20110915143504682.pdfBEFORE THE EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL
Applicant, Warren LaFon Rezone Application
R-2004-007
PROCEDURAL INTRODUCTION
This matter came on for hearing before the Edmonds City Council on September 28,
2004. The applicant requested a rezone of certain real property located at 546 Paradise Lane
from single family residential (RS -6) to multi -family residential (RM -2.4). The matter came to
the City Council with a recommendation of denial from the Planning Board. A copy of the
Planning Board's recommendation of August 11, 2004 is attached hereto as Exhibit A and
adopted by this reference as fully as if herein set forth. For its findings of fact and conclusions,
the Edmonds City Council specifically adopts the findings and conclusions of the Planning
Board amended in, but only in the respects specifically set forth herein.
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. The Edmonds City Council finds that the record establishes that the applicant has
received a Mitigated Determination of Non Significance which was not appealed. By its
compliance with the conditions of mitigation and City Ordinance, the applicant has mitigated, to
the extent required by the City, the traffic impacts from the development.
2. The record contains no evidence that the intersection of Paradise Lane and SR
104 has fallen below acceptable levels of service.
3. Therefore, the City Council declines to accept the conclusion that public
testimony, unsupported by substantial and competent evidence in the record is sufficient to
overcome the traffic report information contained in, and incorporated by reference from the
Mitigated Determination of Non Significance.
4. The City Council, however, does conclude that the application should be denied
because:
A. The pavement width for Paradise Lane, even following improvement by
the property under proposed development requirements, would not meet minimum levels
provided for by ECDC Section 18.80.010, Table of Street Standards. Further, there is no
evidence in the record to find that the Transportation Improvement Plan has any improvement or
strategy scheduled within the next six years to address the substandard pavement width.
Therefore, City Council finds that improvements would not be concurrent with proposed
{ WSS58207 LDoc;1/00006.900000/}
development of this property consistent with the proposed zoning and the proposed rezone
should be denied.
B. The City Council concludes that the applicant has failed to meet its
required burden of proof and has failed to meet rezone criteria set forth in ECDC 20.40.010(C)
and is therefore not compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. Given differences in
elevation displayed by the record, and the potential for development of the property to multi-
family standards at heights greater than buildings on adjacent neighborhood property, the
property would not provide a reasonable transition to the adjacent neighborhood. The contract
rezone further does not provide assurances regarding bulk, high quality landscaping or the
preservation of trees. Without such assurances in the contract rezone, it fails to preserve
consistency with or a reasonable transition to the adjacent residential neighborhood.
103 Due) KI Low I
The applicant's proposal to rezone certain real property located at 546 Paradise Lane, Edmonds,
Washington as described in Exhibit A is hereby denied.
DONE THIS day of OCAD ha , 2004.
CITY OF EDMONDS
By:
Mayr Gar aakenson
ATTEST/AUTHENTICATED :
By:
Sandra S. Chase, City Clerlc
{ WSs582071. DOC;1 /00006.900000/}