03/25/1997 City CouncilEDMONDS CITY COUNCIL APPROVED MINUTES
MARCH 25, 1997
The Edmonds City . Council meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Mayor Barbara Fahey in the
Library Plaza Room, 650 Main Street, followed by the flag salute.
ELECTED OFFICIALS PRESENT
Barbara Fahey, Mayor
Dave Earling, Council President
John Nordquist, Councilmember
Roger L. Myers, Councilmember
Jim White, Councilmember (arrived 7:05 p.m.)
Dick Van Hollebeke, Councilmember
Gary Haakenson, Councilmember
Thomas A. Miller, Councilmember
STAFF PRESENT
Robin Hickok, Police Chief
Paul Mar, Community Services Director
Arvilla Ohlde, Parks and Recreation Manager
Jeff Wilson, Current Planning Supervisor
Noel Miller, Public Works Superintendent
Charles Day, Accounting Manager
Rob Chave, Planning Manager
Scott Snyder, City Attorney
Phil Olbrechts, City Attorney
Sandy Chase, City Clerk
Jeannie Dines, Recorder
1. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
COUNCIL PRESIDENT EARLING MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER
HAAKENSON, TO ADD AN ISSUE REGARDING A POTENTIAL ANNEXATION TO THE
EXECUTIVE SESSION. MOTION CARRIED. (Councilmember White was not present for the
vote.)
COUNCILMEMBER MILLER MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT EARLING,
FOR APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA AS AMENDED. MOTION CARRIED. (Councilmember
White was not present for the vote.)
2. CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS
Councilmember Nordquist pulled Consent Agenda Item B.
COUNCILMEMBER VAN HOLLEBEKE MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER
HAAKENSON, FOR APPROVAL OF THE REMAINDER OF THE CONSENT AGENDA.
MOTION CARRIED. (Councilmember White was not present for the vote.) The agenda items
passed are as follows:
(A) ROLL CALL
(C) APPROVAL OF CLAIM WARRANTS #16228 THRU #16396 FOR THE WEEK OF
MARCH 17, 1997, IN THE AMOUNT OF $247,705.30; AND APPROVAL OF PAYROLL
WARRANTS #15331 THRU #15509 FOR THE PERIOD MARCH 1 THRU MARCH 15,
1997, IN THE AMOUNT OF $434,576.91
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
March 25, 1997
Page 1
(D) ACKNOWLEDGE RECEIPT OF CLAIMS FOR DAMAGES FROM JOHN
BEHRENS/KAREN EASTERLY($677.44), AND COMMUNITY TRANSIT ($330,672.27)
(E) REPORT ON GENERAL FUND FINANCIAL POSITION FOR THE PERIOD ENDING
FEBRUARY 28,1997
(F) AUTHORIZATION FOR PLANNING MANAGER TO SIGN AGREEMENT WITH
DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING FOR VEHICLE OWNERSHIP INFORMATION
RELATED TO CODE ENFORCEMENT
(G) AUTHORIZATION FOR MAYOR TO SIGN CONSTRUCTION AND PROPERTY USE
LICENSE WITH SNOHOMISH COUNTY PUBLIC UTILITY DISTRICT NO.1
Item B. Approval of City Council Meeting Minutes of March 18, 1997
Councilmember Nordquist observed Item K on the March 18, 1997 Consent Agenda (Authorization for
Mayor to sign professional services agreement with R.W. Beck & Associates for the Meadowdale
drainage investigation) required an appropriation of $25,000 from fund 412-200, ending cash balance,
which was not included in the motion to approve the Consent Agenda. He pointed out a motion is
required to appropriate the funds.
COUNCILMEMBER NORDQUIST MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER MYERS, TO
AUTHORIZE THE APPROPRIATION OF $25,000 FROM FUND 412-200, ENDING CASH
BALANCE, TO BE USED FOR THE MEADOWDALE DRAINAGE INVESTIGATION. MOTION
CARRIED. (Councilmember White was not present for the vote.)
COUNCILMEMBER MYERS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER HAAKENSON,
FOR APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES OF THE MARCH 18, 1997 COUNCIL MEETING.
