Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutR-1942 - Granting a utility variance for Belmark Industries, Inc. for property located at 9409 35th Ave NE Marysville WaCITY OF MARYSVILLE Marysville,Washington RESOLUTION NO.(Cf'{2- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF MARYSVILLE GRANTING A UTILITY VARIANCE FOR BELMARK INDUSTRIES, INC. FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 9409 - 35TH AVENUE N.E., MARYSVILLE,WASHINGTON. WHEREAS,on July 22,1999,Belmark Industries,Inc.applied for a utility variance from the land use densities set forth in the City's Rural Utility Service Area (RUSA)plan for property located at 9409 -35th Avenue N.E.,Marysville,Washington;and WHEREAS,on September 7,1999,the Marysville City Council held a public meeting concerning the variance application and received public input from the applicant,the applicant's legal counsel,members of the public and City staff;and WHEREAS,the matter of the utility variance was continued to the September 27,1999 regular City Council meeting for deliberation and action;and WHEREAS,on September 27,1999 the Marysville City Council, having reviewed all of the input from the applicant,applicant's attorney,the public and staff,and having reviewed each of the exhibits attached to the City Council Agenda Bills of September 7 and September 27,1999,and having reviewed all other written material supplied at the September 7,1999 meeting,all of which is incorporated by this reference;and having reviewed Chapter 14.32 of the Marysville Municipal Code relating to the City's RUSA requirements,and having been fully advised in the premises, hereby makes the following findings,conclusions and decision: 1.Applicant Belmark Industries,Inc.made application for a utility commitment letter on October 30,1998 for 40 water and 40 sewer connections for the subject property.On November 10, 1998,the Public Works Director offered to provide the utility connections requested subject to several conditions including, but not limited to,the applicant's completion of a utility application form accompanied by a payment in full of all fees and assessments required by ordinance,and accompanied by a fully executed annexation petition or covenant.The Public Works Director's utility commitment letter was a conditional offer subject to the applicant's complying with all City codes and requirements.The utility commitment letter specifically advised Belmark.."to carefully read MMC 14.32,which explains in detail the conditions and limitations under which utility service is available." 2.The property proposed for development by Belmark is within unincorporated Snohomish County but within RUSA,the RESOLUTION - 1 jwpf/mv/belmark.res2 areas In RUSA .. City's utility planning area.It is also within the City's Urban Growth Area and within the City's Land Use and Utility Comprehensive Planning Areas. 3.MMC 14.32 requires that an applicant for utility service outside of the city limits comply with the densities prescribed in the City's RUSA plan.However,an applicant may apply for a variance from the densities of the City's RUSA plan pursuant to MMC 14.32.060.The criteria for review of a variance request are stated therein. 4.The City staff appears to have made an error in issuing the November 10,1998 utility commitment letter without first requiring the applicant to apply for and receive a variance from the density requirements of RUSA.However,by memo dated March 25,1999 from Senior Planner Eric Thompson and a letter dated July 8,1999 by City Administrator Dave Zabell,each of which are incorporated by this reference,the applicant was advised that a variance from the densities allowed under the City's RUSA plan would be necessary.Said letter and memo were issued prior to the applicant's preliminary plat hearing before the County Hearing Examiner. 5.One of the purposes of RUSA is to allow the City to establish long range plans for the growth and control of its utility system outside of the City limits.Its purpose also is to assist in accurately forecasting the demand for City utilities and to provide property owners and Snohomish County authorities with an indication of the City's long range utility plans (MMC 14.32.010).To authorize utility connections consistent with County densities,which are inconsistent with the City's densities,as the applicant has requested would not be consistent with the City'S long term planning efforts under RUSA or GMA. 6.RUSA is intended to promote the orderly growth of outside the City limits which may be annexed in the future. order to promote orderly and coordinated growth,the City's plan requires that an applicant for utilities develop at densities consistent with the City's RUSA plan.Unless a variance is applied for and granted,any authorization for utility services must be conditioned upon continued compliance with the RUSA plan (MMC 14.32.040(3)).One of the primary purposes for this requirement is to ensure that the City's utility system retains adequate capacity to serve all properties within the City limits and to meet its existing utility obligations.To authorize utility connections consistent with County densities,which are greater than those allowed by the City in its GMA Comprehensive Plan,as the applicant has requested would not be consistent with the City's planning efforts under RUSA or G~~. 