01607M�
7
r;
e
i
would sell for approximately $150,000. (During this presentation Councilman Kasper
arrived.) The water system for the entire neighborhood,would be upgraded by the
better service to all in the neighborhood.
developer and the water hydrant relocated for
Mr. Mortensen noted that the underlying RS-6 zoning would not be affected as they
must adhere to all of the requirements of that zoning, their only benefit being
He had met with the Fire Department during the
shared walls and clustered units.
design, and the turning radiuses and accessibility were acceptable to them. Off-
street parking will be completely buffered by vegetation and every unit will have
a parking stall in back. The units step down from
attached garages plus piggyback
the existing grade to create less of an impact on the neighborhood and street views
in front. They had submitted to the City a proposal as to how they will protect the
`
stream during construction. Bill Talley, landscape architect, explained the landscaping
plan. New trees, both conifers and deciduous, and broadleafed evergreens will be
included to add to the screening. The majority of the natural landscape will not be
disturbed. A landscaping drawing overlay was submitted at this time which illustrated
how the front view of the project will look with the landscaping added. Mr. Mortensen
noted that three of the units will be close to the creek but will meet the setback
requirements from the creek. Samples of materials were shown. Cedar siding will.
be used, muted silver grey in color, designed to fit into the natural aspects of the
site. Roofing will be metal, clad in dark grey enamel, which Mr. Mortensen described l
as not collecting moss or rotting, and not wearing out. He said it was a successful
and artistic approach to this kind of situation, although it has the connotation by
many people as being industrial and cheap. He said it is not industrial, and by no
means cheap. Concrete pavers will be used at the entrances of the units. Mr. Mortensen
had
felt this project fit the PRD ordinance and he said all of the issues of concern
been and solved, working with the Staff. Following his presentation, the
addressed
public portion of the hearing was opened.
Dean Nordquist, 111 Elm St., read a Letter he had sent to the Mayor and Council
expressing opposition to the proposal. .The letter was signed by 16 of the neighbors '.. `.
2nd 3rd Ave., and Elm St. They felt there should be only 8-10 single family
on Ave.,
homes built on the.site, that the increased traffic would be an impact, that the
Policy Plan was wrong i.n saying a PRO is the best alternative for this kind of a
site, and that density would be increased.
'
Lloyd Ostrom, 711 Puget Lane, said this was an extremely imprtant issue for the
entire.City. He read a prepared statement from the Edmonds Council of Concerned
Citizens which opposed the project on the basis that to approve it would be to allow
apartment buildings in single-family residential zones. He stated that the Code
should be changed to prohibit common wall units in residential zones.
{
George Kresovich, 403 Columbia St., Seattle, attorney for the applicant, pointed out
A"
that Mr. Nordquist had cited sections of the Code dealing with variances which have
t
nothing to do with this project. He said there clearly was a problem with the
definition of "condominium" and that it was a fair statement from the planning stand-
point and the architectural standpoint that there are no side yards in this proposal. ;>
€
and that was the only difference from a standard single-family structure --that these
j
had common walls but they are single-family homes. He referred to the Policy Plan i.
homes (attached or detached)
3
section dealing with PRDs which states that single-family
should be encouraged in a PRO configuration in certain instances, and he noted that i
the Policy Plan recognizes that there can be single-family homes in an attached
configuration. He went on to cite the section stating that such units are permitted
had tried to determine the most
in RS zones. He pointed out that the applicant
sensitive way to develop the property and had worked with the Staff to develop the
;.
plan. He also noted that all of the homeowners in the area were sent copies of plans
of what they intended doing. Mr. Kresovich read excerpts from the Planning Commission
and Architectural Design Board reviews of this project and commented that he rarely
t
had seen such positive statements from planning bodies.
f
Reba Laue, 1127 2nd Ave. S., across from the development, said the additional cars
would cause a traffic problem, and the other homes in the neighborhood have nice
roofs and these will be "cheap tin roofs."
Ken Mattson, 725 Daley, a member of the Edmonds Concerned Citizens Council, and also
a member of the Architectural Design Board, said that average, run-of-the-mill projects
EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL MINUTES 1
Page 3 - July 22, 1980