5530 EVERGREEN WAY 2018-01-02 MF Import

� �— —1 - . To File: 5530 Evergreen Way and WO Eile 1377 �� C'�aty� e��erett FROM Celia • �u✓/+� Q onre February 22, 1984 SUBJECT Ordinance 555-78/Records Keeping CI7Y OF EVERETf,EVERETT WASHINGTON Jerry Bolser Contract Rezone at 5530 Evergreen Way came up for final review by City Council at a public hearing this morning. The single issue before Council that involved Public Works was whether or not the rezone should be conditioned to require standard Evergreen Way street improvements. The Superior Court had earlier ruled that the City muc grant the rezone. The arguments for the street improvement requirement by Public Works at the public hearing was that City � Council policy has been that whenever street improvement requirements can be � required they should be required. And in 44 preceeding actions on Evergreen Way !� by the City, street improvement requirements were ;mposed on each one. The Bolser Action and 5 other actions were purely discretionary actions on the part of � T City Council. And until Bolser, no exceptions had been made. „ � �n x m Given the Superior vourt Ruling (containing some rather undesirable language with c o regard to discretionary action on the Bolser Rezone) we attempted to show that �^ � Bolser changed the use of his site from a ti�e store to a regionai distributorship and o 3 tire manufacturinR facilit . And that the Contract Rezone before City Counci! � Z was a direct result of a�id necessary because of the new facilit . The new facility r=„—+ that occured on the site exceeds the threshold established in Ordinance 555-78 to ,o = require street improvements and would complement and deminish the need to D � totally rely on the discretionary action portion of the Rezone which was weakened r = ., .. in the Court RuGng. � '^ � But here again, the 555 argument is weakened because the new facilit had actually �3 occured 3 years ago via a ramodel building permit sought by Bolser without = �" disclosing his plans for a new faciGty. "' i"'„ 0 or What would have nailed the sireet improvement requ:-ements and left no room for � N a valid argument against the installation is the 50% improvement threshold ,-3„ `^ requirement in 555 (in any 12 month period). But the two recent permits in the �� Fublic Works file were more than 12 months apart and the largest one was a 45% ' n remodel (based on Building Departmerat iigures). So, even though the remodel was � very close to the 50% threshold it was not enough and the best arguments were still = the "discretionary action" and "new facility". z � My impression was that City Council did not want i.t to appear that the City was � harassing Mr. Bolser and that the City Council wznted to stay out of Court (again '" my impression only). For whatever their reason, it was their decision to not place � the Evergreen Way street improvement as a condition of the contract rezone. � m The dilemma for future discretionary actions is that Dolser is not distinguishable from the other 5 Evergreen Way discretionary actions. Except for the language in the Court Order and except that Bolser was not "up front" with the City in disclosing the new facility�Bolser is similariy situat�ed to: Highway Place 5treet Vacation Fred Meyer Rezone Wilmington Street Vacation Cascade Shopping Center Phase li Rezone Glacier Bowling Lanes Rezone All of these sites,and 39 non-discretionary sites on Evergreen Way have been required io provide for street improvements. .,