3402 TULALIP AVE 2016-01-01 MF Import

1{EARING E�Ab1INER DECISION RE;: AP-#2-A9 4/27/69 Page 4 3 . Subsequent to the Hearing Examiner' s June 3 , 1988 decis� �n, the Everett City Couiicil approved a merger clause in the Ci f of Everett' s Zoning Cade. This merger clause, approved on 0-.tober 13 , 1988 , required that lots that do not meet zoning standa- ds and are acquired by common conveyance prior to December 1 , 1956, are to be cunsidered merged. This ordinance changed the procedure approved by the Hearing Examiner. 4 . Subsequent to the June 3 , 1988, Hearing Examiner decision, Uut prior to the October 13 , 1988 City Council amendment of the Zoning Code ior merger clauses the Applicant filed an application for development of property on 3402 Tulalip Avenue, Everett, washington. On September 2 , 1988, the Applicant filed for a boundary line adjustment for three lots on the subject property. 5. The new merger clause in the Everett Zoning Code requires that lots that do not meet zoning standards and that are acquired by common conveyance prior to December 1 , 1956, be merged so that they conform to the Zoning Code requirements of lot size, frontage and widtti standards. The application, as submitted by the Appli- cant, would uot. qualify for a boundary line ad.justment under this ordinance, but it does satisfy the requirements of the City boundary line adjustment ordinance in effect at time of application. 6 . On October 31, 1988 , the Planning Department granted prelimi- nary approval to the boundary line adjustment application sub- mitted by the Applicant for the property at 3402 Tulalip Avenue, Everett, Washington. 7 . Notice of boundary line adjustments by the City was not required and thus, the City did not provide notice to adjacent property owners of the pending action. The City also did not notify co-.tiguous property owners of its decision to grant pre- liminary approval on October 31, 1988. No appeal of the City' s Administrative Determination was submitted. 8 . Subsequent to preliminary approval, surve� activity occurred on the subject property. At that time the Planning Department received inquiries about th� boundary line adjustment. 9 . In light of a Washington Court of Appeals decision R/L. Associates v. Klockars , 52 Wn App 7260n February 3, 1989, the City Planning Department reviewed the preliminary approval of October