00490'1
The property to the north (Lot 22) is not developed at this time and is
owned by Charles Lantz. The developer wishes to put a street in (207th S.W.)and
share common access of the street with the property to the north, ana
Mr. Lovell has proposed a cul-de-sac to run north from that street to'serve
the two properties to the immediate north which will be further sub-
divided. If this is done, an amendment will have to be proposed for
adoption in the Official Street Map before approval of Mr. Lovell's
Proposed street on his plat. Ms. Charleson stated that Leif Larson,
City Engineer, did not recommend 88th be opened to ,Main Street because
of heavy traffic with existing intersections. Mr. Lovell proposed that
25 ft. would be on his subdivision for the street and he requested
15 ft. from the Lantz property fora total of 40 ft. Ms. Charleson
summed up the item by stating there was no significant negative
environmental impact on the property from the proposal and recommended
approval subject to removal of the garage/shed and setback modification
for the existing single family house, resolution of the street in terms
of amendment of the Official Street Map and subject to the City Engineer's
req ui remen is .
Leif Larson, Director of Public Works spoke regarding the proposed street;
that 50 ft. width for the right-of-way is standard and 40 ft. is the
minimum (based on Ordinance 1793), with 32 ft. of paving, and on
through-streets,sidewalks are required on both sides, but on deadend
streets, sidewalks are required on one side. Mr. Larson described in
detail other requirements and that the residential access plan and
amendment to the Official Street Map should be developed for Lots 21,
22, and 23. He stated 88th should be only used for utility access.
The public portion of the hearing was then opened. Mr. Lovell spoke
and'stated the development of Mr. Lantz's property,Lot 22,
would have to utilize the proposed street as its only access alternative. And,
because of the combined ownership of the two tracts, it might develop
into problems unless it were developed jointly. He emphasized that his
Proposal was not intended to be made a part and parcel of the street
map, but that the Official Street Map be amended to show.a street in
that location and they are proposing to dedicate 25 ft. of street to
construct adequate improvements, all utilities, waterline, wiring, etc.,
to properly serve the six lots. Mr. Lovell stated they wanted the plat
approved with the 25 ft. right-of-way and within which time they feel
they can construct improvements to serve this subdivision. And, at what -
ever time the north property is developed, they would perhaps be
required to dedicate an additional 15 or 25 ft., and widen the street
to serve the added development.
Mr. Lantz spoke and said he had no notice ahead of time of what this
Proposal was and felt he did not wish to be "tied down" at this time,
that he had not
.gone over this thoroughly enough and that 30 ft. from
the back property had been given to the City on 88th.
Commissioner Goodhope suggested the solution would be a PRD as far as
the Lantz and Thompson property and did not feel they could propose a
road for someone else that adjoins the property and accept the plat on
that basis. Noelle Charleson said she agreed with Commissioner Goodhope
and had questioned the 25 ft. indicated, that it was not the standard,
but the issue at stake was what the best access for this whole area is, and
there were two options: The Planning Commission could deny the plat
as proposed with a 25 ft. street,or theycould approve the plat if the
street situation is resolved and the Official Street Map is amended in
some way to put the street on 207th S.W. to a full standard street.
Or, the applicant can request approval of the subdivision with a full
street width all on their property. She suggested to Mr. Lantz that
this had just come up three days ago, and that Mr. Lantz had not had a
chance to look at the proposal. and that now the preliminary review
had been done, perhaps Mr. Lantz could review the proposal. Mr. Lantz
replied he did not wish to be "pushed" into any decision at this time.
which might interfere with future development of his property.
EDMONDS PLANNING COMMISSION
August 10, 1977 - Page 3