Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout07-07-1980139 AUBURN, WASHINGTON MONDAY JULY 7, 1980 The regular meeting of the City of Auburn Council convened at 8:00 p.m. in the City of Auburn Council Chambers. ROLL CALL COUNCILMEMBERS: Councilmembers Roegner, Craig, Larson, Hitchcock and Flechsig present. Councilmembers Kitchell and Lea excused. STAFF: Mayor Stan Kersey; Jack Bereiter, City Attorney; Len Chapman, Parks & Recreation Director; Dan Clements, Finance Director; Jim Gibson, Police Chief; Bill Herold, Personnel Director; John Holmes, Library Director; Coralee McConnehey, City Clerk; Pat Nevins, Public Works Director; George Schuler, Planning & Community Development Director.; Will Spencer, Fire Chief; Bruce Thun, Airport Director. It was moved by Roegner, seconded by Flechsig, to approve the minutes of the June 2, 1980, Council meeting with the following addition on Page 8, Item No. 12, line three: Add the 00 word "not" after, "and it had,". MOTION CARRIED Iq PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. Mayor Kersey declared the public hearing open on the Final Assessment Roll of Local Q Improvement District 295 providing for watermain construction on Auburn Way North C( from 40th to 49th Streets N.E. The City Clerk read a letter from Harvey and Dorothy Thompson objecting to the assess- ment. Mrs. Thompson was present in the audience. No one spoke for or against the assessment. A It was moved by Flechsig, seconded by Roegner, the public hearing be closed. MOTION CARRIED Craig asked what the objection of the Thompson's was. Mayor Kersey said there was a question of the measurements. Schuler stated this would not affect passage of the final assessment roll. It was moved by Craig, seconded by Larson, to instruct the City Attorney to draw up the necessary ordinance approving the Final Assessment Roll of Local Improvement District 295 upon resolving of the measurement problem of Mr. & Mrs. Thompson. ROLL CALL VOTE: All Councilmembers voted YES MOTION CARRIED 2. Mayor Kersey declared the public hearing open on the request of Wembley Enterprises, Ltd., to rezone from Unclassified to R-2 (Single Family) and R-4 (Multi -Family) a parcel of land approximately 152 acres in size lying south of 52nd St. N.E. and west of the Green River. (Application 27-79) The Planning Commission recommends denial of the request for R-4 (Multi -Family) and approval of an R-2 (Single Family) classification granted on the entire parcel with a Conditional Use Permit for multi -family units to be granted under the provisions of the R-2 zoning classification and that the site development plans shall be subject to the review and approval of the Planning Department and City Council Planning and Community Development Committee. Consideration should also be given to any requirements of the Public Works Department. The City Clerk read a letter to David Millard, Land Planning and Management, Inc., from Ronald Thompson asking for resolution to the problem of access on 49th Street N.E. and screening. Dave Millard, Land Planning and Management, Inc „ representing Wembley Enterprises, Ltd asked the Council (1) to concur with staff and Planning Commission recommendations, (2) elimination of the Comprehensive Plan revision Item 1 regarding the 5 acre tracts (3) approve the rezone and (4) approve the master plan for Greenmeadows. He showed the Council the master plan and submitted a copy for the record. He stated at this time they could not support vacation of 49th Street N.E. until they knew they would not need that street for access. Ron Thompson, Thompson, Krilich, LaPorte, stated his letter generally_stated._their-,pos -1- 140 AUBURN WASHINGTON MONDAY JULY 7, 1980 and concern about the traffic congestion which would result if 49th Street N.E. was used for access to the development. He felt a traffic survey should be done. He added they were in support of the rezone but the traffic and screening solutions should be made a part of the rezone. Ronald Stein, 15425 6th S.W., Seattle, spoke in support of the development. He said he was a property owner with frontage on 49th Street and would like to see development of this project because he would not be able to develop his property. He added vacation of 49th Street would put his property in jeopardy because he needs the street. Ruth Fletcher, 2710 Forest Ridge Dr., spoke in opposition to the request. She said several weeks ago when the Council reviewed the proposed changes to the Comprehensive Land Use Plan the recommendation affecting this property was referred back to the 'Planning 6 Community Developm ne Committee. She felt action on this request at this time would not be appropriate. It was moved by Roegner, seconded by Larson, that the public hearing be closed. MOTION CARRIED It was moved by Roegner, seconded by Craig, to table action on the request of Wembley Enterprises to rezone from Unclassified to R-2 and R-4 (Application 27-79) be tabled until the next regular Council meeting. MOTION CARRIED Hitchcock added a point of information that the Street Committee was waiting until the applicant decides whether they want to vacate the street before taking action on the vacation. 3. Mayor Kersey declared the public hearing open on the request of Skyview Associates to rezone from Unclassified to R-2 (Single Family) a parcel of land 40 acres in size located southwesterly of Oravetz Road. (Application 4-80) The Planning Commission recommended - approval of this request from Unclassified to R-2 (Single Family) with a Conditional Use Permit to be granted an the north portion of the site designated ' for townhouses and be restricted to a density in accordance with the R-2 densities outlined in our Comprehensive Plan which is up to six (6) dwelling units per acre instead of 9 as they have shown. Consideration should be given to any requirements of the Public Works Department. Tom Barghausen, Cavness Engineers, representing Skyview Associates, gave a brief history of the project. He noted there had been concerns regarding the topography of the property. He showed the Council an illustration of how the property could possibly be used. He also showed the Council an illustration of the zoning classifica- tions of property nearby noting several parcels which have been reclassified as R-2. Barghausen explained how access will be obtained to the property by way of new street known as London Drive. This will be provided