The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutR-1791 - Denying a utility variance for the Khanh Lam Property located at 16820 Smokey Point Boulevard Arlington Washingtonr -------_._-~~~-------- CITY OF MARYSVILLE Marysville, Washington RESOLUTION NO.11!i./- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF MARYSVILLE DENYING A UTILITY VARIANCE FOR THE KHANH LAM PROPERTYLOCATED AT 16820 SMOKEY POINT BOULEVARD, ARLINGTON,WASHINGTON. WHEREAS,on March 11,1996 Khanh Lam applied for a utility variance for one (1)sewer and one (1)water connection for property located at 16820 Smokey Point Boulevard,Arlington, Washington,under file number UV 96-009;and WHEREAS,on March 25,1996 the Marysville City Council held a public meeting to review the variance application and to consider information provided by City staff,the applicant,his representative and other interested parties,all of which is incorporated by this reference;and WHEREAS,on September 11,1995 the Marysville City Council adopted Resolution No.1745,reaffirming the utility policy contained in MMC Chapter 14.32,the Rural Utility Service Area ("RUSA")code which requires as a condition of utility service that the property owner sign a covenant agreeing to annex to Marysville in the future,and said resolution is incorporated by this reference;and WHEREAS,as a result of all of the information provided and considered by the Marysville City Council,it makes the following findings with respect to the variance application filed under file number UV 96-009: 1.The applicant's property is outside of the Marysville city limits and within an area known as the "Smokey Point Annexation"which was approved by the Boundary Review Board for Snohomish County for annexation to the City of Arlington on December 5,1995.However,the annexation is subject to a pending appeal in Snohomish County Superior Court. 2.The property is within the City's Rural Utility Service Area ("RUSA")and Critical Water Study Plan ("CWSP") boundaries and is within the joint Arlington-Marysville urban growth area established by Snohomish County. 3.The applicant's variance is subject to MMC 14.01.030 relating to applications for utility service, which reads in pertinent part as follows: The owner of any property desiring to connect to the City water or sewer system shall personally RESOLUTION - 1 /mv/lam.res ,...i- • ---------~~--------------------------------- apply for the connection on such forms as may be prepared and made available by the City Utility Department.No such application shall be deemed accepted or granted by the City,and no vested rights to utility service shall accrue,unless and until all prerequisites for approval,as specified by ordinance or resolution,are complied with in full and to the satisfaction of the City.For properties located outside of the city limits,the provisions of Chapter 14.32 MMC (RUSA Code)shall apply. 4.The applicant's variance is also subject to MMC 14.32.040,which provides the criteria for utility connections within the city's RUSA boundary.MMC 14.32.040(2)requires as a condition of receiving city utilities that the property be suitable for ultimate annexation to the city and that the property owner sign a petition to annex the property to the city or sign an annexation covenant to annex to the city in the future. Such provisions are mandatory.MMC 14.32.040(2)reads as follows: A property applying for a utility connection must be suitable for ultimate annexation to the city based upon its proximity to the city,the long- range plans of the City to annex that area,the proposed use of the property,the potential urbanization which will result from the use,and the environmental and economic impact of such urbanization and the annexation of the property into the city.The owner of any property granted utility connections shall sign a petition to annex the property to the city,and may be required to obtain similar petitions from other property owners in the immediate vicinity so as to compose a logical extension of the city's boundaries.In the event that the property granted utility connections is not then contiguous to the city limits,the City may waive the requirement for an annexation petition and may allow the owner, instead,to sign a covenant agreeing to petition for and/or consent to an annexation of the property immediately upon the same becoming contiguous to the city limits or upon it being included within a larger annexation proposal.The covenant shall be binding upon the owner,its heirs,successors and assigns,and shall be construed as a covenant running with the land.It shall be recorded in the records of the Snohomish County Auditor prior to connection of the property to the utility system. 5.The applicant's property is not contiguous with RESOLUTION - 2 /mv/lam.res '------------------------------------~._-------. ,.'} the Marysville city limits. 6.Prior to the application for utility service,the applicant signed a petition for annexation of the subject property to the City of Arlington.The petition was approved by the City of Arlington and the Snohomish County Boundary Review Board. 7.Because of the applicant's decision to sign a petition to annex to another city,the applicant is unable to execute a valid annexation covenant to Marysville as required by MMC 14.32.040(2).The applicant requests a variance from this requirement. 