HomeMy WebLinkAbout08-04-1986iw'���
�...1
':ti� p
b�hin{!��
CITY OF AUBURN
COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
August 4, 1986 7:30 p.m.
CALL TO ORDER
� I. A. Flaq Salute
The regular meetinq of the City of Auburn Council was called to
order by Mayor Bob Roegner at 7:30 p.m. in the City of Auburn
Council Chambers. Mayor Roegner led those in attendance in the
pledge of allegiance.
�
'
21
B. Roll Call
Those in attendance included Mayor Bob Roegner, and .
Councilmembers Brothers, Burns, Kurle, Larson, Walters, Whittall,
and Wisner. Staff inembers included City Attorney Jack Bereiter,
Parks and Recreation Director Len Chapman, Public Works Director
Frank Currie, Finance Director Pat Dugan, Police Captain Dave
Schuur, Assistant Fire Chief Monroe Shropshire, Planning Director
Mary McCumber, Personnel Director Gretel Sloan, and Acting City
Clerk Bonnie Middleton. Also in attendance was Senior Planner Lynn
Rued.
C. Announcements and Appointments
1. Mayor Roegner announced the resignation of City Clerk Darlene
Parks, and he noted Bonnie Middleton would be the Acting City
Clerk until the position could be filled. The Mayor also noted
Administrative Secretary Jan Hubbard would continue as the
City's Deputy City Clerk.
D. Agenda Modifications included New Pacific Development Corp
Conditional Use Permit; Harold Wynn Special Property Use Permit;
Ordinance 4146 regarding 1986 Budget Reallocation of Funds; and
Resolution 1704 regarding Fuel Discount Agreement with Auburn
Fliqht Service.
CITIZEN INPUT, PUBLIC HEARINGS & CORRESPONDENCE
II. A. Public Hearings
Mayor Roegner invited Planning Director Mary McCumber to give a
brief presentation on the City of Auburn Comprehensive Plan.
1. McCumber said the purpose of this hearing was to focus on the
work the Planning and Community Development Committee had done.
She referred to copies of the Planning Commission's recommen-
dations to adopt the Comprehensive Plan and the Planning and
Community Development Committee's further revisions. Also
included in the information provided the Council was Resolution
1703, and the Environmental Impact Statement. McCumber briefly
outlined the process the Committee took to arrive at the recom-
mendations. The City held eight neighborhood meetings last
summer to discuss the existing problems within Auburn. This
culminated in the staff draft attempting to address the issues
that had been raised during the series of studies and community
review. That was completed in December 1985 and given to the
Planning Commission in January 1986. They then reviewed the
document from January through May 1986. The Commission has
held two hearings and several meetings, and the Commission came
up with 31 specific amendments to that staff draft.
218
AUBURN COUNCIL MINUTES PAGE TWO AUGUST 4, 1986
On May 19, 1986, the Planning Commission transmitted its zecom-
mendations to the Council, and the Planning and Community
Development Committee has been reviewing those recommendations.
The Council held a public hearing on June 16, 1986 and the pur-
pose of that was again focused on some remaining issues. The
Planning and Community Development Committee has made a series
of amendments.
During the Council Committee's review, the real issues have
been two rural designations and their appropriate land uses.
One of those is the Mt. Rainier Vista site and second is the
Auburn/Enumclaw rural area. She pointed out three overall
parameters within which these issues were considered. One,
that the proposed Comprehensive Plan provides for a range of
residential density and that it clearly distinguishes the dif-
ference between urban and rural density. The second fundamen-
tal principal of the plan is that urban densities require urban
facilities; urban roads, municipal sewer, and municipal water.
it is also important to note that urban services are needed for
density greater than one unit per four acres. The issue of
what density is low enough to warrant rural facilities stan-
dards was thoroughly explored when the City's fire hydrant
ordinance was reviewed and amended last year. The Council
decided at that time that four acres is an appropriate minimum
lot size for urban-level facilities not to be provided. Urban
facilities are very difficult to require after an area has
developed. The third principal driving the kinds of alter-
natives that were looked at in these areas is the proposed plan
takes a very strong position on protecting environmental
quality. It provides the area with significant environmental
constraints to be identified and specific policies and develop-
ment regulations developed. With those three parameters we
then looked at the two very large issues that the Committee was
considering.