at developer expense. He stated the reason the illustrative example was divided into twotypesof development, single family and cluster dwellings, was because of the City's restriction of 10% grade on public streets. This type of proposal would permit utilization of public streets and provide private streets in the cluster areas where there is more slope. Barghausen explained the benefits of cluster housing in cost to service the area and other savings. He stated through the use of L.I.D.'s in the area, which are all developer paid, the City will end up with major trunk facilities extended to the development in this area. He stated for verification that George Schuler's memos of May 28 and June 19, 1980, describing the density of the two divisions of the development that there has not been a definite line drawn and will probably not be until a field topographic survey is done along with some economic considerations. He said the applicant would want to retain as much flexibility in development at this preliminary stage. He felt the rezone should be approved with the stipulation and any cluster development be kept to a 6 unit per gross acre density with any portions remaining as single family would be left at 4 units per gross acre. He noted the request is a non -action type of request in that no building permit or any active permits are being requested at this time and felt the EIS requirement requested by George Schuler should be dropped from the rezone request and properly applied and the time of development request. He proposed the request was consistent and in line with the Comprehensive Land Use Plan and existing and planned uses in the area. No one else spoke for or against the request. It was moved by Flechsig, seconded by Larson, to close the public hearing. MOTION CARRIED -2- AUBURN WASHINGTON MONDAY JULY 7, 1980 Craig expressed concern about the procedure of having an EIS come back to the Council. He felt there should be some way to be consistent. Roegner asked Pat Nevins about the four items mentioned in Mary Seabrands memo of March 13, 1980. Nevins stated they understood there was a problem and were working on it. Before the development could begin the problems would have to be resolved. Roegner asked about the vacancy rate in Auburn. Schuler stated a windshield survey indicated about a 1% vacancy rate. He added he concurred with Nevins that prior to having the plat finalized they would have to satisfy Public Works requirements. Roegner asked Barghausen if the Council required an EIS would the developer pay the costs. Barghausen stated Cavness was preparing a EIS for London Square Associates and in conjunction as suggested by Schuler preparing one on this proposal. He said they were hoping, and felt it was reasonable, to expect the rezone to be approved without having to proceed completely through the EIS process. He noted the developer was aware an EIS may be required so they have the wheels in motion. Roegner clarified his question asking whether the developer would be willing to reimburse the City if the City designates someone to do an EIS. Baughausen said it would depend on the cost. Larson recalled the rezone on London Square was contingent upon approval of the EIS. Schuler said yes it was contingent upon no adverse effects being found in the EIS. Larson asked if this could be done here also so the money would not be spent without the knowledge the rezone would be approved. Schuler stated they were concerned too about this on the London Square rezone, however, they weren't as concerned with the R-2 classification because it is what our Comprehensive Land Use Plan sets forth. He added what Barghausen was saying was true because even if the Council rezoned the entire parcel R-2 they would not issue a Conditional Use Permit until the developer came back with a final concept. Hitchcock recommended approval of the concept contingent upon approval of the EIS. ' Craig thought the City should have a list of qualified people who could do an EIS which the developer could choose. He felt a developer doing his own EIS wasn't appropriate. Flechsig asked Barghausen what assurance does the City have the entire development would not go into cluster housing. Barghausen stated the question would be answered at the time a plat was submitted in order to obtain a building permit. Flechsig wondered also if the northerly portion would have a greater grade of 10% on the roads. Barghausen stated they were aware portions of the development would have to be filled and graded,however, approval of City departments would cover any concerns. It was moved by Roegner, seconded by Craig, to approve the request of Skyview Associates to rezone from Unclassified to R-2 (Application 4-80) and to follow the Planning Director's recommendations in his June 19, 1980, memo, specifically in the fifth paragraph with the addition that the City shall designate someone to perform the EIS and the developer be required to quarantee payment of the work. It was moved by Hitchcock, seconded by Flechsig, to amend the motion to name a person to prepare the EIS who would be agreeable to both the City and the developer. Larson spoke against the motion stating at this time the City has no list of qualified people who could do an EIS. Craig stated several months ago Nevins had obtained a list from the County and he understood the motion to mean the developer could choose from the list. Barghausen asked for clarification since his firm is not the developer of the project; they are merely under contractural agreement to do site plan. He said they are also qualified to do an EIS and it was common policy because they had reviewed the project site to go ahead and prepare the impact statement. In this case because they are also working on the EIS for London Square and another one in the area they have already started an EIS for this project. He noted and EIS is merely a presentation of data consistent with State environmental guidelines. This data is reviewed by any agency involved. -3- AUBURN WASHINGTON MONDAY JULY 721980 He said he felt it would be unreasonable to say his firm could not prepare an EIS because they had prepared a site plan. ROLL CALL VOTE ON AMENDMENT: Councilmembers Hitchcock, Flechsig, Roegner and Craig voted YES. Councilmember Larson voted NO. MOTION CARRIED ROLL CALL VOTE ON MOTION AS AMENDED: Councilmembers Roegner, Craig, Hitchcock and Flechsig voted YES. Councilmember