HomeMy WebLinkAboutR-1216 - Denying a RUSA variance application relating to property owned by Tri-Way Manufacturing Inc.•,
"-..,.,~..~
._f,-i:
--------------------------
2-C~,Qffic.e
rrle-
CIT Y 0 F MAR Y S V ILL E
Marysville,Washington
RESOLUTION NO. /2 /~
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF MARYSVILLE DENYING A
RUSA VARIANCE APPLICATION RELATING TO PROPERTY
OWNED BY TRI-WAY MANUFACTURING,INC.
WHEREAS,TRI-WAY MANUFACTURING,INC.is the owner of approxi-
mately 15 acres of undeveloped property located west of 1-5 and at
the south end of a private road presently servicing an industrial
complex constructed by TRI-WAY and J & H MANUFACTURING COMPANY;and
WHEREAS,said 15 acres is outside of the established boundar-
ies of the Rural Utility Service Area (RUSA)and,pursuant to Chapter
14.32 of the Marysville Municipal Code,is not eligible for water or
sewer service unless a variance is granted by the Marysville City
Council;and
WHEREAS,FIRST INTERSTATE BANK OF WASHINGTON,N.A.,is fore-
closing upon the interest of TRI-WAY in the sUbject property and has
applied to the City Council for a RUSA variance;and
WHEREAS,on April 28,1986,the City Council held a hearing on
said variance application and entered the following Findings of Fact:
1.The subject property is outside of the established RUSA
boundaries.
2.In March,1982 the subject property was zoned by Snohomish
County in the General Co~ercial classification,with a special con-
tract prohibition against any retail usage of the property.Such a
classification is inconsistent with the RUSA Plan for any other prop-
erties west of 1-5.
3.The subject property is within the boundaries of the Tulalip
Indian Reservation.It is the position of the Tulalip Tribes that the
City is legally prohibited from annexing any property on the reserva-
tion.The applicant provided the City with no legal authority to the
contrary.The annexation covenant signed by the applicant's prede-
cessor on August 24,1978,is of no force or effect.
4.There has never been an application to the City for water or
sewer service to the subject property,and the City has entered into
no contractual commitment to provide such utilities to said property.
Resolution - 1
5.The applicant is unable,at this time,to commit to any
specific development proposals for the subject property,or to cal-
culate the water and sewer flows which will be generated by such
development.Moreover,the applicant is unable,at this time,to
determine whether the extension of utilities to the subject property,
and the urbanization of said property,will create any substantial
adverse environmental or economic impacts.
6.The applicant failed to establish any of the four criteria
required for variances in Section l4.32.060(d)of the RUSA Code.
BASED UPON THE FOREGOING FINDINGS OF FACT,THE MARYSVILLE CITY
COUNCIL HEREBY RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS:
The application of FIRST INTERSTATE BANK OF WASHINGTON,N.A.,
for a RUSA variance relating to the 15 undeveloped acres referred
to above,is hereby DENIED.Said denial shall be without prejudice
to the right of the applicant to file again for a variance at such
time as specific development plans for the subject property may be
presented.
ADOPTED by the City Council and APPROVED by the Mayor this /Z~
day of _·-I.ttJ.L:j'4~Yf--'1986.
THE CITY OF MARYSVILLE
MAYOR
ATTEST:
CLERK
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
By \y'"""~
Resolution - 2
Qu y~CITY AT']N Y