Resolution 663MAE/al
11/24/80
RESOLUTION NO. 663
FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMEN-
DATIONS OF EDMONDS PLANNING COMMISSION ON
PROPOSED REZONE.
After notice had been duly posted and published pur-
suant to Section 12.16.170 of the Edmonds City Code, the Ed-
monds Planning Commission held a public hearing on November 12,
1980, to consider Planning Division File No. R-4-80, a re-
quested zone classification of a parcel of property located
in the City_ of Edmonds.
The City Staff made a presentation and submitted
documents for the Planning Commission review. Members of the
public were given an opportunity to speak. After all persons
who desired to speak had done so, the public portion of the
hearing was closed. Following discussion by the Planning
Commission, Commissioner Hall moved that the Planning Commis-
sion recommend denial of R-4-80. The motion was duly seconded
and passed. From the evidence presented to the Planning Com-
mission, a majority of the Planning Commission hereby makes
the following Findings of Fact, Conclusions and Recommendations.
FINDINGS OF FACT
I
The subject property is Parcel 03, Lot 118, Plat
of Meadowdale Beach, currently owned by the City of Edmonds.
II
The subject property is currently located in an
RS-20 zone, permitting low -density, single-family residence
development. The applicant proposes a reclassification of
this property to an open space (QS) classification.
III
The subject property is currently undeveloped,
covered with large alders, evergreens and brush. The rear
-1-
third of the property is steeply sloped, while the front two-
thirds slopes gently down to the Meadowdale Beach Road. There
are springs on the property but there is no standing water.
IV
The Comprehensive Plan designates the subject pro-
perty as single-family residential.
V
All the surrounding property in the City of Edmonds
is zoned RS-20. Generally, the properties to the south, west
and east are undeveloped. Single-family dwellings are lo-
cated to the north. The adjacent property in Lynnwood is un-
developed and zoned P-1. An 87 lot subdivision is proposed
on the Lynnwood property.
VI
There are no changes in the character, conditions
or surrounding neighborhood that justify or otherwise substan-
tiate this rezone.
VII
The rezone would create an additional parcel of
open space land to the City of Edmonds Park System. The
hardship imposed is that, should the City decide to sell the
land as surplus, its value may be decreased due to the limited
uses permitted in the open space zoning.
VIII
Should the property be rezoned to open space, only
a limited number of uses could be undertaken on the site. The
primary use would be a park. The Parks and Recreation Depart-
ment has reviewed this proposal and does not support a park in
this location.
IX
There are other properties in the vicinity that have
similar developmental constraints but have been recently de-
veloped. The subject property is a good building lot that will
-2-
require special attention to handling site drainage. As open
space, the primary use for the subject property would be as
a park site. Use of this property as a park site would in-
volve a number of associated problems, such as: parking; lack
of sidewalks for pedestrians to the site; police problems;
and the fact that this site is very close to the Meadowdale
Junior High site which will soon be developed into a major
Parks and Recreation facility to serve this area.
X
Of the uses listed in Section 12.13.310 of the Ed-
monds Land Use Guidelines, only a park is best suited for
this site. The Parks and Recreation Department recommends
against this property becoming a park for the reasons outlined
in its memo of November 4, 1980, to the Planning Division.
Thus, the rezone request does not provide a reasonably pro-
fitable alternative as to that provided by the present RS-20
zoning.
CONCLUSIONS
I
All procedural requirements imposed by the Edmonds
City Code and State Law have been fully complied with.
II
The proposed zoning classification is not consis-
tent with the City of Edmonds Comprehensive Plan.
III
The proposed zoning classification will not be in
the best interest of the public health, safety and general
welfare.
IV
The Planning Commission does not recommend to the
City Council that the subject property be given a zoning
classification of Open Space (OS).
DATED THIS ;VIKday of November, 1980.
CHAIRMAN, PLANNING COMMISSION
-3-