Laserfiche WebLink
- -- --- ---- ` - . - <br /> 8 <br /> Pa�l Yerger <br /> Appeal 2-92 � <br /> Page -7- <br /> :his sect±on elloxa �he cltiec to be ezplicit as to uhether or noc sidevalks <br /> may he required. If the sidevz.lka are impoaed under thls stacute, they muat <br /> be related ta a paesngevay for vchool children to their schools. In the <br /> Snstan[ c¢se, there is some evid�ence tant the�� sldevalks wuld be uaed for <br /> schoals. (gzh161s "J" to this heartng) Thus, St appears that RCA 58.17.110 <br /> doea provide aome eupport for half-etreec Smprovemeats. <br /> The eecood argument of tbe City is thac [he Appe].laat's property xi�ich adjolns <br /> thz property that ia the subject of the subdivision muac 6e conuidered ae part <br /> of the potential developmea[ of the s1te. The Clty claima that the potential <br /> inclusian of the ::d,joiaiag property necesaitatee the need for eldermlks <br /> becauee there is a potential for more thaa four dwe111ag imits. EHC 18.04.050 <br /> requires that coatiguoue parcela of la¢d tha[ ase to be eub3ivided alull <br /> conetitute a eingle s„bdivision action. �i'hie section, hovever, do�e not <br /> spe�ificslly eay thrtt the contiguous land muat be copaldered ae part of <br /> aaother subdivSsion. The ordinaace ezpreaely limits the eontlguous parcela of <br /> land that are to be eubdivided. In t6e Snstaat caee, the pppellant testified <br /> that there are �o plans for the aubdivisioa of the contiguoua land. Testlmony <br /> xae received thaL the laud, in faet, may be aold. Thua, it appeare that E"SC <br /> 18.0G.050 caaaot be the basie for the requirement of ehe 6alf-etreet <br /> improvementa. <br /> k1na12y, the City's last argument Chat helf-atreet improveaenta are required <br /> because there is a potential for more thaa four dwelling uaita o¢ the aub�ecc <br /> property muat be addresaed. The eubject proprsty, ae noted in ^he fi¢diuga, <br /> is a parcel of laad that coucaina over 40,000 equare feet. The Appellant hua <br /> propoeed a ahort plat of only Chree lota. The -^.ity correctly revieved the <br /> proposal and datermined Chat Lot I2 ie large enough for further subdivlslon. <br /> Hith further plactlag oE Lot #2, removal o: the eziating carpo��t aad garage <br /> and the rearrangement of [he bulldiage on-eite wuld be required. Such <br /> platting iaould reeult vlth the eziating houae ou Lot A2 beiag on a differe¢t <br /> lot thaa the exieting carport aad the garage. The deaign wuld allow four <br /> dwelling uaits to e�.at on the subject propesty. It would aleo necesaitate <br /> [hat acceae easementa to other lota be provSded. In addltlon, the City <br /> developed the eceasrlo in xhich a fifth lot could be dereloped on the far <br /> eaatem portion of the psrcel. Thia lot could be developed xith the uee of <br /> variancee aad e,aammta. Llith thie deeiga, it Sa pooaible to have more than <br /> four�lota. „ <br /> The City's argrmmt that the development of the subject property into five <br /> lota is poesible cannot be dleputed. There eri11 be, uith aay devel.o�eat, a <br /> need for eaeeneats aad permita, but there Ss no doubt Ch¢t the aubject <br /> property doea have the poteatial to be further developed. "potential' is not <br /> defined ia the Everett Huaicipal Code or the revlaed codea of the State of <br /> Asahiagtoa. Hovever, the Webeter'e DSc[Sonary, NSnth Nex Collegiate edition, <br /> (1986) containa the folloxing defiaitions oi "potea[Sal": <br /> 1. an ezlsting poesibillty; capable of develoFment in <br /> xctuality; <br /> 2. ezpresaing posaibility; <br /> 3. something that caa become actual. <br /> Althnugh St Ss improhable thac the parcel of laad xi11 be deve�oped iato more <br /> than four or mcre lota, baeed on the defiaitlon in Webeter'e Dictioaary, it Se <br /> poaelble, aad thus the parcel of land hae a poten�ial for euch develo�.nent. <br /> , ! J <br /> t' ,' <br /> 'r: <br /> t � '_� , •� " r { �� - - — <br /> �;: <br /> '�` � . ; <br /> 'k` #".��-: e .. �'6 . ,.._.. _ <br />