Larson voted NO. MOTION CARRIED 4. Mayor Kersey declared the public hearing open on the request of Clarence W. Burnside to rezone from R-2 (Single Family) to C-1 (Light Commercial) a parcel of land approxi- mately 20,000 sq. ft. in size located on the east side of Harvey Road in the 900 block. (Application 11-80) The Planning Commission recommends approval of this request because it does conform to our Comprehensive Land Use Plan. It is located on a major arterial street and will conform to existing commercial useson,both sides of the subject site. Consideration should also be given to any requirement of the Public Works Department. No one spoke for or against the -request. It was moved by Hitchcock, seconded by Larson, to close the public hearing. MOTION CARRIED It was moved by Hitchcock, seconded by Larson, to grant the request of Clarence W. Burnside to rezone from R-2 to C-1 andithe City Attorney be instructed to draw up the necessary ordinance to include the recommendations of the Public Works Department. ROLL CALL VOTE: All Councilmembers voted YES MOTION CARRIED 1 5. Mayor Kersey declared the public hearing open on the request of Miles Sand and Gravel Co. for an extension of an existing Special Permit for the removal of sand and gravel from a parcel of land approximately 25 acres in size located in the northwest corner of Section 33, Twp 21 N, R5 EWM and lying northerly of the Bonnevile Power Line easement. (Application 12-80) The Planning Commission recommends approval of the extension of the ' permit for gravel removal including the 14 conditions listed in City Ordinance No. 2884 together with the following: (1) Prior to removal of any additional material from the site a traffic plan shall be submitted to the Public Works Department for their approval. This traffic plan shall show improvement required to provide access to and from the haul road from any public street. (2) All haul roads shall be oiled to prevent dust. (3) If required by Public Works Department, a flagman may be required to provide traffic control. Consideration should also be given to any requirements of the Public Works Department. The City Clerk read a letter from Frank L. Miles, Miles Sand and Gravel Co., requesting an extension of time to resolve traffic problems with local residents. Mayor Kersey asked if anyone in the audience could not appear at a later date. No one responded. It was moved by Roegner, seconded by Hitchcock, to approve an extention to a later date on the request of Miles Sand and Gravel Co. for an extension of an existing Special Permit (Application 12-80) and the applicant pay any advertising costs incurred as a result of the delay. MOTION CARRIED 6. Mayor Kersey declared the public hearing open on the request of U-Haul Company of Western Washington to rezone from R-2 (Single Family) and C-1 (Light Commercial) to C-3 (Heavy Commercial) a parcel of land 87,120 sq. ft. in size located on the west side of Auburn Way South in the 900 block. (Application 14-80) The Planning Commission recommends approval of this request because it will conform to the Comprehensive Land Use Plan for highway oriented commercial uses allowed under the C-3 (Heavy Commercial) classification. Consideration should be given to any recommendations of the Public Works Department. Also, that the final site plan design the exit to be as far south on the site as possible to provide a better site distance as recommended by the Police Department. Councilmember Larson left the room at this point because of a direct interest in this rezone. No one spoke for or against the request. It was moved by Hitchcock, seconded by Craig, to close the public hearing. MOTION CARRIED -4- 143 AUBURN, WASHINGTON MONDAY JULY 7, 1980 Craig asked if at this time this was just a rezone and the question of exiting would come later. Schuler responded access would be answered at the time a building permit was issued and it is a matter of record the Police Department had recommended access be as southerly as possible. Hitchcock asked if they would be going out onto Auburn Way South flowing to the south and across traffic to go north. Schuler said this was correct. Hitchcock asked if they would be required to install sidewalks. Schuler said this would be required and also noted because there were three separate lots they would be entitled to three drive- ways;this is why it had been made a part of the record the Police Department recommenda- tion to have one access as southerly as possible. Craig asked what would be allowed under C-3 noting one time they had storage. He wondered,.if it would be retail. Schuler responded there would be what was defined as a moving center with dry storage, packing boxes, trailer rental and retail sales of moving equipment. It was moved by Craig, seconded by Roegner, to approved the request of U-Haul Company of Western Washington to rezone from R-2 and C-1 to C-3 (Application 14-80) and the Co City Attorney be instructed to draw up the necessary ordinance to include the location qZT of the exit be designed as far south as possible, and, further, to include the recommenda- qq tions of the Planning Commission and Public Works Department. 0 ROLL CALL VOTE: All Councilmembers voted YES MOTION CARRIED a Q Councilmember Larson returned to the Council Chambers. 7. Mayor Kersey declared the public hearing open on the request of Burke, Corbin and Sauriol to rezone from R-2 (Single Family) to R-4 (Multi -Family) a parcel of land 4.02 acres in size located on the south side of 8th St. N.E. at 11V St. N.E. (Application 15-80) The Planning Commission recommends denial of this request because of the traffic congestion that would result. ' The City Clerk read a letter from Donald Rottle, 911 5th Street N.E., opposing the request. Don Rottle was in the audience and added there were problems already being experienced with traffic and this development would just add to it. Ed Eaton, 920 8th St. N.E., expressed concern with traffic also. However, he was more concerned about the increased number of apartments in the area. He had made a survey of apartments listed in the telephone book and had found out of 1065 apartments there were 120 vacant giving a vacancy rate of about 12%. He felt the City already had plenty of apartments and needed more single family residences. Harold Griggs, 1025 8th N.E., property owner directly across from the parcel in question, was also concerned about the traffic