Loading...
01625Edmonds Planning Commission vieeting - 8/21/68 (Page 3) Suggested Rules of Planning Commission Procedure The Rules of Planning Commission Procedure had been prepared by City Attorney Murphy and copies distributed earlier to members of the Planning Commission. It was moved by Mr. Dickson and seconded by Mr. Brooks that these Rules be adopted as standard Rules of Procedure for the Planning Commission. Mr. Gustayson amended the motion to state that the Planning Commission give a vote of hearty appreciation to Mr. Murphy for developing the Rules. Motion carried unanimously on the amendment and the motion. Plats P-2-68, Preliminary Plat of "Sound Vista", Guy 1.1. Tooker (cont'd from 7/17/68) Mr. Logan said that the applicant had met him in the hall before the meeting and asked to have the application withdrawn. Also, at its July hearing the Planning Commission requested that the applicant submit a revised plan in time for Commission study at its August 14 work meeting, and this had not been done. Therefore, Mr. Hodgson moved that based on the City Planner's comments, P-2-68 as submitted be denied. The motion was seconded by Mr. Peterson and carried unanimously. P-3-68, Preliminary Plat of "Maplewood Lane", Don Finnigan, east side of Maplewood Dr. at Sierra St. A revised drawing had been submitted. Hr. Logan said moving the street to the north as shown on the revision would allow future development of streets to the south to better serve the area. Engineering requirements were standard except that the City would also require a temporary turn -around on 88th W. No one in the audience wished to speak for or against the request. Mr. Peterson asked if the turn -around area on 88th would have to be paved, and Mr. Logan said it would be unwise to pave at -this time. On being questioned, Mr. Conway said there were no plans for development of 88th W. except as an urban arterial. It was determined that when adjoining property owners develop their property they will be required to add to the right-of-way. It was also determined that the street in the proposed plat would be just a residential street and would not extend further east. Discussion followed on whether or not the proposed street should be placed on the Official Street Plan to assure future dedication of deficient right-of-way, but no decision was reached. There being no further discussion, it was moved by Mr. Peterson that the preliminary plat of "Maplewood Lane", File No. P-3-68, be approved subject to the requirements of the City Engineer and the City Planner. The motion was seconded by Mr. Brooks and carried unanimously. Subdivisions 5-3148, Mace A. Gay - 4-lot between Forsythe Lane and Pine (cont'd from 7/17/68) Mr. Logan explained that this application had been initiated by Mr. Gay, who proposed to dedicate 25' for street right-of-way. However, a few weeks later Mr. Gay had died and Mrs. Gay had stated she did not want to dedicate the right-of-way if the City -initiated L.I.D. for street improvement is set up. If the L.I.D. is approved, the proposed right- of-way would be purchased. The L.I.D. is now in the period of protest; however, the City Engineer was of the opinion that it would not be protested out. Mr. Logan recommended approving the subdivision on the condition that the L.I.D. is established for improving the street, and if it is not established, that the applicant be required to dedicate the necessary 25' street right-of-way within 90 days after the L.I.D. is abandoned. Mr. Brooks then moved that the subdivision be approved on the conditions recommended by Mr. Logan. The motion was seconded by Mr. Dickson and carried unanimously. S-50-68, Myron D. Kopp - 4-lot on east side of 88th W. at 194th S.W. A revised drawing had been submitted enlarging the proposed access road to 30, wide with a cul-de-sac turn -around. A 10' street dedication was required on the west. Mr. Logan said the City staff had requested an access easement on the south side of Lot A, making a better and shorter access. The applicant's revised drawing did not recognize the City's request because of a sewer easement and because of an existing cherry tree on the south side of Lot A. However, 1.1r. Logan said, lie would urge the Planning Commission to consider the advantage of an access easement on the south side because two T-intersections are superior to one cross -intersection. The tree would not need to be damaged as the pavement could be moved north of the tree. Moving the easement would also save the evergreen trees on the north.