In the amendment packet on pages three and four of the Planninq
and Community Development Committee revisions are changes to
the Mt. Rainier site embodying an altesnative. The'Committee
recommended an urban desiqnation but with some control mainly
because of the environmental problem. The concern was the risk
for contaminating the aquifer that feeds Coal Creek Springs.
The 35 acres on the Enumclaw Plateau is recommended for urban.
A letter was sent to the affected property owners describinq
the requirements that would apply to that area if it were
urban.
2. Mel Lindbloom (2540 Forest Ridge Dr.) was in favor of the pro-
posed "compromise" for Mt. Rainier Vista. He Commended Ms.
McCumber for developing the compromise.
3. Russ Hassidy (20627 Church Lake Dr.) from Bonnie Lake wanted to
develop his property that he owns in Auburn in the Enumclaw
Plateau area. He was uncertain how the proposed plan would
affect his ability to use the property.
4. Maris Nixon (523 Abby Dr.) wanted an area north of Abby Drive
classified R-1. She pointed out the area on the map.
5. Attornev Lvle Schneider (901 E. Main St.) represented several
people regarding the 35 acre area on the Auburn/Enumclaw Hwy.
He asked about the water and sewer lines. He indicated that he
did not feel the property should be zoned R-1, and he objected
to the letter sent by the Planning Department describing the
requirements that would apply to the property (as he understood
it) under R-1 zoning.
-2-
�
C�
�
21
AUBURN COUNCIL MINUTES PAGE THREE AUGUST 4, 1986
,
�
�I
6.
7.
Rich Wagoner stated he would like to see the zoning in the
Hidden Valley area remain rural.
Ray Wicker would like to the the Comprehensive Plan adopted.
8. Louise Stucki (724 Hi-Crest Dr.) was concerned with the com-
patibility of daycare centers and schools in single family
residential areas. She also noted that the plan should be well
thought out. She appreciated that many of her.concerns were
listened to. She questioned the enforcement of landscaping
requirements at 15th and West Valley Highway and who is respon-
sible for regulating polluters. She asked who she should
complain to.
9. Walter Howard (3234 53rd SE) commented on the fact that between
250 and 300 cars per day (moving approximately 60-80 miles per
hour) now use 53rd Street. The Mt. Rainier Vista proposal
would add additional new traffic. He felt the 2/3 acre lots in
Mt. Rainier Vista are too small.
10. Ralph Anderson (14460 368th SE) stated both 5 acre lots were
restrictive and R-1 zoning was also restrictive.
11. Georqe de Vec (4921 Mill Pond Loop) asked whether the City would
be providing water/sew.er facilities for the development. He
also asked if Kersey Rd is overused.
12.
13.
14.
Larry Jensen asked how long before facilities would be
installed so that his property on the Enumclaw Plateau could be
developed.
Kelly Finn owns five acres in Hidden Valley and stated he would
like the rural zoning to remain.
Dennis Yeaqer stated he would like to see the zoning in the
Hidden Valley area remain rural.
15. Joanne Brook (1011 15th S.E.) stated she would like to see the
zoning in the Hidden Valley area remain rural. She also
asked if the zoning would allow pigs and goats.
16. Melton Gould, from California, stated he moved to the Hidden
Valley area purposely because of the rural zoning and requested
the zoning remain rural. He objected to the "compromise" pro-
posal for Mt. Rainier Vista.
17. Pat Edwards spoke about the 34 acre area. She felt that the
urban standards that applied to her property were too harsh.
She asked if mobile homes are considered in R-1 zoning.
18.
19.
20.
Helen Lyman (36621 - 148th SE) asked about parks in the rural
zoning areas.
Lamont Peters requested the Hidden Valley area remain rural
zoning.
Joe Eaton (3520 53rd SE) has lived in the area since 1941 and
would like to see it stay rural.
MOTION by Burns, SECOND by Walters to close the public hearing. MOTION
CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Mayor Roegner discussed the procedures for Council deliberations for
consideration of the policy document and ordinance adjustments.
Councilman Burns stated the City Council and the City staff have worked
long and hard�on the Comprehensive Plan. The City has held a number of
community meetings, and this plan has wide support within the City.
This Comprehensive Plan as it is written is intended to be a guide. it
is also intended to be a living document. With that i would like to
make a motion.
