Loading...
00690y �} A 00, requesting an extension which was necessary because of the delay caused by litigation filed shortly after approval of the PRD. He said in September 1980 the Court of Appeals upheld the Superior Court's decision to dismiss the case, and that was the first time the owner was free to progress, and the owner did not have an opportunity by the time the litigation was completed to have the project refinanced and completed within the nine months left, so the two-year extension was now being requested to put the owner in the position he was at the time the ordinance of approval was passed. Jack Linge, 6970 160th S.W., objected to the extension. He said the PRD ordinance had been revised since this was approved and no longer can developers build multi - units in PRDs. He was opposed to these units having common walls and said when they previously objected they had been assured they would be luxury units, but he charged that with air space between them they would be just small, inexpensive units, and he objected to what he called apartment house construction in a single-family residential area. He also said they did not get a fair hearing in Superior Court because of a technicality on the serving of the papers on the Mayor. He further charged that PRD- 4-77 had been abandoned for PRD-2-78 and this was only Phase I of PRD-2-78. He said this property was excluded from the Meadowdale building moratorium and there was no reason this property should not fall within the moratorium. When asked the location of his home in relation to the PRD he said it is north about two houses from the old PRD-2-78. He said a Mr. Bowden had represented the neighbors opposed to this and had written a letter to the Hearing Examiner which he wanted the Council to.read, so he asked that this hearing be put off until the Council could read that letter. He also said the people in the area did not have adequate notice of this hearing. Ms. Block stated that PRD-4-77 was the PRD approved on July 31, 1979, and that PRD-2- 7 78 was the PRD that was abandoned. Jean Linge, same address, said she had talked to a number of neighbors and found that because of a sports award program at Meadowdale High School many could not be present 4 this evening, and she said the previous hearings were held in vacation time so people could not be present. She said there still is considerable objection in the neighbor- hood to -having a PRD of connected homes, and they feel the parking is not adequate. She expressed concern about the payment of the sewer assessment because she said they understood the PRD would be included in the assessment. She charged that the developer had waited beyond the expiration date to apply for an extension. Mr. Strother responded to the charges made by Mr. and Mrs. Linge. Regarding the change in the City Code as pertains to PRDs, he said any projects approved can be completed irrespective of a change in the Code. He stated the extension was filed July 8, 1981 and the expiration date was not until July 31, 1981. Further, that the developer had been working on this project for two or three years and had been continually frustrated by the kind of thing heard tonight, mainly charges of inadequate notice. He said they always say there are lots of people opposed and none of them ever appears, and he thought.it was time to consider fairness to the developer also. Regarding the charge of inexpensive construction, he said the units will sell for $135,000 to $160,000. With regard to PRD-2-78, he said there was at one time a second phase contemplated but that project was abandoned and had nothing to do with this one. Also, he said the comments regarding parking and sewers had been brought up over and over again and those considerations were put to rest at the time the ordinance was adopted approving the PRD and in the conditions attached to the ordinance. He said most of the points brought up this evening were in the category of "more of the same," and he thought it ironic that the opponents continued to object to the delays when they were the reason for the delays. Councilmember Gould asked him why a two-year extension should be granted when there were seven months available in which they could have begun, and Mr. Strother responded that the ordinance contemplates 24 months in which to complete a project and once litigation stops you do not put the tractors on the project the next day. He said because of interest rates it was necessary to refinance the whole development and that took some time, and even if they had started the day after the Court of Appeals decision they could not have completed it within the seven months. He said it now is ready to go, having been completely refinanced. Mr. Linge then accused the developers of having raped the area, not saving the trees they were supposed to save and taking out far more trees than they said they would. He -said further that the two-year period was not clear as to whether it is from the time they apply for the extension or when they get it. He said they have gone EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL MINES Page 2 - UT November 17, 19 r