1614 EDGEMOOR LN 2016-01-01 MF Import

� � � � i ' � � � Plat of Crestwood _ Subdivision Al,teration 2-88 � Page -4- " i � 12. Rhe subdivision alterations in the State of Washington are subject to I the provisions of ia(,W 58.17.215. Zhis statute reads: I When any person is interested in the alteration of any subdivision or the altering of any portion thereof, except as provided in R(�V 58.17.040(6) , that person shall sulmit an application to request the alteration I to the le9islative authority of the city, town, or oounty where the subdivision is located. Zhe application shall contain the siqnatures of the ' majority of those persons having an ownership interest of lots, tracts, parcels, sites, or divisions in the subject subdivision or portion to be altered. If the subdivision is subject to restrictive covenants which aze filed at the time of the appraval of the sabdivision, and the application for alteration would result in the violation of a wvenant, the application eha71 contain an agreement signed by all parties subject to the covenants providinq that the parties aqree to terminate or alter the relevant oovenants to accort�lish the purpose of the �lteration of the subdivision oc portion thereof. (administrative finding) 13. Braa c�tends that the Applicant's pcoposed alterations must be denied because the Applicant ha3 not crollected the signatures of the majority of the persons owning lots which will be altered by the proposed alteration. FUrther, he subnitted that the alterations should be denied because the Appl3cant has failed to obtain signatures of the property owners in Ccestwood to support the proposed alterations. A000rding to Braa, the provisions of RCW 58.17.215 have not be oanplied with. (�wnas Read's testimony) 14. '!he Everett Planning Department rEcognizes that R[S�1 58.17.215 sets forth the procedure for the alteration of subdivisions. Accordinq to the City, �uider this law the City must determine the public use and interest in the proposed subdivision alteration within its jurisdiction and apprare or deny such applications. ]�s part of the review, the City has considered elements A thcough J of the City's Subdivision Ordinance. (staff report, Anderson testimony) 15. 7t�e City sutrnitted that the proposed alteration will not conflict with th_ City of �trerett's Qomprehensive General Iand Use Plan which designates the subject property as Sinqle Family Detached 1-5 Dwelling Units per Gross Acre. (Anderson testimony, staff repoct) 16. 2he City submitted that the existing zoninq of the property is R-1 which allows a minimim lot size of 7,000 squaze feet and a minimian lot width of 60 feet. �e Subdivision Ordinance requires a miniman lot depth of 80 feet. �he proposed alteration, with the elimination of the 15 foot acoess easement, will result in adequate land to meet these , requiranents. (Anderson testimony) �