Loading...
19840717 City Council MinutesJuly 17, 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 STAFF PRESENT Larry Naughton, Mayor Jim Adams, City Engineer Jo -Anne Jaech Duane Bowman, Assistant City Planner Steve Dwyer Jim Jessel,'Property Manager Laura Hall Pat LeMay, Personnel Director. Bill Kasper Bobby Mills, Actg. Pub. Wks. Supv. John Nordquist Dan Prinz, Actg. Police Chief Lloyd Ostrom Jack Weinz, Fire Chief Jack. Wilson Steve Simpson, Parks & Rec. Dir. Steve Dahl, Student Rep. Jackie Parrett, City Clerk Scott Snyder, City Attorney Shirlie Witzel, Recorder • Councilmember Nordquist arrived at 7:40 p.m. CONSENT AGENDA Councilmember Jaech raised a point of order regarding how correction of an action taken during the July 10 meeting should be handled. At this point, Councilmember Hall raised a point of order, stating she intended to pull Item (B) of the Consent.Agenda and the correction could be handled .then. City Attorney Scott Snyder advised that Item (B) should be removed from the Consent Agenda for correction. Mayor Naughton announced that Item (D), Report on Bids Opened June 27, 1984, and. Award of Contract for the 1984 Street Overlay Program, had been removed from the Consent Agenda and Item (G), Ordi- nance -Amending Code Section Relating to Civil Service Commission, had been added to the Consent Agenda. Items .(B.) and (E) were removed from the Consent Agenda. COUNCILMEMBER DWYER MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER HALL, TO APPROVE THE BALANCE OF THE CONSENT.AGENDA. MOTION CARRIED. The approved items on the Consent Agenda included the following: (A) Roll call. (C) Acknowledgment of receipt of claim for damages from Patti A. Hoy ($6,293.97). (F) Adoption of Ordinance 2442 creating position of Community Services Director and Ordinance 2443 creating position of Administrative Services Director. (G) Adoption of Ordinance 2444 amending Code Section relating to Civil Service Commission. n �J 426 July 17, 1984 - continued • APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF JULY 10,.1984 rItem (B) on Consent Aqendal Councilmember Jaech explained that Item (0), Discussion of Final Approval of 7-Lot Subdivision at 743 Aloha St., had been removed from.the July 10 Consent Agenda and discussed in error since the Council had earlier granted approval by passing it with the "balance of the Consent Agenda." Since this was now Item 4 on the current agenda, she said the Council could reconsider that approval and asked the City.Attorney to explain factors that may be considered in granting final approval. She added.that Item 4 could also be used to discuss those concerns submitted to her by residents of the area. Mr. Snyder explained that the Revised Code of Washington provides that the City Council must proceed to approve a plat that hasreceived preliminary approval unless two situations are present: 1. The subdivision.has not met the requirements of the.preliminary approval, or 2. It is not in compliance with state law or local ordinances. Mr. Snyder said all requirements have been met, according to the staff, and his review indicated nothing in violation -of local ordinance or state law. Councilmember Kasper indicated the confusion of last week may have.resulted from the two subdi- visions that are being pursued. One is the 7-lot subdivision which received final approval last week and another is the short subdivision that is now in process. COUNCILMEMBER HALL MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER KASPER, THAT MINUTES OF JULY 10, 1984, FIRST SENTENCE UNDER CONSENT AGENDA BE AMENDED TO SHOW "ITEMS (D), (G), (J), AND (K) WERE PULLED FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA." MOTION CARRIED. Councilmember Dwyer asked if people present wishing to express their concerns about Item 4 may do so at that time. Councilmember Hall indicated that Item 4 does not belong on the agenda any longer. Councilmember Jaech noted that if something pertained to the subdivision as a result of the dis- cussion, the Council could still reconsider the approval. Councilmember Hall said the Council must adhere to procedure and not backtrack on decisions. Mayor Naughten indicated the Council could allow comments from the audience but no action could be taken. • Mayor Naughten. noted that he and the staff had reviewed the minutes to determine action taken by ,the Council concerning underground utilities. An interpretation of the Council action was distri- buted to Council members and the Mayor asked if this were correct. He asked for clarification of the information the Council is requesting in developing a plan and financing for underground utilities. Councilmember Hall said the minutes stand as written and the item should.be discussed on the date set REQUEST FOR AUTHORIZATION TO SOLICIT BIDS ON NEW AID UNIT FItem (E) on Consent Agenda Councilmember Kasper asked if a custom designed and built unit were the only way to obtain a unit or if one could be rebuilt from within and.accomplish the same goal. Fire Chief Weinz said custom building was the only way to obtain the aid unit. In response to. a question from Councilmember Kasper regarding funding, Chief Weinz said an attempt is being made to start a replacement fund. There is $35,000 in the fund and no other vehicle purchase is planned. COUNCILMEMBER