19840529 City Council MinutesMay 29, 1984
The regular meeting of the Edmonds City Council was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Mayor Larry
Naughten in the Plaza Meeting Room of the Edmonds Library. All present joined in the flag salute.
PRESENT
ABSENT
Larry Naughten, Mayor John Nordquist
Jo -Anne Jaech
Lloyd Ostrom
Laura Hall
Steve Dwyer
Jack Wilson
Bill Kasper
Brian Stewart, Student Rep.
STAFF PRESENT
Jack Weinz, Fire Chief
Dan Prinz, Actg. Police Chief
Bobby Mills, Actg. Pub. Wks. Supv.
Jackie Parrett, City Clerk.
Jim Jessel, Property Manager
Jim Adams, City Engineer
Mary Lou Block, Planning Director
John Wallace, City Attorney
Scott Snyder, City Attorney
Shirlie Witzel, Recorder
Councilmember Nordquist had notified the City Clerk that he would not be present at this evening's
meeting..
CONSENT AGENDA
Item (J) was removed from the Consent Agenda. COUNCILMEMBER OSTROM MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER
JAECH, TO APPROVE THE BALANCE OF THE CONSENT AGENDA. MOTION CARRIED. The approved items on the
Consent Agenda included the following:
(A) Roll call.
(B) Approval of minutes of May 22, 1984.
(C). Set date of June 5, 1984 for hearing on 6-lot preliminary plat with modifications to
street setback for lots 1 and 6 at 8507 and 8519 204th St. S.W. (Helleren/P-2-84)
(D) Set date of June 5, 1984 for hearing on appeal of Hearing Examiner's decision regarding
Day Care at 21615 79th Ave. W. (Appellant: Goforth)
(E) Authorization for Mayor to.sign easement with Union Oil Company re: Water Loop.
(F) Authorization to accept $9,960 for participation in replacement of culvert.
(G) Passage of Resolution 588 authorizing application for funding assistance from Interagency
Committee for Outdoor Recreation for Brackett's Landing improvements.
(H) Report on bids opened May 17, 1984 for 1985 ladder truck and award to Elder Equipment in
the amount of $28,102.77.
(I) Final acceptance of work by Pacific Star Roofing for reroofing of the Civic Center Park
Stadium and setting 30-day retainage period.
PROPOSED ORDINANCE 2432 RELATING TO CIVIL SERVICE REORGANIZATION [Item (J) on Consent Agenda]
Councilmember Jaech asked the City Attorney to explain the changes that need to be made to this
ordinance before adoption by the Council. City Attorney Scott Snyder explained that in preparing
the ordinance he was not aware of.the Council's wish to include the position of Fire Chief as well
as Police Chief. He indicated that Section 10.25.030, page six, first paragraph, line three, should
read "except for the positions of"; line four - the words "and fire chief" should be.added after the
word "chief", the words "his or her" should be changed to "their". COUNCILMEMBER JAECH MOVED,
SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER DWYER, TO ADOPT ORDINANCE 2432 RELATING TO CIVIL SERVICE REORGANIZATION
WITH THE CHANGES INDICATED BY THE CITY ATTORNEY. MOTION CARRIED.
r1
U
I
1
1
E
397
May 29, 1984 - continued
AUDIENCE
1
1
1
•
Daniel Bell, 303 91st P1. S.E., Everett, owner of property at 158th and 75th in the Meadowdale area,
said they were waiting for the Council to lift the moratorium. He indicated that he is paying an
assessment of $11,000, has sold his house and has.checked with both City and.County departments
regarding completion of the sewer project. He asked what he must do to get the subject on the
agenda for a Council decision. Mayor Naughten indicated that -the Council had lifted the moratorium
on plats for subdivisions, but individual homes will have to wait until the work is completed.
