00671L
Findings of the Bearing Examiner
October 28s, 1981
Page 3
ecause of extensive litigation
-ant testified that b nt has been limited as to the
7. The Applicant I
involving the PRD the Applical
rformed on the subject property and on
amount of work to be.pe
the PRD project. According to the Applicant this litigation
months.
14 mo
for .
held the project up c'e approval
Applicant testified that Of the 24 months sin hich the
onths in w
.8. The APPL there have only been 7 m, t of litigation or
of the PRD o work without the threat Applicant was free t permits.
while he had buildingsubmitted a
application the Applicant
9. In submitting his encountered by the
narrative explaining the complex delays encour
Applicant in trying to complete the project. The narrative
xhibit 3 and is attached to
earing as e rporated as part
was admitted to the b ference is inco
these findings and by this re
of these findings
e City Of Edmonds testified that
10. The.planning Department Of th change in the original change Of
the Applicants have made no
the design of the project.
Edmonds testified that
11. The planning Department Of the City Of sical aspects Of the
had been no changes in the phy
there h he SEPA determination as originally
development and that t I . ect remain the same.
granted for the subject property and prO3
the City Of Edmonds has recommended
12. The planning Department Of tt for the PRD. in making their
that an extension be allowedfollowing:
recommendation the Planning Department stated the
t . ensions to final planned
"Section 20.35.110 allows ex
residential developments. Even though the units are
approval can be
attached, an extension to the original, filed prior to
considered as the original request wa
the expiration date of the PRD,
f the staff that the PRD-4-
It is the recommendation c extension to the final approval.
77 be granted a 2 year exten 3roject; but there have
changes have occurred on the I e
No cha ces causing.the delay in the
been extenuating circumstan
construction as Outlined in exhibit 3.
to be in agreement with the
The Applicant testified
13. f the planning Department.
recommendation 0
C. EXTENSION-3
GORDON_wASHINGTON, IN