since the road was narrow and there were problems already. He felt the more apartments there were the less incentive there would be to build homes or keep them up. Jay McCane, 19743 1st Ave. So., Seattle, representing the applicants, pointed out his understanding of the R-2 zoning was that to have anything above it would require an R-4 zone other than duplexes. He felt the talk of apartments was not the whole answer because there were other dwellings such as townhouses and condominiums. He stated the Planning Commission recommended denial of the request because of traffic considerations, however the Planning Director indicated the road has a capacity of 4800 cars with the average daily count in 1980 of 1440. He could not see where the traffic was a problem. He said any developer would, probably want to use property such as this in as high a density as allowable while residents would like to see their single family use expanded. He felt since growth was certain the solution was orderly comprehensive planning as the City has done. This permited uniformity and the best use of the land. He presumed the use as outlined in the Comprehensive Land Use Plan was appropriate and normally would be approved while the person opposing the rezone had the burden of showing that it was inappropriate. This request was in conformity with the plan and there are no timing problems such as schools, roads or utility and denial would not be in conformity with the plan. Single family zoning remaining on this property would, he felt, result in the property not being developed --. even single family dwelling growth. He suggested multi -family dwellings be used as a transition between single family and commercial. Herman Ansingh, 909 5th N.E., asked if the traffic survey was taken during school time. -5- 144 AUBURN, WASHINGTON MONDAY JULY 72 1980 He noted the Planning Commission admitted there was .a traffic problem. He said he understood the request meets the Comprehensive Plan, however, he and the residents in the neighborhood felt this area was anfLique area and it deserved to be preserved. He said they had asked to sit with the developer but they had had no response. He felt the issue was where the line was going to be drawn on R-4 zoning. Sidney Lewis, 25322 S.E. 280th St., Enumclaw, owner of property adjacent to the parcel being discussed tonight, wanted to correct Mr. Rottle's statement they were bounded on three sides by single-family homes. He stated it was bounded only on two sides because the third side was his vacant piece of property adjacent to a 45-unit apartment building which has been approved by Rowland Construction as he understood by the courts. He felt the best pse was to blend in. He said he had approached.Mr. Ansingh, Mr. Rottle and some of the other neighbors and as far as he knows he has tried to make a meeting with them and they hadn't sat down. He said he knew the petitioners were willing to sit down and discuss a lower density use. He also knew Mr. Rowland wasn't willing to do the same. Lewis said the neighbors have brought this on themselves because Rowland's attorneys recommend his not talking to them because if he tried to put something better on that property it could open it up to a law suit. He understood it was their intention to put in a 45-unit motel project. Lewis added he knew Rowland wanted to put in some decent townhouses moved away from the property line. He objected to the 45-unit because he felt there could have been a better way to buffer his property. He said he knew the petitioners were willing to provide abetter buffer, however. Clifford Fraser, 902 8th St. N.F., stated he had small kids and there were many small kids in the area so safety was his main concern. Al Buser, 1003 8th St. N.E., property owner directly across from the property, felt the whole problem had been talked about. He stated what they had was a narrow street which was used by high school and college students. He thought if this property was rezoned to R-4 then another piece of property would berezoned and then the developer would put it all together and you would have a real big development. He felt the Council should decide this together not piece by piece. It was moved by Craig, seconded by Roegner, that the public hearing be closed. MOTION CARRIED ' It was moved by Craig, seconded by Flechsig, that the request of Burke, Corbin and Sauriol to rezone from R-2 to R-4 be denied. Larson asked Schuler if the property was rezoned R-4 what would be the maximum number of people which could be put on it. Schuler replied approximately 80 units. Larson asked if it remained an R-2 zone. Schuler responded approximately 6. per acre and 9 per acre for R-3 (4.02 acres in parcel). Roegner stated he was sensitive to the wants of the neighborhood, however, because of the legals problems he felt it would be a good idea to table the matter so the citizens could talk with the developer and possibly resolve the situation. Craig felt some action should be taken one way or the other. He felt the Council should stand up and tell the people what the Council wanted to do because he wasn't sure the problem could be solved with talks. He stated while there may be capacity for a great deal of traffic on 8th St. there was not that much capacity at the intersection. Craig added he felt the Council had two separate issues before it; one on the Rowland property which had been resolved by the judge and the other of whether to repeal an ordinance established in 1968. He stated he thought the Council had the full right to rezone property and up until the property wasbuilt upon the Council had this authority. Hitchcock noted Schuler's letter of June 24, 1980, recommending the request be referred back and wondered why discussions had not been completed as to working out the pros and cons with the neighborhood. Craig thought that was a separate issue since tonight the Council has to decide whether to approve or deny a R-4 zoning. Bereiter asked for clarification if the intent of the motion was to deny the rezone based upon recommendations of the Planning Commission and testimony tonight. The Councilmember agreed this was the case. :.t AUBURN, WASHINGTON MONDAY _ JULY 7, 1980 ROLL CALL VOTE All Councilmembers voted YES MOTION CARRIED It was moved by Craig, seconded by Hitchcock, that the request of Burke, Corbin and Sauriol to rezone from R-2 to R-4 be referred to the Planning & Community