01624 (2)Edmonds Planning Commission Meeting - 7/17/68 (Page 3)
After further discussion of the matter, on majority approval Mr. Gustayson withdrew his
motion to deny and Mr. Dailey moved that hearing on File No. P-2-68 be continued to the
next regular meeting of August 21 1968 for the purpose of working out a street sy"'EW
with the city staff. He added that the revision should be in the hands of the City staff
by August 14th so that the Planning Commission could have an opportunity to review it in
their work meeting. The motion was seconded by Mr. Brooks and carried unanimously.
Subdivisions
Mr. Walstrand asked that his hearing be moved further down the agenda because his attorney
had not yet arrived.
S-40-68, R. W. and Helen Johansen - 4-lot on Olympic Ave. south of Viewland.
Affidavit of Poster was in the file. Mr. Logan said that a revised drawing had been
received July 8th containing revisions requested by the City staff. A 25' access easement
is proposed with all lots meeting city standards. He recommended approval. Mr. Larson
reviewed engineering requirements, noting a requirement for 20' of blacktopping on the
easement.
No one in the audience wished to speak for or against the proposal. Mr. Brooks said he
and Mr. Hodgson had looked at the property and recommended approval. The topography was
steep and the street could not be continued to the east. Mr. Hamilton asked for clarifi-
cation of the Fire Department's request regarding easements, and Mr. Logan said they
wished to discontinue easements entirely. Mr. Logan thought this quite difficult because
there are many very deep, platted lots. Mr. Larson said he would concur with the Fire
Department's request as it would allow the City to loop utilities, etc. The City should
in all instances..try to have better access to properties with exceptions made only for
topography. Discussion followed on possible future access to north properties, and Mr.
Brooks said a house blocks the access at every point.
Mr. Hamilton then moved that Subdivision S-40-68 be approved subject to engineering and
planning recommendations. The motion was seconded by Mr. Hodgson and carried unanimously.
S-36-68, M. Walstrand - 4-lot at 18521 - 92nd W. (cont'd)
Affidavit of Poster was in the file. Mr. Logan said that this case had been held over to
provide the City additional time to consider policy alternatives regarding piecemeal
subdivision of large parcels. The Planning Commission has found that people frequently
don't want to develop all their property at one time because of finances, but instead
develop on a piecemeal basis. In the end the property gets developed with poor, unimproved
access. In the past the Commission had told developers with enough land for five lots or
more that they must develop the whole or none. However, about 1-1/2 years ago they aban-
doned this policy because of its questionable legal basis. We haven't the legal tools to
require improvements on two or three lot developments, but even if we did, piecemeal develop-
ment would still be the end result. There is no easy solution, he said, and set forth
three alternatives for Commision action: (1) The subdivision could be denied on -the basis
that the proposal is a piecemeal subdivision which does not provide for the best planning
and development of the total property. (2) The two -lot subdivision could be approved
with no street requirements with the assumption that no further subdivisions would be per-
mitted and that the bulk of the property would be platted, placing the burden of the com-
plete street improvements on the developer. (3) A three -lot subdivision could be approved
with the requirement that 50' street right-of-way be dedicated and 200' of street be
installed. Mr. Logan recommended that the second alternative be adopted by the Commission.
He added that the purchaser of Lot C would have street improvements not only on additional
lots available on Lot C, but also for the street as it passes lots A, B, and D.
Mr. Dickson determined that if approved, the next action on the property would be platting
with full development. Mr. Dailey determined from Mr. Larson that full street improvements
would include curbs, gutters, sidewalks, and paving.
Mr. Ray Lee, 1117 Washington Building, Seattle, attorney for the applicant, said the third
recommendation could be eliminated. He based his arguments on what he called the imprac-
ticality of extending a street through at this location, noting that the house on Lot C is
in the middle of the proposed right-of-way. Also, the street to the east is solidly built
in homes. Vacant property to the east, when developed, would connect to 186th P1. S.W.
In requiring a 50' street, the City is removing property from the tax rolls. Safeguards
would be attached at the time a building permit is requested. The prospective purchaser
I
4
I
)
3