8.The provisions of MMC 14.32.040(8)also apply to the applicant's request for utilities.MMC 14.32.040(8) reads as follows: City utilities will not be offered for properties which have other practical and feasible sources for such services. 9.The City of Arlington is a potential provider of sewer and water utilities to the subject property. 10.MMC 14.32.040(9)applies to the applicant's request for utilities.MMC 14.32.040(9)reads as follows: Utilities will not be granted where such service, and the City's regulation thereof,would create a conflict with another municipal jurisdiction or utility district.Utilities will not be granted where the annexation of the property would be legally impossible because of conflicting jurisdictions. 11.In the event the Smokey Point annexation becomes final,annexation of the applicant's property would be legally impossible. 12.While there was no evidence that the applicant's property is without a ULID,in the event it is,the provisions of MMC 14.32.050(3)specifically require properties within a ULID to comply with MMC 14.32.040(1) through (5),which include the annexation covenant requirement. 13.The provisions of MMC 14.32.060(4)establish the criteria for granting variances from the provisions of MMC Chapter 14.32,the City's RUSA Code.MMC 14.32.060(4)reads in pertinent part as follows: The City council is authorized to issue such variances only if it is found that a literal RESOLUTION - 3 Imv/lam.res ~"...~ enforcement of this chapter would cause practical difficulties or unnecessary hardships.No such variance shall be authorized unless the Council finds that all of the following facts and conditions exist: (a)That there are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applying to the subject property or as to the intended use thereof that do not apply generally to other properties in the same vicinity; (b)That such variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant possessed by the owners of other properties in the same vicinity; (c)That the authorization of such variance will not be materially detrimental to the public interest,welfare,or the environment; (d)That the granting of such variance will not be inconsistent with the long-range plans of the city utility system,or jeopardize utility availability for properties within the city limits. 14.The present outstanding City indebtedness for the City's utility system is approximately $26,000,000.That debt is secured solely by the citizens residing within the Marysville city limits and not those citizens or utility customers residing outside of the Marysville city limits. One purpose of the City's RUSA Code requirement for annexation or execution of an annexation covenant to Marysville as a condition of receiving utilities is to preserve the public interest and welfare of the citizens of Marysville by ultimately annexing those properties which are served by Marysville sewer and water utilities. 15.In light of all of the above findings,the variance applications do not meet the variance criteria of MMC 14.32.060(4)(c),which require a finding that the authorization of the variance will not be materially detrimental to the public interest,welfare or the environment.Authorization of utility connections to the applicant's properties without execution of a valid annexation covenant to Marysville would conflict with the long-range plans of the City's utility system which is to annex areas served by Marysville utilities.The public interest and welfare of the citizens of Marysville is best served by annexation of areas served by Marysville utilities as Marysville citizens are obligated to secure the outstanding indebtedness of the utility.The public interest and welfare of the citizens of Marysville are not RESOLUTION - 4 /mv/lam.res 1 '".',I.;. served where the City serves utilities to properties over which it will not have ultimate municipal authority to control such matters as permitting,zoning,planning and growth,all of which can have impacts on the City's water and sewer utility. 16.The applicant's variance also does not meet the variance criteria of MMC 14.32.040(4)(d),as the granting of the variance would be inconsistent with the long-range plans of the City's utility system,which is to serve utilities only to properties which are ultimately suitable for annexation to Marysville and which do not conflict with another municipal jurisdiction.See MMC 14.32.040(9).The inability to execute an annexation petition or annexation covenant in favor of Marysville is inconsistent with the long-range plans of the City utility system.Such inability could also jeopardize utility availability for properties within the city limits,since absent the ability to annex, the City would have no ultimate control over permitting, zoning,planning and growth in the area of the applicant's property. BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MARYSVILLE,WASHINGTON AS FOLLOWS: Based upon the above findings,the applicant's variance request under file number UV 96-009 is hereby DENIED. Any party aggrieved by this resolution shall have the right to file a land use petition under the Land Use Petition Act in Snohomish County Superior Court;PROVIDED,that the petition must be filed and served on all necessary parties within twenty-one (21)days of the date of this Resolution. ~PASSED by the City Council and APPROVED by the Mayor this ~day of April,1996. ATTEST: BY11~LCITY CLERK Approved as to form: RESOLUTION - 5 /mv/lam.res CITY OF MARYSVILLE {)q;;J tUM