0146910
Edmonds Planning Commission Meeting_- 4/20/66 (Page 7)
Mr. Haines asked that the minutes reflect that he abstained from action on the subdivision.
Mr. For. said ':;?-! �asement was for the benefit of the property to the east also, and lots
B and D could each be subdivided in the future, and when the property to 'the east is
developed, the road would serve more.
Mr. Middleton stated that 172nd is platted r/w, but so steep that it is not used. It is
difficult to go from 76th up to hill. There is a problem in access to the interior, and
the inside part is extremely wet. He agreed that it could be built on six lots.
Mr. Hubbard said while it had been the policy of the Planning Commission to require
platting, he could see nothing objectionable if provisions were set up as outlined.
Mr. Larson noted that the City would.like 10' for 76th W., and Mr. Holte offered 20'
along the easement for future road. Further discussion developed that the Wallaces
have title to 20' and -an easement over 20' on the east provided by Emel, making a total
easement road of 401. Additional 20' dedication would make 601. Mr. Fox agreed that
necessary right-of-way would be provided, and withdrew objections. Mr. Larson stated
that in view of no present plans for streets, he felt 40' easement would be sufficient,
as future development might indicate a different path for the street. Discussion led
to the conclusion that a 30-day delay would be desirable to give Mr. Larson an opportunity
to give further study to the matter. Therefore, it was moved by Mr. Sater, seconded by
Mr. Propst, that hearing on File No. S-17-66 be continued to May'18, 1966 to allow the
City Attorney and the City Engineer an opportunity to review the situation. Motion
carried.
5-18-66, John A. Crawford, 4-lot subdivision on 76th W., north of Bertola Road.
Affidavit of Poster submitted. The applicant was not present. Mr. Hubbard reported that
he had inspected the property and found nothing wrong. No one spoke from the audience
either for or against the subdivision. It was moved by Mr. Sater, seconded'by Mr.
Hubbard, that the subdivision request of John Crawford, as proposed in File No. S-18-66,
be approved. Motion carried.
Plats
P-2-66, Preliminary Plat of "MARA VISTA" — Strickland, et al.
Affidavits of poster and publication presented, as well as note of notice to adjacent
property owners within 3001. It was noted that the plat meets the specifications of the
city in all particulars. Mr. Lee Terry, 731 Melody Lane, spoke in favor of the plat,
saying it was a nice residential district, and he would hate to see a park there:
Mr. Nelson, 741 Melody Lane; was in favor, as well as Mr. Harshbarger, 750 Melody Lane,
who said he was, however, concerned about access from 9th No, on Hindley Lane, as the
street is so narrow and there is a culvert on one side and a fence on the other. It was
noted that this relates to property the applicants don't own, and the Planning Commission
can't require them to do anything about it.
Mr. Carl Buckenroth,•735 Melody Lane, opposed the plat because of height of houses.
Mr. Jerry Robbins asked what would be done about water mains to serve the development.
Mr. Larson replied that mains would be put in at every citizen's expense or by LID.
Edmonds has never had late comers agreements on water lines. Mr. Robbins then pointed
out that there had been a comprehensive plan for sewering the area which was subsequently
abandoned, and asked if there were any plans. Mrs. Cunningham also asked about sewers
and storm drains, and Mr, Larson said that although there was nothing at present on the
comprehensive plan, there were plans to study the area.
It was then moved by Mr. Sater, seconded by Mr. Propst, that the preliminary plat of
"Mara Vista", File No. P-2-66, be approved subject to the specifications of the City
Engineer. Motion carried. "ter
P-3-66, Preliminary Plat of "TOMMY PARK ADDITION NO. 3" - Belt and Sons
Affidavits of poster and publication presented. Mr. Middleton said that this plat had
been denied some months ago, but it is a real problem. As presented now, there would
be a 20' easement from Main St. for 3001. The area to the east is much lower and too
difficult to construct a road to serve both lots. Further south there is property which
could be built on, on each side of the easement. He proposed a dedicated 50' r/w running
east -west between lots 5 and 6. It would have a revocable easement of 20' until such
time as there is public access provided to the west.
i
f