7.Under the City's utility code,no utility connection is to be approved which is inconsistent with the long range plans of the City's utility system.Such long range plans include RESOLUTION - 2 /w~f/mv/belmark.res2 development which is consistent with the City's Comprehensive Water and Sewer Plans and the development densities stated in the City's GMA Comprehensive Plan. 8.Since the City's Comprehensive Water and Sewer Plans and the City's GMA Comprehensive Plan are the most current plans which are available and which comply with the requirements of the Growth Management Act,it is appropriate to consider and approve a variance from the RUSA plan densities.The RUSA plan densities are lower than those planned for under the City's Water and Sewer Comprehensive Plans and GMA Comprehensive Plan. 9.The City's RUSA plan densities conflict with Snohomish County's Comprehensive Plan densities.MMC 14.32.050(4)states that in the event the RUSA plan is inconsistent with Snohomish County's Comprehensive Plan,the RUSA plan shall prevail unless a property is within a ULID or has a pre-existing contract right to utility services.In such cases the County's Comprehensive Plan prevails unless the City demonstrates that the plan clearly endangers the City's utility interests using strictly utility- related criteria (MMC 14.32.050(4)).The Belmark property is not within a ULID.There is no pre-existing contract right for the following reasons: a.City staff signature to a utility commitment letter is not a contract.The commitment letter is solely an expression of the City's ability to provide utility services to a specific area subject to compliance with all other provisions of the City's utility code.This would include compliance with the densities planned by the City. The utility commitment letter is a form document which specifically states that the commitment is subject to compliance with utility code requirements.Meeting the RUSA plan densities is one such requirement.No binding,final commitment for utilities is recognized by the City until the applicant has shown that it has complied with all utility code requirements and until all applicable fees have been paid. b.The same principles as described in 9(a)above would apply to the provision of a "certificate of water or sewer availability,"which is a form document required by Snohomish County under GMA to demonstrate concurrency. c.City staff appears to have made an error in issuing a utility commitment letter per the 40 sewer and 40 water connections.However,the commitment letter does not bind the City or the applicant until all provisions of City Code,including compliance with planned densities,have been met.The language in the utility commitment letter expressly conditions any commitment by the City with compliance with all City codes and requirements. RESOLUTION - 3 jwpf/mv/belmark.res2 d.The approval of utility connections consistent with the county densities proposed by the applicant would clearly endanger the City's utility interests.This is true because the City has as a paramount consideration in protection of available capacity in its sewer treatment plant and protection of citizens already connected to the utility system.The City also has a paramount interest in preserving utility capacity for prospective customers within the City limits.Capacity and sizing of the City's utility infrastructure,including its wastewater treatment plant,is based upon the City's Comprehensive Plans,not the County's. e.Granting the applicant's request would establish a bad precedent because it would give other property owners an unrealistic expectation that they too could receive utility connections consistent with the County's higher zoning densities. 10.The City and the County are required to reconcile densities within their comprehensive plans.The City and the County have signed an interlocal agreement which will accomplish this.It is anticipated that the reconciliation process will result in densities generally consistent with the City's GMA Comprehensive Plan.As the applicant's property and others in the vicinity are within the City's urban growth area and because such properties will be required to sign an annexation covenant in favor of the City as a condition of receiving utilities,these properties will most likely be annexed to the City in the near term.Accordingly,they should be subject to the City's planning goals,objectives and standards,including the City's road standards and the densities planned for by the City. 11.While the applicant has shown that it can meet the variance criteria of MMC 14.32.060(4),the variance should be allowed from the City's RUSA plan densities and approved subject to compliance with the City's general comprehensive plan densities and the densities contemplated within the City's sewer and water comprehensive plans.The densities under such plans for the subject property are five (5)dwelling units per net acre.The number of water and sewer connections allowed should not be a specific number at this point and should depend upon the approval of a preliminary plat which is consistent with the City's planned densities for this property. 12.MMC 14.32.060 authorizes the City to grant variances subject to conditions. 13.In light of the above-referenced findings,the authorization of the variance subject to the below-stated conditions will not be materially detrimental to the public interest,welfare,or the environment. 14.The above-referenced findings reflect exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applying to the subject RESOLUTION - 4 /wpf/mv/belmark.res2 --------------------------------------------- t . , •... property that do not apply generally to other properties in the same vicinity. 15.Based upon the above-referenced findings,the variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant possessed by owners of other properties in the same vicinity. 16.Subject to the conditions stated below,the granting of a variance in this case will not be inconsistent with the long-range plans of the City utility system or jeopardize utility availability for properties within the city limits. NOW,THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MARYSVILLE,WASHINGTON AS FOLLOWS: 1.The variance from the City's RUSA plan densities is hereby GRANTED subject to the following conditions: a.Compliance with the City'S sewer,water and GMA Comprehensive Plan densities,which are five dwelling units per net acre; b.Consistency with the city road standards; c.Compliance with all other applicable requirements of MMC Chapter 14.32. 2.This decision shall be final and conclusive with the right of appeal by any 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 the passage of this resolution. I~~PASSED by the City Council ~day of October,1999. ITY CLERK Approved as to form: BylJ~t.(~ GRANT K.WEED,CITY ATTORNEY RESOLUTION - 5 Iwpf/mv/belmark.reS2 and APPROVED by the Mayor this CITY OF MARYSVILLE By aAt!tJ~ DAVIA.WEIS~MAYOR