Loading...
06/18/1991 City CouncilTHESE MINUTES SUBJECT TO JUNE 25, 1991 APPROVAL EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL MINUTES JUNE 18, 1991 The regular meeting of the Edmonds City Council was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Mayor Larry Naughten at the Library Plaza Room, 650 Main St., Edmonds. All present joined in the flag salute. PRESENT Larry Naughten, Mayor Jeff Palmer, Council President Steve Dwyer, Councilmember Roger Hertrich, Councilmember Jo -Anne Jaech, Councilmember William Kasper, Councilmember John Nordquist, Councilmember Jack Wilson, Councilmember Ted Hunter, Student Representative rnNCFNT An MA 4f.112 Arvilla Ohlde, Parks & Rec. Mgr. Greg Ramsland, Equipment Spvr. Gary McComas, Fire Marshal Dan Prinz, Police Chief Peter Hahn, Comm. Svc. Director Bob Alberts, City Engineer Robert Chave, Planning Div. Mgr. Art Housler, Admin. Svc. Director Buzz Buzalsky, Fire Chief Scott Snyder, City Attorney Jackie Parrett, City Clerk Margaret Richards, Recorder Items (E), (G), (H) and (I) were removed from the Consent Agenda. COUNCILMEMBER WILSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PALMER, TO APPROVE THE BALANCE OF THE CONSENT AGENDA. MOTION CARRIED. The approved items on the Consent Agenda include the following: (A) ROLL CALL (B) APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF JUNE 4, 1991 AND JUNE 11, 1991 (C) APPROVAL OF AMENDMENT TO VISITORS' BUREAU CONTRACT (0) AUTHORIZATION TO CALL FOR BIDS TO PURCHASE ONE FLATBED AND ONE SERVICE BODY TO BE MOUNTED ON WATER/SEWER AND STREET REPLACEMENT TRUCKS ($10,000) (J) APPROVAL OF SUPPLEMENT NO. 7 TO KCM AGREEMENT FOR SHELL CREEK PROJECT ($38,550) There was a memorandum from the City Clerk in the Council packets with respect to a correction to the June 11, 1991 minutes that the the Council overlooked which noted the following corrections: page 5, in the motion regarding next -term Council salaries, the salary of $350 is stated per Vt�meeting and should be per month. Also, the motion states, "...to establish the 1991 Council salaries...", and although Councilmember Nordquist said "1991", the City Clerk believeU the in- tent was those elected in 1991 for the 1992 term. REPORT ON RUOTES FOR PURCHASE OF 550 GALLON ABOVE -GROUND WASTE OIL TANK AND AUTHORIZE PURCHASE FROM ACE TANK & EQUIPMENT 2, 9.5 EAGENDA] Councilmember Hertrich inquired if the tank met the requirements of the Department of Ecology for containing a potential spill. Equipment Supervisor Greg Ramsland replied affirmatively. He explained that the tank was constructed with double walls as a safety feature. COUNCILMEMBER HERTRICH MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PALMER, TO APPROVE ITEM (E). MOTION CARRIED. AUTHORIZATION FOR MAYOR TO SIGN AGREEMENT WITH ISLAND COUNTY FOR JAIL SERVICES [ITEM (G) ON THE . CONSENT AGENDA] Councilmember Hertrich inquired how many prisoners the City anticipated incarcerating at the Island County Jail. Police Chief Dan Prinz said it was difficult to anticipate the number of prisoners with terms longer than 90 days that would be sent to Island County. He said, however, a cost savings would be realized by the City anytime a prisoner was sent to Island County for longer than 30 days. COUNCILMEMBER WILSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER JAECH, TO APPROVE ITEM (G). MOTION CARRIED. ti AUTHORIZATION TO REPLACE DEFECTIVE PERSONAL COMPUTER IN COMMUNITY SERVICES DEPARTMENT [ITEM _(H) ON THECONSENTAGEN Councilmember Palmer asked about the status of the defective personal computer once it is re- placed. Community Services Director Peter Hahn recommended that it be surplussed as a defective item. With respect to funding for the personal computer, Councilmember Palmer noted that money that is not spent within a line item is not free for use for another line item without specific appropria- tion by the Council. COUNCILMEMBER PALMER MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER NORDQUIST, TO APPROVE THE PURCHASE OF A REPLACEMENT NEC BRAND PC USING SALARY SAVINGS FROM THE COMMUNITY SERVICES DEPARTMENT. MOTION CARRIED. APPROVAL OF PAYMENT TO CITY OF MOUNTLAKE TERRACE FOR HANDICAPPED RECREATION PROGRAM [ITEM (I) ON THE CONSENT AGENDA] S Councilmember Palmer noted that the City contributed $3,000 towards the program last year but only 7 Edmonds residents participated in the program out of 280 people. He wondered whether Edmonds was subsidizing the program at a greater level than it should, when considering Edmonds A, residents accounted for only 4% of the participants. He requested Staff to submit a report to „ �/�-"_ the Council with respect to how the funding level for each city was determined. Parks & Recrea- �""(, tion Manager Arvilla Ohlde said she would provide that information to the Council next week. COUNCILMEMBER PALMER MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER WILSON, TO TABLE THE ISSUE UNTIL JUNE 25, 1991. MOTION CARRIED. PRESENTATION OF RESOLUTION OF COMMENDATION TO STUDENT REPRESENTATIVE TED HUNTER Council President Palmer read Resolution 718 into the record commending Student Representative Ted Hunter for his exemplary dedication and diligence as a student representative on, the Edmonds City Council. Council President Palmer presented the resolution to Student Representative Hunter. Mayor Naughten recognized Mr. and Mrs. Hunter in the audience. Council President Palmer noted that Student Representative Hunter intends to spend a week at Boys' State this summer and will fulfill extra requirements for college credits in leadership development, and he will participate in an oratorical competition. He will also attend Stanford University for a month for government education. He will continue to participate in varsity cross county and wrestling in his senior year of high school, and he will participate in the High-Q Team, drama, and oratorical competitions. After high school, he is looking at the possi- bility of an internship with Congressman John Miller. Student Representative Hunter thanked the Council for the opportunity to serve on the Council. Mayor Naughten pointed out the artwork entitled, "Musical Brass" that was purchased by the Coun- cil and Mayor at the Edmonds Arts Festival. AUDIENCE Mayor Naughten opened the audience portion of the meeting. Rich Demeroutis, 921 Pine St., voiced his opinion regarding the issue of the two -term limitation i for the mayor. He read a portion of Ordinance 2049 into the record, the oath of office of the Mayor of the City of Edmonds which states, in essence, that he will swear to support the constitu- tion, laws of the State of Washington and ordinances of the City of Edmonds to the best of his ability. Mr. Demeroutis also read a portion Ordinance 2349, the duties of the mayor. In response to Mayor Naughten's previous invitation for Mr. Demeroutis to speak with him in his office, Mr. Demeroutis said he would be willing to meet with the Mayor if the media was present in order to avoid misinterpreting any of Mayor Naughten's statements. Mayor