00642r ,
Mr. James Driscor_.i
September 8, 1981.
Pa.ge 3.
Years or at least secure an extension of time and begin additional
work under such extension within that two-year time limit represents
an abandonment and automatically.terminates that final approval.
Otherwise, projects could be extended i.ndefini.tely despite changed
circumstances, owne.raliip and the like.
The developer has effectively abandoned this project by failing
to do any work on it for.more than three years. He claims the
ro ect was tied u in litigation and he could not
project P f; proceed. Thus
is incorrect for two reasons. First, the lawsuit was filed over
.PRD 2-78 not.PRD 4-77. Second, no restraining orders or injunctions
were issued to hinder the developer from proceeding ahead. -And it
has been nearly a year since that Litigation was concluded before
the applicant filed his request for an extension of time.
The proponents.consistently maintained that they could proceed
with PRD 4-77 irrespective of what happened to PRD 2-78. Preliminary
approval of PRD 4-77 was obtained on February 7, 1978 (according .
.to a letter of February 27, 1978 from Noel.l.e Charleson of. the
Edmonds Planning Department). Because of inadequate notices, it
was' - not until the following summer (following notices of PRD 2-78)'
that residents of the area became aware of the Extent and character
of this project.. At various hearings during the summer of -1978,,.
Ms. Charleson of. the. Planning Department repeatedly .told us that
PRD 4-77 had alreadv been approved. In materials provided to the
City Council on Jul.y 7, 1978, before voting; on this project, the
proponent David L. Kinderfather stated ho had received approval
to pursue development of this site in 1975 and in December of 1977.
At the Planning Commission Hearin; of .June 28, 1978 and -at the
Council Meeting on July 25, 1978, we were specifically told by
Ms. Charleson that PRD 4-77 had been earlier approved and the
developers were free to proceed with construction. Either we were
grossly.misled by the Citv, or the builder has delayed this p"roject
to the point of abandonment.
If preliminary approval was granted on February 7, 1978, then the
project has also been abandoned by the proponent's failure to
secure final approval within the time limits specified by ordinance.
The current ordinance provides a one-year time limit from'preliminary
approval for the applicant to submit.the final development plan
including all covenants, homeowners association papers, maintenance
agreements and other relevant legal documents. 20.35.080(A). If
the applicant fails to submit that material within the time allowed,
the preliminary approval shall expire. 20.35.080(D). My review
of the file on PRD 4-77 was cursory, but I believe the applicant
neither complied with those provisions riot paid the fee and filed
an application under Chaptrr 1.5.00 for an extension of time for
submitting the final plan. Under the ordinance in effect at the
time, the appl ic.ant had one, year of ter ties ( gn• approval by the
Council to file with the Public ldorks Department such bonds, evidence.
Of compliance or undertakings as may bc required by the conditions
of approval. 12.14.065(3)(A). 1 do not know if those conditions