20110915171523070.pdfOn the Application of Mr. and Mrs. Han Park
By Steve Cobb, Agent
File No. R-02-5
INTRODUCTION
This matter came on before the Edmonds City Council with the recommendation of its
Planning Board that an amendment to a contract rezone be approved. Steve Cobb appeared as
the agent for Applicants Mr. and Mrs. Park. The application concerns property located between
80th Avenue West and Olympic View Drive at approximately 184th Street SW. The application
requests deletion of one condition of a previously approved contract rezone. The condition
which is requested to be deleted limits total site coverage to 21 percent. Following a hearing on
February 27, 2002 by the Planning Board, the Planning Board entered its recommendations in a
document dated March 15, 2002, recommending approval of the application.
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. The subject site is located between 80th Avenue West and Olympic View Drive at
approximately 184th Street SW. The property was rezoned effective July 31, 1998 from RS -12
(Single Family Residential 12,000 square feet) to RS -8 (Single Family Residential 8,000 square
feet), subject to a concomitant zoning agreement.
2. The provisions of the concomitant zoning agreement were proposed by the
Applicants. In particular, this inquiry focuses on condition 1.2 which limited the building pads
in the development to not more than 21 percent of the net buildable area.
3. The Applicants assert that the property has gone undeveloped due to condition 1.2
and bases their argument that the requirements of ECDC 20.40.010(E) relating to the suitability
of the zoning have been met based upon this contention.
4. The record indicates that the limitation of 21 percent of net buildable area was
proposed by the Applicants as an inducement to approve the rezone. The original rezone from
RS -12 to RS -8 dramatically increased the number of units which could be constructed. Due to
the topography of the site, and the use of the PRD development process, it was foreseen at the
time of original approval that these conditions and increase in potential density would result in a
clustering of units. The developer offered to reduce the amount of building pads to be used and
the amount of lot coverage in order to address concerns over the impact of clustering.
{ ws s5 t 67a9.Doc; 1 /00006.900000i1
5. The original condition was proposed by the Applicants and formed a significant
part of the basis by which the Planning Board and the City Council originally determined that a
contract rezone should be approved.
6. Four years have passed since the date of the original approval. While the
assertion has been made that market conditions are preventing development of the property, no
evidence has been presented other than the testimony of Rob Michel, an individual interested in
developing the property.
7. There has been no change in physical characteristics of the subject property. The
property had laid undeveloped for many years prior to the contract rezone. The property owner
represented in the 1998 rezone that the need for a rezone to RS -8 was established by a long
passage of time without development.
8. There has been no change to adjacent properties since the initial rezone was
reviewed.
9. The most significant characteristic of the property is its topography. Much of the
property consists of steep slope and other unique or fragile environmental areas which will be
difficult to develop.
10. One major significant change in the policy has occurred. The City Council
adopted a new PRD ordinance. This adoption occurred within the last six months.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Only four years have passed since the rezone of the property. No testimony or
other direct evidence was presented regarding barriers to development of the property other than
that of the individuals currently interested in the development.
2. Four years is a relatively short length of time. The property had lain undeveloped
for many years prior to its rezone in 1998. The physical characteristics of the property — its
slopes and other fragile and environmentally sensitive areas — significantly limited the
development potential of the property, regardless of zoning.
3. The City Council concludes that there has been no significant change of either the
property or the surrounding neighborhood. An insufficient period of time has passed in which
the City Council could conclude that the property is not developable under the limitations
proposed by the owner in the 1998 rezone.
4. The passage of the new PRD ordinance may assist in the development of the
property. An insufficient amount of time has passed since the adoption of that ordinance to base
a determination on whether the current conditions are impeding development of the property.
5. The restriction of the buildable area to 21 percent was proposed by the Applicants
and provided a major inducement for the approval of the contract rezone. Absent that limitation,
2
{ WSS516729.DOC;1 /00006.900000/}
the City Council concludes that the original rezone would not have been approved and further
concludes that there is insufficient public benefit provided by the rezone absent this restriction or
similar restriction which would prevent an inappropriate development density, even under the
new PRD ordinance.
The Applicants have failed to carry their burden of proof in convincing the City Council
that the criteria of ECDC 20.40.010 had been met. While the proposal is consistent with the
Comprehensive Plan, the City Council finds that it is not consistent with the purposes of the
zoning ordinance. The current zoning was established in large part based upon the Applicants'
representation that the property could and would be developed with the 21 percent developed
area. That limitation preserved the existing relationship of the surrounding area with the subject
property as rezoned. The City Council finds and concludes that if the limitation were removed,
the maximum lot coverage of 35 percent could negatively impact the surrounding area, making
the subject area out of character with the surrounding neighborhood. More time must pass or
better evidence presented before the City Council can conclude that the property is not
economically or physically suitable for the uses permitted under current zoning, particularly
considering that the City's new PRD ordinance has been in effect only a short period of time.
Therefore, the application to amend the rezone by amendment of the concomitant rezone
agreement to delete paragraph 1.2 is denied.
DONE THIS il"""` day of i„YI,rt , 2002.
CITY OF EDMONDS
By:
ayor &
Haakenson
ATTEST/AUTHENTICATED :
Sandra S. Chase, City Cleric
{ W SS516729.DOC;1 /00006900000/}