Naughten said there were several issues that Mr. Demeroutis was confused about but he did not have time to clarify them for him at the Council meeting. Mayor Naughten said he was willing to speak with Mr. Demeroutis in his office, but he did not intend to make a media event of the discussion. EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL MINUTES Page 2 June 18, 1991 Mr. Demeroutis referred to a newspaper. article in which the City Attorney stated that the matter cannot be resolved without a decision of the Supreme Court. Mr. Demeroutis said the law with respect to the two -term office for the mayor was on the books and until a judgement was rendered by the Supreme Court, the law would remain on the books. CWC-HDR MONTHLY REPORT Jnc Bud Benges, CWC-HDR, Inc., reported that the contractor is behind schedule, and CWC will meet �t, with them tomorrow to ascertain when the plant will be substantially completed. Mr. Benges said the incinerator was taken out of service for eleven days last month to repair insulation that was at fault. Mr. Benges said CWC will be closing their office by the public pier at the first of the month, but staff will be available through September to supervise clean up by the contractor. CWC will continue to be involved in the project through mid-1992 to certify that the facility performs as mandated by the State. Mr. Benges noted that a tour of the plant was scheduled for Wednesday•at 4 p.m. Mr. Benges reported that the contractor has completed construction of the secondary treatment units on the north end of the project site and testing and start-up activities are in progress. Final clean up, painting and electrical activities continue in the effluent pumping station, blow- er building and final clarifiers. Start-up of the secondary treatment is scheduled for early July. Construction of the public area pergola and planters continues on top of final clarifier no. 2. The pergola metal frame is erected and installation of concrete columns is in progress. Final grading north of final clarifier no. 2 is complete, and construction of concrete walkways on the north end of the project is in progress. Installation of the site perimeter architectural concrete walls is in progress. The contractor is currently installing the parking area walls and the entrance gate support columns. Site grad- ing and clean-up activities have started along the south, west and east perimeter of the project. The concrete planter wall along the west side of the solids process building is con- structed. Completion of the operations/control building is scheduled for the end of June 1991. The contrac- tor is currently installing tile, carpeting, plumbing fixtures and all finish work items. Clean up and final inspection will be performed in preparation of owner -occupancy in July 1991. In response to Councilmember Wilson, Mr. Benges explained that a gap in the dense filler material between the two layers of brick of the incinerator was detected by the plant operator using infra -red photography. As an emergency repair, the contractor injected a material called "cease- fire" but permanent repairs were made last month. Councilmember Nordquist inquired if residents will be compensated for the inconvenience they suffered when major spills occurred near their homes last spring. Mr. Benges said he was not aware of any compensation. Councilmember Nordquist said he would speak with Mr. Benges about that issue the following day. Mr. Benges noted that dedication of the treatment plant is scheduled on September 6, 1991. REVIEW AND ADOPTION OF PROPOSED ORDINANCE 2838 PROVIDING AN ALTERNATE MEMBER ON THE CEMETERY BOARD Parks & Recreation Manager Arvilla Ohlde reported that the Edmonds Cemetery Board is requesting City Council approval to amend City Code 10.16 Cemetery Board, adding a new section to that chap- ter providing for the appointment of a person to serve as an alternate on the Cemetery Board. The Cemetery Board recommends the provision for an alternate member because it would allow the alternate to be considered in fulfilling a Board vacancy. The alternate would also assist with Board -assigned duties. Councilmember Palmer inquired if any other changes in the ordinance were proposed. Ms. Ohlde re- plied negatively. Councilmember Palmer inquired if the provision that the alternate be given priority in fulfilling a vacancy but not be an automatic successor to a vacancy was consistent with the Planning Board EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL MINUTES Page 3 June 18, 1991 and Parks Board. City Attorney Scott Snyder said he did not know but would look into that matter. COUNCILMEMBER WILSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER KASPER, TO APPROVE ORDINANCE 2838 PROVIDING AN ALTERNATE MEMBER ON THE CEMETERY BOARD. In response to Councilmember Palmer's question, City Clerk Jackie Parrett said the alternate on the Planning Board is appointed, attends the regular meetings, his/her attendance requirements are the same as those of the other Board members, and he/she can vote on an issue if a regular member of the Planning Board is absent. Ms. Parrett said the alternate as proposed for the Ceme- tery Board has no attendance requirements and does not vote. Councilmember Palmer suggested that an alternate member of the Cemetery Board be selected using the same criteria for other members so that he/she is of the same caliber as a regular member in the event that that person succeeds to a vacant position. COUNCILMEMBER WILSON SAID HE WOULD INCLUDE A PROVISION IN HIS MOTION THAT THE ALTERNATE MEMBER TO THE CEMETERY BOARD WOULD PROCEED DIRECTLY TO A PERMANENT POSITION IF A VACANCY OCCURS AND WOULD HAVE ALL OF THE POWERS AN ABSENT MEMBER. THE SECONDER AGREED. MOTION CARRIED. HEARING ON APPEAL OF ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN BOARD DECISION REGARDING ROOFTOP EQUIPMENT ON APARTMENT BUILDING AT 207 2 D AVE. N. (APPELLANT: RICHARD SANDERS R DEL LOWELL AND DOUGLAS HERMAN: LTIC An n1 /AnD in9_on CONTINUED COUNCIL DELIBERATION ON HEARING ON APPEAL OF ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN BOARD DECISION RE- GARDING ROOFTOPEU ON APARTMENT BUILDING T 207 - 2ND AVE. L N RESIDENTS HARBORMAER COND INIUM APPLIC N U A L -3-91 D - O2- 0 M M c Amn ADD71 91 Mayor Naughten stepped down from the dais because he previously participated in a settlement discussion by residents of the Harbormaster Condominium and the owner of the building in ques- tion, and Mayor Pro Tem Palmer presided over the hearing. City Attorney Scott Snyder clarified that the record was complete and closed with regard to the prior appeal of the ductwork, and the hearing before the Council involved only the appeal of the Planning Board's last decision. With regard to AP-7-91/ADB-102-90, Planning Division Manager Robert Chave reported that the project applicant (Mr. Herman) received approval for an addition to the subject building at the May 2, 1990 Architectural Design Board (ADB) meeting. The mechanical equipment was shown at to be