Development Committee and the six months restriction for refiling be waived and the Committee report back to the Council on recommendations for possible compromise on this rezone. ROLL CALL VOTE: All Councilmembers voted:YES MOTION CARRIED r It was moved by Hitchcock, seconded by Roegner, that City Ordinance No. 1918 be rescinded due to the Superior Courts ruling on the action and to eliminate further litigation with the City of Auburn. Craig strongly disagreed with the action because he thought the Council ought to let the action the Council had taken run its course. He felt the Council should take no action until a recommendation comes back from the Planning Commission from the hearings they are holding. He said the City is complying with what the citizens.have asked and finally giving them a day in court before their elected officials. He said if Mr. Rowland should start construction then everything would be null and void. Craig added that up until that time the Council had the authority to change zoning in the City. He thought the question the Court 'decided on, in his view, was on the permit. What the Council was acting on was whether the repeal zoning. He felt the Council would be consistent by putting a year's restriction on this Special Use Permit as they have been doing and at that time the Council would have treated it like any other permit. He stated to stop the process now on a Court decision on a separate issue he felt was completed unrelated. Roegner noted when this issued came up recently he opposed it because a vote to not let that development to continue would place a tremendous financial responsiblity on the City. He said if the Council doesn't recind that action the CZty would end up buying the lot. He said any attorney would tell the Council the developer has vested rights and they could not go back not and penalize the developer. ' Hitchcock read from the legal hearings, "Building Permit No. 11942 issued by the City of Auburn to defendent Rowland is valid existing permit and is in full force and effect. The period of time which construction pursuant to the Building Permit must be commenced shall not begin until the date of the entry of this order unless an appeal is filed." He asked Bereiter for his legal opinion on this. Bereiter said he was not unsympathic to what Councilmember Craig was saying regarding the democratic process. He said the'City's action 13 years ago was upheld ' twice in King County Superior Court action. There was a legal question whether this would be appealed by the citizens. He felt it would be an exercise in futility to pursue the possible revocation of such process. Craig wondered if 10 years from now if Rowland had not developed the property and the City had not acted on restricting the permit would we still be sitting here? He wondered why at this time a one year's limit could not be placed on the permit? Bereiter said no it couldn't be done,. however, under the judgement issued by Judge Stear the period for the running of the validity of the building permit started running from the day of the formal entry of the judgement. He added if Rowland doesn't start building within that period of time the building permit would expire. When he comes in .to get a new permit at that time you crank up the SEPA law again. Craig wanted to know how to put the staff on notice that as soon as that building permit expires we want it to come back for action. He asked the staff to be so instructed ' ROLL CALL VOTE: All Councilmembers voted YES MOTION CARRIED 8. Mayor Kersey declared the public hearing open on the request of Waldron, Salisbury, Rutledge, Smith and THB: Clapshaw Venture to rezone from R-2 (Single Family), R-3 (Duplex) and Unclassified to R-4 (Multi -Family) a parcel of land approximately 14.62 acres in size lying on both sides of 37th St. S.E. between"M" St. and a point approximatel 1,000 feet west of "M" Street S.E. (Application 16-80) The Planning Commission recommends approval of this request for R-4 (Multi -Family) use classification. Consider- ation should be given for the reserving of the east 30 feet of the parcel lying on the south side of 37th St. S.E. for the future extension of "M" St. S.E. Consideration -7- r it Yy AUBURN, WASHINGTON MONDAY JULY 7, 1980 should also be given to any requirements of the Public Works Department. Tom Barghausen, Cavness Engineers, representing the applicants, showed an illustration of the site and explained the request is a no -action request because the rezone would only alter the densities allowed on the parcels. He noted it would not change the type of dwelling units which already exist in .the area. He stated the Planning Dept. recommendation did not appear to be consistent with existing land uses and the buffering concept in the north and west. He said Mr. Schuler's recommendation didn't go far enough in allowing the property owners the flexibility to develop the property as they saw fit. Barghausen also noted multi -family dwelling generally means condominiums or ' townhouses today which is a way people just,getting started can get into housing. He expressed concern with Mary Seabrand's recommendation that 37th St. S.E. should be improved to City standards. He felt this should not be a part of the rezone but as a condition of the building permit. Claude Salisbury, 1101 37th St. S.E., property owner in the area, stated his property has been short plotted for R-4 and asked the Council to think about how they were going to put improvements into the area. Everett Smith, 1210 26th St. S.E., one of the owners of the parcel, said he would be happy with. a- R-3 if he could get a variance on the property so he could subdivide a section on 37th Street and give a 50 foot front on each side. It was moved by Craig, seconded by Larson, to close the public hearing. MOTION CARRIED Hitchcock noted there has been a problem in the area with the streets in that the property lines are set up by the County. It was moved by Craig, seconded by Larson, to approve the request of Waldron, Salisbury, Rutledge, SmithandTHB: Clapshaw Venture to rezone from R-2, R-3 and Unclassified to R-4 and instruct the City Attorney to draw up the necessary ordinance to include the recommendations of the Planning Commission and nbting the Engineering comments. ROLL CALL VOTE: Councilmember Craig, Larson, Hitchcock:and Flechsig voted YES. Councilmember Roegner voted NO. MOTION CARRIED CORRESPONDENCE