Loading...
01511In f - Edmonds Planninp_Commissicn Meeting - 10/16/68 (Page 6) P-6-66, Preliminary condominium plat, Trygve Fiksdal - Request for extension of time. (196th St. S.W. and Maplewood Road) Mr. Logan said that this condominium apartment building came to the City for processing as a plat because this procedure had been used by the City in past years. Actually, there is no state statute or City ordinance requiring review by the Planning Commission. He had checked with two Coutny and four City planning offices, and not one agency required Commission approval of condominiums. Therefore, the question of granting a time extension was academic, but probably the record should be kept straight and the file continued to its normal conclusion. fie recommended an extension of one year. Mr. Fiksdal!s architect was present to represent him, and said the only reason the request was made was because this is more or less a regular wituation with FHA. It was then moved by Mr. Dailey, seconded by Mr. Brooks, that a one-year extension be allowed on preliminary plat File No. P-6-66. Motion carried, P-9-66, Preliminary Plat of "Mount Baker Sea Vue Estates", Lyle Nichols - Request for extension of time (Talbot Park) Mr. Logan explained that this plat was submitted several months before the zoning was -changed from RS-12 to RS-20 in Talbot Park. The City has installed a storm drainage line and the developer has granted easements for this facility. A lawsuit had developed because the change in zoning made the proposed lots substandard in size. Mr. Murphy explained that as a result of the court action, the developers were enjoined from develop- ing until the hearing, which delayed the development for a year. A letter had been received from the developer requesting a time extension of one year, and this letter was read aloud and made a part of the file. Mr. Murphy recommended six months extension. Mr. Logan said the original restriction required that some of the lots tie to the pro- posed sewer line while the rest would be served by septic tanks. However, the entire area will soon have sewer facilities. Mr. Middleton added that there was a second resti.,:- tion relating to the storm sewer, which has now been installed. Val Rupeiks, representing Mr. Anderson, part owner of the land, requested a one-year extension because of the requirement for connection to sewers. Mr. Hodgson said he had viewed the site and could see no improvements, and was disappointed that more had not been done. However, when reasoned out, he said, because of the sewer .requirement he would not object to the time extension. Mr. Brooks said in the interest of more orderly development, he would move to approve a time extension of one year on the preliminary plat of "Mount Baker Sea Vue Estates". The motion was seconded by Mr. Hodgson. Mr. Gustayson questioned the access to the property to the west and Mr. Middleton said Mr. Feltcher's property has access from two other points. On question, the motion carried. Mr. Gustayson said he felt the Planning Commission should be especially concerned with roads in the north end. Subdivisions. S-61-68, Kenneth A. Barry - 2-lot on Melody Lane (cont'd from 9/18/68) Mr. Logan said that in 1963 a four -lot subdivision (S-41-63) was approved with a 16' easement with a right angle turn to the south and west of this property. It was his hope that Mr. Barry would be willing to work out a mutual easement agreement with the property owner to the west to improve access. Mr. Middleton said he had not yet had any contact with the applicant. Mr. Logan said the lots are standard with a 5' dedication required on Melody Lane. If there is no chance of getting an improved access easement, then he would recommend approval as proposed, with a 90-day time limit on the required dedication. Mrs. Shippen had viewed the property and saw little problem. She recommended approval. It was then moved by Mr. Dickson to approve Subdivision S-61-68, finding that it makes appro- priate provision for public dedication and improvements and that the public use and interest will be served by its approval, and that the same be approved subject to the right-of-way dedication requirement being met within 90 days. The motion was seconded by Mr. Brooks. Mr. Middleton said they would still work on the assumption that they can work out an improved easement agreement with the property owner to the west. After discussion, it was moved by Mr. Peterson, seconded by Mr. Dickson, that the previous motion be amended to allow for the realignment of lots in case the previous request for improved easement is accomplished. Motion carried.