Councilmember Ostrom asked for a,clarification of the reasons for the moratorium, whether land
slippage was included as a condition. Mayor Naughten replied that the moratorium was placed because
of a health hazard. Mr. Bell said the County will not allow occupancy until the sewers are com-
pleted, but they have no objection to starting construction. He pointed out that construction takes
3-4 months and, if a house were started tomorrow, it would not be ready before October or November,
well after the projected sewer completion date of August. Mr. Bell then spoke of the financial
hardship on himself because he is unable to begin construction. He said soil slippage was mentioned
in the moratorium, but the sewers are almost completed. Councilmember Hall reminded Mr. Bell that
she had -spoken. -with him regarding his dilemna and she was sympathetic to his position; however, she
cautioned that lifting the moratorium prematurely could result in a loss far greater than he is now
experiencing. Mr. Snyder suggested the Council needs to follow a process showing review of safety
hazards that led to the moratorium and make a decision on the moratorium area, perhaps adjusting the
boundaries if there are sections within the present area which have been completed. He said his
concern is with any liability resulting in lifting the moratorium from individual properties without
following a hearing process and reviewing the area as a whole. Another area of concern would be in
accepting individual guarantees and assurances since he is not sure what the City's liability is.
He said accepting a waiver of liability, when there is no liability, implies that there is liability.
In summary he suggested holding a hearing, reviewing boundaries and the necessity for the moratorium
and making a decision.
Councilmember Ostrom said the only way the Council could assure there;is no danger is to complete
the project: City Engineer Adams.indicated that there will always be a probability of slides in the
area, as there are in other areas of the City. Councilmember.Jaech.noted that the danger of slippage
had been discussed at length. She said if the Council allowed people to build before the land is
stable, they would be carrying a burden of creating a hazard to the owners. Mr. Bell said the five
years of study already completed indicated that removal of water and sewage will reduce the possi-
bility of slides but will not.eliminate that possibility. Councilmember Jaech reiterated that the
Council is concerned that the property be as safe as possible.before they allow any building. The
Council discussed necessary steps in lifting the moratorium and asked the staff to report on June 26
regarding areas that are stable and could be eliminated from the moratorium. A report from the
staff on July 24 regarding areas that have a slippage problem was also requested. Mr. Adams suggested
that a study be conducted by a geologist or soil technician prior to allowing any building. Council -
member Kasper asked that information be reviewed in the Community Services Committee on June 19
prior to the June 26 Council meeting.
Paula Beers, 15306 49th Ave. W., asked if their property should not be buildable for some reason, if
they would still have to pay forthe sewer and taxes. Mr. Adams replied that any property that is
determined to be unbuildable.would not have an increase in value and there would be no sewer assess-
ment. .The property tax is determined by the County and Ms. Beers was advised to contact them.
Mike Lantz, property owner in the Meadowdale area, asked for an explanation of the moratorium basis.
Mayor Naughten replied that a health hazard had been issued by the County and the City had issued a
moratorium on the area. Mr. Lantz recounted statements to the effect that there would be no problem
in hooking up to the Lynnwood Treatment Plant. He said he had expected that the moratorium would be
lifted upon completion of the sewer. He suggested that slippage on a property be handled by the
Building Department requiring specific foundations and soils tests before issuing.a permit. Council -
member Jaech clarified that slippage was also a consideration for the moratorium and outlined what
the Council will be doing to aid in resolving the problem as well as the time frames involved. Mr.
Adams said the original study.outlined the unstable areas. He asked the City Attorney if use of
the building permit process would be more appropriate in determining individual property stability
rather than attempting to determine which areas are stable. Mr. Snyder said the City is not trying
to give anyone any assurances. He said Mr. Lantz' question was "when is the moratorium over and why
isn't it ending", the Council is saying they are in the process of ending the moratorium and are
follwing a step by step procedure to do so. He said there should never be a time when the City
would or could assure everyone of the quality of the ground underneath their house. The City's
function is to assure that.the projects alleviate the original problem cited in the moratorium.
When the problem is alleviated and the work has been certified and accepted by the City, the mora-
torium should be removed and the City should proceed with the building permit phase. Councilmember
Kasper noted that individual building construction permits require review of the site by the City.
He added that if there are any questions regarding a specific property, there may be alternatives
that could be used.