The City Clerk read a letter from Robert C. Van Siclen, Schneider, Smyther, Van Siclen & Reynolds, 29 First Street N.E., asking the Council to reconsider Ordinance No. 3507 on behalf of his client, Mr. Nap Hebert,because they believed the enforcement was Unfair and may even be unconstitutional. AUDIENCE PARTICIPATION Ted Nickson, 523 Aaby Dr., addressed the upcoming action on the request for extention of a Special Property Use Permit for the removal of sand and gravel on a parcel of land 40 acres in size located on the west hill adjacent to 60th Ave. South. (Application 9-80) He stated he thought there was a requirement to have a public hearing on the change in the master plan for grading. He suggested extending the permit and tying the grading plan to the Shepard property whose permit will be coming up in two years. Roegner noted the grading plan was being discussed in committee. Nickson felt it required more than discussion in committee. Roegner said he had no objections to the grading plan being reviewed in a public hearing and he added the proposed grading plan was available to Mr. Nickson at any time he wanted to see it. Mrs. Caverly, 135 15th St. S.E., complained of the problems of police patrol in the area of "B" Street and 15th Street N.E. She also felt the response to their calls to the Police Department were not helpful to their problems. She noted one of the problems was the high speed of cars on the street. She wanted to know where to go from here. Larson wanted to see this to go to the Public Safety Committee for review of the police response. Harold Brooker, 1423 "B" St. S.E., said he had appeared before the Street Committee in April. They had told him they would study the problem, see if a temporary hard surfacing JULY could be put on and possibly having the City participating in a L.I.D. since there weren't many property owners along the street. He felt the road was unsafe not only because of what Mrs. Caverly was talking about but because of the loose gravel thrown out when kids are squirrling in the gravel areas. He also mentioned the dust was so bad he had to water down the road to permit him to landscape hisrproperty. Larry Hebert,250 13th St. S.E., also complained about what he and six other representatives of the neighbor considered substandard police protection. He noted one hit and run incident took one hour and 20 minutes for the police to respond. One incident of assault took 35 minutes. He stated some calls about laud parties, loud noise, drunken brawls, underage people with liquor were not even answered. He wondered if (1) this was a result of a faulty decision making process on part of Valley Com, (2) is the City severely undermanned, or (3) is there a lack of supervision of the patrol officers; is there regularly assigned areas to be patrolled? He added he was tired of beer bottles in his yard and parties seven days a week. Wiley Welcome, 202 12th St. S.E., stated he had watched someone lay 100 feet of rubber with a police officer just two blocks away. He said he asked the police officer if he had seen it but the officer said he hadn't yet his yard was full of smoke. He added some drunk even urinated in front of his wife, his roses were run over, beer bottles. were 00 thrown at his fireplace and parts stolen off his pickup (it took 11-2 hours for police to respond). He said he gave one officer permission to park in his driveway and in a half NT NT hour he stopped five cars. 0 Tom Barghausen asked for clarification when he and Mr. Lloyd would be able to speak regarding Q the extention of the Special Use Permit. Q Roegner explained the matter was supposed to come out of the Street Committee, however, there were still some things which needed to be cleared up. It was moved by Roegner, seconded by Hitchcock, to refer the request of Robert Lloyd for an extention of an existing Special Property Use Permit for the removal of sand and gravel on a parcel of land 40 acres in size located on the west hill adjacent to 60th Ave. South (Application 9-80) back to the Street Committee. (Listed under Old Business in agenda.) 'Noland Osher, 246 S. 12th, added to the testimony of problems on 15th Street, stating there had been instances of indecent exposure, fights on lawn and cars racing two abreast down 15th. He said neighbors feel the same in that the response time from the police is so bad why even report it. Harold Banks, 249 13th N.E., asked what do you have to do to get into the Police Chief to get him to check that area. He said he came down and was told by someone at the desk to just call, but their callsdon't do any good. Mayor Kersey,asked if they had try to call him. Banks said no but would. Kersey said he would look into the problems and that he was a little bit critical because no one had called him that there was a problem. Dale Andrews, 1312 "A" St. S.E., stated he was in the audience to ask the Council to adapt Ordinance No. 3518 coming up under Old Business. Roegner asked to respond to Mr. Brooker by giving his apologies the Street Committee had not gotten back to him. He also invited anyone to attend the next Public Safety Committee to discuss the problems on 15th St. Craig said he felt a report on the response time of the Police Department was due since there were too many incidents not to be an isolated case. Mayor Kersey said at this time he could not make a determination where the fault is. He stated any problems with Valley Cam have not been called to his attention for a long time. If it appeared this is where the problem is he would have them come to the Public Safety meeting. He added if this isn't the problem then he'll look further. CONSENT AGENDA It was moved by Roegner, seconded by Flechsig, to approve the consent agenda as indicated: Authority to refer to the Planning Commission for public hearing: coo Ell 148 AUBURN, WASHINGTON MONDAY JULY 7 1980 A. 