00900Page' 2
Most trees are to be retained, green belt around perimeter,
and units are sited so that major trees are retained. Majority
be built on --protected
'
of the site is undisturbed and will never
by covenant. Increase in property values --code requires better,
..
quality than existing houses adjacent.. One hour fire resistive
construction fire lanes, additional protection from new fire
hydrants, all requirements of the City codes and ordinances.
c
Requirements and controls on this type of project are greater
than on single family dwellings.
New construction costs of $60. per square foot compared,to
adjoining residences built for $15-18./square foot and appreciated
+'
value of perhaps $28-30/square foot. Land cost is every bit as
tr
much --because the amount of land involved is equivalent to 36.
single family houses, the majority of which is held as a perma-
Went green belt. (This is not cheap construction and it is'not
f
.,
a fire hazard.). The development costs saved by.the P.R.D.-
solution consist of that cost which would be incurred to log the
n
site and grub out stumps, build-a.new controlled waterway, make
=w
..
major cuts, and fills with retaining walls, extra roadbed and
paving, all of which -are not in the interest of the community.
s"
IF
'.
It is expected that this alternate life style will appeal.
F
h
`$
.'
mainly to "empty nesters" that is families whose chldren'are
grown, and mom" and dad are looking f_ or comfort , convenience,'
and security.` Children should,
.;
privacy; quality, low maintenance,
there be families, have the greatest. amount of usable space to.:
play. in because. the development is restricted to the f latter , por
":.
s;
µ
that la areas will exist in front of and
tions of the site so p • y
'
between, acid immediately behind the units.
iY
- ..
-Alternate Proposal
;{
A site plan has been_ prepared illustrating howthe site might
MR^;
ed' in single al-na-
be developfamily residences of the convention
.:
ture, Numerous cuts, fills, and rockeries are required, a con-
;
siderab.ly higher amount of paved surface results, and a majority'
a.
3
of the trees are lost. These extra costs could be offset to the
developer by the fact that more units could be built (36 rather
than 29), and the selling price could be higher. The disadvan,
F.
tages to the neighborhood would not be offset and that is -why a
ment of this site.
t ive for development i
P.R.D. is the logical alternative P
r�
We have received approval to pursue development .of this site
a;
twice in the past from pJgnni'q Commission: once in 1975 and again
{
in December 1977. The P.R.D. ordinance, designed by the City of
�.
Edmonds, applies ideally to this site and is the logical solution,
maximizing open space, retaining the largest number of trees, re-`
to slopes and
.
ducing water runoff,'with minimum disruption steep
natural drainage features. We have worked closely with the City's
technical staff in the development of this plan and they are inz;
agreement that this is the highest and best use of the property.
The project will be pleasing in appearance and an asset to the
P ro J
community, supporting the property values of the residents adjacent.
rt'
r-.