01547Edmonds Planning Commission Meeting_ ll/l6/66 (Page 7)
various statutes to support his contention that it was not in the public interest to
approve the preliminary plats of Talbot Vista and Mount Baker Seaview Estates at this
time in view of the consideration to be given to the petition for rezone, feeling that
both should be heard at the same time in the December 21st meeting because of pertitnent
planning and legal considerations. He then presented a chart outlining the percentage
of property owners in Talbot Park who had signed thu petition to rezone to 20,000 ft.
lots.
Mr. Bill Harold, 8311 Frederick Place, stated that the rise on Frederick Place is 80-90
feet, with a bad dip, with one area low and covered with water during the winter. There
are eleven families at present on the road, and a replat would more than double the
traffic on the road. Developed road width starts at 25' and at the curve is only 171,
while at the end of the road it is 12' wide. Maintenance on the until roadsewei sand andwater lways has
been from poor gravel to poor dirt. They can't g
et an are installed. Residents have oiled from time to time during summer months. He ques-
tioned Frederick Place going through because of the topography. Mr. Larson agreed that
it would be difficult, but it could be done if some time in the future it became neces-
sary.
Mr. Maury Schumann said that the Snohomish County Auditor had stated that there were no
restrictions of record on the University of Washington grant; that it had been approved
by the Secretary.of the Interior in 1890. He noted also that sewers.are two to four
years away.
Mr. Meyring said that the plat certainly meets the requirements as far as the area
requirements are concerned. There are lots of varied sizes; they are providing access,
as far as possible to 76th W.; and as far as use of the street is concerned, they were
not saying they would build twelve houses immediately to use Frederick Place. The
people who own the property have a well laid -out plan for the site, with a building site
set out on each lot with enough land to landscape. He pointed out that the owners of
e not consulted about the proposed rezone, and that the economics
the undeveloped lots wer
of the LID system is against large properties. He added that 5' on each side of osed
Frederick Place could be dedicated to make it a 60' right-of-way. The street as.pro p
in the plat of Talbot View would have to be improved, and individual lots have to be so
land to its best use. The only problem area in the
designed that they are serving the
plat is the east end of lot 3.
Mr. Larson clarified that under present policy they recommend permanent improvements, but
would not recommend permanent improvements be improved to a3ewersland paved streetter now,ains are in. He
but it would be
noted that Frederick Place could be imp P
ed the engineering requirements as shown on the check
expensive. Mr. Larson then review
list submitted to the Planning Commission. The letter from the Fire Department was
read, recommending a study of streets in the area for through streets, and stating that
there would have to be adequate water mains and a fire hydrant installed for protection.
zone
tively, and if
Mr. Murphy advised the Plannwouldn'tCommission
affectathiseplat,tsince ittwas csubmitted when the
rezone were granted, it stills not
RS-12 zoning was in effect. Mr. Dysart contended that the Planning Commissionrinciples,
required to approve a plat if it didn't meet hit stated h good thattwegmust liveand nwithin our own
even if they met minimum lot sizes. Mr. Murphy 1
ordinances, and a subdivision can't be denied just because the zoningmight be
ordinance
changed. True, if the street design were bad, the soil wouldn't perc, the drainage was
bad, or such other reasons, then it could be denied.
Mr. Ramsey, a resident f Talbot
me tesa ko spoke
inofavor
the uofbthe fplat,
ng sthenareaabecausemcostly
these greater number
of improving the area would be divided further. Sewer assessments would be high for large
needed improvements
lots, and they need the additional homes for .
12,000 ft. lot would extend to $20,000 for a 20,000 ft. lot, requiHe said ring aboutt a a 0 for a
$60,000
house to be built on such a lot.
rd
Mr. Payne emphasized that the issue before the Commissionil21.waM the plat• said thatthe
asked why, with'a 50' r/w, there is a roadbed of only 12 Mr. Meyring
land didn't sell for a long time and brush grew out. Mr. Larson said there was no reason
why the road couldn't be widened within the existing right-of-way.
r