located on the ground. The applicant began construction and without permits or approvals, installed the mechanical heat- ing equipment (HVAC and ductwork) on the roof. After complaints were received from neighbors, the Building Inspector contacted the applicant to inform him that he needed permits and ADB ap- proval to install the equipment on the roof and if he proceeded with construction, he did so at his own risk. At the January 9, 1991 ADB meeting, the Board approved the peaked roofs over the ductwork and approved painted HVAC equipment without a pitched roof, as proposed by the applicant. The appli- cant was informed that because the HVAC equipment was above the permitted 25 foot height limit and not screened with a 4:12 pitch sloped roof, the applicant would either have to obtain a height variance or reapply to the ADB for a 4:12 pitched roof. The January 9th decision was appealed to the City Council by residents of the Harbormaster Condominium. The applicant submitted revised plans to the ADB for a sloped roof over the HVAC equipment at the April 1991 ADB meeting. After listening to the testimony and viewing the site, the Board denied the roof over the HVAC equipment at its May 8, 1991 meeting and reaffirmed the previous ADB ap- proval for painting the rooftop equipment and ductwork covers to match the taupe roof color. To comply with this decision, the applicant would have to obtain a variance to allow the HVAC equip- ment to exceed the maximum 25 foot height limit, but the applicant chose to appeal the ADB's decision to the City Council. The applicant had submitted a list of alleged violations within the City regarding rooftop equip- ment. A memorandum in the City packets from Mr. Chave demonstrated that the City has been consis- tent in its interpretation and enforcement of the Edmonds Community Development Code provisions that address rooftop equipment. EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL MINUTES Page 4 June 18, 1991 The ADB's decisions on rooftop equipment in this case have been based on aesthetic considerations and the effects of the proposal on views. However, without a roof to screen the HVAC equipment, it exceeds the permitted 25 foot height limit and, therefore, does not comply with zoning require- ments. If the appeal of the ADB's May 8, 1991 decision were denied, Mr. Herman would either have to obtain a variance or the equipment must be removed from the roof. With regard to AP-3-91/ADB-102-91, Mr. Chave reported that the Council last reviewed that matter at their April 23, 1991 meeting and continued the matter until June 18 in order to allow suffi- cient time for any related appeals to be submitted and brought before the Council. An appeal of the most -recent ADB decision had been submitted and was before the Council. The appeal of the Harbormaster residents was first reviewed by the Council on March 5, 1991. The material that was presented to the Council, minutes of the meeting, and the exhibits were includ- ed in the Council packets. The residents are appealing the January 9, 1991 ADB decision to allow the HVAC equipment and screened ductwork on the roof. The effect of the January 9 ADB decision, when coupled with the Board's May 8 decision, would be to require the applicant to obtain a variance or remove the equipment from the roof. The residents do not want the equipment to be located on the roof under any circumstances. Richard Sanders, 4122 - 128th Ave. S,E, Suite 301, Bellevue, representing Del Lowell and Doug Herman, submitted information to the City Clerk for distribution to the Council (marked Exhibit 1--the original of a brief provided to the Council just prior to the meeting, plus photographs and accompanying ADB minutes of various buildings with rooftop equipment within the City). Mr. Sanders noted that on May 8, 1991, the ADB denied the owner's application to enclose rooftop HVAC equipment with a roof -like structure identical in appearance and design of the structure approved on May 2, 1990 to enclose a skylight on the same building. Mr. Sanders said the HVAC equipment is invisible to the public. It stands only approximately three feet in height and is on the interior of the flat roof adjacent to and substantially below the skylight. It may be barely visible from the top floor units of the Harbormaster Condominiums across the street, but visibility is only possible from that building because it was constructed under an previous zoning law and above the current height limitations that apply to the subject property. Mr. Sanders noted that Edmonds has routinely approved similar rooftop equipment without the neces- sity of screening or rooftop enclosures in many locations throughout the City. He said the owner seeks approval for a pitched roof enclosure only because City Staff apparently refuse to issue mechanical and/or a permanent occupancy permit without it. Mr. Sanders said it was his opinion that the proposal for a pitched roof over the HVAC equipment was not denied by ADB for aesthetic reasons because the roof is exactly the same as the roof which the ADB previously approved for the skylight and ductwork. Mr. Sanders said Staff apparently takes the position that since the rooftop equipment is mounted on top of a 25 foot flat roof, it must be considered part of the "structure" and, therefore, exceeds applicable height limitations unless enclosed by a roof sloping 4:12 inches or greater. However, he said, there are numerous examples of uncovered rooftop equipment rising above maximum height limitations with City approval and without the necessity of a variance or a rooftop cov- er. Mr. Sanders said Staff's position raises legal issues, and the City Council should consider three cannons of construction of its own ordinances: 1) land use ordinances must be construed in favor of a property owner and against the government; 2) the land owner is entitled to rely upon the historical practice of those officials charged with the enforcement of a land use ordinance with respect to its proper construction; and 3) land use regulations are to be applied to promote the general welfare of the public, not parochially conceived interests of specific neighbors. Mr. Sanders said nowhere does the code expressly state that rooftop HVAC equipment must be consid- ered part of the "structure" for code purposes. A strict definition of the term "structure", favoring the property owner, would exclude rooftop equipment from the definition because rooftop equipment is not a structural component of the building itself. Mr. Sanders said administrative practice also seems to favor a construing of the ordinance which excludes rooftop HVAC equipment from height limitations. He cited five locations within the City of Edmonds where Staff has construed the height limitation ordinance vis-a-vis rooftop equipment or skylights, and each example showed that rooftop equipment or skylights were uncovered and exceeded the maximum height limitation. EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL MINUTES Page 5 