01617Edmonds Planning Commission lohr e ng - 5/15/68 (Page 4)
�
R-7-68, Donn and C. C. Bodine - Rezone to RML from RMH and RS-6 on Paradise Lane east of
Sth Ave. So.
Affidavits of publication and Poster were noted.
Mr. LoganeCtpinOne�tthat untileapptheyllearned
had originally considered purchasing land north of the subj P P Y
was in the process of acquiring the property for a park. They then purchased
that the City These
the subject tract after consulting highway plans and the Comprehensive Plan map. process
plans indicated that the highway would not
he plansnjure the were routinely sentulk of etortherHighway Department,
of applying for a building p Plocated
which indicated that the highway r/w plan had been revised with the r/w now plicantstwant
pass through the middle of the proposed
the B utnofodieAthetway of theTherefore,the
hhighway. The RS-6
to move the 41-unit building le residence
zoned area under consideration contains a anentarea
zoningmoftRt9H anding uRSt6n 52ndwelling units
lots plus a street to serve them. Under p R14Hzoning about a units could
could be built on the applicant's property. Under the proposed he be built (50 apartments and 7 single family homes)• asrsuchgan actiond ouldanot favor of confor-
any enlargement of the apartment zone 1e this area,
000 s ft. from
mance with the Comprehensive Plan. However, because of the relatively small change in
density, he would support the rezone. He recommended, however, removing 6, q•
the proposed RML rezone area at the southeast cothsrRS-6to zoning onduce by 36thetoeRSi8tedltuw sr of
apartment units. Mr. Larson suggested changing The
noted that Paradise Lane wbecome
as m a cul thanaadequatetarea for h no oparking and •landscapi landscaping
members determined that there
around the proposed apartment.
Mr. Richard Thurston, attorney representing the applicant, presented a rendering of the
aid his
in agreement
building for whichosrmt hadal1to deletentheissued.6,000 sq.sft. from cthensoutheastwouldecorner of the
with Mr. Logan's pro P
property. They would prefer, however, to change the zoning on the east property from
RSproperty.
RS-8. They could construct the building now, but there is a very real probability.
that if they construct the building as planned, the highway would go through -the middle.
The Highway Department would have to acquire the building, and the applicant does nof ot wish
acquiring damages Ste
nt would
to build for the purposechanging the of units. Only onewinglofathe buildings
the building east without
problem on Paradise
would be in the newly zoned RML la. Traffic
the streettwill becomege deadaend and the problem
Lane, but when the highway is
P com
will be relieved.
Mr. Miller, 549 Paradise Lane, Mr. 4Jheat, 545 Paradise Lane, and Mr. Lang, 547 Paradise
Lane, each saidthat
they
had no objection to noted that•int�the RSc61zoneons tont6th,ethee
were expressed y but the would build only six.
applicant could build seven homes, Y
the area
of
Mr. Dailey said in1967 they had had
Thisfor aactionrezone
mightsouth
be peningsupLthe. Some
of those present opposed the previousrezone
for more apartments. However, it was noted that Paradise Lane is a natural barrier an
will become a cul-de-sac..
n extension of
at
not on
he
Co Peterson agreed buththeMr.
caseLogan
hasthat'
extenuatingacircumstances. RThe factsthat the City
Comprehensive Plan, other, and
on Mr.
is going tohave this eand then discussion, he
wouldnt one amove to recommend to he City Council
Logan's recommendations
by resolution that the property in question be rezoned to RML as requested. HeThe dded motion that
he didn't see the merit of rezoning the remaining RS area to a lower density.
was seconded by Mr. Dailey and carried unanimously -
Plats
Mr. Dickson announced that
tfin all reciteddin RCWv58.16.060ision rand salle thernfactsdeemed
Commission
would have found that public use and interest would be
relevant had been or would be fully satisfied, and the
served by the decisions made.
P-2-68, Preliminary Plat of "Sound Vista", Guy W. Tooker, located at 76tti 4J. 172nd SW.
Affidavit of Poster and note of notice to adjacent property owners were in the file. Mr.
Logan said the City staff had asked trovedapplas icant
forlotrsubdivisvision ion (S 17ut it a66)tin 1966�-
mitted. This was part of a tract app
with restrictive covenants requiring that future subdivisions be approved by subdivision
residents. Mr. Logas.reThewcitythe
had topography
requested athand trthe agconsulting engineers gdesign nass
and sqampy condition