Loading...
09/17/1985 City Council1 THESE MINUTES SUBJECT TO OCTOBER 1, 1985 APPROVAL EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL MINUTES September 17, 1985 The regular meeting of the Edmonds City Council was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Mayor Larry Naughten in the Plaza Meeting Room of the Edmonds Library. All present joined in the flag sa- lute. PRESENT Larry Naughten, Mayor John Nordquist Steve Dwyer Laura Hall Jo -Anne Jaech Bill Kasper Lloyd Ostrom Jack Wilson Tom Cole, Student Rep STAFF PRFSF_NT Peter Hahn, Community Services Director Bobby Mills, Pub. Works Supt. Mary Lou Block, Planning Manager Jack Weinz, Fire Chief Dan Prinz, Police Chief Duane Bowman, Asst. Planner Steve Simpson, Parks & Rec. Director Jackie Parrett, City Clerk Scott Snyder, City Attorney Caroll Palmer Maurer, Recorder Mayor Naughten stated that Item D (Report on Bid Opening for Addition to Senior Center and Sea- wall Improvements and Authorization to Award Contract to Purchase Enterprises) would be resched- uled for another date. Items C, E and G were removed from the Consent Agenda. COUNCILMEMBER NORDQUIST MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER HALL, TO APPROVE THE BALANCE OF THE CONSENT AGENDA. MOTION CARRIED. The approved items on the Consent Agenda included the following: (A) Roll Call. (B) Approval of September 10, 1985 Minutes. (F) Acceptance of Quit Claim Deed for Right -of -Way from David and Beverly Larson. (H) Acceptance of State Referendum 39 Grant for Secondary Sewage Facilities Planning ($42,000) and Authorization for Mayor to Sign Grant Agreement. PROPOSED RESOLUTION 627 COMMENDING STUDENT REPRESENTATIVE TOM COLE [Item (C) on Consent Agenda] Mayor Naughten read Resolution 627 commending Tom Cole, Student Representative, which was signed by him and the Council members. He noted that the City and the Council extended their best wish- es, and thanked Mr. Cole for his services. REPORT ON BID OPENING FOR YOST POOL BUILDING ADDITION AND AUTHORIZATION TO AWARD CONTRACT TO J GER CONSTECTION 51 5 9.9 Item E on Consent AgendaJ Councilmember Jaech asked for an update on the pool addition bid opening. Mr. Hahn stated that one bid opening had been postponed to September 25, 1985, and this bid was only for some miscella- neous repairs and enclosure of the upper deck. Review of the technical specifications and the plan.revealed there were no specific provisions in the plan for anchoring or features which would accommodate a pool cover. He noted that any pool cover installation would include its own require- ments for covering. Mr. Hahn added that further information was forthcoming within the next day or so, and by the bid opening date, staff would be quite knowledgeable about additional pool features. After some further discussion, COUNCILMEMBER KASPER MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER JAECH, THAT THIS ITEM BE MOVED TO THE END OF THE AGENDA FOR FURTHER DISCUSSION WHEN THE PARKS AND RECREATION MANAGER WOULD BE PRESENT. MOTION CARRIED. PROPOSED ORDINANCE 2525 RECLASSIFYING CITY ENGINEER AND PUBLIC WORKS SUPERINTENDENT POSITIONS Item G on Consent A enda Councilmember Hall reiterated action taken at the July 9, 1985 meeting regarding reclassification of the City Engineer and Public Works Department Superintendent positions. She brought.this up because at the meeting of September 10, 1985, action had been taken to reclassify these two posi- tions and to remove the "Acting" part of the Public Works Superintendent title. Councilmember Hall voiced her disapproval of this action, noting that there should not have been action taken on the Public Works Department position. COUNCILMEMBER HALL MOVED THAT THE PUBLIC WORKS POSITION SHOULD BE PULLED AND HELD UP AND INCLUDED IN THE CITY-WIDE JOB RECLASSIFICATION WHICH IS CURRENT- LY TAKING PLACE. Councilmember Wilson voiced agreement with some of Councilmember Hall's statements. He had cast an affirmative vote for reclassification of the Public Works Superintendent position because by leaving the Public Works position at the E-10 level, it would have made it more difficult to recruit a City Engineer at the E-9 level. MOTION FAILED FOR LACK OF A SECOND. COUNCILMEMBER DWYER MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER OSTROM, ADOPTION OF ORDINANCE 2525 RECLASSIFY- ING CITY ENGINEER AND PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT POSITIONS. MOTION CARRIED, WITH COUNCILMEMBER HALL VOTING NO. AUDIENCE Gordon Rosier, 16105 North Meadowdale Road, noted that Edmonds citizens had been promised that people would hook up to t e sewer project. Apparently, there was a legal case on the books which indicated that citizens were not required to hook up to sewers. He noted that seven of his ten neighbors had not done so, and was concerned because this project involved 144 residents. He won- dered if excessive sewer charges would be levied against him as a result of noncompliance by his neighbors. Mr. Rosier questioned the Council's position on this issue, especially since the 60 day notice period had expired six months previously. City Attorney, Scott Snyder, announced that the city had given hookup notice to all affected citizens. He noted the case Mr. Rosier had referred to concerned amendments to the state stat- utes and the Washington Administrative Code relating to the Board of Health. Evidently, there was some question as to whether the City or the Board of Health must require sewer hookups. He added that the city had statutory authority to levy a penalty equal to the full sewer charge. Therefore, the city had the tools available so that Mr. Rosier would not have to pay the other charges. Secondly, there was the issue of whether or not this would come under Board of Health jurisdiction or that of the City of Edmonds. If it were not under the purview of the Board of Health, Mr. Snyder stated the City would compel compliance. However, such action would have to be authorized by the City Council. The reason the City had not proceeded to compel compliance before this time was that the City Engineer had been waiting for the last notice to be received by affected property owners. Mr. Rosier stated his real concern.was not that residents would be charged, but that sewage not be allowed on their property. He was of the opinion that it was a disgrace to the community that sewage still remained on residents' property. He added that there were still soapsuds remaining in the streams. He requested prompt action on this issue. Councilmember Kasper noted that exceptions are granted for property owners who would have to install over 300 feet of sewer hookup line. However, these were the only exceptions of which he was aware. Mr. Hahn reminded the Council that the LID roll had only been approved two weeks before, as well as the fact that the Hearing Examiner had taken a long time to review the roll. Mr. Rosier re- sponded that letters had been sent to residents with a 60-day time period in which to comply with the sewage hookup requirement. He added that the situation also had a bearing on sewage located on the property of residents. Councilmember Dwyer asked when the last 60-day period would expire. Mr. Snyder replied that he had prepared a legal opinion for the City Engineer a few weeks previously. However, there was .still time for compliance before the city would take action. Councilmember Dwyer requested a time frame be provided for the next Council meeting. Jim Morrow, 19243 - 94th Avenue West, stated he had sent a letter to the City Council regarding the Edmonds Main Streets Project. is letter had contained comparative information regarding the progress of the project within the past seven to nine months, as well as a reinvestment re- quest of $7,500 in the Edmonds Main Streets Project. He asked if there were any comments or questions regarding the contents of that letter. Mayor Naughten commented that the Edmonds Main Streets Project was as good as or even better than some which had been in existence for several years. Mr. Morrow agreed, and added that it had been a very rewarding time period for him. Councilmember Wilson asked when a commitment was needed. Mr. Morrow replied that he would like to receive both the commitment and the funding by November 1, 1985. Councilmember Wilson was of the opinion that the amount requested was not only relatively small, but also strategically placed. He added that the City Council needed to pay particular attention to this area in terms EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL MINUTES Page 2 September 17, 