June 18, 1991 Mr. Sanders suggested that if the Council found that rooftop equipment does not calculate into the maximum height limitation, the hearing before the Council was an exercise in futility but that the Council should direct Staff to issue all necessary permits to the applicant. If the Council found that rooftop equipment should be included in the maximum height limitation, then he saw no reason why the proposal by the owner for a pitched roof in exactly the same formulation as the adjacent skylight should not be approved. Mayor Pro Tem Palmer opened the public portion of the hearing. Jerry Bookey, 200 - 2nd Ave. N., objected to any more pitched roofs on the subject building. After viewing the building, he said the ADB was correct in denying the builder's request, and the Council should also deny the request and direct the builder to remove all structures that were placed on the roof without a permit. Mr. Bookey said the integrity of the Building Code was in jeopardy and it was the Council's re- sponsibility to protect that integrity. if a builder is permitted to ignore the required approv- al and permits before commencing construction, he said chaos will occur. Mr. Bookey requested the Council to make the proper decision and deny the builder's request for all unapproved structures on the rooftop. Councilmember Hertrich inquired if the skylight was a relevant issue to the hearing before the Council. It was City Attorney Scott Snyder's opinion that the Council's ability to deal with the skylight was very questionable. He believed it would be reasonable for the Council to make a finding, if proper evidence was received, that the entire appearance of the rooftop was clut- tered. He said it would be virtually impossible, however, to affect the existing skylight, given that it was previously approved without appeal and those rights were vested. Ethel McNamara, 200 - 2nd Ave. N., said the Council could not possibly consider allowing the HVAC equipment to remain on the roof because it was clearly over the 25 foot height limit. She noted that the code states that only the roof may be higher than 25 feet. Ms. McNamara said the rooftop equipment should be removed. Marilyn Van den Bisen, 200 - 2nd Ave. N., said the roof of the subject building was cluttered and unsightly as it exists at the present time, and she was appalled that the builder has proposed to put additional structures on the roof. Ms. Van den Biesen noted that the building in question was in violation of the ADB standard which states, "All building design shall be harmonious in scale, line and mass and should be compatible with its surroundings, and visual blight should be minimized". Ms. Van den Biesen started to reveal the discussion she had with Mayor Naughten and the residents of the Harbormaster Condominium, but Mr. Snyder interrupted her, saying that meeting was a settle- ment conference and people were instructed at the onset that that discussion would not be admissi- ble in a proceeding before the Council. Ms. Van Den Biesen retorted that Mr. Herman had dis- cussed the settlement discussion at an ADB meeting. Ms. Van den Biesen thought the Council would be remiss if they did not rule that the rooftop equipment be removed. Jim Van den Biesen, 200 -2nd Ave. N., #202, requested that the appeal of the builder be denied. Mr. Snyder noted that the record before the Council included ADB minutes of May 8, 1991 and refer- enced the meeting between the Mayor and neighbors, which Ms. Van den Biesen had referred to earli- er. He suggested that the Council adhere to the prior agreement of that meeting and exclude any reference of that discussion in their deliberations. Lois Bookey, 200 - 2nd Ave. N., was opposed to any peaked -roof structures on the subject build- ing. She said ADB standards should be enforced and "everything on a flat roof should come off". Norma Dimmitt, 200 -2nd Ave. N., said the residents of the Harbormaster Condominium did not want any addition structures on the roof of the building in question. Ms. Dimmitt said the visual blight created by the rooftop equipment was not only visible to resi- dents of the Harbormaster Condominium but was also visible in several areas in downtown Edmonds. EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL MINUTES Page 6 June 18, 1991 Sid Stevenson, 200 - 2nd Ave. N., said the equipment that exists on the rooftop of the subject building was in violation of the Building Code, and allowing another roof on that building would add insult to injury. Peter Beck, 718 Spruce St., submitted a copy of his testimony to the Clerk (marked Exhibit 2). Doug Herman (applicant) requested that Mr. Beck not be allowed to testify because he is an ADB member and did not participate in the ADB hearings. Lloyd Ostrom, 711 Puget Ln., said Mr. Beck was not present to vote on an issue before the Council but was present to testify as a resident, and he said the Council could not prevent Mr. Beck from testifying in a public hearing simply because he was a member of the ADB. Mr. Snyder advised the Council to note Mr. Herman's objection on the record but that Mr. Beck be allowed to testify, confining his remarks to representations that he may make as a member of the public. Mr. Snyder noted that Mr. Beck retained his first amendment rights to comment as a citi- zen of the City when he stepped down from the ADB proceedings. Mr. Beck cited Chapter 20.01.020(A) as follows: "No person shall start any development until the ADB has approved the proposed development or a change except where this code specifically dele- gates such approval to Staff". He noted that the Building Official sent a letter to the builder cautioning him of the potential for denial of the design and subsequent removal of the rooftop equipment. Mr. Beck said it was clear that the project was not constructed as originally approved by the ADB. He requested the Council to vote in favor of the Harbormaster Condominium residents and against the builder. Mr. Beck said he personally had no allegiance with the condominium residents nor did he have any animosity towards the builder or developer. He said he sought action against the builder and developer based on pure principle and integrity. Don Goodson, 200 - 2nd Ave. N., said he concurred with the comments made by residents of the Harbormaster Condominium and Mr. Beck. Dave Cooperman, 200 - 2nd Ave. N., recalled that Councilmember Jaech stated in a previous hearing when the Council was discussing the 25 foot height limitation that the intent of a 4:12 pitched roof was to allow a roof to exceed the height limit and not the living space. Mr. Cooperman said the glass structure on the building in question was really part of the living space and not the roof. Mr. Cooperman requested the Council to deny the appeal of the builder. Lloyd Ostrom, 711 Puget Ln., said many people were following the issue before the Council because they were interested in how the Council dealt with it. Mr. Ostrom said the builder was cautioned about proceeding