01013David Kinderfather, architect for the proposed PRD, described the proposal. He
said the value to the City in approving this would be the avoidance of disruption
to the site, the reduction of impervious surfaces, the large amount of open space,
and the efficiency in installation of utilities because of the clustering of the
homes. He said 780 of the site would be left undisturbed. The soil is well drained
and stable and Mr. Kinderfather said there will be a thorough soils analysis provided
on which the structural engineering and foundations will be based. The development
will havea bike path/pedestrian walkwayin accordance with the Edmonds Master Plan..
Drainage will be based on the Edmonds Engineering Department requirements. Mr.
Kinderfather said the design was revised to relocate one of the dwelling units and
..the road in order,to avoid cutting into one of the existing steep slopes. This
had been at the suggestion of the Staff. They had also worked to save two large
maple .trees as recommended by Mrs. Block. Mr. Kinderfather then answered several
questions from the Council. There was some concern expressed about diverting the
stream on the site. Dan Ganfield, a member of fir. Kinderfather's staff, said .the
streambed is somewhat migratory and it would be improved by clarifying its course.
Ken Bausch of 292 6th Ave. S. commented that.in Mercer Island they inventory all
the trees and undergrowth so the developer cannot remove them, even unintentionally.
MOTION: The public portion of the hearing. was closed. C�QUNC,1Lh,1AN:•; 1.0j. MQ11ERi S�CO'r�DED;BY
COUNCLLWOMAN :ALL EN., ,TO:,GINE PRELIMINARY APPROVAL Tt"PllbbJ'47 "'CCORtiPNG TO .TtiC SIT;E
PLANS 'IDRAW,IrJGS, AND DESIGNS SUBMITTED-. TH.IS,':DATE,.;INCLODING RELOCATION OF ONE UNIT
AND '.:IN.ACCORDANCE.4)ITH THE PLANNING COMMISSION., RECO,MMENDATION.`� Considerable dis-
cussion followed as to whether PRD developments were actually being used to the
best advantage of the City. Councilman Gould noted that this proposal has the
appearance of apartments and single family homes actually could be built there.
But. he felt the City was getting a good trade in the large amount of open space
and the saving of 29 of 31 major trees on the site. He felt the proposal met the
requirements of the Policy Plan. Councilman Clement's concern was that PRDs tend
to develop the maximum number of units allowed and he noted that the sites being
developed would have been considered marginal in other times. Councilman Carns
felt the one single family unit should be eliminated because of the dropoff in
Amendment topography where it is located. CiLMAN EARNS,,'iOVED�.TO Af4END THE; f10TI0N TO
(failed) ELIMINATE THE SINGLE ;FAMILY UNIT '"TO"`�TPfiFz` TR�PtX=,REDF3CINGTHE;, PROPOSAL FROM
tlT�i=TS:-.�ICOUNCTLMATq"GOULD SECONDED THE- MOTION TO"AMEND: Councilman Herb
commented that every time a PRD comes before the Council the applicant is told
the Council is suspicious of his intentions. He cautioned the Council to remember
that the applicants have been encouraged by the Planning Staff to use this type of
development. Further, it had been approved by the Architectural Review Board. He
felt there should be some consistency as to what the applicants can expect. He
discouraged voting for the amendment because he felt the Council should follow
the advice of the Staff, the Architectural Review Board, and the Planning Commission.
Community Development Director John LaTourelle added that the Edmonds PRD ordinance
is the only one of which he knows that does not offer a bonus on density for PRDs.
He said everything should be done to make this kind of development profitable and
attractive for both the developer and the City. He said people try to squeeze
plats onto this kind of property very frequently and the Staff encourages them to
go PRD in order to be less damaging to the site. .A,,ROLL::,,CALLrr.-VOTE•,WAS~TAKEN�'ON,
^°'CL"fMEN�-��JV[�^Gfll3�D 1lOTdNG�1hEfi;
�TI�1"!!@N+6aAt�&DdD,»I�iuTklCA41NE3 h1Et1[3ERSARN9•,
P1i[i"IVITH':EOUNCIL tiEftaERS HERB, ALL'EN,' A
VOND NAUGHTEN VOTING NO, RESULTING IN .A TIE
TE:"11AYOR`'HARRISON.,VOTED..NO_,.TO,,,DREAK.TtiE. TIE. THE MOTION TO AMEND FAILED.
`.�,�En:l1AIN-,1401ION:;THEN..PASSU, WITH COUNCILMAN CLEMENT VOTING-14O., COUNCILMAN; NAUGHTEN
MOTION: .#MWMOVED,',;.SECONDED BY COUirCILHAH HERB, TO SCHEDULE -A REVIEW -OF THE PRD ORDINANCE
b,'LO.N NOVEMBER 7, 1978. MOTION CARRIED.
A large number of people were in the audience for Items 10 and 11 on the agenda.
MOTION: THEREFORE, COUNCILMAN CLEMENT MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMAN CARNS, TO MOVE ITEM 9
TO THE END OF THE AGENDA. NOTION CARRIED
EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
Page 4 - October 17, 1978