KASPER MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER HALL, TO APPROVE THE REQUEST FOR AUTHORIZATION TO SOLICIT BIDS ON NEW AID UNIT. MOTION CARRIED. At this point, Mayor Naughten invited those wishing to speak on agenda items to sign the sheet provided at the door. DISCUSSION OF PROPOSED ORDINANCE 2444 RELATING TO BUILDING PERMITS IN THE MEADOWDALE AREA AND LIFTING MORATORIUM City Attorney Scott. Snyder explained that the amended ordinance before the Council reflected the additions requested by the Council on July 10, the liability insurance and recording notice of the hazards. Mr. Snyder reviewed his findings on liability insurance costs which are usually under- written by Lloyd's of London. He estimated the cost for four year coverage would be from $5,000 to $10,.000 depending upon the liability involved. He said paragraph lE of the ordinance provides for • execution.of a covenant by the owners of property within the hazard area containing notification of the Lowe report as well'as a general indemnification agreement that will run with the title to the land. Councilmember Ostrom noted that deletion of the liability insurance is indicated since it is not practical to impose that type of requirement. When the Council requested the provision, they were not aware of the cost to the property owner. COUNCILMEMBER OSTROM MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL - MEMBER KASPER, TO DELETE PARAGRAPH.D AND RENUMBER PARAGRAPH E TO D OF SECTION 19.00.020, PARAGRAPH ONE. Councilmember Hall said she agreed with the motion, evidenced by her vote the previous week. She said the liability insurance was.too large a load to place on people. Councilmember Kasper defended the action taken by the Council in requiring insurance. He said it was a question that had to be raised and there were valid points for exploring the question of.insurance.. Councilmember Dwyer indicated that he would vote in favor of the motion; however, he said there is need for insurance in this situation. The question is a balancing of burdens, those borne by the residents of the City as a whole and the burdens placed on Meadowdale residents by this requirement. The financial difficulty that people building homes will.experience only reinforces Councilmember Dwyer's opinion that, in the event of a calamity, there will be no ability to pay if liability is assigned to the landowner. Rather than imposing this burden- on those people building in Meadowdale, the residents of the City as a whole are assuming the burden of paying the cost of the City defending itself against a law- suit, which it probably would win. Councilmember Wilson said he agreed with preceding statements and favors the motion. He asked the City Attorney if there.is anything else that can be done to protect the City and its citizens as well as the residents involved. Mr. Snyder said there are administrative procedures that are followed every day that will aid in this matter. He agreed that people do look for those with the ability to pay in the event of lawsuits. There are two additional groups involved in any construction, the architect and the contractor who would be involved in any suit. In addition, geotechnical engineers, soils and foundation design people would also be in- volved. In the application review process, the staff will be looking not only at the credentials of the geotechnical engineer or architect, etc., but also at their ability to pay, whether they have liability insurance and whether they are bonded. MOTION CARRIED. r-I L-A 42 • July 17, 1984 - continued COUNCILMEMBER JAECH MOVED,.SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER HALL, TO:ADOPT ORDINANCE 2445. Councilmember Dwyer commented on a letter.from Michael Lantz, Jr.:, objecting to use of the.words earth subsidence and landslide hazard area in what is now paragraph .1D.. Mr. Snyder said the language comes from the Lowe Report. The issue in question is whether people are being notified legally. He said anyone applying for a building permit, *a subdivision plat, or a.Planned Residential Development will be provided with a map.and .tol'd,a copy of the report is on file and available. .The map and report will supply notice. The Council may use what language it likes, the main issue is to provide the notice. Another provision of paragraph D is provision of notice to second and third generation buyers. In Mr. Snyder's opinion there.is no slander on title problem. Under common law there is the duty to give notice of hidden defects.in the property. The situation needs to be made clear so the City has a defense in the event of a catastrophic event. COUNCILMEMBER KASPER MOVED TO AMEND MOTION TO ADD THE WORD "POTENTIAL" TO PARAGRAPH 1D IN FRONT OF THE WORD LANDSLIDE. MOTION FAILED FOR LACK OF A SECOND. MAIN MOTION CARRIED. DISCUSSION ON FINAL APPROVAL. OF 7-LOT SUBDIVISION AT 743 ALOHA ST. (HARBOR LANE/P-5-81) COUNCILMEMBER JAECH MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER DWYER, TO,OPEN THE MEETING FOR PUBLIC INPUT ON THE SUBJECT. A ROLL CALL VOTE WAS.TAKEN WITH COUNCILMEMBERS JAECH, DWYER, KASPER, OSTROM, AND WILSON VOTING YES, COUNCILMEMBER HALL VOTING NO. Mayor Naughten advised the speakers they would be limited to three minutes each. Councilmember Ostrom raised a point of order, stating that a public