with the design of the structure in question but continued with the project anyway. Mr. Ostrom said it was the Council's responsibility to administer the code as written. He sug- gested that the Council deny the appeal of the builder and uphold the appeal of the Harbor- master residents. Mr. Ostrom sympathized with the Council because he understood the difficult decision they were faced with, but he said it would take courage on the part of the Council "to do it right". In response to a man in the audience, it was ascertained that no one on the Council had in their possession a copy of a letter from Mr. Murphy nor were they able to reveal the exact substance of that letter. Upon the advice of Mr. Snyder, Mayor Pro Tem Palmer ruled that the letter would be excluded from the record because the Council had not officially received the letter. Gordon Wailer, 8005 Talbot Rd., observed that testimony in opposition of the builder's request was dominated by residents of the Harbormaster Condominium and that no other resident spoke against the project. He said, "It seems like this poor guy is getting railroaded by these peo- ple". Mr. Sanders said if the test on the appeals before the Council was whether or not every neighbor was pleased or satisfied with the manner in which a property owner desires to utilize his own EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL MINUTES Page 7 June 18, 1991 property, then the test has not been met. But if the test is whether the City codes have been satisfied and whether those codes are construed in favor of a property owner, then there was no other possible result than the owner prevailing on his appeal. Mr. Sanders noted that one of the issues presented to the Council was whether or not height lim- its apply to rooftop equipment. He suggested that the Council review the City's code and past practices of City Staff in administering that code which, he reiterated, provides countless exam- ples of rooftop HVAC equipment that was not covered and which exceeded maximum zoning height limitations. Mr. Sanders said, however, if a roof is required, then the owner has a right to construct a roof because Staff has construed the ordinance to require a roof. Mr. Sanders believed the skylight had some bearing on the issue before the Council because the proposed roof over the HVAC equipment was exactly the same design and a continuation of the roof over the skylight. With respect to comments requesting the Council to deny the application because the rooftop equip- ment was installed without a permit, Mr. Snyder said the City has civil and criminal remedies that it is required to utilize in situations where a project was commenced without a permit. If the Council denied the appeal, he said the intent of the letter to Mr. Herman from the Building Official was to prevent the City from being at risk for allowing the work to continue. However, the mere fact that work was undertaken without a permit cannot guide or determine the Council's decision. Mr. Snyder said the Council's decision must be made in accordance with the ADB crite- ria and not on how the project was initiated. In response to a question by Councilmember Hertrich regarding the effect of a Council decision upholding the recent ADB decision and denying the builder's appeal, Mr. Snyder said the Council had two options: 1) determine that Staff has consistently required a variance or a pitched roof and, if the Council denied the pitched roof, they could require a variance; or 2) make a finding that there has been an inconsistent application of the requirement for a pitched roof or roof - mounted equipment and, given that inconsistent application, the Council could approve the application before them at the present time and refer the matter to the Planning Board to deter- mine what future applications should be. Mr. Snyder noted that Mr. Sanders was correct when he stated that interpretations of the Zoning Official are a key factor that courts utilize when they interpret a zoning code. Councilmember Palmer asked Mr. Snyder about the ADB criteria that was applicable to the proposal before them. Mr. Snyder noted that the ADB criteria was included in the Council packets, and he briefly reviewed the criteria. In response to Councilmember Kasper and Student Representative Hunter, Mr. Chave referred to a memorandum in the Council packets marked as Exhibit 3, which was a summary of Staff's investiga- tions concerning a list of alleged violations submitted to the City by Doug Herman regarding rooftop mechanical equipment. The list indicated, with the exception of one case, the mechanical equipment on each building was in compliance with approved plans and variances and was not in violation. In addition, those cases were consistent with Staff's current and past interpreta- tions of the Edmonds Community Development Code regarding rooftop mechanical equipment and screen- ing requirements. Mayor Pro Tem Palmer closed the public portion of the hearing. Councilmember Wilson said it seemed to him that there was plenty of fault to go around in that the ADB could have been more forthright in attempting to mitigate the problem; the contractor was clearly at fault for proceeding with the project without a permit. He said the contractor was not an amateur but, rather, a seasoned professional who knows better. Councilmember Wilson said he was tired of that behavior. He believed City administration had its share of the blame be- cause it should have stopped the project at first notice until the issues were resolved. Council - member Wilson said he felt particularly sad for the owners of the project because they have been largely victimized by the direction that their project has taken. He was sad for the residents of the Harbormaster Condominium because he understood their frustration at loosing their views and having to look at the clutter of the adjacent rooftop, but he was disappointed that they were not more yielding in their attitudes towards working out some sort of a solution. Councilmember Wilson wanted the public to know that the City Council had nothing to do with creat- ing the mess, but that they had the challenge of rendering a difficult decision. COUNCILMEMBER WILSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER KASPER FOR DISCUSSION, TO UPHOLD AP-7- 91/ADB-102-90, AND THAT THE APPELLANT BE REQUIRED TO PLACE A PITCHED ROOF OVER THE HVAC EQUIPMENT AND THAT THE ROOF BE PAINTED A COLOR THAT IS COMPATIBLE WITH THE ROOF AND THE BUILDING, AND THAT COLOR HAS BEEN CHOSEN AND IS KNOWN TO ALL PARTIES, AND THAT WORK SHOULD BE COMPLETED WITHIN THIR- TY DAYS. EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL MINUTES Page 8 June 18, 1991 Councilmember Hertrich said he would not want to reverse the decision of the ADB denying a sloped roof because the applicant would still have the ability to apply for a variance if his appeal was denied. Councilmember Dwyer believed the Council's intent at the time they enacted the 25 foot height limit but allowed for an additional 