1985 of its ability to impact sales tax revenues. He believed that the City Council was in a position now to make this commitment. IN THIS SPIRIT, COUNCILMEMBER WILSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER KASPER FOR DISCUSSION, THAT THE CITY COUNCIL AUTHORIZE $7,500 FROM THE COUNCIL CONTINGENCY FUND FOR THE 1985 EDMONDS MAIN STREETS PROGRAM. Councilmember Hall agreed wholeheart- edly that the Council should do whatever it could to encourage the health of the business communi- ty in Edmonds, and cited examples such as the city ambiance, the Flower Program and the bricking of the fountain area. She added that reinvestment of $7,500 was the least the Council could do to keep the Edmonds Main Streets Program as a viable, ongoing concern. Councilmember Dwyer was of the opinion that $7,500 was money well invested. However, he noted that the budget would be received before November 1, 1985, and that the Council would be "jumping the gun" if it took action before then. He added that the Council would be budgeting money out of a fund that did not presently exist. Councilmember Dwyer reminded members that they needed to keep integrity in the budgetary process. He requested that discussion take place regarding this issue before votes were cast. Councilmember Kasper noted that the Main Streets Program was not only dependent upon funding re- ceived from the City Council, but it was also operating a very successful program. He added that Program members needed to know before November 1, 1985 if, in fact, the Council was not going to grant the needed funding. Councilmember Wilson had been of the opinion that the needed funding was available in this year's Council Contingency Fund. Councilmember Kasper stated that the Council should commit the money this year. Councilmember Jaech announced her intention to vote against the motion. She believed that this item would be in the budget information that was forthcoming, and added that it was her understand- ing the Council had $30,000 or less in the Council Contingency Fund to carry them through the balance of 1985. She preferred to wait and have this item covered in the normal budgetary pro- cess. Councilmember Nordquist asked Mr. Morrow if it would be possible for him to wait until October 15, 1985 to receive a reply from the City Council. Mr. Morrow responded that he could wait until then. Councilmember Ostrom stated he was voting against the motion for several reasons. He was in agreement with both Councilmembers Dwyer and Jaech. Secondly, if this money was going to be granted for 1986, he felt it should be covered in the 1986 budget. He added that the requested action amounted to taking taxpayer money and giving it to private enterprise. Councilmember Ostrom was of the opinion that such action was not ethical, and that it might not be legal. After passing such an allocation last year, he had discovered that this action was extremely questionable. Therefore, his position was based upon reservations surrounding the ethical nature of giving taxpayer money to private enterprise, as well as the question of the legality of such action. Mr. Morrow responded that the majority of the money for Washington cities that were participating in this program came from the cities themselves. He added that it should not be considered a gift, but rather, an investment for which there was a return. By far, the majority of the 120 cases involved had been successful in terms of returning the money to the city. M'r. Morrow also took exception to the statement that this money was a gift and that such a grant was illegal. He emphasized that it was a partnership. He pointed out that this was the first time in the seven years he had been in Edmonds that the Port, the City and the merchants had acted in concert on such an issue. Mr. Morrow was certain that the legality of such action had been tested in many ways, not only on a state basis, but also on a federal level. Mayor Naughten remarked that this action would come under the umbrella of promoting tourism and commerce, and therefore, such action could legally be taken. COUNCILMEMBER NORDQUIST AMENDED THE MOTION, SECOND- ED BY COUNCILMEMBER DWYER, TO POSTPONE ACTION ON THIS ITEM UNTIL OCTOBER 15, 1985 WHEN THE COUN- CIL WOULD BE IN A POSITION TO INCLUDE THIS IN THE BUDGET. MOTION CARRIED. Charles Rezba 510 - 12th Avenue North, asked if he would have an opportunity to comment on the secondary sewage treatment facilities planning during that hearing. Mr. Rezba was told that he would definitely be given an opportunity for comment on this issue. Mr. Rezba requested Council endorsement, encouragement and support to a project which would add a substantial degree of enjoyment to the citizens of Edmonds. He equated the enjoyment of his proposal to that which had been afforded by the Taste of Edmonds and the art show. Mr. Rezba announced that he was promoting a utility that had long been desired by the Edmonds residents, a scheduled excursion boat project which would leave the city six mornings a week at 9:00 a.m. and serve the cities of .Port Townsend, La Conner and Friday Harbor on San Juan Island. Stops would be scheduled at Port Townsend and at La Conner, in order to afford the residents of those cities EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL MINUTES Page 3 September 17, 1985 and opportunity to visit Friday Harbor. Mr. Rezba distributed a projected schedule, as well as a plan of the vessel intended for use. He displayed pictures of this 45 passenger boat, and point- ed out that they were attempting to keep the passage cost as reasonable as possible. Mr. Rezba noted that a permit was needed from the Department of Transportation, as well as approval by the Utilities and Transportation Commission. He requested an expression of endorsement on the part of the Council as an aid in obtaining this permit. Mr. Rezba added that if the permit were not obtained, it would reduce their revenues. Councilmember Nordquist asked Mr. Rezba if he had prior boat charter experience. Mr. Rezba re- sponded that he was presently an airline captain with 33 years of experience. He planned to retire in two years, and this was the reason for promoting the scheduled boat charter business. Mr. Rezba added that Mr. Harve Harrison had started the project, and a 50 foot dock had been awarded to them by the Port Commission. He indicated that his background included sail boat charter instruction, which included many trips through the San Juan Islands. Mr. Rezba also announced his intention to become certified as a charter boat captain, so that he could perform relief duties. Councilmember Nordquist requested that Mr. Rezba put his experience in writing for submission to the Council. Councilmember Hall asked if Mr. Rezba had spoken with the Chamber of Commerce. Mr. Rezba replied that the chairman had granted an appointment to address the Cham- ber. However, their next meeting would be involved with Council electioneering. He added it was his plan to meet with the mayors, councils and Chambers of Commerce of the four cities involved. Roger Hertrich, 1020 Puget Drive, expressed concern with the work that was scheduled for expan- sion of the pool deck, as well as the schedule for bids that had been delayed. He agreed to speak to the Council later in the evening at the time they -would be discussing this item. Mayor Naughten introduced State Representative Gary Nelson in the audience, as well as Bob White, Jeanette Wood, and Robert W. Noack. HEARING ON SECONDARY SEWAGE TREATMENT FACILITIES PLANNING Mr. Hahn reported that about a month ago the Council had received a studies report on Phase I of the Facilities Plan and some of the options the consultants were considering, as well as the costs of the plans under consideration. Since that time, new information has been received, and a community meeting was held with the neighboring residents of the present sewage plant facili- ty. He noted that Mr. Noack had attended the neighborhood meeting, at: which some of the same material presently before the Council was discussed. Additionally, an artist's rendering depict- ing the projected facility had been presented at this meeting. The vote was unanimous by the 15 residents in attendance to keep the facility in its present site. The residents had requested Mr. Hahn to relay this information to the Council. Mr. Hahn stated the City Council had requested more details about the Union Oil site in Edmonds as an alternative location. The cost estimate to move the present facility to the alternative site would be an additional $7 million. He pointed out that some of this money would be recouped if the existing site were abandoned and sold. However, not all of the existing facility could be abandoned if the other site were selected. He stressed that Metro had given further clarification regarding Edmonds sewage flow. Discussion with Metro officials yesterday had revealed that Edmonds East flows would be unacceptable to them. The reasoning for this was Edmonds flows would tip the decision regarding whether or not to expand West Point. He added that any expansion of West Point would require filling. If Ed- monds flows in any way tipped the decision over whether or not to fill, the city would receive a negative response from Metro officials. Mr. Hahn added that this was quite aside from any penal- ty costs which might be imposed. Metro had indicated a $73 million entry fee, on top of the monthly rate, which had been projected at $5 more than the Edmonds sewage rate, but he did not even know whether the city had a Metro option, at any cost. The Community Services Department also had a formal position from Union Oil officials regarding availability of their land. A corporate written response had been requested so that Edmonds personnel would know if this site represented a viable option. Councilmember Hall asked Mr. Hahn whether it was true that Metro had raised its rates 14 percent and that Mayor Royer would be refusing to take effluent from the outlying areas. Mr. Hahn re- plied that this was basically true, adding that the City of Seattle did not wish to be a waste water processor for the other cities. Mr. Hahn emphasized that the most viable options were staying in the present location or moving to the Union Oil site. He added that there were not many sites within the Edmonds city limits that could handle.a facility of this magnitude. EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL MINUTES Page 4 September 17, 1985 Mr. Hahn introduced Gordon Culp, the consultant involved in this study. Mr. Culp displayed a time frame on the overhead projector for the facility plan. He gave a brief review of the project schedule, and noted that the city was nearly at the end of the first phase of the pro- cess. Mr. Culp noted that the facility plan was scheduled for completion about the end of Janu- ary. This concept was being presented to the public and to the City Council this evening, in order to receive early feedback for implementation before proceeding to the second phase. He emphasized that the planning process was still very fluid at this point, and that the plant was scheduled to be in service by the first quarter of 1991. The project would be constructed in mid- 1988, with design starting next year. Mr. Culp projected that this facility would be a 10.5 million gallon plant in the future, which represented a 50 percent increase in population served by the present sewage treatment plant. Even though this plant would be sized to serve the ulti- mate needs of the community, he cautioned that it would be at capacity in about 15 years. Mr. Culp outlined the three available alternatives. He noted that it was possible to fit a plant on the existing site that would serve the ultimate needs of the community. Mr. Culp displayed a viewfoil of the proposed plant, and pointed out that this site was just south of the municipally owned plant. He added that most of the facili- ties would be placed at the site of the existing plant, and the existing facility would be demol- ished and replaced. Another alternative was to erect a plant on the Union Oil site. Mr. Culp projected a viewfoil of the existing plant, the marsh areas and the Union Oil tanks on the hill, as well as the large lagoon built to catch an accidental oil spill. He projected that abandoning the existing site completely and bringing in the Edmonds East flow would take a large portion of the Union Oil property, around six to seven acres. Still another choice would be to leave the waste water portion of the plant intact and relocate the sludge handling facilities. An advantage to this alternative is that there would be no en- croachment on the marsh. Another point is that if the Council were to decide in favor of sludge digestion rather than incineration, there would three to four trucks a day to haul away the refuse. Mr. Culp showed a viewfoil depicting the costs for the various sites. He predicted that the costs of the alternatives would prove to be conservatively higher for the Edmonds site. The lowest cost would be to use the existing site, which would be a $35 million project. If the entire plant were relocated to the Union Oil site, the cost would be about $7 million greater than if the city retained the present site. Mr. Culp stated Council members might be wondering what it would cost the homeowner if Edmonds East and Edmonds West were treated locally at the existing site. He displayed a viewfoil showing the comparative costs of the various alternatives, and noted that the total cost would be $22.65 a month, compared to the existing rate of about $7.50 per month. He noted that Edmonds East would have been looking at between $41 and $45 per month. Mr. Culp stressed that this amount did not include grants from the state. If the city were to receive the maximum grant funding, the cost would drop to about $15 per month. Councilmember Kasper noted that the present costs were about one third of those which were project- ed. Mr. Culp showed on a viewfoil the work that would follow in Phase II and emphasized that the only two feasible alternatives were the existing plant and the Union Oil site. Mayor Naughten opened the public hearing. Charles Rezba, 510 - 12th North, stated that his daughter had been quite impressed with the beauty o Edmonds when visiting from Minneapolis. However, when they passed the Edmonds sewage plant, he was ashamed of the smells. Mr. Rezba stressed that he could not voice a stronger objec- tion, and that this situation was intolerable. Therefore, the Union Oil site presented an ideal alternative. Mr. Hahn pointed out that the present technology of the plant was antiquated with regard to odor control. He added that there were many kinds of odor control available which would do a tremen- dous job of reducing, if not eliminating the problem. Robert W. Noack 317 - Third Avenue South stated he had attended the neighborhood meeting which r. Hahn had mentioned. The vote had been taken after his departure. However, had it been taken beforehand, he would have objected. Mr. Noack believed strongly that the plant should be moved. He lives one and a half blocks from the present location, and the severe waste odor is quite objectionable. He urged the Council to look strongly at the Union Oil site as an alterna- tive. Mr. Noack stated that it would cost approximately 11 percent more in monthly fees, without any grants, to move to the Union Oil site. EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL MINUTES Page 5 September 17, 1985 Mr. Noack informed members that the residents had been worried that a high rise apartment build- ing would be built in the abandoned area, and this was the reason for their skewed vote. He noted that if this site were abandoned, whoever built there could not construct above a maximum height of 25 feet. Therefore, he was of the opinion that his neighbors would be very happy to receive this news. If the Council agreed that this height limitation should be protected, Mr. Noack predicted that the neighbors would be in agreement that the site should be moved. Mr. Noack stressed that the sewage odor did not fit into the overall ambiance of the city. Mayor Naughten noted that no decisions were being requested tonight. Councilmember Kasper noted that there was no sewage treatment north of 196th, with regard to Snohomish County, and added that the whole gravity basin flowed into Metro facilities. He was of the opinion that the city needed to keep its options open, while at the same time attempting to pin down Metro., Councilmember Kasper pointed out that Metro officials had expressed interest until the last few hours of the meeting. He stated that there were other alternatives, and be- lieved the Union Oil site to be of interest. However, access around the bend is very limited for this facility. He suggested that the city start looking northward for a facility site. Councilmember Kasper also noted that this requirement had been mandated by the federal govern- ment, but the results of the mandate were yet unknown. Councilmember Ostrom asked if there were any other options available for a