20110921103208804.pdfBEFORE THE EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL
Application of Dr. Robert Suchert
File No. R �-6-88 and
CDC -5-88
On February 4, 1992, the Edmonds City Council held a public hearing
on the application of Dr. Robert Suchert to rezone approximately
5.26 acres located on the southwest side of Main Street, west of
the Five Corners intersection from a single family residential --
8,000 square feet (RS -8) to multi -family residential --medium
density (RM -2.4) and to amend the Comprehensive Plan to reflect
such charge. The Edmonds Planning Board had previously considered
this matter on November 13, 1991. The Planning Board recommended
denial of the requested Comprehensive Plan amendment and rezone.
Based upon the evidence presented at the public hearing, the record
and recommendation of the Planning Board, the Edmonds City Council
hereby denies approval of the requested Comprehensive Plan
amendment and rezone based upon the findings of fact and
conclusions set forth below.
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. The site is located at the southwest side of Main Street, west
of the Five Corners intersection and contains approximately
5.26 acres. The property is currently designated as single
family residential --8,000 square feet and is shown on the
Comprehensive Plan as low density residential.
2. The area surrounding the site is predominantly single family
residential. The area north of the site is developed in
single family residential through a Planned Residential
Development (PRD) and is zoned RS -8. The area south of the
tract is developed in detached single family dwellings in an
RS -8 zone along with undeveloped land zoned RM -2.4. East of
the site, the area is zoned RS -8 and has been developed with
attached townhouse units through _-: PRD. P_ small neighborhood
commercial center with a grocery store and drug store and
neighborhood business (BN) zoning. The area west of the site
is developed with detached single family dwellings in an RS -8
zone.
3. Property was purchased by Dr. Suchert between 20 and 27 years
ago. Dr. Suchert testified that the property was rezoned to
RS -8 about 20 years ago. Dr. Suchert has held the property to
develop himself and wishes to retire in the area. The
property has never been offered for sale although Dr. Suchert
has received numerous offers to purchase the property with the
current RS zoning.
-1-
WSS14460.1X/0006.150.071
4. Testimony during the public portion of the hearing indicated
concerns with traffic and drainage. SEPA review as well as
traffic analysis conducted by the City Engineer and private
traffic consultant indicated no significant impacts on the
adjacent traffic system not subject to mitigation. SEPA
review also found that if City drainage requirements are
complied with, there should be no significant impact on
drainage and run off.
5. Additional testimony from the public indicated that the
surrounding neighborhood is primarily single family. Planned
residential developments have been developed within single
family zoning without increasing the densities permitted under
City ordinance. No testimony was presented intending to
indicate either a change in the neighborhood or in City
policies which would have an impact on the neighborhood.
CONCLUSIONS
1. The criteria of ECDC 20.40.010 have not been met.
1.1 While isolated multi -family units are scattered
throughout, the general neighborhood retains the
characteristics of a single family residential
neighborhood. ECDC 20.40.010(C).
1.2 There has been no substantial change in either the
neighborhood nor adopted City policy intending to support
the rezone or Comprehensive Plan amendment. ECDC
20.40.010(D).
1.3 The only fact offered in favor of the rezone is that the
property remains undeveloped. ECDC 20.40.010. There was
no testimony indicating that Dr. Suchert could not make
viable economic use of the property as it is currently
zoned. His testimony was that he has received offers for
the property as zoned and it remains undeveloped due to
his desire to develop it himself. ECDC 20.40.010(E).
1.4 There is no evidence presented indicating a gain to the
public from the rezone and the testimony of the public
regarding surrounding neighborhoods indicates a negative
impact due to increased density on the surrounding single
family properties. ECDC 20.40.010(F).
DECISION
The application to rezone the property and amend the Comprehensive
Plan is hereby denied. The applicant has failed to provide
_2-
WSS14460.1X/0006.150.071
sufficient evidence to sustain his burden of proof and the evidence
which was presented indicates that the criteria of ECDC 20.40.010
have not been met.
DATED this 0C)(h day of 1992.
CITY OF EDMONDS
MAYO LAURA HALL
ATTEST/AUTHENTICATED:
CYTY CLERK, RAONDA J. MARCH
-3-
WSS14460.lX/0006.150.071