5 feet with a 4:12 pitched roof was to allow for more aesthet- ically pleasing development with roofs, as people think of roofs, designed at a 4:12 pitch rather than a series of roofs along a roof nine. Councilmember Dwyer believed the 25 foot height limit must be considered in conjunction with the ADB standard that requires a building design to be an 'integrated development that is harmonious in line, scale and mass. He said the answer to the issue before the Council was his belief that portions of the roof in question which exceeded the 25 foot height limit were not harmonious in line, scale or mass. Councilmember Jaech clarified that the Council's intent at the time they enacted the 25 foot height.limit with the potential for an additional 5 feet was to allow an exception for a roof only and not for a roof as proposed by the builder in the case before the Council at the present time. MOTION FAILED WITH COUNCILMEMBER KASPER AND .COUNCILMEMBER WILSON IN FAVOR; COUNCILMEMBER PALMER, COUNCILMEMBER DWYER, COUNCILMEMBER HERTRICH, COUNCILMEMBER JAECH AND COUNCILMEMBER NORDQUIST OPPOSED. COUNCILMEMBER JAECH MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER HERTRICH, TO UPHOLD THE ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN BOARD'S DECISION ON AP-7-91/ADB-102-90. Councilmember Dwyer suggested that the motion apply to AP-7-91/ADB-102-90 with a direction to the City Attorney to prepare proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law and submit them to the Council in the near future for adoption. Councilmember Jaech concurred. MOTION CARRIED WITH COUNCILMEMBER WILSON OPPOSED. Councilmember Hertrich inquired if the builder would be precluded from seeking a variance if the Council voted in favor of the appeal of the Harbormaster residents. Mr. Snyder replied affirma- tively. He explained the effect of the Council's decision in either upholding or denying the appeal. Councilmember Hertrich proposed to table AP-3-91/ADB-102-90 because he did not want to -preclude the builder form seeking another solution. COUNCILMEMBER DWYER MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER JAECH, TO UPHOLD THE APPEAL OF AP-3-91/ ADB-102-90 'WITH THE FINDING THAT THE BUILDING DESIGN FAILS AT THE ROOF LEVEL AND ABOVE TO MEET THE REQUIREMENTS OF 20.10.070. In response to Councilmember Palmer, Mr. Snyder said the motion requires that the HVAC and vent- ing equipment be removed. A ROLL CALL VOTE WAS TAKEN. MOTION CARRIED WITH COUNCILMEMBER PALMER, COUNCILMEMBER DWYER, COUN- CILMEMBER HERTRICH, COUNCILMEMBER JAECH AND COUNCILMEMBER NORDQUIST IN FAVOR: COUNCILMEMBER KAS- PER AND COUNCILMEMBER WILSON OPPOSED. The Council recessed -at 1:11 p.m. and reconvened at 1:11 p.m. (�-f7 HEARING ON APPEAL OF HEARING EXAMINER DECISION REGARDING EXPANSION OF EDGEWOOD BAPTIST CHURCH AT �•C` 20406 - 76TH AVE. W. A LLANT: GLORIA S. KENN D -6-91 -11- 1 -12-91 Planning Division Manager Robert Chave reported that the Hearing Examiner issued his decision on May 17, 1991 and an appeal was filed by Ms. Kennedy on May 31. However, the Hearing Examiner issued an amended decision on June 12. Because an amended decision necessitates a new appeal period of ten working days, the issue- should be continued until after the new appeal period has expired (June 26). Mr. Chave recommended that the hearing be continued until July 16, 1991. COUNCILMEMBER DWYER MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER NORDQUIST, TO CONTINUE THE HEARING ON THE APPEAL UNTIL JULY 16, 1991. *See 6-25-91, P.1 EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL MINUTES Page 9 June 18, 1991 Councilmember Palmer inquired if the appeal would remain valid if a new, separate appeal was not filed. City Attorney Scott Snyder replied negatively. Councilmember Dwyer inquired if the ap- peal could be scheduled for review by the Council, assuming the appellant intended to appeal the Hearing Examiner's decision, and request Staff to contact her to ascertain if she intended to do otherwise after reviewing the Hearing Examiner's amended decision. Mr. Snyder suggested that the Council make a motion to that effect. COUNCILMEMBER DWYER SAID HE WOULD INCLUDE IN THE ORIGINAL MOTION A STIPULATION THAT THE COUNCIL TREAT THE APPELLANT AS AN APPELLANT FROM THE AMENDED DECISION UNLESS SHE INDICATED TO STAFF THAT SHE DESIRED NOT TO APPEAL THE AMENDED DECISION. THE SECONDER AGREED. Gloria Kennedy, 7631 - 203rd St. S.W., said she intended to file an appeal of the Hearing Examin- er's amended decision. Ms. Kennedy was advised that the hearing would take place on July 16, 1991. MOTION CARRIED. CONTINUED HEARING ON SIX -YEAR TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PLAN, AND PASSAGE OF PROPOSED RESOLUTION 719 ADOPTING PLAN City Engineer Bob Alberts reported that a public hearing was held on June 4, 1991 and continued to June 18, 1991. Based on the comments at the June 4 hearing, a revised Six -Year Transportation Improvement Plan (TIP) was prepared. The revisions include deleting a future signal at Meadow - dale Beach Road and 76th Avenue West; moving the 72nd Avenue West road construction project be- tween 210th Street Southwest and 212th Street Southwest) to priority number 6, Roadway Construc- tion Projects, page 2; and moving a walkway adjacent to 76th Avenue West (from Meadowdale Beach Road to North Meadowdale Road) to number 6 on the Walkway Projects, page 3. Mayor Naughten opened the public portion of the hearing. No input was offered. Mayor Naughten closed the public portion of the hearing. Councilmember Wilson referred to page 3 of the revised TIP, and encouraged Staff to move #11 up on the list (construct a walkway on at least one side of the roadway on 9th Avenue North between Puget Drive and Caspers Street). Councilmember Hertrich requested that the sidewalk on 7th and Caspers Street be relocated to the inside of the telephone pole and cut the curb back. Councilmember Nordquist requested that item #8 on page 1 be moved up on the list because traffic through that intersection has increased dramatically (improve protection devices and approaches on Dayton Street railroad crossing). Mr. Alberts said the item could be moved up on the list if the Council reflected possible funding in 1992. COUNCILMEMBER NOROQUIST MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER KASPER, TO ADOPT RESOLUTION 719 APPROV- ING AND ADOPTING THE 1992-1998 SIX -YEAR TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PLAN AS AMENDED, INCLUDING THE ABOVE REVISIONS. MOTION CARRIED. As a procedural matter, Mayor Naughten adjourned the meeting at 10 p.m. COUNCILMEMBER DWYER MOVED, SECONDED.BY COUNCILMEMBER PALMER, TO EXTEND THE MEETING. MOTION CARRIED. REVIEW OF EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES FUNDING Fire Marshal Gary McComas reported that the 1986 legislature gave authority to place a six -year levy with a maximum of 25t per thousand dollars of assessed valuation on the November 1985 bal- lot. The intent of the levy was to subsidize the costs involved in providing