Mr. Lantz asked if property outside the moratorium were determined to be unbuildable some time in
the future, how any adjustments to assessments would be made. Mr. Snyder replied that, if a build-
ing permit were denied in the future, it would have nothing to do with the current moratorium but
would-be because of the Uniform Building Code or other housing provisions of the City. He added
that there are procedures for challenging a benefit assessment and suggested that subject be covered
at a different time, since it is quite complex.
Dick Beers, 15306 49th Ave. W, apologized for the exasperation of the property owners; however, he
said they are totally exasperated at mention of another study after six years of study. He men-
tioned the monetary loss he has sustained because of the long wait. He'said the City had hired a
consultant firm to "solve the.problem", that the residents will pay for the work that is done, and,
once it is done, no one is looking for a guarantee that the hillside will not slide into the bay.
0
3981,
May 29, 1984 - continued 0
He said he is waiting for completion of the work so they can hook up. Mr. Adams recommended that
any property that has a high potential of slides should have the foundation for any building designed
by a foundation engineer. Mr. Beers pointed out that the same comments being made this evening were
made four or.five months ago at the Meadowdale Club House meeting, yet the Council is only deciding
to study the issue this evening. He asked what had happened during the past four or five months.
HEARING ON PARKING ALTERNATIVES ON ELM ST., 7TH AVE. S. TO 8TH AVE. S.
City Engineer Jim Adams said the subject was referred to the Engineering Department by the Council
because of a perceived increase of traffic on Elm St. due to the development of a 50-unit condo-
minium and a 20-30 unit subdivision on 6th and Elm. He said the width of Elm St. is not sufficient
to stripe two lanes of traffic plus a parking lane. He presented two alternatives using the over-
head projector for illustration. Alternate 1 provides for parking on the north side of Elm St.
(the park side). The plan provides two 11' travel lanes and 4 1/2' of paved area, with an addi-
tional 4 1/2' being provided with minor grading and crushed rock for a parking lane.. The estimated
cost would be $1,060. Alternate 2 provides pavement to accommodate two travel lanes and a parking
lane. An additional 4 1/2' of pavement would be required. Also, catch basins and the 8" diameter
bollards located on the north side of Elm would be relocated and parking would be allowed on the
south side, adjacent to the homes. The estimated cost would be $5,155. A third alternate would be
to do nothing. He said the Engineering Department recommends.either Alternate 1 or 3. Mr. Adams
indicated there are no funds budgeted for these improvements.
Councilmember Hall said she had been in the neighborhood during the day to see the area. She read a
letter from Zelda Forgey, 724 Elm St., supporting continued parking on the street. Councilmember
Hall said she had passed between a van parked on one side and a Corvair parked on the other side
with room to spare. She said she did not see a hazard at this point and suggested that the Council
wait to see if problems do arise during or after the construction. Mayor Naughten opened the hearing.
•
Harold C. Schierman, 1161 7th Ave. S., said people should not be required to park across the street
from their home as in Alternative 1. He asked if the City -did not own enough land for a normal
street. He said they take their lives in their hands when they walk between 7th and 6th. He ex-
pressed hope that the new development would provide a walkway. He told Councilmember Hall she had
not been in the neighborhood at the right time, that there were "hot rodders" in the area making it
unsafe for small children. He asked if the Council had considered the possibility that there would
be increased traffic if the planned northbound exit from I-5 at 220th S.W. becomes a reality. He
said the condominium and housing projects will increase traffic. He asked that any solution not be
haphazard, he would like to see the street widened and parking allowed next to the homes. He indi-
cated that he -would be willing to wait for a future date if the neighborhood were assured that they
would receive a regular width street. Councilmember Hall asked if Mr. Schierman had considered the
possibility that widening the street would encourage more traffic and greater speeds. She suggested
that waiting to see what problems arise might be the better idea. Mr. Schierman agreed that a wider
street might..create more traffic, but he reiterated that the neighborhood deserved a better street
than they now have.
Ned Loreen, 1233 7th Ave. S., sa.id.a petition had been submitted during a hearing on the Homelands
project, stating that over 400.cars would be using Elm St. He said the hearing this evening is
addressing only that area of Elm betwen 7.th and 8th; however, the rest of Elm St. is also going to
be affected and problems created. He said westbound traffic on Elm will have to make a left turn at
a sharp curve.on 6th Ave., which will require a left turn lane. He noted that the entire area from
6th Ave. to 8th Ave. should be included in any hearing.