site. Mr. Hahn re- plied that he had investigated other reasonable sites, and there was always another possibility, if the City was willing to spend millions of dollars. He noted that 'it was difficult to find a site that was not near anyone else, and added that Metro had been receiving a lot of opposition, no matter what the location. Mr. Hahn thought the existing facility or the Union Oil site of- fered the best choices, and added that there were no easy alternatives. HEARING ON APPEAL OF HEARING, EXAMINER'S DECISION REGARDING HOME OCCUPATION PERMIT (POMEROY/CU-9- -85 Assistant City'Planner Duane Bowman reviewed the appeal He noted that in April, 1985, staff granted approval of a request for a home occupation permit to John Pomeroy at 19419 86th Ave. W., Edmonds. The applicant objected to the conditions that were imposed on the permit and appealed the staff decision to the Hearing Examiner. On June 13, 1985, the Hearing Examiner held a public hearing on the appeal, and issued a decision on August 6, 1985, upholding the original staff decision and imposing stricter conditions on the permit. The applicant filed an appeal seeking to overturn the conditions imposed by both staff and the Hearing Examiner. He is requesting to use his residence as a business address and to construct theatrical props for illusionists and magicians. Staff recommended that the appeal be rejected and that the Hearing Examiner's findings and decision be adopted. However, if Council upholds the Hearing Examiner's decision, staff recommended that a condition be imposed so that the appli- cant could only park the bus and trailer on the premises for limited periods of not more than 24 hours at a time. Mr. Snyder interjected that the Council would be making a decision on whether or not the permit should be issued, as well as whether or not conditions should be imposed. Mr. R. Thomas Olson stated that he and Mark B. Kantor, of the Reed McClure Moceri Thonn & Moriarty law firm in Seattle, represented the appellants, John D. and Virginia Pomeroy. He gave background information on the Pomeroys, and announced that they were long time residents in the area. Mr. Olson added that they represented the fourth generation to reside on that partic- ular property. He noted that being an illusionist was an unusual occupation in this day and age. Mr. Olson continued that this past year, Mr. Pomeroy made application with his mother to build a garage workshop area onto his home. This was approved by the City of Edmonds for construction and storage of props which would be housed in the garage. He pointed out that Mr. Pomeroy had used these tools in the location in question since his youth. While there had been time periods when he did not live on the premises,. this residence was always used as his second home. Mr. Olson conceded that the garage was utilitarian, but stressed that the question was not one of the aesthetics of this particular structure, but whether or not it could be used for the particu- lar activities which had been disclosed at the time of application for the building permit. Mr. Olson displayed'a box which he said was typical of the stage prop size the appellant constructed on the premises'. He also showed a small device that included.a handkerchief, rubber band and spring loaded wland. Reference had been made in the record to welding equipment. Mr. Olson had viewed the welding machine on his way to tonight's meeting, and stated that it was no larger than the overhead projec- tor in the Council meeting room. There had also been reference to a printing press, which he noted was an antique over 100 years old that was not operational in its present mode. EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL MINUTES Page 6 September 17, 1985 Mr. Olson stated that the appellant constructed props for sale to fellow illusionists and at times, put on magical shows himself. It was noted that Mr. Pomeroy did not perform in shows on the premises, but rather in business areas. He added that Mr. Pomeroy worked alone, and did not have people traipsing in and out of the property. The site was naturally screened until the power company cut down some trees, and trees to the north were removed by a developer to install a driveway adjacent to the contiguous property on the north. Mr. Olson informed the Council that the appellant was being asked to plant trees six feet high to generate a screen around the property that had originally been there naturally and had been removed by others. Mr. Olson noted that the neighborhood could hardly be described as a residential area. He report- ed that next door was a multi story apartment building, and that a very large church was located diagonally across the street. He suggested that the Council look at the practical side of what was going on in this particular community, the activities carried on there, and not to use the home occupational regulation power to carry out an attack on the aesthetics of this particular garage, which had been built in compliance with the City's building code. Councilmember Dwyer noted that the bus was owned by a corporation. Mr. Olson responded that the bus was titled in the name of Gem Productions, Inc., of.which Mr. Pomeroy was the sole owner and director. Councilmember Dwyer asked how this was consistent with the fact that it was used as a private vehicle. Mr. Olson was of the opinion that the use of the vehicle describes whether or not it is a commercial vehicle, not whether there is a title used for it. He added that Mr. Pomeroy uses the bus when traveling to his shows and to carry props. Mark Kantor, attorney for the appellant, submitted a letter dated September 17, 1985, which had been written by Mr. Pomeroy expressing some of his personal feelings, as well as the effect on him and his family. He reported that Mr. Pomeroy had been using the property in question for this particular purpose since 1951. For this reason, he said, the City zoning code provides that Mr. Pomeroy may continue with this activity without a permit. However, Planning Department staff were of the opinion that the use had been abandoned. He cited a legal opinion which stated that there must be an intent to abandon the property if the property is to be deprived of the continu- ous use permit. He stressed that at no time did Mr. Pomeroy intend to abandon the use of his property. Even when he resided elsewhere, his mother and father were living on the property. The Hearing Examiner's decision had mentioned that the occupancy code for a new building stated the manufacture of props on the property for sale to others was prohibited. He stressed that this was far different than construction on the property for sale at another location. Mr. Kantor noted that the building permit Mr. Pomeroy applied for had stated that the building was to be used for the construction and storage of props. The permit application contained the blue- prints, and the permit was granted. He continued that Mr. Pomeroy had now been informed he could not construct props for sale to others. He may construct them for his own use, but would not be allowed to use the vehicles to take the props off his property. Mr. Kantor emphasized it would be a great injustice to revoke this permit, and added that Mr. Pomeroy had spent $20,000.to con- struct the building in question. Mr. Snyder expressed concern that Mr. Pomeroy's letter had not been made available to those who wished to respond, nor had the Council had an opportunity to read the letter. Mr. Kantor stated the letter put into Mr. Pomeroy's own words the arguments which had been expressed by Mr. Olson and by him. However, if there was a problem, they would withdraw the letter. Mayor Naughten stated it would take at least ten minutes to read this document into the record. Councilmember Dwyer asked if it would be possible to mark the letter as an exhibit so that those in the audi- ence would have an opportunity to review it. He added that Council members would not make a decision until they had a chance to examine the letter. Mr. Pomeroy's four page letter of Septem- ber 17, 1985 was entered into the record as Exhibit 1, and Mr. Snyder stated that anyone who wished to do so was welcome to read it prior to giving testimony. Councilmember Dwyer asked if Mr. Pomeroy had undertaken since 1952 to construct props at any other location, other than the one in question, and was given a negative response. Ms. Mary Lou Block, Planning Manager, clarified a point about the building permit. Mr. Pomeroy's attorney indicated that the building permit stated