00691through several ownerships since it started, they are developers from outside the
area, and they have no consideration for the community.
Mr. Strother said Mr. Linge's statements were not true, and that it was irrelevant
whether the money that develops the project -is Edmonds money, Seattle money, or out-
of-state money. He said two Edmonds residents were heavily involved in this and the
contractors and subcontractors are Edmonds people, as well as the architect for the
project. Further, that PRD-4-77 was never abandoned, but PRD-2-78 was a second phase
of the same project and it was abandoned. He said the long litigation which had
delayed the development was initiated by the community. The improvements accomplished
so far were installation and inspection of underground utilities, water, and storm
sewers. The hearing was closed.
Councilmember Naughten asked Ms. Block if there had been any changes to the original
criteria or whether there had been any tree -cutting violations, and she responded
that she was not aware of any additional tree cutting and there had been no changes
in the criteria of the approved PRD. Councilmember Naughten said it then was not a
question of whether it should be re -approved, but whether it should be extended.
Councilmember Gould stated that he is one of the people who helped draft the new PRD
ordinance which he believes is best for the City, but this project was approved under
the old PRD ordinance and that is the law under which they have to operate. He felt
that the process of appealing and going to court and letting people hear their
complaints is part of the community's approval system, and that it has taken place.
He did not think the project should be held up any longer, and he thought it was
proper to grant the extension. He said he would like to have a eport in one year to
see that it has gone forward on schedule, because he did not wan to see another .
request for extension in two more years. He said he understood the difficult financial
situation, and he thought the Hearing Examiner had stated a series of findings of
fact. Further, the Staff appeared satisfied that the original criteria were being
met, so he felt the extension should be granted. Councilmember Naughten agreed and
said his only concern was whether there was a violation of the original criteria.
MOTION: COUNCILMEMBER ALLEN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER GOULD, TO GRANT THE TWO-YEAR
EXTENSION OF THE APPROVAL.OF PRD-4-77, WITH THE QUALIFICATION.THAT THE STAFF REPORT
Q ZZTO THE COUNCIL IN ONE YEAR (NOVEMBER 1982) REGARDING THE PROGRESS MADE ON THE PROJECT
' AND THE GENERAL STATUS OF THE PROJECT AT THAT TIME. Councilmember Kasper asked what
.5-Zv. the report would accomplish, and Councilmember Gould responded that if there is not
sufficient progress in one year, and if they should ask for another extension, he
would flatly tell them no. In answer to a question, Ms. Block stated that this
project is not in the moratorium area. Councilmember Kasper observed that the
building permits must have been issued because the utilities are installed. THE
MOTION THEN CARRIED.
HEARING ON APPEAL FROM PAB RECOMMENDATION TO DENY REZONE (R-7-81/JOHNSON)
Planning Director Mary Lou Block stated that this item had been heard by the PAB
after being referred to them by the Council, and at the PAB hearing of September 23,
1981 the PAB had voted 4 to 3 to recommend denial of the rezone request. Minutes of
that meeting were provided, as well as findings of fact from the PAB which Ms. Block
read. She described the property which has been designated environmentally sensitive
due to slopes, vegetation and water. (Councilmember Nordquist arrived at this time,
9:50 p.m.) The Staff had recommended approval of the rezone, but when it previously
went before the Planning Commission the Staff had recommended denial because it was
recommended as a park and they did not recommend it to be a park site. However, as
undeveloped OS they recommended approval to the PAB. The hearing was opened.
Bill Johnson, 740 Maple, and owner of property at 16707 74th P1. W., near the subject
property, was the proponent in this action. He noted that since the original proposal
was made the new Community Development Code had gone into effect, and the old Code
did not have the provisions of Chapter 15 which has the provisions that support his
argument for OS. Mr. Johnson said that since he had last appeared before.them regarding
this property the Planning Department decided to recommend OS, and they had gone
through the rezone criteria and decided it met those criteria. He also noted that
the PAB vote to deny was 4 to 3, so it was not by any means unanimous. He noted some
inaccuracies in the PAB Findings of Fact. He said Finding N5 states there currently
is an abundance of property zoned OS in the general neighborhood, which he said is
not true, although there is property becoming preserved as open space and there is
the greenbelt in the PRD across the road, but he noted the PRD is getting the maximum
EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
Page 3 - November 17, 1981