-3-
220
AUBURN COUNCIL MINUTES PAGE FOUR AUGUST 9, 1986
MOTION by Burns, SECOND by Walters to adopt Resolution 1703, the City of
Auburn's Comprehensive Plan.
Councilmember Larson asked what was meant by the statement by a couple
of citizen's who stated that if their house burnt down they would not
be able to replace it. Former Planning Director Pat Dugan addressed the
issue. What we were trying to express in the letter, Dugan said was the
difference between what rural and urban means. If a house burns down or
if a significant addition is added, the owners would have to comply with
the development regulations in place in the City that applies to that
property. The letter then identifies in a very general way what those
regulations are. I might accent, Dugan said, that those are not new
regulations. Those are regulations that lay on properties as it sits
right now. Everything that the letter says applies now. What we are
dealing with tonight is a proposed exception to that policy which exists
in the City now. That exception provides that there are some areas in
the City that are appropriately developed at a rural low density level.
At that level you do not require the same level of a facilities as you
do in an urban area. In those areas that are identified in the Plan as
rural there will be, at a later date, developed rural standards that
will apply to that property instead of urban standards. Right now the
whole City is subject to urban standards.
Larson asked Public Works Director Currie about the utilities to be run
into that area. What we have done so far the utilities have been
designed to stop at 148th. Anything beyond 148th is not in our
Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Currie responded by saying that he believed
that was correct. The water system is designed to serve an elevation
based on the height of the reservoirs. I think the Jansen Addition is
just barely adequately served by that system now as far as pressure is
concerned. The sewer system is out close to that area and is not
designed to go much beyond that.
�
Larson said that the Mt. Rainier Vista area will be kind of a buffer �
zone. Some of the area now is R-2 and some will be rural. Will that
area act as a buffer zone between those two areas? Planning Director
McCumber responded by saying that there will be rural areas on two and
one-half sides.
Larson asked Currie if they put in 145 lots will they have to run water
and sewer lines. Currie responded by sayinq that was correct. Whatever
the capacity it requires to serve the area would be expected to be paid
for by the development. The City would only participate in any "excess"
capacity that may be needed.
Councilmember Wisner asked about pollution control enforcement. The
Mayor said that was done by the state. What would be the costs of
installing the utilities in that area, she asked. Currie responded by
saying he did not have a rough figure for that. It depends on how the
rest of the land develops and when it develops. It is a matter of
timing.
Wisner said she supports the Plan. There are two areas that the Council
has talked about at length tonight. One being the special planning area
south of the Stuck River and the other one beinq the Auburn/Enumclaw
Plateau area outlined by the chart. One of the City's largest sources
of water comes from springs that are directly below the Mt. Rainier
Vista area. The Council has, as a group, voted to maintain that area as
rural and I would certainly encourage them to continue doing that. The
major reason being for the protection of our water system.
Approximately 808 of the water that is consumed in the City of Auburn
comes from those springs. I.cannot imaqine endangering the water system
by puttfng in this development. Whether it is 145 units or B units. I
submit that if it should cost anywhere between $4 and $7 million for the
development of the water source, the City would be using one-third of
its annual operating budget. At this point.I cannot support a special
planning area that has the potential to threaten that water source.
Lakeland Hills development has the potential of 4500 units at its peak
development. There are lots of R-1 there.
-4-
'
221� .
AUBURN COUNCIL MINUTES PAGE FIVE AUGUST 4 1986
Councilman Kurle said he was having some of the same concerns. When Mt.
Rainier Vista was first proposed as rural zoning I was kind of happy to
see that, but the people who own that property were not happy to see it,
and let us know, Kurle said. At one of the Planning Committee meetings
I requested a compromise. The compromise that was arrived at was the
195 units on 145 acres. We do not know what effect that development
would have on the water supply. We have studies that say it would have
disasterous affects, and we have studies that say there will be no
�effect. Mt. Rainier Vista will be an island of development in the
middle of a water area and rural area. I do not like that kind of
zoninq. Mainly I do not like not knowing what's qoing to happen to our
water. I am told that we would require streets, sewers and water
supply. I am also told that one of the main sources of contamination
comes from chemicals and fertilizers that we as society put on our yards.
