01410rezone. The neighbors have been happy about it and people are glad to see tha.
property upgraded. She feels that she can get a petition with 500 signatures
wanting the rezone.
Bert Stole, 8704 182nd P1., the applicant, asked the City Attorney since there ran
not be a contract rezone if he could voluntarily place restrictions on his property.
Attorney Wayne Tanaka stated that there was nothing wrong with Mr. Stole placing
restrictions on his own property but the restrictions would have to be approved
by the Planning Department and the City Council. Mr. Stole then
stated that he would place a covenant on his property to restrict the uses that
are described in paragraph 4 of the proposed contract rezone. Mr. Stole's property
is lots 37 and 38, which abutt the RM property that has existing single family
residence. Chairman LaBelle asked Mr. Stole why he wanted those two lots rezoned.
Mr. Stole stated that he already has a conditional use permit to do professional
office and a rezone to BC would increase the uses for the property. It could be
used forlow-scale retail. Commissioner Ross stated to Chairman LaBelle that at the
last meeting it was suggested to give a contract rezone to lots 37, 38 and 40 but
he was informed that it would be spot zoning and now if Mr. Stole is putting
restrictions on his property that would also be spot zoning. Chairman LaBelle
stated that the Commission could only recommend that Mr. Stole put a covenant
on his property. Attorney Tanaka clarified by saying that all the lots could be
zoned BC and Mr. Stole and Mrs. Harris could place restrictions on their lots
and leave Mrs. Esterberg'slot with BC with no restrictions. Mrs. Harris stated
that she would also place the same restrictions on her lot that Mr. Stole does
if it would help in making the decision to rezone this area to BC. Chairman
LaBelle then read paragraph 2 of the proposed contract rezone and asked Mr. Stole
if that was what he was referring to instead of paragraph 4 and Mr. Stole indicated,
that is was. Mr. Bowman asked Attorney Tanaka if Mr. Stole and Mrs. Harris would
have to sign a contract before this item was heard before the City Council.
Attorney Tanaka stated that they would. The public portion of the hearing was then
closed.
MOTION COMMISSIONER SMITH MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER ROSS, TO DIRECT STAFF TO
PREPARE THE RESOLUTION SETTING FORTH FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS, AND
RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE PLANNING COMISSION IN CONNECTION WITH FILE R-3-80. THE
OWNERS OF LOTS 37, 38, AND 40 AGREE TO THE RECOMMENDATION OF PARAGRAPH 2 OF
A PROPOSED CONTRACT REZONE AND ALSO PARAGRAPH 4. THIS FINDING DOES COMPLY
WITH THE PUBLIC SAFETY, HEALTH AND GENERAL WELFARE AND WILL NOT ADVERSELY IMPACT
ADJACENT PROPERTIES ZONED RMH AND WILL BE CONSISTENT WITH THE ADJACENT BC
DEVELOPMENT ACROSS MAIN STREET AND TO THE.WEST OF 6TH AVENUE. MOTION CARRIED.
;:PRD 2-79. HHM::JOINT VENTURE - request for a one year extension
Mr. Bowman stated that the Planning Department has no particular problem with
this request. He tried to contact HHM Joint Venture to be sure that they know
that their extension can be approved; however,they must have final PRO approval
in order to have their building permit accepted by the City prior to the first
of the year -or they will have to redesign the project or withdraw because the
new development code will be in affect. Mr. Bowman stated that he will keep
trying to reach them to make sure thug understand the circumstances.
MOTION COMMISSIONER ROSS MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER HODGIN, TO GRANT A ONE YEAR
EXTENSION TO.PRD-2-79. MOTION CARRIED.
AGENDA
PRD-2-80 LOVOR CORPORATION - Completion of existing "Parkview Firs" planned residential
development by addition of nine units at 8407 through 8419 Main Street. (RS-8/PRD)
Mr. Bowman showed transparencies of the site plan stating that originally the Parkview
Firs condominium project was approved for 25 units by the City under PRD-2-69 but
only 16 of the units were constructed and now the applicants are applying to complete
the other nine units. The nine units are townhouse units that match the existing
building. All the parking and circulation is on site using the present entrance
into the development. The original application to the City showed the nine units
in one building. The City zoning definition for townhouse units allows for only
six units in one particular building. The applicants then revised their site plan
and now show four units in one building and the additional five units in another
building. There are nine parking spaces with nine garage spaces. Mr. Bowman
showed an example of the elevation of the building which matches the existing
building. The front, side and rear elevation conform to the existing building.
From a land use standpoint there is mostly open grass and slopes in a NNE direction
and drops off behind the building. Only one tree is indicated as having to be
removed which is a 24' diameter fir. The property is zoned RS-8/PRD. The adjacent
EDMONDS PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
Page 2 - September 24, 1980
�f-