HomeMy WebLinkAboutO-2186 - Rezone (Special)"'Ii
CITY OF MARYSVILLE
Marysville,Washington
ORDINANCE NO.)-10"
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF MARYSVILLE,WASHINGTON
AFFIRMING THE DECISION OF THE HEARING EXAMINER, APPROVING
THE PRELIMINARY PLAT AND PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN AND REZONE
FOR PROPERTY LOCATED ON THE WEST SIDE OF 67TH AVENUE N,E.,
NORTH OF 77TH PLACE N.E.; AMENDING THE OFFICIAL ZONING MAP
PREVIOUSLY ADOPTED IN ORDINANCE NO.772,AND DENYING THE
APPEAL OF BRAD JOHNSON.
1-aa...7..JJ.
/-~./2.",
1-6J~
I-~
WHEREAS,Doyle Parks,F.I.and Marilyn Phelps,Scott
and Lori Teuber,and C.Lillibridge are owners of real
property containing approximately 15.65 acres generally
located on the west side of 67th Avenue N.E.,north of 77th
Place N.E.,in the City of Marysville,said property being
legally described in Exhibit A attached hereto;and
WHEREAS,Bud Darling applied to the City for a rezone
from RS-12,500 and RS-9,600 to Multiple-Family Residential
Low Density (RML)with a Planned Residential Development
(PRD)overlay,preliminary site plan and preliminary plat
approval for the single-family residential development of
Cedarcrest Park under File No.PA 9707022;and
WHEREAS,the City Hearing Examiner held a public hearing
on the above-referenced application on January 22,1998 and
adopted findings of fact,conclusions and a recommendation
approving the application subject to 16 conditions;and
WHEREAS,on February 23,1998 Brad Johnson (hereafter
the "Appellant")filed an appeal of the Hearing Examiner's
decision;and·
WHEREAS,on March 23,1998 the Marysville City Council
held a closed record appeal as provided by MMC Chapter 15.11;
and
WHEREAS,the City Council having considered Appellant's
appeal dated February 23,1998,the applicant's written
response to said appeal dated March 16,1998,the oral
summation of Appellant and the applicant,the staff report of
the City Planning Department dated March 18,1998,and the
entire record of the proceedings before the Hearing Examiner;
/mv/johnson2,ord 1
· .
.,
HEREBY MAKES THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS OF FACT,CONCLUSIONS
AND DECISION:
FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
1.By letter dated March 16,1998,the applicant
asserts that Appellant lacked standing to bring this appeal.
2.MMC 15.11.030 proscribes who may appeal decisions
of the Hearing Examiner.MMC 15.11.030 reads as follows:
Decisions of the Hearing Examiner may be appealed
to the City Council,by any aggrieved parties of
record,or the city staff,
3.MMC 15.01.030(2)defines "aggrieved person"as
follows:
(2)"Aggrieved person"means one whose
proprietary,pecuniary or personal rights would be
substantially affected by a particular action as
determined by the Hearing Examiner.
4.Appellant has not made reference to any part of the
record,nor did he allege any facts in his appeal that would
demonstrate a proprietary,pecuniary or personal right that
would be substantially affected by approval of the
applicant's development proposal.Appellant,therefore,is
without standing to bring this appeal.However,even if
Appellant is found to have standing,the appeal is denied on
the merits based upon the following Findings and Conclusions:
5.Appellant asserts that the Hearing Examiner did not
properly apply the requirements of the City's PRD ordinance.
Specifically,Appellant asserts that the "purpose statement"
of the City's PRD code as set forth in MMC 19.48.010
establishes requirements that must be complied with in order
to approve a PRD.
6.A review of the Hearing Examiner's decision and the
entire record in this case demonstrates that the Hearing
Examiner did properly apply the City's PRD code as set forth
in MMC Chapter 19.48.Furthermore,the "Purpose"section of
the PRD code as set forth in MMC 19.48.010 is not intended to
establish a rigid set of criteria that must be met in order
to approve a PRD.However,even if that were the intent of
said section,the City Council finds,based upon the record,
that most,if not all,of the elements described in said code
section are met by the proposed development project.
/mv/johnson2.ord 2
J •
7.Appellant argues that the PRO does not produce
additional open space outside of streams and wetlands
protected by the City's environmentally sensitive areas
regulations,and he asserts that there is a requirement to
produce recreation spaces which are necessary to support the
densities allowed in the PRD.
8.While the City's PRD code does provide for greater
density in the form of bonus lots if recreation areas are
provided within a subdivision or PRD,in this case the
applicant did not apply for any such bonus densities.As a
result,no active recreation component is required for this
project.However,park mitigation was reasonably and
properly provided by the applicant's commitment to establish
recreation improvements at a neighborhood park which is·in
the vicinity of the proposed development.The applicant also
was properly required to pay park mitigation fees.A
discussion of these issues appears at the bottom of page two
and top of page 3 of the March 18,1998 staff report.Said
discussion is incorporated by this reference.
9.Appellant next argues that the development proposal
does not meet the open space requirements of the City's PRD
code.Specifically,Appellant argues that protected buffers
and sensitive areas should not be counted toward open space
and recreation areas.
10.The City Council finds,based upon the Hearing
Examiner's decision and the record in this matter,that the
proposed development meets both the open space and buffer
requirements of the City's sensitive areas and PRD
ordinances.
11.Appellant argues that the City erred in approving
buffer width averaging,erred in allowing no buffer at the
stream crossings,erred in allowing density transfer,and
erred in approval of overall buffer widths.