Don Nelson, 700 Elm St., said he has four cars and a boat and does not keep one car at his house
because there is no room. He said he is strongly opposed to increasing parking on the north side by
using gravel. Parking on the north side and crossing to a house on the south side would also create
a traffic hazard. He was not aware of the possibility of a freeway exit on 220th, and if that is
the case, he would favor waiting to see what increase that would bring. He said Councilmember Hall •
was not in the neighborhood during the heavy traffic hours. It is possible to travel the street
with vehicles parked on the south and pass a car, but one must be careful. He said he would agree
that the street should be left as it is now. When it is determined what the traffic increase will
be then a solution could be worked out.
Councilmember Jaech clarified that funds are available for this project if the Council decides that
something must be done.
Lenae McAnally, 730 Elm St., favored.Alternative 2. She said the time to act on a problem is before
it occurs. The van mentioned by Councilmember Hall belongs to Ms. McAnally's husband. She said it
is nearly impossible to pass another car when a vehicle is parked on one side of Elm St. She asked
that action be taken now, before the problem increases. She asked the Council to not consider
Alternative 1, where gravel would be thrown all over the street and homeowners would not be allowed
to park i.n front of their homes. She said doing nothing at all does not make sense. Ms. McAnally
reiterated her support of Alternative 2.
Since no one else wished to speak, Mayor Naughten closed the hearing.
Councilmember Jaech stated there is a need to address the situation on Elm now, not after there is
an accident or a problem occurs. COUNCILMEMBER JAECH MOVED, SECONDED FOR DISCUSSION BY COUNCIL -
MEMBER DWYER, TO ACCEPT ALTERNATE 2 AS PRESENTED, TAKING THE $5,155 FROM THE COUNCIL CONTINGENCY
FUND. COUNCILMEMBER DWYER SUGGESTED THAT THE FIRST $1,060 COME FROM.THE STREET FUND AND THE BALANCE
FROM COUNCIL CONTINGENCY FUND. AGREEABLE TO MAKER OF MOTION. Councilmember Ostrom stated that the
PRO will increase traffic substantially and the City should take some action at this time. He
indicated support of the motion. Councilmember Kasper saidhe would vote against the motion since
399
• May 22, 1984 - continued
this project should be budgeted next year and should not come from the contingency fund. He said
the City owns the property on the north side and that.should be brought up to standard width, allow-
ing the Engineer to determine which side would be safest for parking. He said cars backing out
between parked cars would create as much problem as now exists. MOTION CARRIED WITH COUNCILMEMBERS
HALL AND KASPER VOTING NO.
HEARING ON APPEAL OF HEARING EXAMINER'S.DECISION REGARDING SETBACK DETERMINATION AT 8029 242ND
ST. S.W. (APPELLANT: MATHAY)
Planning Director Mary Lou Block reviewed the Hearing Examiner's decision regarding a setback
determination at 8029 242nd St. S.W. The Planning Department staff made a determination based on
the City Code regarding -a building addition at this address. The decision was appealed to the
Hearing Examiner. A public hearing was held on April 2, 1984 and a decision was rendered on April
30, 1984 to uphold the Planning Department decision. An appeal of the Hearing Examiner's decision !
was received on May 9, 1984. Copies of documents before the Council include: the Hearing Examiner's
decision; staff report; letter from Andrew Husak dated March 19, 1984; the staff decision; plot
plan; staff hearing attendance sheet; vicinity map; building permit application; map of original
short subdivision of property; page 2 of'the Rowe Short Subdivision Report; minutes of the June 28,!
1975 Planning Commission hearing; complete staff report of the short subdivision; the short sub-
division application from 1975; recorded short subdivision map; letter dated April 6, 1984 from the
applicant to the Hearing Examiner; letter dated April 12, 1984 from Mr. Husak to the Hearing Examiner;
and letter dated May 8, 1984 from Betty Mathay. Ms. Block said staff determined setbacks for the
property as follows: east side of property considered street lot line with a required setback of
25', the west side of the property is considered a rear lot line with a required 15' setback, and
the north and south sides of the property are considered side lot lines requiring setbacks of 7
1/2'.