MOTION CARRIED. (Councilmember White was not present for the vote.) The item approved is
as follows:
(B) APPROVAL OF CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF MARCH 18,1997
3. PRESENTATION BY SEAVIEW ELEMENTARY SCHOOL STUDENTS
Dusty Polzin, Principal of Seaview Elementary, explained although the City may be aware of artwork
and sports activities of students, Seaview's main focus is on academics. The Edmonds School District is
very focused this year on reading, writing, oral communication, and mathematics.
Karen Rautenberg, Sixth Grade Teacher at Seaview, explained this presentation would give the Council
an opportunity to hear great writing as well as provide the students an audience. She described how
writing is scored based on content and organization, sentence structure, conventions, and voice. Two
types of writing, descriptive and how to write a research paper, have been done in her classroom this
year.
Aaron Lee, Seaview Student, read his piece entitled, "Scare Me." Julie Lund, Seaview Student, read her
piece, entitled "Paradise". Todd Suelzle, Seaview Student, read his piece entitled, "How to Write a
Research Paper."
Mayor Fahey thanked Ms. Polzin and Ms. Rautenberg for bringing such talented students to the Council
meeting and for providing them an opportunity to show their work and to enhance other skills. Mayor
Fahey complimented the students on their ability to present their writing to a group.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
March 25, 1997
Page 2
Each student introduced his/her parents. Mayor Fahey noted the quality of the, students' work is
indicative of the parental support each receives.
Councilmember Myers acknowledged the students' teacher, Ms. Rautenberg, a graduate of the Edmonds
School District and an outstanding student and athlete at Edmonds-Woodway High School.
Mayor Fahey and Councilmembers personally congratulated each student and thanked their parents for
their support.
4. CLOSED RECORD APPEAL OF THE DECISION BY THE ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN BOARD
TO APPROVE AN APPLICATION BY THE PORT OF EDMONDS TO ALLOW THE
CONSTRUCTION OF "NEW COVERED MOORAGE STRUCTURES AND FLOATS TO REPLACE
DAMAGED STRUCTURES IN THE PORT MARINA WHICH IS GENERALLY LOCATED AT 336
ADMIRAL WAY. (Appellant: Robert Van Citters Jr. & Roy NcCorchuk / Applicant: Port of Edmonds
File Nos ADB -97-6 and AP -97-15) Continued from 3/18/97
City Attorney Scott Snyder explained due to changes in State law, appeals to the Council are reviewed .
using a Closed Record Appeal process. The Council may hear argument from the appellant and the
applicant but no public hearing is held nor can any new testimony be provided by any party.
Mayor Fahey asked if any Councilmembers wished to make an Appearance of Fairness disclosure.
Councilmember Haakenson said he is familiar with Mr. Van Citters and Mr. NcCorchuk as a result of his
serving as the City's liaison to the Port and he was knowledgeable of both sides of the issue.
Mr. Snyder asked Councilmember Haakenson whether he was aware his decision must be based solely
upon the record and not any knowledge he acquired outside the record. Councilmember Haakenson
answered he was.
There were no challenges to Councilmember Haakenson's participation.
Current Planning Supervisor Jeff Wilson explained the .Architectural Design Board (ADB) held a.public
hearing on February 5, 1997, on a request by the Port of Edmonds for a permit for reconstruction of the
Port facilities that were damaged as a result of the New Year's storm. The ADB must make three
findings on each application they review and determine that the proposal is, 1) consistent with the
Comprehensive Plan and adopted City policies, 2) meets the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance or
City has approved a variance for modification of the Zoning Ordinance, and 3) satisfies criteria and
purposes of this Chapter. After making those findings, the ADB then reviews all projects for consistency
with specified criteria (ECDC Section 20.10.070) which include building design, site treatment, and
other criteria. On February 5, 1997, the ADB issued its decision to approve the application subject to
conditions which are included in the Council packet. On February 6, an appeal of the ADB decision was
filed by Mr. Van Citters and Mr. NcCorchuk; their appeal letter is Exhibit 4. Their appeal raises several
issues regarding the project's inconsistency with Findings in ECDC Section 20.10.060 and Criteria in
Section 20.10.070. He noted "the Council packet contained a transcript of testimony provided at the
February 5 ADB hearing (Exhibit 2). The original Staff Report to the ADB which includes the design "
submitted by the applicant is Exhibit 3.
