Laserfiche WebLink
391' <br />• June 19, 1979 - continued <br />Council, in which he stated his.objections to the rezone action taken last week. He said the major <br />problem which appeared to influence the Council was the water.runoff which he stated was not caused <br />by these lots but by the lots above, and the open pasture and temporary road on these lots were <br />obvious places for the water to show. He felt this --was spot.zoning and he and Etta Morehouse were <br />being penalized while other lots.around them were being,developed.as RS -6 lots. He said no drainage <br />plan would be required if the lots..were developed as RS -12., but as RS -6 --they would be short platted <br />and a drainage plan would be required— Further, that the minimum sized lot that could be developed <br />would be 7,200 sq. ft. because of.Shellabarger Creek. Dean Shepherd, attorney.for Etta Morehouse, <br />also had submitted a letter requesting.the Council to give this matter further consideration. After <br />discussion with the Staff regarding:the various issues,.the Council agreed to reconsider the matter. <br />MOTION: COUNCILMAN CARNS MOVED, SECONDED.BY COUNCILMAN KASPER, TO REHEAR THE SUBJECT REZONE MATTER ON JULY <br />10, 1979. MOTION CARRIED. City,Attorney Doug Albright who arrived during this discussion suggested <br />it might be proper to send this back to the Planning Commission and he advised that City Attorney <br />John Wallace should be present.la.ter.in the evening to advise on that. Mr. Wallace did not arrive <br />and during the meeting Mr. Albright.had.an opportunity to review the file, after which he advised <br />that he felt a rehearing before the Council would be proper. <br />MAYOR <br />Mayor Harrison advised that he had..received a memorandum from.the Community Development Director <br />indicating that the Proposed Amendment to the RMD Zone, scheduled for hearing on July 17, 1979, will <br />be incorporated into the first -phase of the Code revision, scheduled to be considered on July 24, <br />1979. It was -therefore requested that the Council review the RMD amendment as part of the Code <br />MOTION: revision on July 24. COUNCILWOMAN ALLEN MOVED, SECONDED.BY COUNCILMAN CARNS, THAT THE PROPOSED <br />AMENDMENT TO THE RMD ZONE BE REVIEWED JULY 24, 1979 WITH THE FIRST PHASE -OF THE CODE REVISION. <br />MOTION CARRIED. <br />• Mayor Harrison asked for the Council's confirmation of his.appointment of John Hodgin to the Planning <br />Commission. Mr. Hodgin was interviewed by the Council prior,to this evening's meeting. COUNCILMAN <br />MOTION: CARNS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILWOMAN ALLEN, TO CONFIRM THE,MAYOR'S APPOINTMENT OF JOHN.HODGIN TO <br />POSITION 1 ON THE PLANNING COMMISSION., TERM TO EXPIRE OCTOBER 9, 1979. MOTION CARRIED. - <br />Mayor Harrison announced that the quarterly meeting of the Association of Snohomish County Cities <br />and Towns will be held June 28, 1979. at Lake Stevens. Councilwoman Allen indicated she would attend. <br />AUDIENCE <br />James McAnally of 730 Elm St. said it.had been his understanding that the alder trees on the City <br />property at 7th and Elm were to be topped but it appeared that action was stopped. He said his <br />property had been assessed as view property but in another year he would not have a view because of <br />those trees. Sharon Blossey of 1210.8th Ave. S. said in 1976 the neighbors had contributed $600 to <br />plant trees and have these topped—Councilman Carns corrected her, saying those funds were to plant <br />trees, not for topping. He said the -trees were cut three years ago and the runoff caused erosion to <br />the property below. He advised Mr...McAnally that the Council had discussed this -on May 22;. 1979 and <br />reaffirmed their November 2 4 1978 decision that no trees.would be removed except1for three specific <br />reasons. He stated further that the Council had stated in May that there would-be no cutting of <br />trees on that property. He explained.that at one time all.the.neighbors in favor of cutting the <br />trees come in,.and the next time all thoseopposed come in,: and the Council cannot change its position <br />with each change in the audience. Councilwoman Allen added that there are tall firs growing all <br />over the City which are diminishing views, but the City cannot start trimming all those trees. She <br />said a view has never been able to.be guaranteed and she was.not ready to start guaranteeing people <br />views. Councilman Naughten commented that with private property a person has to try to work -with <br />the property owner, and that was what these people were trying to do. He felt the City could come <br />up with some kind of policy to cut a specified portion of a tree if the party were willing to -pay <br />for it. Don Forgey of 724 Elm St..said his property had been assessed for view property and most of <br />•. <br />his view was of alders. Councilman.Carns said the only way he would consider discussing this topic MOTION: again was if everyone involved were present. COUNCILMAN CARNS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMAN NAUGHTEN, <br />THAT ON AUGUST 7, 1979 THE COUNCIL HEAR THE TREE CUTTING/TRIMMING ISSUE, AND THAT THE AGENDA BE <br />CLOSED TO OTHER MATTERS.. Councilman Carns.said he would like.everybody invited to that hearing who <br />had spoken regarding the 7th and Elm property during the past four years. Councilman Naughten said <br />that included in the discussion should -be whether the property should be sold or kept. THE MOTION <br />CARRIED. <br />HEARING.ON_FINAL ASSESSMENT ROLL,, LID 205, BELL ST. PAVING <br />City Engineer Fred Herzberg described the.LID. The preliminary estimate had been $8.14 per zone <br />front foot, but the final cost was $8.71 per zone front.foot because of the required removal of <br />several trees not included in the.original estimate. There were no people in the audience for this <br />item, so Mr. Herzberg assumed the people involved were satisfied. The public portion of the hearing <br />MOTION: was opened, no one wished to speak,: -and the public portion was closed. COUNCILMAN NAUGHTEN MOVED, <br />SECONDED BY COUNCILMAN NORDQUIST.,.:TO-ADOPT.ORDINANCE 2074, APPROVING AND CONFIRMING THE FINAL ASSESSMENT <br />ROLL FOR LID 205. MOTION CARRIED. <br />HEARING ON PETITION FOR VACATION<OF:.PORTION OF DAYTON ST..,'EAST:OF 9TH AVE. S. <br />Assistant City Planner Mary Lou Block.said,this petition.had been heard by the Planning Commission <br />on April 11, 1979 at which time they, recommended denial. The,Community Development Department and <br />the Public Works Department also had.,recommended denial because.vacating of the right-of-way would <br />force one or two lots to access from an unimproved alley and would block their street access. Ms. <br />Block demonstrated on a map which properties would be affected.... The public portion.of the hearing <br />was opened. An unidentified gentleman thanked the Staff for..recommending denial of this proposal. <br />MOTION: The public portion of the hearing was.closed. COUNCILMAN CARNS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMAN NORDQUIST, <br />TO UPHOLD P.C. RESOLUTION 622,.DENYING THE. PETITION TO VACATE A PORTION OF DAYTON ST., EAST OF 9TH <br />AVE. S. MOTION CARRIED. <br />