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"'