Councilmember Dwyer asked, if the restriction that no additional structure shouldbe built on lot 1
•
had been recorded, would this addition have been prohibited: Ms. Block said a determination was not
made since it does not play a part in this matter. Mr. Snyder said under the current building code
the addition would not have been prohibited. Councilmember Dwyer then asked if the Council is being
asked to determine the same setbacks and lot orientation as would have been determined in 1975 when
the subdivision was established. He asked if there is an absolute, does every lot have a front,
back, and two sides. In searching for an answer to where the front is located, should it always
come out the same. Ms. Block replied that setback determinations are often necessary with flag lots
since it is not clear where the front, rear and two sides are. Factors involved in determining
front lot lines include the lay of the land, vehiclemaneuvering space and location, how the site
can be used and many other factors. She said once a front lot line has been established it would
remain the same unless there were a hearing to establish a different front line. Construction of a
building would validate a setback determination. If setbacks were determined on a vacant lot and
no building was ever being built, a redetermination might be made if application were made. She
noted that the criteria for determining the front line of a property is set forth in the Code.
However, she said, this building was in existence before the subdivision was established.
Councilmember Hall indicated that the term "flag lot" was created to identify this type of situ-
ation. She did not know if the term was in existence when the subdivision was established, but now
the flag lot definition would apply to the situation under discussion.
Ms. Block said ingress and egress from the property is through the easement shown. She then.dis-
played transparencies of the property.. Mayor Naughten opened the hearing.
Betty Mathay, 8006 240th S.W., prefaced her remarks by saying that an attached structure is con-
sidered a structure. She said if the condition had been recorded, there would be no need for set-
backs, since setbacks are not needed until a structure is built. She also said the applicant's map
is not recorded, she asked that anything that is not recorded not be considered`- the map showing'
the setbacks, the map showing east as the front, the map showing the house. The Hearing Examiner
determined that only what is .recorded could be considered. Mr. Snyder said the Hearing Examiner was
•
saying that an individual .cannot be bound by a condition that is not in the chain of title. A
condition that was never recorded is also being discussed, and Mr. Snyder said he believed the
Hearing Examiner was correct. Ms. Mathay said there were further points that would entail opening
the entire 1975.file and would be beyond what could be discussed'at this hearing. She said if
nothing is discussed about what is not recorded, they will not discuss those things. Councilmember
Dwyer replied that there is agreement that nothing that was not recorded is binding on any party.
The Hearing Examiner determined that the condition was not binding on present owners of lot 1 and
that the map with the listing of east was not binding because it was not recorded.
Ms. Mathay said the house was a nonconforming house because it doesn't have any setbacks and there
was no building permit: Also,.it is a nonconforming lot, only 6500 sq. ft. The reason for the
condition still exists and both the house and the condition must be considered. She said her whole
point in appealing was because of conclusion six in the Hearing Examiner's report. She read from
the report. Ms. Mathay said this is not a flag lot and the conclusion is in error. In looking at
the recorded map, the frontage line is 43'. The table for standard site development sets the mini-
mum lot width at:70', half.of that is 35'. In order to be a flag lot it would have to be less than
35'. She said 43' is not less than 35'. She said it was up to the City Attorney to determine if it
is a flag lot.
City Attorney John Wallace noted that Ms. Mathay was using only one of the south line dimensions in
her computations. The line
entire south must be used in determining frontage, not just a portion.
The 20' easement abuts a principal street and is less than 1/2 of the minimum lot width, no matter
which figure Ms. Mathay uses. Ms. Mathay said that determination destroys her theory. She said, if
it is a flag -lot, conclusion six is correct and the criteria.in Section 20.50.020 do apply. She
asked the Council to defer making a decision this evening, since they have a lot of things to bring
�UU
May 29, 1984 - continued •
out concerning the conditioning and the way things were done in.1975. The file has to be investi-
gated, she said, which would take too long this evening. Mayor Naughten informed Ms. Mathay that
this was"a hearing and other testimony would be taken, any decision would be made after the hearing
and her request would be considered. Ms. Mathay said she owned the property to the east of the
applicant's property.