'The request of Bob Ostlund to rezone from R-3 (Duplex) to C-3 (Heavy Commercial), property located on the east side of "A" Street S.E. in the 1000 block. (Application 20-80) B. The request of Rainbow Car Washes, Inc. to rezone from C-1 (Light Commercial) to C-3 (Heavy Commercial), property located at 1410 Auburn [day South. (Application 21-80) Miscellaneous requests: n C. Authority to call for bids for Water Improvement 131, in conjunction with L.I.D.'s 311 and 312. (Watermain 2nd and "B" Streets S.W.). D. A credit of $15.80 to sanitary sewer utility charge for Josephine Hodges, 4438 Auburn Way North due to incorrect billing because of proximity to sewer line. E. Authority to call for bids on L.I.D. 310 construction, sanitary sewer trunk line in the area of West Main Street and northerly to 2,000 ft. south of 15th N.W. adjacent to SR 167. MOTION CARRIED RECOMMENDATIONS A. It was moved by Roegner; seconded by Larson, to authorize Pay Estimate No. 2 to Frank Coluccio Const. Co., Contract 79-10, "A" Street S.E. construction, in the amount of $382,601.81. Contract Bid Amount $3,029,835.00 Earned to Date 819,598.20 (Incl. $48,433.01 retainage) B. It was moved by Craig, seconded by Larson, to authorize Pay Estimate No. 2 to Pitardi Trucking Co., Inc., Contract 80-04, various sanitary sewer replacements, San. Sewer Imp. /k46, in the amount of $47,060.81. Contract Bid Amount $103,866.61 ' Earned to Date 67,888.22 (Incl. $6,447.12 retainage) C. It was moved by Roegner, seconded by Hitchcock, to authorize Pay Estimate No. 3 to Totem Electric Contract 79-15, St. Imp. 174, construciton of 3 intersection signaliza- tion, in the amount of $74,014.88. Contract Bid Amount $237,345.49 (Incl. change order) Earned to Date 167,108.49 (Incl. $13,349.51 retainage) D. It was moved by Roegner, seconded by Hitchcock, to authorize Pay Estimate No. 10, Contract 79-12 to Robison Const. Co., Inc., St. Imp. 200, Auburn Way North construction, in the amount of $43,720.39. Contract Bid Amount $1,266,918.97 (Incl. change orders) Earned to Date 1,029,139.16 (Incl. $55,985.80 retainage) PROCLAMATIONS, APPOINTMENTS AND ANNOUNCEMENTS Mayor Kersey said due to the action of the Council recently authorizing the enlarging of the Park Board to seven members he was making the following appointment recamnendations: Carl Scarff - term to expire 12-31-82 Koji Nori Kane - term to expire 12-31-82 Yoka Ansingh - term to expire 12-31-81 Mary Tungsvik to continue as a regular member rather than an advisory member - term to expire 12-31-80. It was moved by Larson, seconded by Roegner, that the Council concur with the Mayor's recommendations for appointments to the Park Board. MOTION CARRIED COUNCIL COMMITTEE REPORTS -10- 149 AUBURN. WASHINGTON MONDAY JULY 721980 Roegner noted the final payment on the City Hall was being made and moved to instruct the City Attorney to draw up resolutions thanking the senators and congressional delegation for their help. It was seconded by Larson. MOTION CARRIEll Street and Engineering Committee - Vice -Chairman Bob Roegner Resolution No. 1099 tSOLUTION was moved by Roegner, seconded by Hitchcock, that Resolution No. 1099, entitled,"A OF THE CITY OF AUBURN, WASHINGTON, ADOPTING THE 1981-1986 BIENNIAL REVISIONS AND EXTENSIONS OF THE COMPREHENSIVE STREET PROGRAM OF THE CITY OF AUBURN PURSUANT TO R.C.W. CHAPTER. 35.77 OF THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON," be adopted deleting 22nd, 2�rd, 24th and 25th Streets S.E. ROLL CALL VOTE: All Councilmembers voted YES MOTION CARRIED It was moved by Roegner, seconded by Larson, to authorize implementation of a Neighborhood Patch and Repair Program with existing City dollars. Craig statedhe felt there should be some citizen participation. He could see helping those (_qwho wanted to help themselves but thought it would be unfair to others. People who were ¢here tonight, for example, with problems on 15th St. had worse things to deal with. QRoegner said he approved of the concept and more definite procedures would be worked out in putting the program together. Flechsig wondered if the program was designed to repair, replace or what about those which needed oiling? He asked just what kind of repairs? Roegner replied this program would be for people who have already paid for their streets. It would pay things like a chuckhole from a stump rotting out. titchcock felt a policy should be adopted and brought back to the Council. ROLL CALL VOTE: Councilmembers Roegner and Larson voted YES. Councilmembers Craig, Hitchcock and Flechsig voted N. MOTION FAILED It was moved by Hitchcock, seconded by Flechsig, to refer the proposed Neighborhood Patch and Repair Program back to the Street Committee for proper presentation to the Cou)"�ncil. MOTION CARRIED Public Safety Committee - Chairman Bob Roegner It was moved by Roegner, seconded by Flechsig, to declare as surplus those police radios found obsolete for Police Department use; to offer said radios to other city departments for fair remuneration; and to sell at the next police auction those surplus radios not of use to other city departments. ROLL CALL VOTE: All Councilmembers voted YES MOTION CARRIED It was moved by Roegner, seconded by Flechsig, to authorize a police auction of unclaimed property and city surplus property on July 26th. MOTION CARRIED It was moved by Roegner, seconded by Flechsig, to authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to sign the Emergency Medical Services Contract with King County for $50,000. ROLL CALL VOTE: All Councilmembers voted YES MOTION CARRIED It was moved by Roegner, seconded by Flechsig, to authorize Chief Spencer to attend two two -week schools (Executive Development III and Hazardous Material Spill and Fire Control) September 1-26 at the National Fire Academy, Washington, D.C., and to pay a $260 fee to be charged to the Fire Department budget and salary to be paid during attendance. J. MOTION, CARRIED 0, Utility Committee - Chairman Ron Craig -11- 150 AUBURN, WASHINGTON MONDAY JULY 7, 1980 It was moved by Craig, seconded by Larson, to authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to sign an agreement with the Aeronautic Machinists Inc. outlining City participation in the 12 inch water line needed for fire flow to their proposed building on "B" St. and that the item to be bid with L.I.D. 311. ROLL CALL VOTE: All Councilmembers voted YES MOTION CARRIED Municipal Building & Equipment Maintenance Committee - Chairman Lewis Hitchcock It was moved by Hitchcock, seconded by Larson, to instruct the City Attorney to draw up a resolution authorizing the Mayor to sign the lease with Washington Natural Gas Co. to install a radio base station at the cemetery. ROLL CALL VOTE: All Councilmembers voted YES MOTION CARRIED It was moved by.Hitchcock, seconded by Larson, that retainage in the amount of $148,081.13 less $5,500.00 due the City for delays for a total of $142,581.13 be paid to Merit Company for construction of the Auburn City Hall and, further, that