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