Andrew Husak,.8027 242nd S. W., commented regarding the conditions left off in 1975. He had dis-
cussed with his attorney the question.of the conditions being left off and why there was not equal
administrative action by the City to reverse the process and restore the conditions. He said since
it was not on the record, subsequent property owners should not be bound by conditions that were
deleted. Mr. Snyder interjected that there are two separate issues involved; first, whether the
City has the power to enforce.a condition not contained in the chain of title against the present
property owners. Mr. Husak interrupted to say.the same circumstances.exist at present that caused
the City to determine that no structures should be built in-1975. Mr. Snyder continued that the
second issue is the de novo hearing, and that the Council must base their decision on the record
before it and on the legal rights as they appear under the current code. He added that while the
1975 issues are important to Mr. Husak, the City cannot enforce them; nor do they tie the Council's
hands. Mr. Husak said he is trying:to safeguard his property's intrinsic value. He had suggested
minor, alternative positioning of the structur,e.to the City and the property owner to avoid giving a
crowded appearance to his property.
Margaret Prokipiof, 8029 242nd.St. S.W., does not understand why.Ms. Mathay and Mr. Husak have
appealed the.decisions of the .Planning Department and the.Hearing Examiner. She said property
owners should be able to do what they wish with their property within legal requirements. She said
Mr. Husak had become angry, when she had cut down some trees to make room for the proposed addition,
because she did not consult him. She was not aware that she needed to consult neighbors regarding
what she did with her property. She said after the trees, Mr. Husak had said the addition would
affect his property in value and aesthetics. After being denied by the City and the Hearing Exam-
iner, she said both Mr. Husak and Ms.. Mathay had brought up the issue of setback determinat.ions. •
Ms. Prokipiof said the proposed addition will be no closer than her house already is to Mr. Husak's
property. She suggested that if Mr. Husak wished her to place it elsewhere on her property, that he
pay for the addition:
Mayor Naughten invited the speakers to -make closing statements, limiting their comments to one
minute each.
Ms. Mathay said in placing these setbacks with a southern front lot line, the applicant could still
build. She said alternate building plans were suggested and rejected by Ms. Prokipiof. She said
there was a good building spot on the east and Ms. Prokipiof would not be denied an area to build
the addition.
Ms. Block displayed a transparency illustrating the setbacks suggested by Ms. Mathay. She said
these setbacks would make most of Ms. Prokipiof's house nonconforming.
Ms. Prokipiof deferred to the co-owner of the property for her closing remarks. Dick Fraser, 13324
llth N. E., Seattle, said the setback determination was not the issue, it was an attempt by the
appellant to stop the addition. He said they had done everything possible, agreeing to eliminate a
window on the south side and erecting a fence between the two properties to avoid the appearance of
two houses. He urged the City Council to make a decision and not prolong the matter any longer. He
said Mr. Husak had indicated that he would tie it up for years in the State Supreme Court.
There was no one else wishing to speak and the hearing was closed.
Councilmember Dwyer said this is a.case involving two innocents, who have become full of indignation
over the course of time. He had investigated the area and could see why there was a decision in
1975 not to allow further structures even though that provision was not recorded. He expressed
sympathy with Mr. Husak's position. However, he also sympathized with Ms. Prokipiof's position. It •
is a situation where the City did not do its job in 1975 and the condition was not recorded. He
expressed disappointment with the.animosity expressed between the parties when the fault lies with
the City. He said lot 1 should not be built on; however, there was no restriction made and he sees
no way the City can deprive the owner of lot 1 from building on the land. He said the procession of
appeals has not been frivolous. The Hearing Examiner had determined the setbacks as a result of the
hearings. He said there had been nothing in the testimony to indicate that the criteria in section
20.50.020 do not apply.