final release of the $5,500.00 will be authorized upon completion of the window repair. ROLL CALL VOTE: All Councilmembers voted YES MOTION CARRIED Finance Committee - Chairman Al Flechsig It was moved by Flechsig, seconded by Craig, to approve claim checks #6511 through #6794 in the amount of $3,410,214.64 and payroll checks #10,799 through #11,386 in the amount of $373,329.42. ROLL CALL VOTE: All Councilmembers voted YES MOTION CARRIED OLD BUSINESS Larson called the Council's attention to the fact that Robert Lloyd was still in attendance and he wondered if there had been some confusion on the extention of his Special Property Use Permit. Craig wondered if a 120 day extention would solve the immediate problem of Mr. Lloyd being shut down because of expiration of his permit. Bob Lloyd, 1920 S. 340th, said this was his season for doing gravel work and he wanted to bid on a job in the valley. Unless he had something definite on the permit he would not be in a position to bid. Craig asked for clarification of the extention of the permit and how the grading plan tied together with the Standard Mining property. Larson stated the public hearing on a grading plan would be on the original plan. Schuler clarified there were two separate issued. One was the extention of the permit and the other was approval of the grading plan which covered both the Lloyd property and the Standard Mining piece. It was moved by Craig, seconded by Hitchcock, to grant an extention of one year on the Special Property Use Permit of Robert Lloyd for the removal of sand and gravel on a parcel of land 40 acres in size located on the west hill adjacent to 60th Ave. South (Application 9-80) and, further, to call for a public hearing on the Shepard and Standard Mining property regarding the Master Grading Plan. Barghausen noted the total amount of material to be removed would be less and only the area would differ slightly. They wanted to work out a way to extend 15th St. ROLL CALL VOTE: All Councilmembers voted YES MOTION CARRIED Ordinance No. 3517 " It was moved by Hitchcock, seconded by Larson, that Ordinance No. 3517, entitled, "AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF AUBURN, WASHINGTON, PROVIDING FOR THE REZONING OF A PARCEL OF LAND 2.05 ACRES IN SIZE LOCATED AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF 52ND AND "G" STREET N.E. (ALSO KNOWN AS S. 277TH ST.) WITHIN THE CITY OF AUBURN, WASHINGTON, CHANGINGTHE ZONING CLASSIFICATION 1 1 1 -12- 151 AUBURN WASHINGTON MONDAY JULY 7, 1980 THEREOF FROM UNCLASSIFIED TO C-4," be adopted. ROLL CALL VOTE: All Councilmembers voted YES MOTION CARRIED It was'moved by Larson, seconded by Flechsig, to authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to sign the agreement with Robison Construction setting up conditions of the rezone. . ROLL CALL VOTE: All Councilmembers voted YES MOTION CARRIED Ordinance No. 3518 It was moved by Roegner, seconded by Flechsig, that Ordinance No. 3518, entitled,;{"AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF AUBURN, WASHINGTON, PROVIDING FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT ON PROPERTY ZONED R-3 LOCATED ON A PARCEL OF LAND ON THE EAST SIDE OF "A" STREET S.E. BETWEEN 13TH AND 14TH STREETS S.E., WITHIN THE CITY OF AUBURN, WASHINGTON," be adopted. ROLL CALL VOTE: 00 Iq Iq . 0 Q Passed under Old Business Q Passed under Old Business All Councilmembers voted YES ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS Ordinance No. 3517 Ordinance No. 3518 Ordinance No. 3524 MOTION CARRIED It was moved by Roegner, seconded by Flechsig, that Ordinance No. 3524, entitled, "AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF AUBURN, WASHINGTON, RELATING TO AND PROVIDING FOR THE VACATION OF ALLEY RIGHT-OF-WAY, SITUATED ON THAT PORTION OF LAND LYING BETWEEN 13TH AND 14TH STREET SOUTHEAST EAST OF "A" STREET SOUTHEAST, AND SITUATED WITHIN THE CORPORATE LIMITS OF THE CITY OF AUBURN, WASHINGTON," be introduced and adopted. ROLL CALL VOTE: All Councilmembers voted YES MOTION CARRIED Ordinance No. 3525 It was moved by Larson, seconded by Hithcock, that Ordinance No. 3525, entitled, "AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF AUBURN, WASHINGTON, RELATING TO AND PROVIDING FOR THE ANNEXATION TO THE CITY OF AUBURN OF A CONTIGUOUS AREA OF LAND LYING ON THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF "T" AND 2ND STREET SOUTHEAST, WHICH LAND IS DESCRIBED IN A PETITION DULY FILED WITH THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF AUBURN, WASHINGTON," be introduced and adopted. ROLL CALL VOTE: All Councilmembers voted YES MOTION CARRIED Resolution No. 1099 Passed under Street & Engineering Committee Resolution No. 1101 It was moved by Roegner, seconded by Hitchcock, that Resolution No. 1101, entitled, "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF AUBURN, AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR AND CITY CLERK OF THE CITY OF AUBURN, TO EXECUTE A CONSTRUCTION AND MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT AND EASEMENT FOR IMPROVEMENT OF "A" STREET S.E., BETWEEN THE CITY OF AUBURN AND BURLINGTON NORTHERN, INC.," be adopted. ROLL CALL VOTE: All Councilmembers voted YES MOTION CARRIED Resolution No. 1104 It was moved by Craig, seconded by Larson, that Resolution No. 1104, entitled, "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF AUBURN, WASHINGTON, AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR OF THE CITY OF AUBURN, TO EXECUTE AN AGREEMENT BETWEEN STRAAM ENGINEERS AND THE CITY OF AUBURN, FOR ENGINEERING SERVICES FOR CONSTRUCTION OF WELL NO. 3 FOR THE CITY OF AUBURN, WASHLNGTON," be adopted. -13- 152 AUBURN. WASHINGTON ROLL. CALL VOTE: MONDAY All Councilmembers voted YES Resolution No. 1105 JULY 7. 1980 MOTION CARRIED It was moved by Craig, seconded by Larson, that Resolution No. 1105, entitled, "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF AUBURN, WASHINGTON, AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR OF THE CITY OF AUBURN TO EXECUTE AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO AGREEMENT FOR ENGINEERING SERVICES FOR DETAILED WATER SYSTEM ANALYSIS BETWEEN STRAAM ENGINEERS, INC., AND THE CITY OF AUBURN, WASHINGTON," be adopted. ROLL CALL VOTE: All Councilmembers voted YES MOTION CARRIED There being no further business to come before the Council the meeting adjourned at 13 o' clock midnight. �Snnley P. rrs7ey, Mayor Coralee A. McCann ey, City Clerk -14- 'i 1 1