hearing should be publicized and therefore this cannot be considered a public hearing. Mayor Naughten indicated that the Council would only be taking public comments. Leonard,Peopl.es, 802 7th Ave. N., said there is an accumulation of over 150 years Iresidency among the neighbors surrounding the subdivision being built at 818.7th Ave. N. He complained that the • Planning meeting had scheduled discussion of the subdivision for 10:30 p.m. and it was 11:05 before the hearing began. He commented that a staff member 'was conducting himself in an unprofessional manner at the hearing and Mr. Peoples had received the impression the matter was cut and dried. He said there was no concern for safety on the part of the builder. An eight foot.hole was left in his backyard where children play-. He also indicated that the egress from the property -constitutes an extreme hazard and the lights are a nuisance. He added that an easement on the east end of the property could also serve as an egress. He noted that the egress is less than 400' from 196th St. S.W. The add-ition.of cars from the seven houses of the subdivision will increase the hazard to the children since there are already many cars from the churches and the school as.well as the playfield on 7th Ave. He said there will be too many houses in a small_ area. He maintained there is enough strength inthe safety factor alone to stop the street. He indicated that his foundation is break- ing as a result of installing two sewer connections. He concluded that they are entitled to a safe .place to live. Hank Lewis, 21723 97th Ave. W., project manager for the subdivision, reviewed the history of the project. The property is owned by Bob. Henning. A 7-lot subdivision was proposed in 1981 and approved by the Hearing Examiner and City Council with no.opposition. There were three homes on the property, meaning an increase of..only four homes. The land is being purchased,by Homeland Homes and the subdivision has been completed with one change., addition of a sidewalk the entire length of the property line on 7th Ave. at the election of the developer. Mr. Lewis said a hole was left open by accident but that would not happen,again. The sewer main was tapped as part of the engineering requirement; but Mr. Lewis expressed doubt that the foundation was damaged in the process. He expressed appreciation for the City's concern for the residents, but feels developers also have rights when they have met the requirements attached to a subdivision. Councilmember Dwyer asked if the hole had been covered. Mr. Lewis said the hole was closed up by the end of the day. • Mark McNaughten, 1047 Spruce St., addressed the concerns expressed by Mr. Peoples. He said the hole in Mr. Peoples' backyard was coned, in a sanitary sewer easement, was attended all day and was filled in at the end of the day. Mr. McNaughten questioned the extent to which a development may proceed and still be called back when all the requirements of a preliminary'approval have been met. He said they would be glad to sit down with the neighbors.and discuss any concerns. .Bob Zoller, 824 7th Ave. N., said the proposed road will be within ten feet of his house. He corrected statements made by Mr. Lewis, one of the three houses was a chicken coop and said the hole left open is approximately eight feet from the house not fifteen. 'A better plan would have been to locate.the;road elsewhere.. He said his wife and Mr. Peoples had attended the public hearing and felt.the staff person was not acting in a professional manner and that the decision was cut and dried. He said he did not expect theCityCouncil to change anything but did wish to be heard. He said his wife had the opportunity to testify at the public hearing. Darcy Crouser, 909 7th Ave. N., stated that 7th Ave. is capable of handling the extra traffic from these homes. She said in conversations with Mark McNaughten she had found him honest, open and sincere. Ms. Crouser expressed appreciation for the sidewalk that will,be constructed. She feels the main opposition seems.to arise from the fact the property has been virtually vacant for many years. She believes the development is a step forward and supports the subdivision wholeheartedly. Since no one else wished to speak, Mayor Naughten closed the hearing. Councilmember Dwyer said both the concerns expressed, the safety factors and the seeming lack of professionalism of a staff member, can be handled administratively. Councilmember,Kasper commented on the attempts. to construct a sidewalk on 7th Ave. during past years. He noted that the construction of the sidewalk by Homeland will leave approximately 600' that is critical and he will move later in the evening to include that portion on the 6-year transportation improvement program. ROM July 17, 1984 - continued • HEARING ON.HEARING EXAMINER RECOMMENDATION ON REQUEST TO MOODIFY GREENBELT COVENANT TO THE PLAT, OF ROB'S ADDITION (BRUBAKER/P71-80) Assistant City Planner Duane Bowman explained that the Hearing Examiner had held a public hearing on this request on February 16,.1984 and issued a report containing his .recommendation on March 15, 1984. The Hearing Examiner recommended that the greenbelt not be modified. Councilmember Nordquist arrived and took his place at the Council dais. Councilmember Hall noted