01804Mr. James Driscoll,
Suite 525
100 South King Street
Seattle, Washington 98104
Dear Mr. Driscoll:,
On June 2, 1983, you served as Hearing Examiner for the City of Edmonds on
File $P-4-83, a request for a six -lot subdivision at 540 Edmonds Way by
Dr. Richard J. Blandau. When.I submitted a,written statement at that hear-
ing, providing documentation regarding Dr. Blandau's October 10, 1970
warranty deed with the State Department of Highways carried a limitation
regarding the driveway to limited access State Route 104 restricting it to.
service to a single family residence, you continued the hearing and in-
structed Mr. Duane Bowman to obtain a ruling from the State Department of
Highways.. You said that you expected to reconvene the hearing in a month.
This ruling was sent to Mr. Bowman by J.R. Stephenson, P.E., District
Location Engineer, in a letter dated June 21, 1983. Mr. Bowman received it
on June 28, 1983, and a copy was transmitted to you by his office of June 30th.
Mr. Stephenson's letter was most explicit:
The reason for limiting access control has not changed since we
purchased access control in this area. In addition, we believe
the motoring public's safety has been enhanced... We will .limit
the access to .the state highway to a 14 feet single family
approach which we have agreed to at the time of acquisition of
access.
However, Dr. Blandau's representative, Gerald W. Lovell, P.L.S., wrote to
Mr. Bowman on June 21st requesting that "the Edmonds Hearing Examiner's
consideration of the preliminary plat application be continued or deferred
until such time that the permit issue is resolve."
We would like to respectfully request that the preliminary plat application
be acted upon at your earliest convenience. Mr. Bowman told me today that
he considers the application so inactive, that he has pulled it out of his
active file. Nevertheless, anything that is left hanging in government can
rise from the ashes, like a phoenix, without warning to all parties concerned.
Two and one-third months have gone by since you granted a continuance, and
we believe that as the need for information from the State Highway Depart-
ment that necessitated the continuance has been fulfilled, action;on this
application should be completed by the Hearing Examiner.
We further believe that the grounds for action on this application are
clear when additional factors are considered:
1. The application was filed with such incomplete information
regarding the legal description, e.g., the complete legal
description supposedly contained in the application according
to notation on the plat drawing was omitted, that Planning
Department evaluation was impeded. Whether the lack of this
demonstrated essential information was by omission or design,
we cannot say, but the effect was still the same.
21206 72No AVENUE WEST IAT 212TH 9.W.) EDMONDS. WASHINGTON 99020 1206) 771-5661