01398Edmonds Planning Commission - 6/17/64 - Page 2
Ervin N. I1allenbsck, File No. S-31-64
Affidavit of Posting presented. Since there is a lawsuit pending on a boundary
line of the property described in this file, it was moved by Mr. Hubbard,
seconded by Mi•. Sator, that the application for subdivision by Ervin N
Hallenbeck, File No. S-31-64,.be deferred pending the outcome of the suit
determining the boundary line.
Halo Homes, File No. S _ 32-64
Affidavit of Poster presented. Mr. Leroy Middleton, representing the applicant,
reported that at the time the land was sold by the City, it was a trade for
some land that was ne::t to the watershed. It was intended at one time that
Walnut would extend easterly at this point, and he asked if the City were still
interested in e:ctending Walnut, but was informed that it is not on the
Comprehensive Street Plan.
It v-as ; noved by Mr. Haines, seconded by Mr. Payne, that the application of
Valo Homes foz, subdivision of property as described in File No,, S-32-64, be
ap r�ovcd as Motion carried. Application granted.
Gordon H. B-nnicn, File No. S-33-64
Affidavit of :oste_� presented. It was moved by Mr, Payne, seconded by Mr.
Haines, that the application of Gordon H. Bennion for subdivision of property
described in File No. S-33-64, be granted as submitted. Motion carried.
Subdivision approved.
Walter Payne, File No. S-27-64 (Deferred .from 5/20/64_)
Mr. MorzF_n reported that the subdivision appeared satisfactory proirided the
entrance be made onto 9th Ave. according to State Highway standards. (This
would be 9th Ave. just north of Casper Street.) There is over 200' visibility
each way from the access road, and about 201 of shoulder before reaching the
pavement.
It was carved by Mr. Hubbard, seconded by Mr. Haines, that the application of
Walt Paytw for subdivision of property as described in File No. S-27-64, be
granted abject to his fulfilling the Engineer's requirements with regard to
width of Xoad and setbacks. Motion carried. Subdivision approved.
Plats
�~ Talbot PaOk Estates, Edwa7d V. Hendryk, File No. P-2-64 (Deferred from 5/20/64)
A petition of protest against the preliminary design of Talbot Park Estates Plat,
with signatures representing 38 property owners, was presented. Also in the file
was a cop* of the plat requirements set forth in the original plat. Mr. Holte
stated that private restrictions are not a consideration affecting the decision
of the Planning Commission or the Code, and are between the property owners and
a court. He then read a letter from the City Engineer setting forth require-
ments for plat approval.
Mr. John Vertres, attorney representing the petitioners, presented arguments
against the approval of the preliminary plat design, stating that the applicants
are making eleven lots out of three. The original plat stated that lot could
be divided only once, and this is replat rather than subdivision of existing
plats. These lots were platted in the fashion because of the creek property.
The roads in would be smaller than required. The steep slope would cause houses
to be built on the edge of the cliff. Also, county regulations state that a
house must,be set back 100' from a creek. The City of Edmonds has a 50'
setback, but the over-all picture should be considered. Also, the street
pattern is boing chanted from the original plat. Felt a closer look should be
tekan.