What I really cannot handle is living with potential ruination of our
water supply. I, as a Councilman, am not comfortable telling people
what they can or cannot do with the land. In most cases I would pro-
bably go along with them. But even more I am not comfortable putting
our water supply in danger. In conclusion, I agree with Linda whole-
heartedly, Kurle said.
Councilman Fturle addressed the 35 acres on Auburn Way South. i guesa we
were led to believe that area was to be zoned rural, he said. Also I
guess we were led to believe that everybody out there did not want rural
zoning. We were led to believe they wanted R-1 so they could develop
their land. We knew the consequences of that, but I had concerns that
the people out there knew those consequences. So I was the one who
sugqested the City send those people a letter. i am hearing tonight
that some of the people want R-1 and some of them do not have an
answer for that except maybe we should go back to a rural zone. And
like Councilman Burns stated it is always easier to go up in zoninq than
it is to come back to a rural zone. There is certainly controversy out
there that we were not aware of three or four weeks ago.
�Councilman Brothers complimented Mr. Dugan and Ms. McCumber and their
staff for a generally fine document. He said that it is an improvement
over what the City has had before. There seems to be some concern over
daycare facilities in R-1 zoning. Within the confines of the City I
have a problem with a rural lifestyle within the boundaries of the City.
I am concerned about. it because the lifestyle that it entails in the
event that City services are provided puts a tremendous burden on the
City to provide those services. On the other hand I have a real problem
of any possibility of contaminating the City's water supply. If it
necessitates a minimum of one home per four acres then I would have to
be opposed to the Mt. Rainier Vista special planning compromise. After
a great deal of deliberation I have come to the conclusion that I would
support continuation of this area as rural zoning since paramount con-
sideration should be given to the protection of the water. Consequently
I oppose the Mt. Rainier Vista special planning compromise as part of
the Comprehensive Plan. As far as the area of the Auburn/Enumclaw
Plateau area, i think it would be placing citizens in a vulnerable poai-
tion to rezone and then in the event there was a fire in the home, it
would preclude them from rebuilding.
MOTION by Wisner, SECOND by Larson to refer the Mt. Rainier Special
Planning area and the 35 acre area in the Auburn/Enumclaw Highway in
southeast Auburn back to the Planning and Community Development
Committee. Councilmembers Whittall, Burns, and Walters voted no.
�MOTION CARRIED.
Mayor Roegner confirmed that when the Planninq and Community Development
Committee comes back to the Council on August 19 with further modifica-
tions, the motion earlier made by Burns and seconded by Walters, will go
before the next Council meeting to adopt Resolution 1703, the City of
Auburn's Comprehensive Plan. Roegner told the citizens that there will
be two items referred to the Planning and Community Development
Committee. While they are free to attend that meeting, that is not a
public hearing. It is a Council Committee work session and you can only
par ticipate with the approval of the Council Committee.
-5-
222
AUBURN COUNCIL MINUTES PAGE SIX AUGUST 4, 1986
B.. Audience Participation
1. Leon Stucki (724 West Hi-Crest Dr) wondered what kinds of plans
and documents had been submitted since the decision was made to
issue Mr. Lloyd the special use permit. Stucki said Lynn Rued
had basically said there are two papers that had been submitted
by Mr. Lloyd or in his behalf. The first was a survey plan
which was a rectanqle with measurements on each side with no
elevation contours. The second was a paper prepared presumably
by a landscape architect involving the lower southeast corner of
the property which shows some trees and a new feature which
had not been shown before.. mainly a drainage pond. There are
some real concerns about this, Stuki said, and I need to explain
them. He explained there was supposed to be a buffer area of
about 200 feet which was to be undisturbed. It is very
interesting to note, Stucki said, that this plan I have distri-
buted makes very good use of this property and puts a retaining
pond in this location. Also included are two foot trees all
around it and a road leading into it. It would suqgest to me,
Stucki said, that somebody certainly knew what they were doinq
when they accidently chopped down all the trees.
Following my conversation with Mr. Rued, the second point is
that there seems to be some other things that the developer was
required to have completed by this time. I asked Mr. Rued if
there were other documents or plans that were required by this
time. The answer was there were no other specifically dated
plans. Stucki then referred to Ordinance 4133, Section 6.
