Loading...
S-63-02.pdf4 c50 f/J 4 c50 4 1963.. February 1 90 1963 Mr. Thomas V. Messer lie L dmond , Wazhiugt an Eea' Mr, Nessera The Edn.anls Pring Cr fission, at heir regular veeti, of Abruary 18X 1963y gRpraved your Subdivision request$ We Mo. S -2-63a subject NO pray sian of an additional Jo feet along the South edge of Cascado Lanex, and the provision of a 40 -foot turn around at the end of Cascade Lane.o also, that the 5 -foot strip and the turnaround be paved. Vory truly YOVxSS. Secretary MOKS Planning Chi sla January 23, 1963 Mr. Thomas V. Messer 747 Olympic Avenue fonds, Washington Dear Mr. Messer: T wish to advise you that the Edmonds Planning C.oAmission, at their regular meeting of January 21, 1963, denied your request for Sub- divisions Pile No. S-2-63, until more adequate information is furnished the Manning Commission, including property drawings designating right of way and drainages as stipulated by the City Engineer. x Yours very truly, Secretary r PUalNING CO[MUSSION APPLICATION REZONING .-- SUBDIVISION - J' -,-,7_ PEE 2J2 -z: -- RECEIPT 2 - RECEIPT NO - DATE / D�WIE THOMAS V. MESSER L Alin, ADDRESS 747 OLYMPIC AvENUa~ EDMONDS PHONE PR 6-065 By... - ---- Date ---- w.. ------ --- REQUEST THAT APPROVAL BE GRANTED ALLOWING A 4 -LAT SUBDIVI ''ION OF THE FOLLOWING DESCRIBED TRACT OF LAND, PROPERTY DESCRIPTION TRACT 14 PUGET SOUND MACHINERY DEPOT 5 -ACRE TRACTS, EXCEPT, REPLT OF SUNSET ESTATES AND EXCEPT PORTION LYING'NORTHERLY OF CASCADE LANE, SKETCH: (Sketch of property to be rezoned. or subdivided showing streets., property lines, etc.) (SEE ATTACHED) SCALE: 1" = 50 MET JAWAP.Y $, 1963 m I M WDDLETaW ASSOCIATES Cortsulfinp, Dgineers &Laid Sur veyon 324 Main St. PR 8-1171 WASHINOTON MID LAS J. WDDLETaW ASSOCIATES Cortsulfinp, Dgineers &Laid Sur veyon 324 Main St. PR 8-1171 WASHINOTON MID LAS ti`�e3F�� REED, MIDDLETON ASSOCIATES Qf1'(!InEt!3EEfSA11(iiU8Qf3 324 Main St PR 8-117 ��r��� May 29, 1963 To: Edmonds Planning Commission From; John E. Moran Superintendent of Public Works Re: File No. S-2-63 Thomas V. Messer Subdivision The above -captioned subdivision has been examined by the undersigned in the company of Mr. LeRoy Middleton of Reid, Middleton & Associates. After careful study of this subdivision, it is respectfully recommended that the ten -foot dedication asked for by the Planning Commission at the time of approval of this subdivision be reduced to 8 feet, five of which will be paved as per original stipulation. No recommendations are made for any further changes or deviations in this subdivision. JEM:mb r (may^" Mo n Edmonds City Council Edmonds, ,iashington Gentlemen: I am writing you with respect to the attached letter that I have received from the Edmonds Planning Commission. I humbly request your consideration of their proposed recommendations with regard to my request for dividing my property into our (4) lots. Last year -the city re -surveyed properties along Olympic Avenue that resulted in my north property line being moved ten (10) feet south of the old established boundary, this put my house within 10 feet of Cascade Lane. I did not contest this move because it allowed me amply room for my furnace oil tank and a walk to my backyard and garbage can rack. Since receipt of the attached letter from, the Planning Commission, I requested that Mr. Middleton survey my property and stake lot boundary lanes - this has been done. I, now find. that my north property line is staked within inches of nay house - eliminating my oil tank and walk. Cascade Lane is an access road to two (2) recently built houses and with the addition of .rry two (2) lots would provide access to four (4) homes. It is not a through street nor does it conform to any specific and/or required width, so I can not understand the Planning Commission's recommendation that I cede ten (10) feet of my property and that I pave five (5) feet of same, nor does.my logical reasoning explain the requirement that I cede and pave a 40 foot turn around.. j I would be willing to cede five (5) feet along Cascade Lane south edge, but I feel that any other recommendation is unjustifiable and would entail a great expense to me for a requirement that is not needed by present and/or future users of Cascade Lane. Should houses be built on rW proposed two (2) lots, the builder would decide where driveways should be placed to Cascade Lane - this would not necessitate the need for a turn around. I am sorry that my military duties preclude my being able to appear before you in person. MW sincere thanks -to you gentlemn, for any consideration you may give xrj request. Respect lly yours, f• 1 Incl Letter from City of Edmonds Planning Commission K Civic CENTER ' VIM Av MUM M. 1 LL � F Gpr AND EDMONGB eY. ry.•,a G " ,l