this was his workshop for the construction and storage of props, when in fact the permit stated there was no use other than as a residential workshop. Mr. Pomeroy indicated that the actual construction of all props had always taken place on his property. Councilmember Kasper asked if this was Mr. Pomeroy's primary occupation. Mr. Kantor replied that both construction of props and performing as an illusionist represented his primary occupation. EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL MINUTES Page 7 September 17, 1985 Councilmember Jaech asked about the last time the applicant moved away from the site and when he moved back to it. She also requested his former address for the record. Mr. Kantor responded Mr. Pomeroy had moved back to the residence approximately five years ago, and his former address was 1900 Franklin Avenue in Seattle. Mr. Snyder stated Mr. Kantor had mentioned that props were being constructed prior to 1963. He asked for Mr. Pomeroy's present age. Mr. Kantor replied that the appellant was presently 46 to 47 years of age, and that he started constructing props on the property as a teenager. They were basically for his own use, and also for sale to others. Mr. Snyder queried at what time in Mr. Pomeroy's life did his first sale occur, and how many props had been sold from 1950 to 1963. He also asked if during that period the appellant was both constructing and selling props. Mr. Pomeroy responded affirmatively to both questions, and added that he had been attending school at the time. He placed advertisements in trade magazines to sell his products nationally, as he was not internationally known at that time. Mr. Pomeroy added that he was probably about 14 to 1.5 years old when he first sold props, which were constructed on the site. Mr. Snyder informed Council members that he was attempting to make certain they had available a.full record on this point, as there was nothing in it that discussed the sale of props during the 1950 to 1963 time frame. Councilmember Hall suggested that perhaps this information could be delayed for disclosure when the Council ".had its turn". Mr. Snyder cautioned that the Council frequently closed hearings'before information such as this was disclosed. Mr. Snyder asked the appellant when he had incorporated. Mr. Snyder responded that he had incorpo- rated in 1973; prior to that time, he had operated the business as Gem Production Company. However, in 1973, he was advised to incorporate for tax and insurance purposes, and this was why his business was so licensed and registered. Councilmember Kasper asked if the bus and trailer were synonymous. Counsel replied that they were two different vehicles. Mayor Naughten opened the public portion of the hearing. Joe Harmer, 8614 - 194 Place S.W., stated he lived in the back portion of the cul-de-sac, and did not directly face Mr. Pomeroy's property. However, he must drive by it in order to reach his residence. Mr. Harmer was of the opinion that the fact that the land had been settled by the Pomeroy family had no bearing on the case at hand. He added that when the appellant applied for the permit, he did not completely divulge his intentions. The fact that trees were cut down by the power company had made neighbors cognizant of Mr. Pomeroy's activities. Mr. Harmer empha- sized that his home represented a considerable investment. He added that the appellant's garage was a "monster", with a lot of square footage. He pointed out that he and his neighbors were present tonight because they wanted to protect the investment in their homes, most of which repre- sented amounts beginning at $90,000. Mr. Harmer stated that the trailer was painted black and red. Coupled with this was the fact that the bus was like a Greyhound type. He did not think it was right for someone to come into his neighborhood and create an "industrial complex". Mr. Harmer felt his rights as a taxpayer and as a citizen living in a cul-de-sac were being violated. He also requested that a letter be sent to Mr. Pomeroy's neighbors so that they would be cognizant of what was happening, and conclud- ed by emphasizing his resentment regarding this whole situation. Karen Utter, 8600 194 Place S.W., wished to respond to Mr. Kantor's allegation about the per- mit process. She had prepared some pictures, which were entered into the first hearing, and submitted this as Exhibit 2. Ms. Utter noted it contained photographs, as well as wording extrapo- lated from the City Code. She requested Council consideration of this exhibit, in order that the Code would be enforced. Ms. Utter emphasized that if Mr. Pomeroy wanted a home occupations per- mit, he should have obtained that first. She added that her information revealed Mr. Pomeroy's age to be 46 years old. This meant that in 1950 he would have been 12 years old. The business at that age was not of the same magnitude that it is presently. Ms. Utter stressed that the Council needed to deal with the address as it was presently utilized. She added that the home was built in 1957. In 1968 Mr. Pomeroy and his wife owned the home in Seattle. From 1968 to 1983, the appellant had been building props in his mother's home on the property in question. The neighbors were aware of this and did not complain because he did not live there. Ms. Utter was of the opinion that the construction of props had become Mr. Pomeroy's major occupa- tion. She had fears that it was going to mushroom. Mr. Pomeroy had applied for a home occupa- tion permit in the home storage area garage. She added that he was attempting to utilize 3,000 square feet for home occupation use, and that he was presently being taxed on the basis of 1,800 square feet. Ms. Utter believed this to be secondary use, which was not allowed. According to the Edmonds Community Development Code, she continued, this constituted violation of the zoning ordinance where the primary permitted use is living space. Research by Ms. Utter had revealed that Mr. Pomeroy did not appear to be licensed currently in King County. Therefore, she suspect- ed some permits were needed. Ms. Utter concluded that if this use were permitted, it would be a great. disservice to the neighborhood and to the City of Edmonds. 1 EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL MINUTES Page 8 September 17, 1985 Grant Sargent, 8608 194th Place S..W., stated he lived -adjacent to the structure in question. e had just completed reading Exhi it 1, and would not even try to respond at this time to the allegations in that document. It was Mr. Sargent's opinion that the appellant felt there was a conspiracy going on behind his back. He asked how the Council would receive Mr. Pomeroy's writ- ten statements. Mr. Snyder responded that the Council gives weight to evidence received, and that they would be making a decision at the conclusion of the process. Mr. Sargent noted that the copy of the building permit did not mention anything about props. He submitted a copy of the Planning Department Building Permit as Exhibit 3. The City Clerk showed this document to Mr. Kantor. Mr. Sargent noted that Mr. Pomeroy claimed to be a long time resident. Yet from what he had been able to determine, Mr. Pomeroy lived in Seattle at 1900 Franklin Avenue. He operated a business called Gem Productions, Inc. from that address, and even had business cards printed to this ef- fect. He pointed out that this was a manufacturing business with 1,800 square footage of space. This was as much square footage as Mr. Sargent's home. The adjacent garage and workshop contained an additional 1,200 square feet, which totaled 2,900 square feet. This was not a very small home occupation situation. Mr. Sargent stated that this was nothing more than a commercial endeavor. He added that Mr. Pomeroy should have applied with full disclosure on the building permit by stating that he was going to manufacture props. He noted that the rest of the neighborhood did not fit in with a commercial site such as this one. Isabelle E dorf, 19213 86th Ave. W., announced that she was greatly concerned and as a result, had attended all hearings regarding -this issue. Ms. Egdorf stated there was a contradiction between the testimony given by the appellant and his attorneys. Mr. Pomeroy stated he used the printing press for his own personal use. Tonight his attorney stated it was an antique over 100 years old and was not used. Mr. Pomeroy had also stated at an earlier time he needed the garage door height because the props are 15 feet high and he needed the trailer to transport his props. She added that