"Continuation of the mining activity shall be done in phases. A
detailed plan illustrating in phases where the mining activities
shall occur shall be prepared by the applicant and submitted to
the City on or before March 15, 1986. The plan should
illustrate the quantities of materials to be removed, the final
slope configuration, and the restoration of the area." I am �
concerned that apparently the City does not know that this plan
is missing. In Section 8 it states, "the applicant shall pre-
pare a detailed storm drain and an errosion control plan. This
plan shall be submitted for approval by Pu61ic Works Department
on or before March 15, 1986. Stucki asked if the Planning
Department is aware of any document that has been submitted. I
have not seen any evidence that these documents have been turned
in, he said. The plans submitted by Lloyd regarding this sec-
tion of the land was in response to Council's request that it
detail landscape plans for the restoration of the area. In
Section 10 it states, "the phasinq plan shall be completed March
15, 1986 and the Planning Director shall respond by April 1,
1986." Apparently that has not happened. Compliance with the
plans is a serious issue. Section 12 states, "this permit shall
be granted for the removal of sand, gravel and earth materials
only." Machinery on the property was brought up during some
discussions and so it is written in Section 12 allowing crushinq
incidental mining operation to be allowed in the C-3 zone.
There is a facility on the property for making sawdust, and it
is not a rock crusher. The whole idea is that they mix sawdust
and soil to make pot soil. We are concern about the fact that
there is machinery there and that they are bringing raw
materials into the facility to make the sawdust. There have
also been incidents of hours of operation on numerous occasions
where the operations have begun early. This is not a signifi- ,
cant concern, however, compared to the other things.
In conclusion, Stucki said, Section 16, states "failure of the
applicants, their successors, or assigns to comply with any of
the provisions of this ordinance shall result in the immediate
termination of all activities on the above site." This state-
ment also points to a paragraph in the Comprehensive Plan that
states "a final grading plan shall be submitted with every
application. Conditions of the operation shall be spelled out in
detail with performance bonds required to insure compliance.
Failure to comply with this provision will be adequate grounds
for termination of the permit." Have the performance bonds been
�
2
AUBURN COQNCIL MINUTES PAGE SEVEN AUGUST 4, 1986
offered2 The spirit of chopping down the trees, portrayinq
to the Council that this accident was simply an unexplained
coincidence and trying to blame the logger for making the
mistake when they had full well intended to always put a
drainage site there and did not mention that, I think this
is pretty marginal behavior. That, together with the fact
that the detail plans and some of these other thinqs that
were specific items to be called out, apparently have not
been adhered to. i recommend termination of, the operation
� and special use permit, Stucki said.
2. Maris Nixon (523 Abby Dr> commented on the holding pond and
possible overflow.
'
III.
C. Correspondence - None
COUNCIL COMMITTEE REPORTS
A. Municipal Services - Chairwoman Wisner reported minutes from
the July 31, 1986 meeting were of public record.
B. Planning & Communitv Development - Councilman Burns reported
the Committee met on July 29, 1986. Minutes are of public
record. The Committee examined the issue of the Lyden
rezone and determined the matter be referred to the
Planning Commission for its modification of C-1 zone to
allow used car dealerships in the area.
MOTION by Burns, SECOND by Walters to deny the re2one and
refer the matter to the Planning Commission for the purpose of
modifying the C-1 ordinance. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
C. Public Works - Councilman Larson reported the Committee had
met July 24, 1986 and minutes are of public record. He
reported there would be no meeting on August 7.
D. Finance - Councilman Kurle reported the Committee met prior to
the Council meeting. He noted that Item VII-A under New
Business regarding Ordinance 4154 establishing CLIDs 334 and
335 were not ready for discussion. He also noted Ordinance
4146 on the modification agenda is not ready for discussion.
He made comments on the 1986 Budget adjustments.
IV. CITIZEN INPUT - None
V. CONSENT AGENDA
A. Minutes - August 4, 1986 Regular Meeting.
B. Vouchers
1. Payroll #117715-118274 in the amount of $435,597.00.
2. Claims #2350U-23820 in the amount of $420,565.01.
C. Bid Award - Contract 86-04, Storm Sewer Imp. #34 to Deb-ro
Contracting, Inc. on their low bid of $129,335.40.