Roy NcCorchuk, 7730 222nd Street Southwest, Edmonds, (reserving five minutes for rebuttal) said he
represented himself as well as hundreds of interested parties from marina tenants to marina passerbys.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
March 25, 1997
Page 3
He referred to roof heights and their design and said he favored covered moorage but in a conservative
way. He said a petition, signed by many tenants who wish to have the marina rebuilt the way it was, was
on record in the Planning Department. He expressed concern with the three pitched roofs per dock, a
design not used elsewhere in the Puget Sound area and pointed out the old design, which stood for 35
years, could be seen over and was more user friendly. He pointed out the floats are nearly twice as large
as the old floats (in depth and width) which reduces the amount of boat space for tenants. He said the
roof, which was designed for safety, sheds snow onto the main walkway and may require closure of the
docks in a heavy snow load. This would prevent access to the waterfront for recreational use. He noted
the information he submitted highlighted aspects of the waterfront—the precious resource and the view
corridor. Although comments have been made that the roofless moorage looks nice, he preferred
covered moorage but with a flatline design. He pointed out the Port Orchard marina, which also
collapsed, is being rebuilt with a flatline-type roof to preserve views. He urged the Council to give the
citizens of Edmonds the same consideration.
Robert Van Citters, appellant, stated the final plan for covered moorage may be incomplete with regard
to final dimensions and exact locations of the covered moorage on the docks. He referred to the City's
permit handbook which states that an applicant must file complete plans. He said the Port's application
is a generic proposal which shows only those docks that are aesthetically favorable. He referred to the
drawing of the first dock which has 28 foot slips on both sides, perfectly balanced with the roof in the
middle and felt a drawing of all docks should be available to the public, as the roof sizes will vary. He
noted there have been numerous proposals; one proposal had a balanced roof on both sides with a
walkway in the center. His understanding now was that some docks would only have a roof over the
walkway with covered moorage on one side of the dock. In his opinion, this would present an
unbalanced view.
Mr. Van Citters directed the Council's attention to page 22 of the ADB transcript in which Port Executive
Director Bill Toskey addresses the float from the boaters perspective. This reveals the height of the
covered moorage will be extended in the lower docks approximately 3 feet 6 inches to accommodate
larger and taller boats, not only to shed snow for safety reasons. He disagreed with the proposal for.
increased height. He directed the Council's attention to pages 22, 36 and 37, noting the proposal in the
packet shows gaps in sections of covered moorage on B dock. He felt the gaps presented a major
engineering problem as well as with aesthetics. He pointed out the open slips are used by sailboat
owners in the marina; the sailboat masts are so tall the crossbars on the sailboats hit the side panels of the
roof. He preferred the covered moorage be moved closer to shore and the buildings not be broken up as
it creates cost and engineering difficulties that have yet been solved. As a result, the Port may return to
the ADB in the future with a proposal for a continuous barn -like structure.
Bill Toskey, Executive Director of the Port of Edmonds, 336 Admiral Way, Edmonds, explained
marina roofs protect boats from weather conditions thus protecting owners' substantial investment and
reducing the need for maintenance. In answer to the question why more marina roofs are not present in
Puget Sound, he explained roof sections have not been allowed by the State in recent years for
environmental reasons due to their impact on fisheries. As the Edmonds Marina had roof sections
before, Federal and State laws allow it to be rebuilt. He pointed out there is a very active marine life
within the Port of Edmonds marina.
Mr. Toskey explained the existing roofs had been in place 35 years but obviously that design was not
good enough. The roof collapse caused approximately $10 million to public property (Port of Edmonds)
and also an additional $10 million to private property. Significant changes were made in the design to
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
March 25, 1997
Page 4
minimize future risk such as to increase the floatation system which was the primary cause of the roof
collapse. Another reason for the collapse was the catastrophic failure of the wood structure; therefore,
the structure is proposed to be rebuilt with steel. The third change was to increase the pitch of the roof to
allow snow to self -shed from the approximately 6 acres of roof at the marina. He pointed out it is
impractical to shovel that volume of snow from the marina roofs in an emergency. The Port Orchard
marina is a flat design, and the community has committed in their planning to remove snow with water
or shoveling. If the roof sections were not approved and a redesign to eliminate the roofs is required,
other permits would be impacted as the Port has all State, Federal and local permits necessary to proceed.