testimony by the appellant's attorney this evening indicated that he built small props and carried them in a Greyhound type bus. Ms. Egdorf had checked in Seattle to see if there had been a current business permit issued to Mr. Pomeroy. Mr. Pomeroy had stated at the last hearing that he possessed a business permit. Her investigation had revealed no permit either in Seattle or in King County. She called other local cities, and no permit was listed. She noted that Gem Productions, Inc. was listed with the State as being located at 1900 Franklin Avenue in Seattle. Ms. Egdorf wondered where Mr. Pomeroy's office was located. The following exhibits were entered: Exhibit 4 - Letter of September 17, 1985 to City Council from Bob and Susan Koumaros Exhibit 5 - Letter of September 12, 1985 to City Council from Mr. and Mrs. G. W. Fisher Exhibit 6 - Letter of September 17, 1985 to City Council from Susan J. Bennett Exhibit 7 - Letter of September 17, 1985 to City Council from Marilyn J. Duvall Exhibit 8 - Pertinent Section of Community Development Code Exhibit 9 - Letter of July 9, 1975 from Beresford, Booth, Baronsky & Troimpeter, signed by Susan L.Samuelson, attorney on behalf of cul-de-sac neighbors. Mr. Olson noted that the home occupancy process allowed a commercial venture out of one's home. He added that the site plans showed the square footage of this property, as well as the new build- ing being 30 x 40 feet, or about 1,200 square feet. Gem Productions, Inc. was a corporate enti- ty. He continued that the issue was not how old Mr. Pomeroy was in 1950, but it does indicate that prior to the annexation of this.property to the City of Edmonds there was a long history of this occupation carried on at the appellant's home. Counsel was of the opinion that the home occupancy permit was not even required because of the Grandfather Clause. He continued that with regard to work being done on the premises, this may be so. However, when the building is complet- ed, it will be closed and the appellant will have an opportunity to construct props and sets in a discreet manner behind walls. Counsel added that the problem had been identified as the aesthet- ics of the building. It is viewed as an eyesore in the community. He pointed out that the build- ing complied fully under the building codes and permits under which it was constructed. These activities had been carried on for 25 to 30 years on the premises, so the Council was being re- quested to deal with a "backdoor argument". EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL MINUTES Page 9 September 17, 1985 Councilmember Dwyer voiced his understanding that the appellant constructed props as an employee of the corporation. Counsel replied that the corporation was the entity of the staged productions. Mr. Pomeroy had had a traveling show a few years ago. He had a booking office on Highway 99; however, he had not done this for the past four years. Councilmember Dwyer asked whether Gem Productions purchased the props or rented them from Mr. Pomeroy. Counsel responded that he did not think Mr. Pomeroy had ever produced enough income in the prop building venture to make such a maneuver worthwhile. l Mayor Naughten'commented that there had been a question of the official office for Gem Productions. Counsel replied that the registered agent of the company is the attorney's office. Therefore, if one desired to contact Gem Productions, it would be through the registered agent. Councilmember Nordquist inquired under what name the title to the home in question was regis- tered. Counsel responded that it was registered under Mr. Pomeroy's mother's name, Virginia Pomeroy. Mr. Snyder inquired if the appellant had ever possessed a City of Edmonds business license. Mr. Pomeroy replied that when he had been performing at the old Edmonds High School in downtown Edmonds perhaps 15 years ago, he had maintained an Edmonds business license. Councilmember Jaech pointed out that if this were the case, Mr. Pomeroy did not in fact, possess a current business license to conduct a business in the City of Edmonds. With regard to',the size of the props, Councilmember Ostrom noted that some of them were 15 feet high. Counsel replied that in the course of the proceedings before the Hearing Examiner, someone asked Mr. Pomeroy about the largest prop he had ever constructed. He continued that the apprehen- sions stemmed from the fact that there is a very large door 12 high on the building, which cre- ates the notion that one could move a very large object in and out of that space. He added that the box exhibited earlier this evening represented the largest item currently in production. However, it did not mean that something quite large could not be constructed. He continued that the building was large enough so that a Seafair float could be constructed within and brought out through the door. Councilmember Ostrom inquired whether an extra door was built into the side of the bus for props. He noted that one could carry a small box such as the one displayed this evening into the bus through the regular door. Counsel replied that a Greyhound bus is not designed to haul freight, so it,would be easier to load a "suitcase" through a side door. Councilmember Nordquist asked about the second floor of the building. The attorney responded that roughly half of the building floor space was on a second level which contained four small work rooms and a roughed in toilet. He noted that all of the space was in a semifinished state. The side with the high door had a small loft -like storage area that did not have a full floor. He added that it was simply a small loft that was above the door. Councilmember Nordquist read aloud the bottom of page five and the top of page six of ; Mr. Kantor's August 19, 1985 letter, and reflected that there was almost preparation for living quarters on the second floor. Counsel replied that working space required the convenience of a commode, but this was only a roughed in toilet and sink, rather than a full bath. He welcomed the Council tol,physically view the space in question. Councilmember Jaech inquired how much of the square footage area was in the house. Counsel re- plied that the house was of an irregular shape, and the garage was an integral part of the whole house. Councilmember Wilson commented in response to Councilmember Jaech's question regarding square footage in the house, he had viewed Exhibit 2, and noted this diagram showed the square footage of the existing residence to be 1,868 square feet. There was also 1,200 square feet of the new addition on the main floor level, with approximately 600 square feet of storage and work room space in the open loft area above the garage. Counsel clarified a point of confusion. He stated that the western half of the garage contained a floor eight feet above the main level which housed a roughed in commode, storage space and work rooms. The eastern half of the garage contained a 12,foot high door. Over the door was the loft. It was really a platform that project- ed out five feet above the garage door, where materials could be placed. It was noted that this was separate from the 600 square feet in the western half of the garage. It represented a space of 5 x 20 square feet, with head room of four to five feet, due to the roof slope. Councilmember Jaech inquired about the purpose of the 600 square feet of space if it was not going to be uti- lized.for living space. Counsel replied that it would be utilized to house a sewing machine to construct cloth props, a place for storage of costumes, and an area for maintaining records and various activities that relate to the business operations within the garage. Councilmember Jaech asked about the present activity within the garage. Counsel replied that before tonight's meet- ing, he had walked through the garage. The whole garage was being used for storage of materi- als. It contained a table saw, band saw, drill press, dry wall, metal cutting machine, electri- cal material and a number of other items which because of the congestion, were not really us- able. He added that it was the operation that must be organized to accommodate the tools used. EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL MINUTES Page 10 September 17, 1985 Mayor Naughten closed the public hearing. He asked if the Council wished to continue this matter to a future date, or if they wished to proceed. Councilmember Kasper noted that the discus- sion had contained statements that with the home occupation permit, one could not manufacture something for sale on