8521 HOLLY DR 2016-01-01 MF Import

$ present residence on which they would continue to reside. The Planning Department, as a condition of preliminary improvement, required that "half street imorovements ' (essentially sidewalks ) be put in by appellants . The Planning Department argued in support of its position that there exist-ed the potential to develop the proper.ty into more than four lots . Therefore, the Planning Department argued the proposzd development does no- fall into the exception of EMC 18 . 24 . 1OQ. EMC 18 .24 . 100 states : "Whenever a division oF redivision of land is on an existing pu5lic screet, such frontage sha.11 be improved ta current city standards, except if all tt�e following conditions exist: The division of land is four (4) or iess dwelling units, has a minimum of eic�hteen ( 18 ) feet of asphalt pavement, gravel shoulder, tc;�iporary drainage, and does not have the �otential for more than four {4 ) dwelling units or additional improvements are not needed t� provide a smooth transition in accordance with section 5 E-1 or exception section 5 , C-7-M. " The Yergers appealed to the Hearin� Examiner, arguing that the potential to develop the property into mor� than four lots depended upon the Yergars obtaining easements and variaiices from the Planning Department. The Planning Department has not and can not guarantee that the Yergers could obtai,n these easements or variances . • ARGI7MLNT The alleged errors consist of ( 1 ) Hearing Examiner' s decision that there are facts which supp�rt half street improvements under RCW 58 . 17 . 110; and ( 2) that the word potential was improperly defined and that under a correct defir.ition and understanding of APPEAL BRtEF - 3 • 57