Loading...
00623r'. r; R 4 `. RECEIVED EXHIBIT 3 KINDERFAT The Owner, Reid Properties, Inc., formerly SierT)6� JHAFFQS Construction Co., hereby applies for a two-year extens! f PRD-4-77 (Parkside West). The Council's approval of the ordinance became effective July 30, 1979. Under Section 20.35.120B, approval of the project automatically expires upon two years from the adoption of the ordinance unless an extension of time for completion has been approved by the City Council as a change. This procedure has been confirmed by letter dated May 8, 1981 from the Office of the City Attorney to the Planning.Department, a copy of which is attached hereto for reference. An extension is warranted in this instance because of the highly unusual extenuating circumstances, outlined below, following the Council's approval. The Owner filed an application for PRD approval with the Edmonds Planning Department on May 3, 1978. An environ- mental checklist was submitted at the same time. An appli- cation to the Amenities Design Board was submitted on May 17, 1978. Following various hearings before the Edmonds Planning Commission and the Amenities Design Board, the matter was w submitted to the Edmonds City Council for its approval. The. Council, following two hearings,, granted approval on July 30, 1978. On August 30, 1978, the last day in which an appeal could be taken from the Council's decision, an action was filed in the Snohomish County Superior Court by Meadowdale Neighborhood Committee. The Owner was not named as a party in the suit or served with.process. Following several motions, the court ruled on October 13, 1978 that the owner was a necessary party to the action and ordered that it be joined to the suit. Again, following several motions, the ` Court issued a memorandum decision following oral argument on March 21, 1979 holding that the case should be dismissed ' for failure to properly serve the City of Edmonds. An order ' of dismissal was entered March 30, 1979. An appeal from the order of dismissal was then filed with the Court of Appeals. Following oral argument, a decision was handed down on September 15, 1980 affirming the order of the Superior Court dismissing the action. Since the filing of the application for approval of the PRD on May 3, 1978, the Owner has been involved in a con- tinuous process of hearings and, subsequently, legal action for a period of two and one-half years before receiving a ` final ruling that it was free to proceed with the PRD without the threat of litigation hanging over its head. During this considerable passage of time, the cost of financing such a project has increased dramatically. Necessarily, a great ti 3 deal of review and new financial projections have been ' necessary to bring the project up-to-date. It would be