Bids will be opened on April 8 and construction will begin by the end of April with completion before
next winter. Delays impact the construction schedule and expose the Port to further risk of damage to
public and private property.
Mr. Toskey agreed with the appellants' suggestion'to eliminate the gaps in the roof section and would
support that change if the Council has the authority to overrule the decision made on that issue by ADB.
Since the gaps were designed, other ways have been determined to resolve that issue. View corridors
have not changed—they remain the same or larger than prior to the roof collapse. Only the peak height
of the roof sections has changed. At certain tide conditions, there will be more roof exposed to a viewer
on the waterfront but the view will be approximately the same as before during other tide conditions. He
agreed it may be necessary to close some dock sections during heavy snow loads to remove snow from
walkways and to ensure snow does not fall on people. He pointed out their docks are non-public
(accessed by boat owners only); therefore, closure would not impact public access to the waterfront.
Mr. Toskey pointed out the Edmonds waterfront has been significantly improved since the Port of
Edmonds became actively involved. He agreed the eve level of the roofs were increased somewhat; this
plan was underway for the past two years due to the number of boats that cannot get under the old eve
and other boats that required special modifications. The proposed eve height is closer to industry
standard for current boat heights and anticipated future boats. He explained the Port has met all
requirements for Federal, State, and local permits and have received those permits. As the roofs do not
violate any Federal, State, or local codes, the Port requests the City approve the roofs and allow
construction to proceed.
For Councilmember White, Mr. Toskey explained the Port would like to close the roof gaps and bring all
the moorage closer to shore so there would be more open moorage on the west end. This would not
change the square footage, only close the gaps and bring the square footage of covered moorage into one
continuous roof section.
Councilmember Van Hollebeke recalled the appellants referred to balance and proportion and requested
Mr. Toskey explain the intention on either side of each dock. Mr. Toskey explained there would be no
roof on A -dock. Therefore, the south end of the marina will have'a wider view corridor. Slips on docks
B - G each become longer and the roofs higher; a view from town would show a slight tapering of the
roof sections from the center to the south end. The City has denied the building to cover the north side of
the south section as there was not previously a roof on that side. On the north section of the marina, the
original proposal was higher floats in the center and lower roof sections on the north end. The south end
of I -dock will not have a roof due to modifications necessary to meet City staffs concerns. This results
is some loss of the tapering as the tallest roof on the north will not be I -dock but J -dock.
Mr. Snyder displayed a colored drawing of the moorage to the Council to assist in visualizing the gaps in
the roofs.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
March 25, 1997
Page 5
Councilmember Van Hollebeke recalled the ADB transcript indicated the highest rooflines would be in
the center of the marina, graduated down symmetrically on the north or the south. He asked if the
covered south side and walkway were a consistent pattern. Mr. Toskey answered the tapering affect on
the south side has been preserved; the tallest roofs would be in the center and each succeeding dock
structure to the south would be smaller and lower. This is the same on the north side of the marina,.
except for I -dock which will not be as high as J -dock to the north. The two center docks (G on the south
and I on the north) will not have roof structures over the center portion of the floats (two roofs rather
than three).
Councilmember Miller asked if the Port reviewed alternative roof designs. Mr. Toskey said they
reviewed several alternatives but determined all roofs with a lower pitch would require operational
activity to remove snow. The Port believes the docks should be constructed so no one is required to be
on the roof during a snow storm.
Mr. NcCorchuk displayed one of the original specification documents for design of the Port which read,
"for construction of the Port of Edmonds small boat harbor in Edmonds Washington", dated April 1961.
He pointed out the minutes of a previous Port meeting indicated the construction contractor for the Port
suggested the marina be constructed of wood. The Port chose concrete and steel due to the security,
strength, and look of the marina. Mr. NcCorchuk felt if the marina had been constructed of wood, all the
former fingers could have been included, no boat slips eliminated, and the roofs kept the same.