that she had been a member of the Planning Commission at the time this matter was first heard. Mr. Snyder said the Appearance of Fairness Doctrine provides that persons sitting on advisory boards of the City are not barred from taking part in further action. The only bar would be if there were anything that would prevent a person from hearing the matter without preconceived judgment. Mr. Bowman displayed a transparency of the area in question and explained the location of the utility easement and the elevation line defined in the greenbelt covenant. He said the lot is 240' in length. Mr. Bowman said an easement had been granted between the developers of the plat of Maple Creek and the Brubakers to lots 3 and.4 of the plat of Rob's Addition. The Hearing Examiner said the issue of,access was not germane to the issue. Modification of the greenbelt restriction would give lot 4 the ability to be subdivided into an additional lot. He said installation of a water, loop through the greenbelt would not necessarily destroy it, since the City has the capability to bore under tree roots. It would depend on how the contract is let. The greenbelt covenant speci- fically prohibits any structure.being erected below the 370'. elevation; it does not prohibit instal= lation of utilities. He added that two things prevent subdivision of lot 4: 1. The utility ease- ment that crosses the lower portion of the lot, and 2. The greenbelt covenant that prevents any. structure being built below the,370' elevation. Mayor Naughten opened the public hearing, limiting each speaker to five minutes. Robert Brubaker, 4 Park P1., stated he had applied for removal of the greenbelt restriction from the • south 114' of lot 4 of Rob.'s Addition. He said the Hearing Examiner responded to a different issue because he had not received the portion of Mr. Brubaker's application containing description of the 114' in question. He said action by the City Council on any matter other than his application would serve no purpose. He recounted the decision of the Planning Commission regarding the greenbelt covenant and argued that the steep slopes exist north of the southerly 114' of lot 4. He said the slopes are actually 15-17% on the portion in question, facts not known in 1980 when the restriction was imposed. He said the original intent to preserve the steep slopes in the.greenbelt would not be altered by granting his request. Refusing to modify the greenbelt restriction renders the south 114' of his lot useless. He requested removal of the.greenbelt restriction from the south 114' of lot 4. Rick Spellman, 21016 Shell Valley Wy., asked people affected by the proposal to stand. As residents of the 2100 block of Shell Valley Way, he said, they are opposed to any modification of the green= belt. He said the greenbelt had been set aside for aesthetic and practical necessities to benefit current and future residents of the area. Slides he provided,were shown to the Council. The neces- sities he.spoke of included: a basic backdrop for the neighborhood., which was planned around natu- ral settings; provision of a noise buffer from Main St.;.affixing soil on a steep enbankment which would be -jeopardized by tree removal and street access; maintenance of the -last stand of trees outside Yost Park that is not subject to..removal and development. The residents of Maple Creek development purchased their homes for seclusion, privacy, and the short dead-end street. Conditions that existed when the greenbelt was first imposed still.exi.st and are enhanced by the greenbelt. Mr. Spellman recounted that portion of the 1980 public.hearing before the Planning Commission in which Mr. Brubaker, Sr., agreed to establishment of the greenbelt covenant. Mr. Spellman stated that removal of the greenbelt would not be in the best interest of the community. Todd Gruenhagen, 21035 Shell Valley Wy., agreed with Mr. Spellman's statements. He said it was apparent that Mr.,Brubaker asked for the modification to enable him.to subdivide lot 4. The roadway • dividing the Maple Creek subdivision is narrow with no on -street parking provision and is a cul-de- sac. Additional development would impact the street. He noted that both Mr. Brubaker, Sr., and Mr. Brubaker, Jr., were aware of the implications of the greenbelt when it was imposed just four years ago. He asked the Council to give weight to the recommendations of the Planning Commission and the Hearing Examiner and deny the modification application. Bill Lebo, 21028 Shell Valley Wy., indicated that they had invested in a life style. There have been on-going..water problems in the neighborhood and reduction of the greenbelt would serve to exacerbate that problem. The existing conditions were a basis for the investment in their home. He said changing those conditions would not be an equitable decision and would result in a definite change in the lifestyle in which they had originally invested. Melanie Ahl, 21010 Shell Valley Wy., said they had purchased their home in February of 1984. The greenbelt and park were large factors in their decision. Her house would be only eight to ten feet from the access driveway to any proposed new house on lot 4. Any expansion would impact their privacy and the property value of their.home. She agreed with statements previously made by