Laserfiche WebLink
'.113;,. `.'. 108 <br />[R 6[�g <br /> 7��( � <br /> Aug 6, <br /> 19 86 <br /> seta forth thep 1u[county/city <br /> relationship <br /> tiskionehip <br /> forgetting, <br /> ;t <br /> ht protect done 1 el nn The agreement <br /> should e <br /> r <br /> participation by Lynnwood,Edmonds,Mountlake Terrace,Arlington <br /> ,i other cunt cities. <br /> yAlso, county officials Iritated they would welcome Y'comments <br /> I ij,r u[ consultant Quid haveregarding the scope k f M1e <br /> consulting contract wunderconsideration by fcounty prepare <br /> 9 /1'1141 <br /> 41 1 the RPO/RFT and the otherdetails. The Everett City <br /> Council <br /> requests you authorize Bob o and schedule a <br /> S mwith county staff and/or county consultant begin the <br /> ( ikI necessary planning <br /> 1117 He said he felt this memo incorporated the council' thoughtsen <br /> his important subject. <br /> 11[,111[1111 <br /> d by Councilman Overstreet, seconded Councilman Stephenson <br /> thatthe Mayorbe to prepareaggament with the <br /> i d. which sites the project in Everett <br /> a h <br /> county/city relationship for eheP[]etc done l <br /> 11 t [Mk1 manna hepreparationof RPO/REP <br /> details <br /> ltdirect the citstaff ed authorize Bob Keegan <br /> yyi withhe county staff and/ consultant to represent the the e <br /> 1[ 4 <br /> erY planning. <br /> F�R� }yy 11 called h all councilmen voting y <br /> " r, .1t Motion carried. <br /> 3 7k+tk HEARING EXAMINER <br /> 5 +l apliwdtp.t,grcyl,aoea[ttmna11-1d <br /> d xxn lo[wh1h 1.1[°'; <br /> Othe <br /> 5iDensity Core Residential aonehe applicant was issued an 699 <br /> emit to allow k day care 12 children in vo dwelling sunnits in <br /> owner °be rented, the other would two <br /> the day careand <br /> ano <br />,n(ytldl occupied. The applicant ed <br /> 3[,"� cud by <br /> k #[ 11(y Y increase he day ca[ from 12 for 25 children and ha t duplex <br /> he <br /> PC t11 I0, ems 88861 lex unit.a The day care would y owner-occupied. <br /> denied on May 2, 1986andk reconsiderationdenied <br /> t ` I on June t13 es1986. Planning staff nconcU to with the p 1 that <br /> N the duplex should be allowed to co a triplex 1 6 d <br /> H;'• 1 <br /> {tl areata Tpork an increaseof children without providing larger Play <br /> 'q 9j7 ;: of City Attorney, said..under the city's d M1 <br /> t e'the <br /> � �i� eating Examiner's decision is s final unless n anneal 1mad.t directions F W city council. h it may call for a publichearing <br /> on y appeal oo remand thisback t the Hearing Examiner with e . �1, a change b a to the SPU.) variousd <br /> p:OP: <br /> 1!� �t Councilman <br /> unty oda said they asked df erballY was <br /> aware <br /> of <br /> fPprev f Play <br /> FhI�Mf that they d allowed butbehad no received hi Iin <br /> t fi [[01 writing yet M1 questioned the amt of space in the back <br /> 7 where they proposed Put their parking area. <br /> �Ir Mr ood said thi oingcv <br /> ko onpletly reno ate both house°an <br /> 1 ¢ doathe p <br /> lot construction w ork v he back in preparation for <br /> �i t expanding area <br /> i <br />