the site. Mr. Snyder read paragraph (e) of Code Section 20.20.020, Criteria for Home Occupation Permits. Councilmember Kasper had noted that most of the items manufactured on site were sold elsewhere. Councilmember Wilson voiced his desire to act upon the matter. Councilmember Dwyer wished to continue the hearing to a future date, and also requested access to all of the exhibits. Councilmember Ostrom indicated that he wished to carefully read all of the documents submitted before making a decision. He was of the opinion that the matter should be continued to another meeting. Mayor Naughten commented that the next available date for consideration of this item would be October 15, 1985. Ms. Parrett, City Clerk, volunteered to make photocopies of the exhibits for inclusion in Council folders, and that Exhibit 2 would be housed for viewing in the Council office. COUNCILMEMBER KASPER MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER DWYER, TO CONTINUE FOR DECISION THE HEARING ON APPEAL OF HEARING EXAMINER'S DECISION REGARDING HOME OCCUPATION PERMIT (FILE POMEROY/CU-9-85) TO THE COUNCIL MEETING OF OCTOBER 15, 1985. MOTION CARRIED. Mr. Snyder stated that the items from the Hearing Examiner were part of the official record. He asked if the Council were going to accept the packet containing some, but not all, of the exhib- its. Councilmember Ostrom replied that Council would accept what had been given to them. Mr. Snyder pointed out that there were a number of items referred to that members had not yet seen. He added that this was a de novo hearing and anything that was not entered into the record would not be considered by the Council. He read aloud Section 20.105.040, paragraph C(1) of the Code (page 267), and stated this Section implied all of the items at the Hearing Examiner level, as well as those submitted tonight, were included in the record, and were an official part of the proceeding. He asked if Council wished the examination list from staff to be made available. Councilmember Dwyer was of the opinion that an employee should be made guardian of the documents, for check out by Council members. He voiced his willingness to leave it to the discretion of the Mayor regarding the process. Mayor Naughten noted that it was 10:00 p.m. and that the meeting was adjourned. COUNCILMEMBER DWYER MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER OSTROM, TO REOPEN THE MEETING. MOTION CARRIED. Councilmember Jaech asked for clarification regarding whether the materials received tonight would be made part of the packet. Mayor Naughten asked if Council members wished these materials sent to them. Councilmember Ostrom replied affirmatively. He added his concern that Ms. Egdorf be allowed to include the piece of evidence she had tried to submit this evening after some of the public had departed. Mr. Snyder emphasized that state law provides that a hearing may not be reopened after individuals have left the meeting room. He noted that a number of individuals had already departed. Therefore, the procedure would preclude anyone from sending a letter to the City Council regarding this item. There was a recess taken at 10:05 p.m., and the meeting reconvened at 10:15 p.m. FINAL COUNCIL REVIEW OF PLANNING BOARD RECOMMENDATIONS FOR IMPLEMENTATION OF HIGHWAY 99 STUDY Mayor Naughten noted that tonight's meeting represented the final Council review on this item. Councilmember Jaech requested clarification regarding passage of the actual ordinance. She sug- gesed that the ordinance be discussed for passage or changes, after which the Council could set up work sessions so that the implementation strategies in Chapter 6 beginning on page 34 could be discussed individually. Councilmember Jaech continued that the one ordinance did not encompass all of the strategies such as the Bill of Rights, the arterial locations, street closures, park- ing prohibitions, access controls, etc. Councilmember Hall asked if, in fact, the Council was ready to action the Planning Board Highway 99 Implementation Report, after which the City Attor- ney would draft an encompassing ordinance for presentation to the Council. Mr. Snyder mentioned that there were some technicalities at the beginning and the end which he wished to insert in proper ordinance form. Reid Schockey, Planning Consultant, suggested that the action needed tonight was adoption of the study. He recommended that the Council adopt the report, instruct the City Attorney to prepare ordinances to encompass the Comprehensive Plan and the Zoning Code, after which the Council could discuss in workshop sessions what they wished to implement at a later time. Councilmember Kasper asked at what posture the deletion of Doces and Dawson City as commercial high rise nodes would be tackled. Mr. Schockey suggested that the Council could adopt the Plan- ning Board Highway 99 Implementation Report, accept the ordinances as prepared by Mr. Snyder, and then amend the Plan to include Doces and Dawson City. Councilmember Nordquist queried why the Plan could not just be accepted, rather than adopted. Mr. Schockey replied that the Council had developed the community's consensus on a strategy; therefore, it should be adopted as such. EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL MINUTES Page 11 September 17, 1985 Councilmember Dwyer wished to pass an ordinance tonight. He asked if Mr. Snyder was saying this could not be done. Mr. Schockey responded that when the ordinance was proposed,A t had not been intended as a draft, it was merely a format. He added that all of the substantive provisions were before the Council at this time. Mr. Schockey pointed out that Section C.1 under "Prohibit- ed Uses" on page 30 of the report should be corrected by inserting "or commercial high rise" after the words "Highway 99 Commercial Area". He added that unless these words were inserted, the Council would be allowing residential uses on the first two floors of buildings on Highway 99, and this was not the intention of the Planning Board. Mr. Schockey felt this could be correct- ed by the City Attorney when the ordinance was written. COUNCILMEMBER OSTROM MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER HALL, TO ADOPT THE HIGHWAY 99 IMPLEMENTATION REPORT, AND THAT THE CITY ATTORNEY BE INSTRUCTED TO DRAFT ORDINANCES FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION BY OCTOBER 8, 1985. MOTION CARRIED BY A VOTE OF FIVE IN FAVOR AND COUNCILMEMBER NORDQUIST AGAINST, WITH COUNCILMEMBER KASPER ABSTAINING, BECAUSE HE BELIEVED THE COUNCIL TO BE ABDICATING THE POLITICAL DECISION TO THE PLANNING BOARD WITHOUT COMPLETE DISCUSSION OF THE ISSUES. Mayor Naughten commented that by so voting, the Council had adopted the Plan, and that ordinances would be prepared accordingly. Upon ordinance approval, the Council would have adopted a strate- gy for implementing the Highway 99 policy, Mr. Schockey added that if Councilmember Jaech wished to raise a particular issue within a strategy for the balance of the Plan, this could be accom- plished through a workshop. Mr. Snyder added that another alternative might be to implement a long term discussion between the Planning Board and the residents to provide a basis from which to operate. REPORT ON BIDS FOR REROOFING OF PUBLIC SAFETY AND COMMUNITY SERVICES BUILDINGS AND AWARD OF N R T Mr. Hahn reported that there had been only two responsive bidders for this project. The low bidder was Lynx Enterprises, which had been investigated after the 2:00 p.m. bid opening on September 16. The investigation included previous jobs, quality of work and ability to accom- plish this type of job in a timely manner. He added that this had been a base bid for a one ply roof, with a two ply alternate and an additive for doing the work in off hours for a total of $68,190.18. An amount of $57,810 was available for this job, which was $10,380 short of the bid amount. However, $30,000 had been budgeted for insulation of these two buildings in the CIP Fund. Mr. Hahn recommended that $10,000 be taken from the insulation budget in order to con- struct a two ply roof, which would be a vast improvement over a one ply roof. The bid could then be awarded to Lynx Enterprises so that work could begin immediately. Mr. Hahn pointed out that the warranty period covered 10 years for the product, and labor was guaranteed for either one or two years. Councilmember Ostrom asked about the square footage to be covered. Mr. Hahn did not remember the amount. Councilmember Wilson noted that the Council had been "burned" with some low bids in the past. He inquired