resi- dents of Shell Valley Way and asked the Council to make no decision that would -hurt their investment in their home. Robert Brubaker, previously identified, stated that access and traffic are not part of the greenbelt issue. Retention of the full greenbelt does not eliminate the right of access to Shell Valley Way and this right would be exercised in a regular manner. He said only one tree would be threatened by any proposed structure. Knowledge of the greenbelt provision as indicated by residents should also have included knowledge of access rights from lot 4 to Shell Valley Way. The steep grades were shown to be north of the 114' in question and described other developments that had much greater slopes with which to contend. CJ • July 1.7, 1984 - continued Councilmember Hall asked.if:'the only change that has occurred since 1980'is the realization of the lesser grades on the 114' in question. Mr. Brubaker. stated that the greenbeltt,was required because of the steep slopes and the area in question was apparently overlooked. Mr. Brubaker, Sr.', had been told it was too steep to build on and agreed to the restriction without checking it out. Councilmember Dwyer asked if there was an allegation that anything had been done other than Mr. Brubaker, Sr., having made a bad bargain. Mr. Brubaker, Jr., said the City Council and Planning Department had convinced him all of the property was.too steep to build on, but not on purpose, the area was just overlooked. Since no one else wished to speak, the hearing was closed. 0 1 429. In response to a question from Councilmember Kasper, Mr. Bowman. described the history of the development of.Rob's Addition beginning as a 4-lot subdivision 'and becoming 5-lots. Councilmember Kasper noted that the access to lot.4 exists, a -building pad exists and there are only one or two trees involved. Councilmember Ostrom expressed doubt that the City Council should try to change the 1980 greenbelt decision, even if some of the facts were not known. It would.be difficult to determine the inten- tions of the Council at that time, nor is it an issue what developers have done in, other locations. The greenbelt was required for good reason in 1980. COUNCILMEMBER OSTROM MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL - MEMBER NORDQUIST, TO UPHOLD THE DECISION OF THE HEARING EXAMINER AND ADOPT HIS -FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS. Councilmember Kasper noted that he would support the motion. Although Mr. Brubaker would have the right of access, an additional house would be too much for Shell Valley Way. MOTION CARRIED. HEARING ON STORAGE OF AUTOMOBILE HULKS ON PRIVATE PROPERTY AT 536 PINE ST. Acting Police Chief Dan Prinz.described the situation that had been investigated because of a complaint from a neighbor. Pictures had been taken and were distributed to the Council. The vintage Cadillacs stored on the property were described. The two that are not stored under the carport would be considered automobile hulks. A certified letter was sent to the owner of the property on May 17 giving notice to.remove the two.vehicles within ten days,,.and the owner requested a hearing on May 31. Chief Prinz read the definition of an automobile hulk. Mayor Naughten opened the public hearing. Barney Doyle, 529 Forsyth Ln.., stated that he supported the complaint although he is not its originator. He said he lives directly behind the house and the design of his house provides.a direct view of the automobiles stored on the property. He said his property,value has been damaged and the subject property is a neighborhood eyesore. In addition, he said this represents a health problem since he has seen rats., as many as three at one time, several time in the past. He agreed that two of the vehicles are hulks and should be removed. Gary W..East, 17723 15th Ave. N.E., Seattle, attorney for Mr..Olsen, said aesthetics is not the issue, but the police power of the City of Edmonds, which directly regulates abandoned and junked motor vehicles. He said, the ordinance was adopted in the interest of the public safety, health and welfare and not to improve the outlook of the neighbors. He said automobiles described in the ordinance are all abandoned or junked and a me -hod is provided for governing junkyards or the junking or abandi.-zing of vehicles. The vehicles in question are not abandoned. Mr. Olsen pursues a hobby of restoring Cadillac automobiles, he also drives, trades and sells these automobiles and has done so for years. The property was purchased to provide sufficient space within which to pursue his hobby and he has attempted to ameliorate the aesthetic effects on the neighborhood. There is no hea:lth,,hazard posed by these vehicles. The rats in question were disturbed during a condominium construction. Mr. East argued that the definition of an automobile hulk as found in the ordinance does not fit the vehicles in question. Mr. Olsen has owned at least one and possibly both vehicles prior to passage of the ordinance.in 1979, constituting a pre-existing use. Mr. East submitted a written argument and photographs of other vehicles in the area which fit within the hulk definition. .He..stated the ordinance is vague and can be arbitrarily applied to satisfy aesthetic demands of the neighbors. Councilmember Hall