006941
1
4,
1
requesting an extension which was necessary because of the delay caused by litigation
filed shortly after approval of the PRO. 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 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 PRO 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-
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
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 projectand 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 COUNC;L MJNFES
Page 2 - November 7, 9