for a two-year extens! f
PRD-4-77 (Parkside West). The Council's approval of the
ordinance became effective July 30, 1979. Under Section
20.35.120B, approval of the project automatically expires
upon two years from the adoption of the ordinance unless an
extension of time for completion has been approved by the
City Council as a change. This procedure has been confirmed
by letter dated May 8, 1981 from the Office of the City
Attorney to the Planning.Department, a copy of which is
attached hereto for reference.
An extension is warranted in this instance because of
the highly unusual extenuating circumstances, outlined
below, following the Council's approval.
The Owner filed an application for PRD approval with
the Edmonds Planning Department on May 3, 1978. An environ-
mental checklist was submitted at the same time. An appli-
cation to the Amenities Design Board was submitted on May 17,
1978. Following various hearings before the Edmonds Planning
Commission and the Amenities Design Board, the matter was
w
submitted to the Edmonds City Council for its approval. The.
Council, following two hearings,, granted approval on July 30,
1978. On August 30, 1978, the last day in which an appeal
could be taken from the Council's decision, an action was
filed in the Snohomish County Superior Court by Meadowdale
Neighborhood Committee. The Owner was not named as a party
in the suit or served with.process. Following several
motions, the court ruled on October 13, 1978 that the owner
was a necessary party to the action and ordered that it be
joined to the suit. Again, following several motions, the
`
Court issued a memorandum decision following oral argument
on March 21, 1979 holding that the case should be dismissed
'
for failure to properly serve the City of Edmonds. An order
'
of dismissal was entered March 30, 1979. An appeal from the
order of dismissal was then filed with the Court of Appeals.
Following oral argument, a decision was handed down on
September 15, 1980 affirming the order of the Superior Court
dismissing the action.
Since the filing of the application for approval of the
PRD on May 3, 1978, the Owner has been involved in a con-
tinuous process of hearings and, subsequently, legal action
for a period of two and one-half years before receiving a
`
final ruling that it was free to proceed with the PRD without
the threat of litigation hanging over its head. During this
considerable passage of time, the cost of financing such a
project has increased dramatically. Necessarily, a great
ti
3
deal of review and new financial projections have been
'
necessary to bring the project up-to-date. It would be