Mr. Van Citters reiterated the City's handbook states there must be plans. He indicated the Port's
documents showed a very symmetrical view which is not what will be constructed. He recommended the
Port re -submit their proposal showing A -G dock roofs and any unbalance. Although he attended all Port
meetings, he noted it was difficult to keep up with proposed changes. He pointed out the importance of
the roof heights on view blockage and noted the Port of Edmonds has a permit from the City for an
exemption from the State Shoreline Hearings Permit. He read from the exemption section of the
Shoreline Management Act, "replacement of a structure or development may be authorized as repair
where such replacement is the common method of repair for the type of structure or development and the
replacement structure or development is comparable to the original structure or development, including
but not limited to its size, the shape, the configuration, the location, and the external appearance and
replacement does not cause substantial adverse affects to the shoreline resources or the environment."
He felt the roofs were not the same size; they are an average of 10 feet higher. Further, the shape is
completely different as the old roofs were flat and overlapping and the new roofs are V-shaped. The
configuration has also changed; the old structures were highly efficient as they were close to shore and
left the outer areas for sailboats. He noted the location has also changed as the covered moorage area has
been moved. He stressed if the Port wanted to make the proposed changes, they should get a Shoreline
permit. He pointed out no other areas are building covered moorage due to the environmental issues nor
were other areas increasing existing waterfront moorage by 10 feet.
Mr. Wilson clarified. the covered moorage sections were removed from the south side of I -dock and the
north side of G -dock due to the Port's shoreline exemption request and was issued to allow the Port to
proceed without obtaining a Shoreline permit. A proposal to provide covered moorage in those areas
would require a separate Shoreline permit.
Councilmember Nordquist asked when the City would received a firm set of plans. Mr. Wilson
explained the applicant has received exemption from the Shoreline permit requirement. They are now
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
March 25, 1997
Page 6
required to submit a full building permit application to the City, including a full set of plans. Full
construction drawings are not typically submitted on discretionary plans; usually only conceptual
drawings are submitted. He explained the Port's original submittal included conceptual design of
different cross sections based on the various fmger-pier lengths proposed throughout the site.
COUNCILMEMBER MILLER MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER HAAKENSON,
TO EXTEND THE DISCUSSION FOR 15 MINUTES. MOTION CARRIED.
Councilmember Myers asked if the allegation regarding a 10 foot height increase was accurate. Mr.
Wilson answered the pitch of the roof structure was changed and the clear height raised. Between the
two factors, there was a height increase of up to 10 feet in some areas.
Councilmember White asked if the Council could affirm the ADB's decision and uphold the portion of
the appeal that would require the Port to close the gaps on the dock. Mr. Snyder answered yes.
Councilmember Miller asked if the proposed moorage exceeded two stories in height as defined by City
Code. Mr. Wilson answered the City's code addresses feet rather than the number of stories as story
height varies. The maximum height of the covered moorage would not exceed 35 feet over ordinary high
water mark—the threshold used under the Shoreline Management Act.
Mayor Fahey remanded the matter to Council for deliberation.
COUNCILMEMBER WHITE MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMFMBER MYERS, TO
AFFIRM THE ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN BOARD'S DECISION AND UPHOLD THE APPEAL
REGARDING CLOSING THE GAPS IN THE ROOFS BETWEEN THE DOCKS (AS DISCUSSED
BY MR. TOSKEY AND THE COUNCIL).
Councilmember Haakenson referred to several comments contained in the ADB transcript which
indicated the ADB's review of the issue.
MOTION CARRIED.
Mayor Fahey indicated any future building plans submitted to the City for permit must show that the
gaps have been closed.
Mayor Fahey declared a brief recess.
5. REPORT ON STRATEGIES FOR FUTURE ANNEXATIONS
Planning Manager Rob Chave explained discussion would consider what remains of the Edmonds urban
growth areas described in the Comprehensive Plan as the remainder of Esperance, Perrinville, and
Norma Beach/Picnic Point. The Comprehensive Plan identified Esperance and Perrinville as future
potential annexation areas; Norma Beach/Picnic Point was identified as an area of interest. Several years
ago, as a result of the request of residents in the Norma Beach/Picnic Point to be annexed, the Council
undertook a study of issues. including revenues, expenditures, growth patterns, what would be necessary
to serve the area, etc. It was determined the Council did not wish to commit to any annexation efforts in
this area because, although expenditures and revenues were roughly balanced, there were huge unknowns
regarding drainage and necessary improvements in the future. He noted the topography of the western
portion of the Norma Beach/Picnic Point area is similar to the Meadowdale area which has a history of
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
March 25, 1997
Page 7
Public Works projects as well as difficulties with building and regulations. Further, there were concerns
expressed regarding the City's ability to adequately serve the area. In response to continued requests for
annexation from residents in the Norma Beach/Picnic Point area, staff has indicated the City has no
active interest in annexation and refer them to the previous Council discussion. Staff wishes to confirm
the Council has no annexation plans for the Norma Beach/Picnic Point area and are not expressing any
interest to residents.
