01560 (2). ,I
}
the most profitable, and he felt the other side of the creek was unbuild-
able. Mildred Ball of 1152 2nd Ave. S. was against the proposal. She said
they could not build on that street because of the runoff, that a lip had
been constructed to keep the street runoff away from her home.- Clyde
Dimmick added that he is on a septic system and the City has notified him
that he has to connect to the sewer, and he again discussed the steepness
of Elm St.' He didn't think the street should be torn up for the water main
because the street is in good condition. Reba Laue said there is a sewer
hole in front of her home. and the smell from it is disgusting. (Mr. Wilson
will investigate this.) The public portion of the hearing was closed.
Chairman LaBelle again advised the audience that this was not a rezone, but
a'planned residential development, and the applicants would have to do what
they set forth in the proposal and could not develop the site otherwise if
approved. Mr. Bowman added that they are basing their development on a
sensitive site with some unique problems. He said the City has a provision
in its Code for PRDs to take place on properties such as this,.and the
density allowed by the underlying zoning must be complied with but flexibility
in design of structures is allowed. He added that this proposal will go to
the ADB after the Planning Commission, -and then will go to the City Council
for a final determination, and if it is approved the.development must be
exactly as the, conditions are set forth. 'Commissioner.Hall observed that a
PRO would provide some aesthetics for the neighborhood,•and she noted that
they could not be sure what would come to pass if someone else bought the
property. She was concerned with the traffic and the drainage, and she
asked how many houses Mr. Bowman thought could actually be built there in a
standard development. He responded that he thought approximately.10 could
be built, with a possible maximum of 15. The traffic circulation was
discussed further. Commissioner Hall finally said this particular piece of
property fits.right into the description of why the PRO was implemented,
and she felt it probably was the best use.for the land. She noted that a
standard subdivision with another street would cause additional runoff and
additional noise. -Mr. Bowman added that with a PRO the City can control
better what goes in there. In a standard subdivision there is no guarantee
where the homes will be located. Commissioner Hall said she would like to
see a plan with fewer units if there actually were only 10 buildable lots.
Mr..Bowman responded that she would then be penalizing the developer for
taking the PRO concept. Chairman McGibbon then asked what Mr. Bowman
thought the appropriate density should be if the the PRO was more desirable
in view of the traffic and drainage conditions of the area. Mr. Bowman
responded that he had no problem with what was being proposed. He said
they would have to conform to the drainage ordinance. He said there is a
60' right-of-way through there although it is not improved to its full
width and the neighbors had mentioned that when you turn on Elm and go back
to 3rd there is a problem in winter weather, and he agreed, but he said he
did not know if the developer should be penalized for that. Commissioner
Hall asked if there is a place for some turnouts or parking, and Mr. Bowman
said they probably would have to park on 3rd and he was not sure there was
room for that. Chairman LaBelle observed that it was an inconvenience but
not a major problem. Commissioner Smith observed that the proposed PRO is
below Elm so he did not see how there would be any increase of water going
down Elm St. from this ,PRD. Commissioner Hall asked if consideration was
given to another access, e.g., 1st Ave. Mr. Bowman said 1st Ave. would
have to be bridged and that was not acceptable to the City. Also, 1st Ave.
cannot be developed to the north in that any extension would have to pass
through the Town of Woodway and there is no existing right-of-way to do that.
Mr. Bowman said there already is an existing plat being developed on the
x Woodway side in one -acre lots but that development has caused problems
because there has been limited siltation control. He said what was
encouraging about this development was that they intended leaving the whole
west side of the bank alone and that, coupled with the right-of-way that
will not be developed, will probably retain some of the dirt from the
Woodway side. Commissioner McGibbon noted that some people feel the west
side of this proposal is not developable anyway, but he had a feeling that
over the long run there is no such thing as an undevelopable piece of
property. Mr. Bowman agreed --if one can come up with enough time, money,
EDMONDS PLANNING COMMISSION
Page 4 - March 26, 1980
...., . ,....,. iY' �r � a• iw•«e.YW^ fS�.,J.. y n4?f�}'.'TA".^4