asked if Mr. Olsen possesses a.home occupations permit since he is storing and repairing as well as selling these vehicles from his property. Mr. East said this was not a home occupation, but a hobby. Since there was no one else wishing to speak, the hearing was closed. The Council examined.the..photographs and written argument. Councilmember Dwyer asked Chief Prinz to identify the automobiles that are determined to be inoperative. Chief Prinz said the white cadillac contains only framework in the interior, no upholstery. The other maroon cadillac appears to be inoperative. The four setting in the carport have not been determined to be operative or inopera- tive. Asked if Mr. Olsen had volunteered to move the vehicles when he found a place for them, Chief Prinz said that conversation was between Mr. Olsen and another officer and he could not answer. The officer had indicated so in her report. He added that the ordinance also addressed the issue of these hulks being in view of the public, throwing tarps over them would not comply with the ordinance. Mr.. Snyder noted that the ordinance was adopted pursuant to a state statute specifying a variety of provisions regarding abandoned vehicles. I] 43V July 17, 1984 - continued • Councilmember Dwyer stated his opinion that the ordinance is constitutional. He does not perceive a problem in applying .the terms "substantial amount of.labor".or "vital part." He does find a problem in that Mr. Olsen alleges the cars are not missing vital parts and would not require a substantial amount of labor.to make them operative. He asked who holds the burden in proving the cars are inoperative and if there are guidelines as to what testimony establishes that. Mr. Snyder stated that a Council, decision should specify which of the vehicles are found to be hulks and the remedy is removal of the specific vehicles. The burden of proof would rest with the City to establish the nature of the vehicles as hulks and the Council would have to find, on the evidence before it, that the vehicles are hulks within the meaning of the ordinance. Councilmember Jaech questioned whether the City has made the necessary effort to determine if the definition of hulk applies to these vehicles. She read paragraph A of Chapter 8.50.050'of the Code and said there should be better evidence.that these are hulks. She suggested the hearing be con- tinued to the next regular Council meeting giving the Police Department the opportunity to determine the status of the cars. Councilmember Hall indicated that.she would be willing for the matter to go to another. hearing. The nature of Mr.. Olsen's hobby would indicate that some of the vehicles would be hulks. She suggested that the possibility of a permit should.be examined and the establishment of a buffer that would protect neighborhood views. COUNCILMEMBER JAECH MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER DWYER,,THAT THE HEARING BE CONTINUED TO AUGUST 7 WITH A REPORT FROM.THE POLICE.DEPARTMENT AS TO THE STATUS OF THE VEHICLES. Mr. Snyder said there were very specific time limits within this ordinance. The'safer way to proceed would be to issue a new notice and order since the record contains mostly hearsay evidence on both parts. He suggested the Council should dispose of the.ma-tter this evening. Councilmember Jaech asked if any action taken by the Council this evening would provide a vested interest to Mr. Olsen. Mr. Snyder.explained that the -ordinance is not a zoning matter and neither vested rights nor nonconforming use doctrines apply. MOTION AND SECOND WERE WITHDRAWN. Councilmember Ostrom commented .that vehicles.which are worked on as a hobby should not be considered as hulks, since they are not abandoned. He questioned whether.a hobby should be interpreted as a nuisance. If the Council were to impound the cars, they would be saying a messy hobby is illegal and, he said, that is not necessarily true. Since there is no proof that Mr. Olsen does not intend to do something with the vehicles, COUNCIL - MEMBER DWYER MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER WILSON, THAT THE APPEAL BE UPHELD, BASED ON THE FACT THAT THE CITY HAS NOT SUSTAINED ITS BURDEN OF PROVING THAT THESE WERE IN FACT AUTOMOBILE HULKS AT THE TIME"fiHEY WERE ALLEGED TO BE AUTOMOBILE HULKS. MOTION CARRIED. HEARING ON PROPOSED 3-LOT PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION AT 15724 70TH AVE. W. Mr. Bowman outlined the findings and recommendations of the Hearing. Examiner in this issue. Mayor Naughten opened the public hearing.and asked that testimony be limited to three minutes each. Randy Sleight, 121 5th Ave. N., Suite,200, representing the applicant, said Mr. Campbell agreed to comply with the conditions set forth in the Hearing Examiner's report. Since no one else wished to speak, the hearing was closed. COUNCILMEMBER KASPER MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER NORDQUIST, TO ADOPT THE FINDINGS AND DECISION OF THE HEARING EXAMINER IN CONNECTION WITH THE PROPOSED 3-LOT PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION AT 15724 70TH AVE. W. MOTION CARRIED. HEARING ON APPEAL OF HEARING EXAMINER'S DECISION IN THE MATTER OF A SHORT SUBDIVISION AT 7831 228TH • ST. S.W. (S-4-84) (APPELLANTS: MARQUARDT, PENROD AND BOWEN) Mr. Bowman said the Planning Department