Council President Earling recalled staffs projections on infrastructure costs as well as water runoff issues
in the Norma Beach/Picnic Point area were the main reason the Council chose not to pursue annexation
of the area.
It was the consensus of the Council that the Norma Beach/Picnic Point area was an area of interest but
the City had no plans for annexation.
Mr. Chave referred to the staff memo to the Council Community Services Committee dated March 11,
1997, which described an approach to annexing the remaining Esperance area at the end of the year. As
discussed with the Community Services Committee, staff proposes three annexation proposals in
November. If this is the Council's desire, efforts will begin in April.
Current Planning Supervisor Jeff Wilson advised the only two election dates available this fall are the
September primary and the November general election. A November election would also be an optimum
time for minimizing the resulting financial impacts to the City prior to receipt of income from annexed
areas.
Councilmember Myers recalled Esperance was an area presently served by the Edmonds Fire
Department and the City receives revenue for calls into this area. Mr. Wilson agreed, noting this
occurred with the last annexation and acquisition of the Fire Station from Fire District 1.
Councilmember Myers pointed out the City would be annexing an area with limited commercial income
as well as losing income from the Fire District. Mr. Wilson said he was not aware of the complete
agreement regarding the annexation. He identified undeveloped and under -developed commercial
parcels in this annexation area. The assessed valuation of the three areas combined is over $300 million
and has a total population of approximately 3,000.
Councilmember Nordquist asked whether the City had made any effort to hold meetings with key players
in this proposed annexation area as he recalled there was some opposition to annexation. Mr. Wilson
agreed a key element would be devoting adequate time to answer residents' questions. He explained
there was a small annexation proposal, less than 10 acres of commercial frontage on Hwy. 99, in process
which will come before the Council on May 6.
Councilmember Nordquist recalled a key question during the last annexation was the City's plans for the
Olympic View Water District. Mr. Wilson agreed the affect on the Olympic View Water District was
raised during the last annexation. Mr. Mar explained under current law, the City must annex all of the
Esperance area for the City to qualify to take over the district.. Staff has discussed with the Olympic
Water District how and when that could happen.
It was the consensus of the Council to proceed with time line for annexation as outlined.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
March 25, 1997
Page 8
Mr. Wilson explained in 1991 the City proceeded with an annexation proposal for the entire
unincorporated area of Perrinville. When the City presented its request to the Boundary Review Board
(BRB), the City of Lynnwood requested a hearing as they wished to protest a portion of the annexation.
The BRB approved the annexation, authorizing the City to proceed with an election -method annexation
for the entire area, with the exception of the unincorporated area southeast of the corner at 76th and
Olympic View Drive. After the BRB issued its decision, the property owner filed an appeal with
Snohomish County Superior Court. Therefore, an election has been delayed, pending litigation. Within
the past year, the property owner submitted a separate request, a petition -method annexation, for their
eight acres. That request was processed and sent to the BRB. The BRB chose not to waive their
jurisdiction and the City of Lynnwood again requested the BRB hold a hearing. He advised City
Attorney Phil Olbrechts would provide an update regarding litigation on the larger annexation during
Executive Session.
6. MAYOR
Mayor Fahey had no report.
7. INDIVIDUAL COUNCIL REPORTS/UPDATES ON RESPECTIVE BOARD MEETINGS
Councilmembers had no reports.
8. EXECUTIVE SESSION REGARDING A REAL ESTATE MATTER LABOR NEGOTIATIONS
AND ANNEXATION
At 9:08 p.m., the Council adjourned to Executive Session for discussion of a real estate matter, labor
negotiations, and update regarding an annexation for approximately 40 minutes.