how the bidders had been checked, as the bid amount discrepancy between the two bidders was substantial. Mr. Hahn responded that the other low bidder had submit- ted a bid that was about the same as Lynx Enterprises. However, that company had to drop outs, so the $66,190.18 figure was "in the ballpark". He added that the successful bidder must submi t references for previous jobs accomplished. In this way, the City can determine whether there` were any problems and if the roof is still performing as it was intended. It was noted that the successful bidder must also be bonded. Councilmember Jaech inquired how long the successful bidder had been',in business. Mr. Hahn responded he was not exactly certain, but it amounted to quite a number of years. He added that the low bidder's address was in Federal Way, which is in King County. COUNCILMEMBER KASPER MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER OSTROM, THAT THE TWO PLY BID OF $68,190.18 BE ADOPTED, AND,THAT THE $57,810 AMOUNT BE APPROPRIATED MAINTENANCE FROM FUND 116, WITH THE BAL- ANCE OF $10,380,COMING FROM FUND 325. MOTION CARRIED. ON BID. OPENING FOR YOST POOL BUILDING ADDITION AND AUTHORIZATION TO AWARD NCTDIITTT N C�1 C�Ao 09 r.,.,+,..,,e --- ­14-- Roger Hertrich,'10022,00 Puget Drive, noted that the renovation included an extended deck with a spa, If the poolrenovation novation were to occur within the confines of the present borderline, it would be drawn through the middle of the spa. However, if the spa were moved, the cover would be adequate. He proposed that the Council reconsider this and vote for approval of an inflated cover that could be successfully taken down each summer. He noted that a pool cover was going to be erected on Saturday, September 21 at the Newport Hills Pool, and invited Councilmembers to attend. Mr. Hertrich also noted the lack of an anchor system for the pool.cover, and added that viewing the Newport Hills pool could help to determine whether or not anchors would be required for Yost Pool. Mr. Hertrich estimated it would cost about $50,000 for an inflated cover, versus $150,000 for structural enclosure of the pool. In order to keep the area heated and inflated, it would probably cost about $600 per month. However, this amount could be reduced if blankets covered the pool, at night. He displayed a piece of rubber -type material manufactured by Seaman EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL MINUTES Page 12 September 17, 1985 Corporation, and noted that this company was constructing such a cover for the Lynnwood Pool. Mr. Hertrich envisioned one of the covers for Yost Pool like those in the Seaman Corporation brochure which was distributed to the Council. He pointed out that the life span was guaranteed ten years, and with proper maintenance, he thought it might last ten to twenty years. Mr. Steve Simpson, Manager of the Parks & Recreation Division, noted that air structures had been discussed, but had not been considered very long, due to the higher operational costs, as well as the fact that they were not as aesthetically pleasing as other types of structures. He requested the Council to consider the cost of operation for an air structure over a pool. As far as the deck and spa were concerned, they would be installed last, perhaps as late as next spring. Mr. Simpson stressed the critical nature of early action. He added that if an air structure over the pool were desired, the anchors could be handled with a change order. Councilmember Hall stated she had just visited the Lynnwood and Lake Forest Park Pools. One of * the complaints of the Lake Forest Park staff had been that droplets falling from the cover were quite cold. She envisioned something a little more permanent that would be compatible with the present renovation plans. Mr. Simpson suggested that changes could be made to accommodate the existing plan and if a change order were needed to move the spa, this could also be accomplished. Mr. Hertrich informed Councilmember Hall that the droplets were caused by condensation, which could be corrected by proper heating and ventilation. Councilmember Jaech requested clarification regarding the bid before the Council. She asked exactly what the City would be receiving for its money, and queried whether it included the spa or if the amount was strictly for repairs to make the pool'usable for next year. Mr. Simpson replied that the item before the Council was the roofing of the locker room and the mechanical room, which presently leaked. He noted that the anchoring question was part of the plan which had been delayed last week. What the Council had considered last week was the deck, the plaster- ing and the renovation of the pool. Councilmember Kasper noted that the Council had decided that instead of spending money to insu- late the building, it might be better to build an open structure on top of the deck and put a roof on it. This would prevent the water from coming in below, and that this had nothing to do with the item before the Council last week. He added that this week's agenda item would create 3,200 feet of open space that could be developed for recreation, but it was less expensive than repairing the roof, so he had no objections. Councilmember Hall pointed out that she wanted a "first class operation" that would be suitable for the pool. Councilmember Ostrom mentioned that bids did not have to be held up, because the Council had a little bit of latitude for decision on this item. COUNCILMEMBER NORDQUIST MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER KASPER,THAT THE CONTRACT FOR THE YOST POOL ADDITION BE AWARDED TO JAGER CONSTRUCTION IN THE AMOUNT OF b.51,549.96. MOTION CARRIED. MAYOR Mayor Naughten reported he had received a revenue update on the Cultural Arts, Stadium and Conven- tion District, which included a request for the Council to make some decisions about the hotel/mo- tel amusement tax. He asked if the Council would like to continue this item for consideration at a public hearing on October 15, 1985. It was left to the Mayor's discretion to add this item to the October 1, 1985 agenda to recommend scheduling the CASD request for a public hearing on Octo- ber 15, 1985 regarding discussion of taxing considerations. Mayor Naughten mentioned that the National League of Cities was requesting two delegates to at- tend the convention which will be held in Seattle during December. Both a delegate and an alterna- te for this meeting were solicited. The Parks & Recreation Division was complimented for their new fall program brochure. Mayor Naughten advised that October 1, 1985 marked the date for removal of all of the plantings within the City. COUNCIL Councilmember Jaech noted that not only was the Architectural Design Board overloaded with work, but it had also been a long time since the Council had met with them. She recommended that a joint meeting be scheduled on October 8, 1985 to discuss changing their meeting times to twice a month. Councilmember Jaech also requested that each member be notified of this joint meeting. Councilmember Nordquist stated he would make certain invitation letters were sent. *See October 1, 1985 Minutes. EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL MINUTES Page 13 September 17, 1985 Councilmember Kasper complimented Mr. Hahn on his perseverance of the secondary sewer issue. Councilmember Wilson announced that the switch on his microphone was broken, and requested that it be repaired. Councilmember Nordquist reiterated Mayor Naughten's solicitation for two delegates to attend the National League of Cities convention in Seattle December 7 through 11, 1985. He promised to send a memo regarding the convention so that members could determine whether they would like to attend. I Councilmember Nordquist noted that 30 applications for the position of Council Assistant had been received, and stated that the list would be narrowed to five viable candidates. He suggested that members meet on Tuesday, September 24, 1985 at 7:00 to interview the five top applicants. Councilmember Hall thanked Steve Simpson, Parks & Recreation Manager, for showing her nephew around the City of Edmonds. She also suggested that the flower baskets be left to wilt, as it would be pleasant to be able to view them for another two weeks. ADJOURNMENT THERE BEING NO FURTHER BUSINESS, IT WAS MOVED AND SECONDED THAT THE MEETING BE ADJOURNED AT 11:30 P.M. MOTION CARRIED. JA QUELINE G'�. PARRETT, City -Clerk LARRY S. NAUGHTEN, Mayor EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL MINUTES Page 14 September 17, 1985