HomeMy WebLinkAboutR-1812 - Denying a utility variance for the Smokey Point Naval Housing limited partnership property located at 167XX Smokey Point Boulevard Arlington Wa0'
------------------------------------,
I-~
I-~(p~
/-P.....M,)~
CITY OF MARYSVILLE
Marysville,Washington
RESOLUTION NO.L~1;)...-
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF MARYSVILLE DENYING A UTILITY
VARIANCE FOR THE SMOKEY POINT NAVAL HOUSING LIMITED
PARTNERSHIP PROPERTY LOCATED AT 167XX SMOKEY POINT BOULEVARD,
ARLINGTON,WASHINGTON.
WHEREAS,on April 26,1996 Smokey Point Naval Housing
Limited Partnership applied for a utility variance for two
hundred fifty-eight (258)sewer and two hundred fifty-eight (258)
water connections for property located at 167XX Smokey Point
Boulevard,Arlington,Washington,under file number UV 96-014;
and
WHEREAS,action on the variance application was postponed as
the applicant had not first applied for a utility commitment
letter as required by City Code;and
WHEREAS,on May 1,1996 the applicant applied for a utility
commitment letter,which was denied on May 7,1996;and
WHEREAS,at the July 8,1996 Marysville City Council meeting
the Council received written and verbal information from the
applicant,a written and verbal report from City staff,numerous
written exhibits which were part of the agenda materials,and
information from other interested persons,all of which was made
a part of the record and which 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 96-014:
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.
RESOLUTION -1
Imv/naval.res
'.~
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
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
connectioBs 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
RESOLUTION - 2
/mv/naval.res
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
the Marysville city limits.
6.Prior to the application for utility service,the
owner,Mr.Fred Wigren,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 owner'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.
The applicant's representative,Mr.Fowler,was
asked at the July 8,1996 variance proceeding if
inquiry had been made to the City of Arlington for
utilities.Mr.Fowler said such inquiry had been
made and that the City of Arlington would provide
sewer and water utilities to the site.
9.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.
10.In the event the Smokey Point annexation becomes
final,annexation of the applicant's property would be
legally impossible.
11.The provisions of MMC 14.32.050 relating to
utility implementation rules apply to the applicant's
utility request.Specifically,MMC 14.32.050(3)applies to
this request and reads as follows:
RESOLUTION - 3
Imv/naval.res
Utility service to properties within a ULID,or to
other properties with preexisting contractual
commitments from the City,is contingent upon
compliance with MMC 14.32.040(1)through (5).The
remaining subsections of MMC 14.32.040 shall not
apply to such properties.
12.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
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 applicant's inability to sign a valid
annexation covenant to Marysville or to be able to comply
with MMC 14.32.040(2)is due to his own action in executing
an annexation petition to Arlington.
15.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
RESOLUTION - 4
Imv/naval.res
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.
16.The City's consulting engineer has reviewed the
impact that the addition of 258 sewer connections would have
to the City's existing sewer capacity.By memo which was
made a part of the record,the City's consulting engineer
has concluded,and the City Council hereby finds that the
addition of 258 sewer connections to the City's system of
sewerage at the proposed location would have a severe impact
upon the City's sewer system,and hence the grant of the
variance would potentially have adverse impacts upon future
sewer availability within the City limits and would not be
consistent with the long range plans of the City's utility
system.
17.Both the existing zoning and comprehensive plans
for Snohomish County and for the City of Marysville are
inconsistent with the applicant's proposed use--multiple-
family dwellings.The proposed use is also inconsistent
with the City's RUSA plan which anticipates industrial use
of the property.The City Council therefore finds that the
variance proposal would be inconsistent with the long range
plans of the City's utility system and would be contrary to
the public interest and welfare of the citizens of
Marysville.
18.In light of all of the above findings,the
variance application does 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 property 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 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.
RESOLUTION -5
Imv/naval.res
l.,~,"·'T~
"'"
19.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
requests under file number UV 96-003 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 July,1996.
OF MARYSVILLE
()(}M(j u)ILiM
CITY
By_---"""""'=---'~.."..."""'!<4-----
ATTEST:
CITY CLER
Approved as to form:
By~j::.updJ
CITY ATTORNEY
RESOLUTION - 6
/mv/naval.res