Emergency Medical Services (EMS). The proceeds received the first year were $271,000 and have increased with prop- erty values to $327,000 received by the City in 1990. Although there has been a significant increase in revenues, EMS related expenditures have also experienced increases over the years. The 1991 anticipated cost of $498,000 has been impacted by the recent labor agreements by the Fire Union and the Medic 7 Union with a new projected cost of $540,000. The amount of funding required from the General Fund in 1991 is projected to be $213,000. Additionally, the Medic 7 service demand has increased to the point that a second medic unit is proposed. The impact of that addition on the City's budget would be approximately $80,000 in 1992. Fire Marshal McComas said the City could increase its revenue from the EMS levy to totally fund EMS expenditures by authorizing an increase from 25t per thousand to 50t per thousand. EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL MINUTES Page 10 June 18, 1991 Considering the 80% increase in assessed property values, the City could anticipate a 1991 income from an EMS levy at 25¢ per thousand to be approximately $550,000, which would support the cur- rent need. Fire Marshal McComas recommended that the Council pursue voter authorization for up to the full 50Q per thousand as authorized by the legislature but only tax to support actual EMS budgetary requirements. Councilmember Dwyer noted that EMS revenues fund not only a portion of the Medic 7 Program but also emergency medical services for the Edmonds Fire Department. Councilmember Dwyer said it was important that the ballot item is worded the same in each juris- diction in which it appears to avoid confusion and opposition that would arise if the ballot was worded differently in each jurisdiction. In response to Councilmember Kasper, City Attorney Scott Snyder said the State statute sets a limit on: 1) what expenses are eligible for EMS; 2) the amount to be assessed; and 3) on the cit- ies' budgetary process. Councilmember Kasper inquired if consolidation of local fire departments would reduce the need for an additional medic unit. Fire Marshal McComas replied negatively. He said South County currently has ten aid cars and, at times, every one of those units is taxed. It was his opinion that another medic unit would still be needed even if the fire departments were consolidated. Fire Marshal McComas noted that revenues expended for EMS must be directly related to EMS opera- tions, personnel, training and equipment, and facilities. Councilmember Palmer believed the Council should authorize only the expenditure that is needed to operate EMS. He said he public is in a position of a tax revolt across the country, and people feel they are being taxed to death and out of their homes. Councilmember Palmer inquired what the assessed valuation would be to fund known and projected costs. Councilmember Dwyer did not believe an answer was available yet because the Board has not refigured the assessment. He surmised that a revenue increase of 33% over a six -year period would be necessary. Councilmember Palmer said the public's experience has been that spending grows to use up every dollar that is available. He anticipated that the full assessment would manage to be absorbed at the end of the six -year period if it was approved. He did not want to authorize any more money than was needed. Councilmember Jaech concurred. Councilmember Dwyer believed it would be more prudent to word the ballot to say, "50Q or less" than to set some arbitrary figure that would run the risk of the City not participating in its share of the expenditure and having to make up the deficit from General Fund monies, or create a problem that does not need to exist in terms of different levels of funding from the different cities. Councilmember Dwyer said he did not know that a basis for determining the level of fund- ing could be established between now and when the ordinance must be submitted to the auditor. However, he was certain that the City would either be forced to opt out of the program or fund the expenditure entirely from the General Fund if the issue was not placed on the ballot and passed in November. He said he understood Councilmember Palmer's concern but did not feel it was a prudent approach. Councilmember Wilson agreed with Councilmember Palmer and that the City must stop the prolifera- tion of employees. He said, however, the City needs EMS and EMS was not the place to do that. Councilmember Palmer said he supported the program and would support full funding through the levy if a projection or justification for the level of funding was provided to the Council. Mr. Snyder stated that the notice must be passed in ordinance form by September 20, 1991. He said the act itself would state that money could only be used for the provision of emergency medical care or emergency medical services, including related personnel costs, training, related equipment and supplies, vehicles and structures needed for the provision of emergency medical care or emergency services. Mr. Snyder noted that the Council cannot anticipate the revenues. COUNCILMEMBER DWYER MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER HERTRICH, TO PURSUE VOTER AUTHORIZATION FOR THE FULL 50t PER THOUSAND AS AUTHORIZED BY THE LEGISLATURE, WHILE ONLY TAXING TO SUPPORT ACTUAL EMS BUDGETARY REQUIREMENTS. A ROLL CALL VOTE WAS TAKEN. MOTION FAILED WITH COUNCILMEMBER DWYER, COUNCILMEMBER HERTRICH, AND COUNCILMEMBER KASPER IN FAVOR; COUNCILMEMBER PALMER, COUNCILMEMBER JAECH, COUNCILMEMBER NORDQUIST AND COUNCILMEMBER WILSON OPPOSED. EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL MINUTES Page 11 June 18, 1991 Because of the lateness of the hour, the item was scheduled for further discussion on June 25, 1991. ESTABLISH MAYOR'S SALARY FOR 1992-1996 TERM 1 COUNCILMEMBER HERTRICH MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER WILSON, TO ESTABLISH THE MAYOR'S SALARY BASE IN 1992 AT THE SAME LEVEL THAT EXISTS AT THE PRESENT TIME WITH THE PROVISO THAT THE COUNCIL COULD REVISE HIS SALARY NEXT YEAR IF THEY DESIRE. Councilmember Palmer noted that the mayor's salary must be established for four years. Council - member Hertrich said the salary would remain constant during the four years unless amended by the Council. MOTION CARRIED. MAYOR Mayor Naughten welcomed Fire Chief Buzz Buzalsky to the Council meeting. .p Mayor Naughten said he would recommend approval of a liquor license application for Buo Restau- rant unless the Council objected. No objection was noted. r COUNCIL Council President Palmer said a tentative hearing has been scheduled with the Planning Board on August 13, 1991 in place of the Council committee meetings to discuss adult entertainment issues. Councilmember Jaech requested that Administrative Services Director Art Housler and Community Services Director Peter Hahn discuss the impact of the increased property assessment next week. Councilmember Nordquist inquired about the