staff decision to approve this short subdivision was appealed to the Hearing Examiner and subsequently to the City Council. The staff recommendation is to uphold the Hear 9g Examiner's decision to deny the appeal. Mayor Naughten opened the public hearing and asked the speakers to limit their testimony to five minutes. John Marquardt, 22708 78th Ave. W., said his major concern is the drainage problem that will be created as.a result of the short subdivision. When their properties were built, all but eight inches of top soil was removed and the same problem exists where the proposed short subdivision is planned. Two of the appellants have had to add top soil, which is now level with the bottom of their glass sliders. He said they want to insure that ample drainage is planned. He suggested that tiling to 228th and into the drainage ditch would be the only way to accomplish this. He added that the planned lot is a bare minimum according to the code and will crowd the area, possibly diminish- ing the value.of the properties in the -area plus loss of privacy. Bob Penrod, 7901 228th St. S.W., said the subdivision will create a cramped area by putting a house in the backyards of seven homes, with loss of privacy and consequent depreciation of the value of the surrounding homes. He said.it would also create difficulties for the four properties that now experience drainage problems. In addition, the front lot li.ne of the proposed lot will be 20' from the house that is now on the property. Jerry'Lovell, of Lovell-Sauerland & Assoc., Inc., 23106 100th Ave. W., representing the applicant, said the proposed property is situated at a higher elevation than the properties to the east. He 0 • July 17, 1984 - continued feels the drainage problems described by the appellants are solvable. Mr. Lovell described a possible solution to the drainage from the roof and driveway of the Withers property into 228th St. S.W. He also noted that a percolation test indicated that.some drainage could be handled adequately through the soil and this,would suffice to prevent the drainage problems in question. He submitted some drawings prepared by Mr. Withers showing the drainage line that could be installed. Mr. Lovell indicated that the proposed lot complies with the zoning. As to loss of privacy, he said that often happens as areas develop. Since no one else wished.to speak, the hearing was closed. Councilmember Dwyer asked if the drainage plan must be submitted to the City Engineer prior to the granting of the short plat and if the granting of the short plat is an appealable order. Mr. Bowman said the applicant must provide compliance with Ordinance 19.24, the City Storm Drainage Ordinance, before the short subdivision could be recorded. If they cannot meet those requirements, the City would not accept the short subdivision and it could not be recorded. Mr. Bowman said a requirement of a short subdivision is a hold harmless agreement against the City for proper installation and maintenance of their storm drainage system. He said Chapter 21.05 provides for appeal to the Hearing Examiner of the City Engineer's decision concerning any drainage plan, appealable to the City Council. COUNCILMEMBER KASPER MOVED,.SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER DWYER, TO UPHOLD THE HEARING EXAMINER'S DECISION AND DENY THE APPEAL, BASED ON THE FINDINGS OF FACTS AND THE DRAINAGE PLAN DRAWINGS ON SHORT SUBDIVISION`S-4-84. MOTION CARRIED. HEARING ON 6-YEAR TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM City Engineer Jim Adams reviewed the improvement program, explaining that state statute requires that an.annual hearing be held. He then reviewed the items listed for the next six years for street improvements, including the major improvements on page 1, resurfacing projects, pedestrian walkways, signal projects, a new roadway, and roadway widening. Councilmember Nordquist commented on the Interurban bicycle path, suggesting that spray painting a bicycle outline on the street was effective rather than constructing a specific bicycle path. He also noted that there is a PUD.substation in the middle of the Interurban which would impede a bicycle pathway. He suggested a bicycle study would be appropriate using Meridian and 76th Ave. W. and tying it into Seattle. In response to a question from Councilmember Kasper,, Mr. Adams said the Council must adopt the Improvement Program by resolution after a public hearing. Changes may be made; however, the Engineering Department has tried to determine the first year elements based on the dollars anti- cipated to be available. Councilmember Kasper indicated that a sidewalk on 7th Ave. between Caspers St: be added to the program. There are cars parked on the curb creating a serious and Aloha St., should problem, especially since there is so much traffic on the street. Mayor Naughten opened the public hearing. Patty Eldridge, 7717 200th St. S.W., asked if there is a provision for a walkway along 200th St. from 76th to Maplewood. She was advised this walkway was included in the program. Ms. Eldridge asked on which side of the street the walkway was planned and the time frame for construction. Councilmember Hall noted the project was planned for four to six years from now. Ms. Eldridge asked that the time frame be moved forward. Since