01618C
Edmonds Planning Commission [u Ting - 5/15/68 (Page 5)
street through the plat to serve future developments to the north. Mr. Larsen said his
engineering requirements had been based on the City's requested design.
Mr. Middleton said he had worked on this problem for one day and couldn't come up with a
road which would serve this property and the property to the north. There is plenty of
area for seven lots,'but if the road is extended from 172nd in a northeasterly direction,
it would be running paralle:; to the contour lines of a 40ro slope. The lots could abut
such a road, but this road location would have drainage problems from springs, and by the
time a 50' right-of-way is cut into the hill, the uphill lots could not be reached. Mr.
Middleton said he was assuming approval had been granted by the other property owners in
the -,ovenant.
Mr. Tooker said it wouldn't be feasible to run the street across the plat and make a
profit. As an alternate, the area to the north could be served by the 50' easement on
the east side of tracts B and C of S-17-66 and the east portion of Mr. Emel's tract. The
drainage problems are so extensive, he didn't think they could be solved for such a road.
Mr. Logan pointed out that an 80' turn -around is proposed on the same slope as that con-
sidered too difficult for a street. Mr. Middleton said only 60' would be paved, and the
slope at this point is much less than 400'. Mr. Logan said that without a street to serve
the area to the north it will develop with many cul-de-sacs from 76th W. Mr. Larson said
he had required a 50' street through the plat with the qualification that an engineering
feasibility study should determine the pavement width.
George Baron, owner of the lot directly east of Lot B, asked whether the road shown on the
map (172nd St. S.W.) would ever be developed. Mr. Larson replied that it probably would.
not because of the topography, but its right-of-way would probably be retained for utili-
ties. Mr. Baron said they had asked Mr. Tooker to present the plan to other covenant
owners .but this had not yet been done, and at this time he was opposed to the plat.
Mr. Wallace, owner of a portion of Tract 122, said, said there was an undeveloped lot below
his which needed access. his property belongs to Mrs. McClintock, who said she has a 20'
easement to this lot. Mr. Dan Staber, owner of the Worth 1/4 of Lot 122, was also concerned T
with access, as their only access is a 20' easement from Mr. Emel.
Mr. Middleton said that at the time of the previous subdivision hearing, approval was
granted on the condition that Mr. Wallace was to grant a 20' easement to the City, and
Mr. Emel was to grant.a 30' easement to the City to make a 50' street. Mr. Larson said
it was an easement so that if the City should decide to make a public street, they could
do so.
Mr. Tooker said if the plat is approved, restrictions would be placed on it as to size and
class of houses, and would be subject to approval of the present property owners.
Mr. Dailey felt the matter should be postponed and more detailed study made of the road
problem. He moved to continue the hearing to the meeting of June 19th. The motion was
seconded by Mr. Gustayson and carried.
Subdivisions
S-7-68, Jim Fritzberg - 4-lot at 16620 - 72nd 1.1. (cont'd from 4/17/68)
Mr. Logan reported that since the last meeting there has been two proposals. The most
recent showed four lots .with two driveways with no easement. The earlier proposal of
April 26 shows two properties served by the same pavement, and the City staff feels this
is the superior plan, as it would provide better access for service vehicles. This design
leaves the possibility of a future east/west street open to the City if the need for such
a street is established. Future subdivisions of property along the south
htside of the
stream should have access to the Shortreed easement south of the subject
Mr. Larson reviewed the Check List of Engineering Requirements. There was no further dis-
sion, and it was moved by Mr. Gustayson that Subdivision No. S-7-68, sketch dated April
cus
cus ngineering requirements. The motion was seconded by Mr.
26, 1968, be approved subject to e
Peterson and carried.
S-12-68, Carl A. Steen - 2-lot on 171st at 76th W. (cont'd from 4/17/6B)
reported that a year -around stream enters the property near the middle of pro -
Mr. Logan ourse through the property had not been firmly established. Mr.
posed Lot A, and its c
Steen had said that the stream did not bisect Lot A, but went along its edge. However',
tion
until an engineering field survey asbeen
nor. thee
plted bcould properlyapplicanty the establifixing hshLot oAawith
of the stream bed, neither the applicant
any assurance. This application was postponed last month in order for the applicant to
provide this information. However, lie was not willing to do so. Unit 6 sewer system will