HomeMy WebLinkAboutO-2195 - Rezone (Special).---~------
.'
CITY OF MARYSVILLE
Marysville,Washington
ORDINANCE NO.2Iq~
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF MARYSVILLE,WASHINGTON
AFFIRMING THE DECISION OF THE HEARING EXAMINER, APPROVING
THE REZONE AND VARIANCES FOR PROPERTY LOCATED NORTH OF
GROVE STREET,SOUTH OF 80TH STREET N.E. AND EAST OF 60TH
DRIVE N.E.; AMENDING THE OFFICIAL ZONING MAP PREVIOUSLY
ADOPTED IN ORDINANCE NO.772,AND DENYING THE APPEAL OF
SUZANNE SMITH-HABITATS NW-QUAD.
1-~7>--...6.
1-/Jk..,-.~.
1-9~
I-~~:..z
WHEREAS,Robert Aldridge is the owner of real property
containing approximately 2.82 acres generally located north
of Grove Street,south of 80th Street N.E.and east of 60th
Drive N.E.,in the City of Marysville,said property being
legally described in Exhibit A attached hereto;and
WHEREAS,Robert Aldridge applied to the City for a
rezone from Single-Family Residential 9600 (RS-9600 to High
Density Single-Family Residential 6.5 (R-6.5)and a rear yard
setback and lot depth variance for Lot 8,as well as a
variance to the 20-foot front yard setback requirement for a
proposed garage to allow an 8-lot short subdivision under
File No.PA9710049;and
WHEREAS,the City Hearing Examiner held a public hearing
on the above-referenced application on March 12,1998 and
adopted findings of fact,conclusions and a recommendation
approving the application subject to 18 conditions;and
WHEREAS,on April 1,1998 Suzanne Smith-Habitats NW-Quad
(hereafter the "Appellant")filed an appeal of the Hearing
Examiner's decision;and
WHEREAS,on May 4,1998 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 April 1,1998,the applicant's written response
to said appeal dated April 24,1998,the written materials
submitted by the Appellant,the oral summation of Appellant
and the applicant,the staff report of the City Planning
Department dated April 30,1998,and the entire record of the
proceedings before the Hearing Examiner;
/mv/aldridge.ord49 1
--~~-_..----------------
HEREBY MAKES THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS OF FACT,CONCLUSIONS
AND DECISION:
FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
1.By letter dated April 24,1998,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 demonstrated sufficient facts in her
appeal that would demonstrate standing.
5 .
that:
The appeal filed by Appellant generally argues
a.The Hearing Examiner did not require adequate
buffer widths pursuant to the City's sensitive areas
ordinance and comprehensive plan policies;
b.
requested
and
The Hearing Examiner erred by granting the
variances to Lot 8 of the proposed short plat;
c.The Hearing Examiner erred in determining that
the development made adequate provisions for parks and
recreation facilities,playgrounds and sites for schools
and school grounds.
6.The City Council finds that Appellant has provided
no reference in the record which demonstrates that the
applicable provisions of the City's sensitive areas ordinance
were misapplied or misinterpreted.To the contrary,review
of the record demonstrates that significant analysis was
performed by a qualified consultant on behalf of the
applicant.Such analysis justifies and supports application
of buffer widths consistent with those approved by the
/mv/aldridge.ord49 2
Hearing Examiner.On the other hand,there was no testimony
or evidence in the record presented by the Appellant or by a
qualified consultant on behalf of the Appellant controverting
the evidence presented by the applicant with respect to
buffer widths and the application of the sensitive areas
ordinance.Exhibits in the ordinance which support this
finding/conclusion include,but are not limited to,Exhibits
5,9,10,28,36,37 and 40.
7.The variance requests to the rear yard setback,lot
depth and 20-foot front yard setback to Lot 8 meet the
criteria of MMC 19.54 and MMC 20.32.The Hearing Examiner
properly applied the variance criteria to the facts in the
record.Additionally,the variance requests for Lot 8 are
not adjacent to the stream and wetland and would appear to
have little or no impact to the wetland or stream involved in
the proposed development.
8.The Appellant did not raise issues relating to park
and school mitigation fees during the open record hearing,
and consideration of such issues are therefore not
appropriate.Even if such issues had been timely raised,the
impact mitigation fees required of the applicant are
consistent with the current provisions of the Marysville
Municipal Code.
DECISION
Based upon the above-referenced findings and
conclusions,the Marysville City Council hereby renders the
following DECISION:
1.The appeal of Suzanne Smith-Habitats NW-Quad is
hereby DENIED.
2.The Findings of Fact,Conclusions and
recommendation of the Hearing Examiner with respect to the
above-referenced application are hereby APPROVED,and the
above-described property is hereby REZONED from RS-9,600 to
Single-Family Residential 6.5,and the variance requests for
rear yard setback,lot depth and front yard setback are
hereby APPROVED.
3.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.
Imv/aldridge,ord49 3
4.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.
5.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.
PASSED by the
this XZcl..day of
City Council and APPROVED by the Mayor/Y\0'Jc ,1998.
CITY OF MARYSVILLE
flf!itJug
MAYOR
ATTEST:
BY~CLERK
Approved as to form:
By ~/,,"L-J.-uD
,CITY ATTORNEY
Date of Publication:-£6~i~i~~~~_
Effective Date (5 days after publication):
/mv/aldridge.ord49 4
..',....-,~:.:._."'-:,.....'"...
LEGAL DESCRIPTION.
LOT 2 OF CITY OF MARYSVlLLE SHORT SUBDIVlSION NO.92-10,
RECORDED UNDER AUDITOR'S FILE NO.9308160431,RECORDS
OF SNOHOMISH COUNTY,WASHINGTON..
•
(ALSO KNOV1N AS A PORTION OF LOT 1,BLOCK 2,KELLOG MARSH
FlVE ACRE TRACTS,ACCORDING TO Tl-lE PLAT THEREOF RECOREDE
IN VOLUME 10 OF PLATS,PAGE 16,RECORDS OF SNOHOMISH
COUNTY,WASHINGTON.)
SUBJECT TO EASEMENTS,RESTRICTION AdD RESERVATIONS OF
RECORD..
ExhibitL