Mr. Olbrechts advised the Council may wish to take formal action on the Perrinville annexation
following Executive Session.
The Executive Session ended at 9:41 p.m.
Mayor Fahey reconvened the City Council meeting at 9:45
p.m. for the following action:
COUNCILMEMBER HAAKENSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER MYERS, TO
Perrinville AT THE MAYOR TO SEND A LETTER TO THE JUDICIAL APPELLANTS OF THE
PERRINVILLE 'ANNEXATION IN SUPPORT OF THE APPELLANTS' ANNEXATION
EFFORTS. MOTION CARRIED.
COUNCILMEMBER MYERS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER HAAKENSON, TO
EXCUSE COUNCILMEMBER NORDQUIST'S ABSENCE FROM THE COUNCIL MEETING OF
MARCH 18, 1997. MOTION CARRIED WITH COUNCILMEMBER NORDQUIST
ABSTAINING.
With no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 9:48 p.m.
BARBARA S. FAHEY, MAYOR
SANDRA S. CHASE, CITYCLERK
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
March 25, 1997
Page 9
AGENDA
EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL
Plaza Meeting Room -Library Building
650 Main Street
7:00 -10:00 p.m.
CALL TO ORDER - 7:00 P.M.
FLAG SALUTE
1. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
2.
(A)
(B)
(C)
(D)
(E)
(F)
(G)
3. (95 Min.)
MARCH 25, 1997
WORK MEETING
CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS
ROLL CALL
APPROVAL OF CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF MARCH 18, 1997.
APPROVAL OF CLAIM WARRANTS #16228 THRU #16396 FOR THE WEEK OF MARCH 17, 1997, IN
THE AMOUNT OF $247,705.30; AND APPROVAL OF PAYROLL WARRANTS #15331 THRU #15509
FOR THE PERIOD MARCH 1 THRU MARCH 15, 1997, IN THE AMOUNT OF $434,576.91.
ACKNOWLEDGE RECEIPT OF CLAIMS FOR DAMAGES FROM JOHN BEHRENS/KAREN EASTERLY
($677.44), AND COMMUNITY TRANSIT ($330,672.27)
REPORT ON GENERAL FUND FINANCIAL POSITION FOR THE PERIOD ENDED FEBRUARY 28, 1997
AUTHORIZATION FOR PLANNING MANAGER TO SIGN AGREEMENT WITH DEPARTMENT OF
LICENSING FOR VEHICLE OWNERSHIP INFORMATION RELATED TO CODE ENFORCEMENT
AUTHORIZATION FOR MAYOR TO SIGN CONSTRUCTION AND PROPERTY USE LICENSE WITH
SNOHOMISH COUNTY PUBLIC UTILITY DISTRICT NO 1
PRESENTATION BY SEAVIEW ELEMENTARY SCHOOL STUDENTS
4. (45 Min.) CLOSED RECORD APPEAL OF THE DECISION BY THE ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN BOARD TO
APPROVE AN APPLICATION BY THE PORT OF EDMONDS TO ALLOW THE CONSTRUCTION OF
NEW COVERED MOORAGE STRUCTURES AND FLOATS TO REPLACE DAMAGED STRUCTURES IN
THE PORT MARINA WHICH IS GENERALLY LOCATED AT 336 ADMIRAL WAY. (Appellant: Robert
Van Citters Jr. & Roy NcCorchuck / Applicant: Port of Edmonds. File Nos. ADB -97-6. and AP -97-
15.) Continued from 3/18/97.
5. (30 Min.) REPORT ON STRATEGIES FOR FUTURE ANNEXATIONS .
6. (5 Min.) MAYOR
7. (15 Min.) INDIVIDUAL COUNCIL REPORTS/UPDATES ON RESPECTIVE BOARD MEETINGS
..
Mi[t . ; EXECUTIVI SESSION REG:ARDI'NG.A:REAL ESTATE MATTER AND LABOR NEGOTIATIOIV.S
Parking and meeting rooms are accessible for persons with disabilities. Contact the City Clerk at 771-0245 with 24 hours advance
notice for special accommodations. The Council Agenda appears on Chambers Cable, Channel 32. Delayed telecast of this meeting
appears the following Wednesday, Friday and Monday at noon on Channel 32.