status of the project for Pathways For Women and the funding that the City had allocated for that project. City Clerk Jackie Parrett noted that an article in the Enterprise reported that they had obtained their HUD grant. Councilmember Nord- quist said he was disappointed that the City's funds have been utilized for property acquisition and administration rather than for the more immediate need (immediate shelter for the homeless). Councilmember Hertrich said he was disappointed that the City of Edmonds was not mentioned as the leader in funding the project in one news article and the second article only briefly mentioned the City. Councilmember Wilson said he attended the Colville Rodeo, and children were allowed to ride on the fire engines and throw candy to spectators. He recommended that the City also allow children to ride on fire engines and throw candy, while Staff is positioned on the sidelines to control the public. Councilmember Kasper requested City Attorney Scott Snyder to explain the effect of the Council's motion on the hearings with regard to the building at 207 - 2nd Avenue North. Mr. Snyder ex- plained that the Council's motion on the first hearing denied the appeal and application to put a shed roof over the HVAC equipment. The Council's motion on the second hearing upheld the appeal, disapproving the installation of rooftop mounted equipment. Councilmember Hertrich requested the Enterprise to correct and retract a statement saying that the Council accused the Mayor of arrogance and greed when, in fact, it was only one Councilmember who made that comment. The Enterprise reporter stated that her article had been edited with that result and that she would never attribute such strong language to an entire Council. Councilmember Hertrich noted that the Technical Advisory Committee and Public Involvement Commit- tee on Edmonds ferry terminal study are scheduled to meet on June 24 at 9 o'clock. Student Representative Ted Hunter thanked the Council for allowing him to serve on the Council. He added that it was funny to see adults "bicker amongst each other". With respect to the sale agreement for the Safeway property, City Attorney Scott Snyder noted that the City submitted a full -price offer on a fairly unsophisticated realtor's form, but the Pe City has received a sophisticated response from the property manager. He said there were three major deviations from the City offer. He explained that the City had requested a 180 day look at the property to conduct a physical inspection of the property and an environmental audit and to review existing leases. The owner of the property indicated that three other offers have been made on the property and although they are not full price, they are on a much shorter time frame. Because of expiration of leases, Mr. Snyder said it is their point of view that it is EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL MINUTES Page 12 June 18, 1991 critical that they have a more defined and shortened free -look period, and they have suggested 60 days to conduct the inspection and review the leases. Mr. Snyder noted that it would be 72 to 73_ days to conduct the environmental audit and lease review if the document was signed on June 19, 1991, plus an additional 30 days to close. He said he negotiated an additional 45 days if the City determines there to be a substantial objective site situation that requires further test- ing. Mr. Snyder said the owners are willing to extend the time period for three, one -month incre- ments if there is not an objective item but subjectively the Council wants more time but it would cost between $1500 to $4500 per month, which is the difference between the rent that they current- ly receive and the actual amount that is received. Mr. Snyder said they are making no warranties of fitness for use, habitability, or anything else. He said he has commented that the City would entertain that clause with the proviso that they still retain their duty of disclosure if there are hidden defects. He noted that the City would have access to their books to review expenses. COUNCILMEMBER PALMER MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER JAECH, TO AUTHORIZE THE CITY TO ACCEPT THE OFFER AS NEGOTIATED AND REQUIRE AN APPRAISAL. MOTION CARRIED. The meeting adjourned at 11:16 p.m. THESE MINUTES ARE SUBJECT TO JUNE 25, 1991 APPROVAL. THE OFFICIAL SIGNED COPY OF THESE MINUTES IS ON FILE IN THE CITY CLERK'S OFFICE. JA QUEL —E G. PARRET , City Clerk EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL MINUTES Page 13 June 18, 1991 AGENDA EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL PLAZA MEETING ROOM -LIBRARY BUILDING 7:00 - 10:00 P.M. JUNE 18, 1991 CALL TO ORDER FLAG SALUTE 1. CONSENT AGENDA (A) ROLL CALL (B) APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF JUNE 4, 1991 AND JUNE 11, 1991 (C) APPROVAL OF AMENDMENT TO VISITORS' BUREAU CONTRACT (D) AUTHORIZATION TO CALL FOR BIDS TO PURCHASE ONE FLATBED AND ONE SERVICE BODY TO BE MOUNTED ON WATER/SEWER.AND STREET REPLACEMENT TRUCKS ($10,000) (E) REPORWASTE OIL TANK, AND AUTHORIZE ON QUOTES RPURCHASE EFROM OF 55ACE ATANK &LLON ABOVE -GROUND EQUIPMENT CO. ($2,329.54) - (F) PROPOSED RESOLUTION 718 COMMENDING STUDENT REPRESENTATIVE TED HUNTER (G) AUTHORIZATION FOR MAYOR TO SIGN AGREEMENT WITH ISLAND COUNTY FOR JAIL SERVICES (H) AUTHORIZATION TO REPLACE DEFECTIVE PERSONAL COMPUTER IN COMMUNITY SERVICES DEPARTMENT (I) APPROVAL OF PAYMENT TO CITY OF MOUNTLAKE TERRACE FOR HANDICAPPED RECREATION PROGRAM (J) APPROVAL OF SUPPLEMENT NO. 7 TO KCM AGREEMENT FOR SHELL CREEK PROJECT ($38,550) 2. PRESENTATION OF RESOLUTION OF COMMENDATION TO STUDENT REPRESENTATIVE ( 5 MINUTES) TED HUNTER 3. AUDIENCE 4. CWC-HDR MONTHLY REPORT ( 5 MINUTES) 5. REVIEW AND ADOPTION OF PROPOSED ORDINANCE 2838 PROVIDING AN ALTERNATE ( 5 MINUTES) MEMBER ON THE CEMETERY BOARD OHEARING ON APPEAL OF ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN BOARD DECISION REGARDING (30 MINUTES) ROOFTOP EQUIPMENT ON APARTMENT BUILDING AT 207 2ND AVE. N. (APPELLANT: RICHARD SANDERS FOR DEL LOWELL AND DOUGLAS HERMAN; FILE AP-7-91/ADB-102-90) 7. CONTINUED COUNCIL DELIBERATION ON HEARING ON APPEAL OF ARCHITECTURAL (30 MINUTES) DESIGN BOARD DECISION REGARDING ROOFTOP EQUIPMENT ON APARTMENT BUILDING AT 207 SECOND AVE. N. (APPELLANT: RESIDENTS OF HARBORMASTER CONDOMINIUM APPLICANT: DOUG HERMAN; FILE�AP-3-91/ADB-102-90) (CONTINUED FROM MARCH 5 AND APRIL 23) 8. HEARING ON APPEAL OF HEARING EXAMINER DECISION REGARDING EXPANSION OF (15 MINUTES) EDGEWOOD BAPTIST CHURCH AT 20406 76TH AVE. W. (APPELLANT: GLORIA S. KENNEDY/AP-6-91/CU-11-91/CU-12-91) 9. CONTINUED HEARING ON 6-YEAR TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PLAN, AND (15 MINUTES) PASSAGE OF PROPOSED RESOLUTION 719 ADOPTING PLAN 10. REVIEW OF EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES FUNDING (10 MINUTES) 11. ESTABLISH MAYOR'S SALARY FOR 1992-1996 TERM (10 MINUTES) 12. MAYOR 13. COUNCIL THE PUBLIC IS INVITED TO ATTEND PARKING AND MEETING ROOMS ARE HANDICAPPED ACCESSIBLE