Loading...
00645would not generally attract families. vie Mradowdale area is a family area with many school -age children. Somethings being ignored-- either the character of this community or the impact, albeit unexpected, of perhaps sixteen families with children. When the City Council gave preliminary approval. to PRD 2-78 on the unde August 1, 1978, it was withrst.andini; that the entire' tract would be included in any storm or sanitary L.I.D., even would be. connected to Lynnwood• sewers. though the project itself � r This is a major issue since a L.I.U. has been approved for the r: area. With lack of notice of the finalnpproval. for PRD 4-77, r I do not know if this was included as a covenant or condition applicable to the proposed project now under ,consideration . If it was.omitted, then PRD 4-77 fails to reflect the specific c intent of the Council when this plan was under review. In this regard, I note Mr. Kinderfather's staCement during the Planning Commission Hearing of June 28, 1978, that the: developer as not willing to revise Phase. I". I recall at. t-.hc Council. Hearing on July 25,1978, the Community Development Director assured those in attendance that all of the land in the PRD could be r included in an L.I.D. and would be subjec,l.to the same assessments as if it were single-family housing: ' ALTERNATE DEVELOPMENT: The City has' never considered renli.:stic_alter.native to this plan, despite the •reque.SL cf the Plannittl; Cumrtission. People buy homes and raise their families in the Menclowdale area because it is Zoned exclusively for single-family homes. Tho residents are not opposed to additional development on this property; they simply favor the construction of sinl;l e-family homes, so the character of this nt. i ghb•c)rhood can be preserved Notices originally posted for PRD 4-77 pimply said that sixteen homes were being planned. Itb not suprisi.ng that there was little initial outrage. A more traditional and feasible development of init s — — single-family homes would have the overwhelming support of those who live nearby. [It is• this type of development whi.cli wa.s approved` for the large Coast Guard tract in the..-leadowda.le area.] Increased construction costs, if any, can he eas.i ].y c,ffset by the ltiY,her. prices such homes would command. if those construction costs could not be recovered, that economic dilemma certainly was a forseeable ,risk knowingly assumed 'by every purchaser of this hi.l.l sic?c . The liklihood that a compatible developmentplan would entail. a higher construction cost per unit is a poor .justification for building condominiums in this neighborhood. 1 Finally, the new owners are requestin;t t hts ,ext'ension under elie. PRD ordinance which became of f.ect:ivr. .lnrt� ary 1, 1981. Any change in a PRD is to be processed in tha same manncr a : an ori.t;inal application, if tlt,• project %,,;Is not ?t►v,ili+l fri-1 t1w :ct:-i.rt itr subsequently abandoned by the Of work for over thtci ~curs, (IL-ny tn extension. then it is certainly wi.tl►lu the ctt.y'�, +ll:;crcti++n tc� . . _ ,•.. ,,. ,, ........... , .. •... ... .._........... .. ..... .:�^�..,. ,. •... _.... _. .. ,_ .. ,. ..... ..... .,... .. _ .. ... _.. ..., .�K;ri 1,, }?,lid"'