00644:a
this tract because of the danger of landslides. And the
neighborhood impact posed by multi -family buildings has been
consistently ignored.
According to the minutes of the Planning Commission Hearing of
May 24$ 1978, Mr. Kinderfather noted there is a 45-foot greenbelt
all along the front of the development.- Ms. Charleson stated
the buildings should hardly be visible from 68th Ave. W. With
the exception of a few small trees, this natural buffer was
completely removed with the initial clearing done later that
summer. Any suggestion.that these condominiums will be hidden
from view is preposterous.
V
At the Planning Commissiou Ife.eLing of May 24, 1978, the applicant �.
was requested to submit an alternative scheme of development
on a traonal basic. At the meeting on June 28, 1978, a
drawing was submitted showing an alternative plan for 33 single-
family homes scattered throughout the 1.6.7 acres. Commissioner
Hall voiced the opinion that the alternative plan was ghastly.,
The PRD concept for this area was later approved. The applicant
(Sierra West Construction) lat.er admitted at a meeting with }t
neighborhood residents in the summer o.f 1980 that that alternative
h,
sketch was never considered to be a feasible. plan. What was
f presented to the Planning Commission and City Council was really
my alternative which prompted the.anticipated response..
a dummy
I; The applicant indicates the present zoning requirements, RS-20,.
would permit construction of 25 singl'e-family homes. This is
not true. The allowable density is calculated by dividing the
1 net developable area" by the minimum lot size. Area set aside
for streets is to be.stibstracted from the total acreage. Given
the topography of the area, there is no way that 25 homes could
without change in zoning. We are not convinced that
be built t t a b
even sixteen homes could be constructed.
This has been referred to as "luxury housing" at virtually every
'
public hearing. At the Planning Commission meeting of May 24, 1978,'`
Mr. Kinderfather called it "luxury quality and noted that he
preferred the phrase 11attached single-family dwellings" rather {
than "condominiums". Another representative of his firm at this
meeting later noted that if the units were pulled apart they
w,puld be single, wood frame, small residences. One has to
question whether single, wood framed, small residences, attached
together in a row of six will enhance the character or value of
the surrounding homes. It is difficult to imagine that these
units could be priced or sustain values comparable to the homes
in this district.
At the Planning Commission Hearing on June 28, 1978, Mr. Kinderfather
noted that the developer was planning a tennis court for the project.
I guess that plan was later dropped.
In response to questions about walkways, traffic, safety, and other
concerns, the proponents have argued that this type of development