Councilmember Hall indicated that she is comfortable with the determination of the property as a
flag lot. She also had looked at the property and is able to see both sides of the issue. She said
it is apparent that the owner of the property is complying with the City Code. COUNCILMEMBER HALL
MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER WILSON, TO UPHOLD THE HEARING EXAMINER'S DECISION. Councilmember
Kasper said he would abstain since he had just returned from vacation and received the 26 pages of
information that evening, and had had no chance to read them. MOTION CARRIED WITH COUNCILMEMBER
KASPER ABSTAINING.
COUNCIL ACTION REGARDING ADDITIONAL COVERED STORAGE AT PUBLIC WORKS YARD.AT 2ND AND DAYTON
Acting Public Works Superintendent Bobby Mills reviewed the proposed additional covered storage. He
added that he is asking approval at this time, with authorization delayed until September or
October. Councilmember Wilson asked if the property would be usable if the area is not covered and
nothing is stored there. Mr. Mills said it is a 40'X60' area that would not be usable: COUNCIL -
MEMBER WILSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER OSTROM, TO APPROVE CONSTRUCTION OF A COVERED STORAGE
BUILDING AT 2ND AND DAYTON DIRECTLY SOUTH OF THE PUBLIC WORKS BUILDING WITH AN ESTIMATED COST OF
$14,000, PROVIDED THAT OTHER SUITABLE PROPERTY FOR THIS STORAGE.USE IS NOT SECURED BY OCTOBER 1,
1984.
401
• May 29, 1984 - continued
Councilmember Kasper expressed concern regarding the trees that were planted and now must be trimmed
to preserve the view and cannot act as a screening for the
property. He
also
asked if it is nec-
essary to store the items that are being.put in that area.
He wondered
if it
is prudent to spend
$14,000 if the items could be put elsewhere. Councilmember
Wilson reiterated
that the property would
not be usable if it is not covered. Mr. Mills said -the covered storage
is a
happy medium, allowing
the trees to be trimmed, and is compatible to both parties.
He said the
only
item stored in the
area that is not essential, is the scrap iron that is saved
until there
is enough
for disposal.
MOTION CARRIED WITH COUNCILMEMBER DWYER VOTING 10.
MAYOR
Mayor Naughten said there woul.d be an executive session at the conclusion of the meeting to discuss
a personnel matter and a property purchase matter.
COUNCIL
Councilmember Hall said she and the Mayor had joined the Public Works Dept. for a Public Works Day
celebration with cake and ice cream. Also, there was a lovely ceremony in the cemetery for Memorial
Day. She said the storage shed was built by City employees and volunteers. Mayor Naughten ex-
pressed his appreciation to City Employees for their help in building the shed: Councilmember
Ostrom also applauded the program and noted the VFW deserves a vote of thanks and expressed hope
that:�it will become an annual affair. He also suggested that the event be publicized more extensively.
Councilmember Kasper asked that information on the following items be provided for the June 19
Community Services Committee meeting: 1. The financial report on Dayton St. expenditures and
funding; 2. The plan for the interim pool cover for Yost pool; 3. Information on cost of appraiser
and architectural design on Woodway fields.
• Councilmember Wilson asked the Mayor, based on the statements in the minutes of the May 22 workshop
meeting, to -,present his recommendations and classificatins on the positions affected by the re-
organization. Mayor Naughten said there were only three positions and he would submit those to the
Council.
Councilmember Jaech indicated her pleasure that the Council was being afforded the opportunity to
submit thoughts and ideas on the qualifications that should -be looked for in a person before the
final position description is written.
Student Representative Stewart notedthat credit for reactivating the Youth Activity Board goes to
Mayor Naughten. Many things have been planned for the summer including a Fun Run on July 4. The
Board is also planning to consolidate community support by using the newspapers.
Councilmember Ostrom had received comments regarding the growth of the trees south of the Plaza
Meeting room. He asked that the problem be looked at. Councilmember Kasper.said there had been
hearings.on trees before and no solution had been reached. Councilmember Ostrom suggested it might
be handled administratively.
Since there was no further business to come before the Council, the meeting was recessed to executive
* session at 9:30 p.m.
JXCQUEMNE G. PARRETT, City. Clerk LARRY S. NAUGHTEN, May r