no one else wished to speak, Mayor Naughten closed the hearing. COUNCILMEMBER HALL MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER KASPER, APPROVAL OF THE 6-YEAR TRANSPORTATION • IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM WITH THE AMENDMENT THAT 200TH ST. S.W. FROM 76TH TO MAPLEWOOD BE MOVED TO A FIRST YEAR ELEMENT. COUNCILMEMBER KASPER MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER NORDQUIST, TO AMEND THE MOTION TO INCLUDE A SIDEWALK ON 7TH AVE. N. FROM CASPERS ST. TO ALOHA ST. EXCEPT THE PORTION PLANNED FOR CONSTRUCTION BY HARBOR LANE SUBDIVISION. Councilmember Ostrom asked if the residents of the area would be assessed for any sidewalk constructed. Councilmember Kasper said.construction under the Improvement Program would be funded by the gas tax or total grants. COUNCILMEMBER KASPER ADDED TO HIS MOTION A FIGURE OF $3000 FOR COST OF THE.SIDEWALK AGREEABLE TO THE SECOND. MOTION TO AMEND MAIN MOTION CARRIED. MAIN MOTION CARRIED. COUNCIL Councilmember Ostrom distributed copies of a petition he had received regarding the intersection of Puget Dr. and Olympic View Dr. Increased traffic has prompted residents to ask that the traffic light be reactivated at this intersection. COUNCILMEMBER OSTROM MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER HALL, TO SET A PUBLIC HEARING FOR THIS MATTER ON AUGUST 21. MOTION CARRIED. Councilmember Ostrom then distributed copies of a letter addressed to the Mayor, which he also read into the record.. The letter contained his resignation from the D-DAT Task Force Committee and explained his reasons for doing so. He expressed regret that the resignation had become necessary. Councilmembers Wilson, Hall and Kasper expressed their disappointment that Councilmember Ostrom had .found it necessary to resign, citing the need for his input into the Committee.- Councilmember Dwyer also expressed his disappointment, but commented that Councilmember Ostrom would have resigned only after due consideration. Mayor Naughten accepted -the resignation and said he would appoint another representative. Since it was 10:00 p.m., COUNCILMEMBER JAECH MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER OSTROM, TO EXTEND THE MEETING FOR ANOTHER 15 MINUTES TO COMPLETE THE AGENDA. MOTION CARRIED. 4,3 Z July 17, 1984 - continued • Councilmember Kasper announced there would be no Community Services Committee meeting. Councilmember Hall said the meeting with the Chamber of Commerce on Saturday was a good meeting and had been attended by four Council members. Councilmember Nordquist asked Mr..Bowman if the Planning Department had received an appeal of a Conditional Use Permit for property on Edmonds Way, CU-40-84. Since Mr. Bowman had not received the appeal, Councilmember Nordquist delivered a copy. Councilmember Hall said she had-received.a compliment on the contractor, Tri-State, at Meadowdale because they were sprinkling the roads for dust during the week and on weekends. Councilmember Hall commented on reports received from Captain Hickok on the Fourth of July and Roger Dalzell on the Crime Watch. Councilmember Hall noted that a letter of resignation had been received from Dave Larson, a member of the Planning Board. She read his letter for the record. Mayor Naughten noted that Dan Rice would move into the vacated position and a new alternate member would be appointed. Councilmember Hall invited Council members to her home to.meet with Secretary of State Ralph Munro at 7:00 p.m. on Wednesday, July 18. Council President Jaech read a letter from the Rev. Thomas W. Foster -Smith, a resident of the Town- house Apartments on 3rd Ave. N. Rev. Foster -Smith asked the Council to consider changes in Ordinance 2103, which precludes residents from parking on any street other than the block in which they live even with a residential parking permit. City Clerk Jackie Parrett explained that the ordinance as written does not allow residents to park in any block other than the one in which they live. She commented that there have been several requests about the same problem during the last few weeks. Councilmember Kasper said the Community Services Committee would review the letter and the ordinance. , Council President Jaech said she had asked for Council opinions concerning where a watercolor should be hung. A member of the Art Board had been in the Executive Office, had hung the watercolor in the Council office and liked it there. The Council agreed that was a good place. Councilmember Kasper suggested that the Highway 99 Study should be moved to a later agenda since the August 7 agenda is too crowded. Council President Jaech moved the subject to the August 28 agenda. Since it was 10:15 p.m., COUNCILMEMBER DWYER MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER HALL, TO CONTINUE THE COUNCIL MEETING. MOTION CARRIED. Councilmember Wilson had received calls from two people regarding the traffic configuration change at the corner of Olympic View Dr. and Olympic Ave. There are two bushes obstructing the view of the person heading north on Olympic. View Dr. making a right hand turn onto Olympic Ave. Mayor Naughten asked the persons having the problem to give him a call. The Council recessed to Executive session at 10:20 p.m., adjourning at 10:45. 0000 . PA RETT, City Clerk LARRI S. NAlItHTEN,May