12.The City Council finds that Appellant has provided
no reference in the record which demonstrates that the
applicable provisions of the City's PRD code or sensitive
areas ordinance were misapplied or misinterpreted.To the
contrary,review of the record demonstrates that significant
analysis was performed with respect to buffers and density
transfer,and that numerous site plan modifications were
initiated by City staff based upon its own analysis and the
wetland report and mitigation plan provided by the
applicant's qualified consultant.The discussion by City
staff in its March 18,1998 report at pages 3 through 5 is
hereby incorporated by this reference.
Imv/johnson2.ord 3
<•
13.The analysis in the record provided by the
applicant's qualified consultant,Terra Associates,and
specifically the following exhibits in the record provide
substantial evidence to support the staff and Hearing
Examiner determination that the buffer widths are appropriate
under the municipal code:
Exhibit 11
Exhibit 38
Exhibit 57
Exhibit 36
Exhibit 37
Exhibit 43
Exhibit 53
Exhibit 60
Exhibit 67
Buffer Enhancement Planting Plan
Mitigated Determination of
Nonsignificance
Supplemental Mitigated Determination of
Nonsignificance
September 10,1997 letter to Eric
Thompson from Terra Associates,Inc.
September 11,1997 letter of Eric
Thompson
Handwritten notes of September 17,1997
site visit
Revised Wetland Evaluation Report and
Mitigation Plan
City of Marysville Planning Department
Staff Recommendation
Minutes of the Hearing Examiner hearing
14.There was no reference to the record by Appellant
to any specific finding or conclusion of the Hearing Examiner
which is alleged to be in error.Furthermore,there is no
reference to the record of any analysis by a qualified
consultant which could lead to a conclusion that the
application of buffer widths were improperly applied.
Therefore,the City Council finds that the Hearing Examiner
decision properly supports the application of buffer widths
and that the buffer widths established are consistent with
the PRD code and the City's sensitive areas ordinance.
DECISION
Based upon the above-referenced findings and
conclusions,the Marysville City Council hereby renders the
following DECISION:
1.The appeal of Brad Johnson is hereby DENIED based
upon his lack of standing.
2.The appeal of Brad Johnson is hereby DENIED based
upon the merits.
3.The Findings of Fact,Conclusions and
recommendation of the Hearing Examiner with respect to the
above-referenced application are hereby APPROVED,and the
/mv/johnson2.ord 4
above-described property is hereby REZONED from RS-12,500 and
RS-9,600 to RML with a Planned Residential Development
overlay,and preliminary site plan and preliminary plat
approval for the single-family residential development of
Cedarcrest Park is hereby APPROVED.
4.The zoning classification for the above-described
property shall be perpetually conditioned upon strict
compliance.with each of the conditions set forth in the
recommendation of the Hearing Examiner.Violation of any of
the conditions of said decision may result in reversion of
the property to the previous zoning classification and/or may
result in enforcement action being brought by the City.
5.The official zoning map of the City of Marysville
as adopted in Section 5.02 of Ordinance No. 772 is hereby
amended to reflect the reclassification of the above-
described property.
6.This decision shall be final and conclusive with
the right of appeal by an aggrieved party to the Superior
Court of Snohomish County by filing a land use petition
pursuant to the Land Use Petition Act within twenty-one (21)
days after passage of this ordinance.
PA99ED by the City Council and APPROVED by the Mayor
this ~~day of April,1998.
CITY ~SVILLE
By ~·tJ~
MAYOR
ATTEST:
'-~J\)By ~~
CITY CLERK
Approved as to form:
By/J~/C6J~
-CITY ATTORNEY
Date of Publication:~Jl1t
Effective Date (5 days after publication):
/mv/johnson2.ord 5
....~..r
•
'EXIDBIT A
DODDS ENGINEERS, INC.
BELLEVUE,WA 98007
DEI Project No: 97012
6/17/97
Legal Description
That portion of the northeast quarter of the southeast quarter and the southeast
quarter of the southeast quarter,of Section 22, Township 30 North, Range 5 East,
W.M., in Snohomish County,Washington described as follows:.
COMMENCING at the south one sixteenth corner of said southeast quarter;
thence N87°18'04"W,along the south line of said southeast quarter, 30.01 feet to
the west right-of-way margin of 67th Avenue Northeast and the POINT OF .
BEGINNING of the herein described tract; thence continuing N87"18'04"W,along
said south line,224.99 feet;thence N04°09'30"E, parallel with the east line of said
subdivision,90.00 feet;thence N81 °24'05"W 217.98 feet; thence N44°26'52"W
250.00 feet;thence N04°09'30"E,parallel with the east line of said subdivision,
,~8.69 feet to the south line of Cedarcrest Vista East, Division I, according to the
plat recorded in Volume 62 of Plats, pages 173 through 176, records of said
county; thence N87°18'04"W,along the south line of said plat, 646.20 feet to the
west line of the east half of said southeast quarter; thence S04°05'10"W 674.05 .
feet to the south line of Parcel B, Short Plat No. SP 135(4-76)recorded under
Recording No.7605180145,records of said county; thence SS7"31'15"E,along
the south line of said Parcel B and Parcel A of said short plat, 1,275.47 feet to the
west right-of-way margin of said 67th Avenue NE; thence N04°09'30"E, along said
west margin,297.99 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING.
Contains 681,814±square feet (15.6523±Acres).
97012N#2.doc,06117/97,page 1
't-_
10..U U I