Loading...
01600It is our opinion that the best development plan for this area would be the way it was originally classified - single family residences. Only part of the area is suitable for building. The creek bisects the property and, in itself, takes up a large area. There is running water on the western portion, and the property would require great expenditure to make it suitable for building. Access to the western portion is extremely difficult, if not impossible. So the only area suitable for building is the eastern portion, which would contain 8-10 single homes, at most. This would result in more open ground space and much less traffic, and is the way we expected the property would be developed. It is stated in the application, and it was mentioned several times at the Planning Commission, that the developer should not be penalized because he could not develop this property to the density allowed by RS-6 zoning (i.e., 19 single homes.) The topography of this property has not changed since Harbor Properties bought it. We feel confident they were aware then of any difficulties in developing the entire area. It is -our opinion that the only "hardship" the developer would encounter would be a.few less dollars, and according to the -City of Edmonds Land Use Guidelines, "Section 12.16.100: (8) The fact that property may be utilized more profitably will not be an element of consideration before the board of adjustment." We feel the profit from single home con- struction should be sufficient. Statements made by members of the Planning Commission and their resultant vote to accept the zone re-classification, plus subsequent discussion with various people in different areas and levels of city government,' have left us feeling very pessimistic. We were told that our only chance would be to offer a modification which would be accept- able to us (i.e., less townhouse units.) There is no modification acceptable to us. This area was zoned for single family residences and it should remain single family residences. A condominium on this site would not conform to the City of Edmonds Land Use Guidelines, "Section 12.16.100: (7) That the granting of the variance will generally be in harmony and compatible with this zoning code and in particular; the applicable zoning classifications in Chapter 12.13, (and) the intent expressed in such classifications and the comprehensive plan for the City of Edmonds, and will not be injurious to the neigh- borhood, or otherwise detrimental to the public -health, safety, morals or general welfare in such factors as noise, sanitation, traffic, pollution, erosion, vibration, physical hazards." One final important consideration is the matter of population and building density. Though.there are several viewpoints on density, an example which would clarify our position on the subject may be in order. You own 250 acres in a farmland area. But 100 acres are marshland and not usable. Applying the theory advanced in this PRD proposal, all we have to do is crowd the extra seed on the remaining 150 acres and there would be no increase in wheat density, yet you'd get 250 acres of wheat to harvest. To us, this is the same rationale as used to O.K. this PRD.