D. Utility Bill Ad-iustments
1. Account #357-3060 in the amount of $466.44.
2. Account #449-2730 in the amount of $70.49.
E. Call for Public Hearinu
1. Beneficial Development request for a Final Plat on Lakeland
Hills No. 4A (a portion of Preliminary Plat No. 4) located
� at the N.W. corner of Mill Pond Drive and Mill Pond Way.
Hearing to be held at the August 18, 1986 Council Meeting.
2. Resolution 1702 - Relates to the proposed vacation of alley
right-of�way, situated on that portion of land designated
as a public alley located 134 feet south of west Main
Street and east of "G" Street S.W. Hearing to be held at
the September 2, 1986 Council Meeting.
MOTION by Larson, SECOND by Wisner approving Consent Agenda Items
V-A through V-E-2 holding Agenda Modification Agenda Items V-F-1
through V-F-2 over until the next Council meeting. MOTION CARRIED
UNANIMOUSLY.
-7-
22a
AUBURN COUNCIL MINUTES PAGE EIGHT AUGUST 4, 1986
VI. OLD BUSINESS
VII.
A. Georqe and Ethyl Lyden request to rezone from C-1 (Light
Commercial) to C-3 (Heavy Commerciall property located at 1112
Auburn Way North. Referred to the Planning and Community
Development Committee for further modification.
B. Out-of-State-Travel for Firefighter Rich Schneider to attend
the Colorado Training institute Hazardous Material In Depth
Study on September 8-19, 1986.
MOTION by Wisner, SECOND by Kurle to approve Firefighter
Rich Schneider to attend the Colorado Training Institute
Hazardous Material in Depth Study on September 8-19,
1986. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY
NEW BUSINESS
A. Ordinance 4154 - Establishes CLID 334/335 and CLID 334/335
Fund; fixing the amount, form, date, interest rates, maturity
and denominations of the CLID 334/335 bonds; providing for the
sale and delivery thereof to Shearson Lehman Brothers Inc.,
Foster & Marshall Division, in Seattle, Washington; fixing the
interest rate on Local Improvement District assessment
installments; and repealing Ordinance 4136.
Councilman Kurle reported under Finance Committee reports of
these minutes that Ordinance 4154 will be discussed at a later
time.
Ordinances and Resolutions
B. Ordinance 4147 - Repeals Chapter 18.58 Off-Street Parking and
Loading of the Codified Ordinances of the City of Auburn and
creating a new Chapter 18.58 Off-Street Parking and Loading to
replace the same. MOTION by Burns, SECOND by Walters to
introduce and adopt Ordinance 4147. MOTION CARRIED
UNANIMOUSLY.
C. Ordinance 4148 - Adds new subsections to Auburn Codified City
Ordinances 18.04 and 18.75. 18.04 adds a new subsection to
the Zoning Definitions and 18.75 adds a new subsection to
Variances, Special Exceptions and Administrative Appeals.
MOTION by Burns, SECOND by Walters to introduce and adopt
Ordinance 4148. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
D. Ordinance 4149 - Repeals Auburn Codified City Ordinance
18.62.060(C)(131 pertaining to freestanding off-premises
signs. MOTION by Burns, SECOND by Walters to introduce and
adopt Ordinance 4149. Councilman Larson voted no. MOTION
CARRIED.
E. Ordinance 4150 - Provides for the rezoning of a parcel of pro-
perty located on the S.E. corner of Bth and "D" Street S.E.,
changing the zoning classification thereof from R-3 to C-3.
MOTION by Burns, SECOND by Walters to introduce and adopt
Ordinance 4150. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
F. Ordinance 4151 - Grants a variance pursuant to Section
18.75.020 of the zoning ordinance authorizing compact parking
spaces for a proposed apartment development located at 323 2nd
Street S.E. MOTION by Burns, SECOND by Walters to introduce
and adopt Ordinance 4151. Councilmen Kurle, Brothers and
Larson voted no. MOTION CARRIED.
G. Ordinance 4152 - Repeals Section 18.56.040 Landscaping -
Parking Lots of the Auburn Codified Ordinances creating a new
section 18.56.040 to replace the same. MOTION by Burns,
SECOND by Walters to introduce and adopt Ordinance 4152.
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
�L
,
�
,
2�
AUBURN COUNCIL MINUTES PAGE NINE AUGUST 4, 1986
H. Ordinance 4153 - Provides for the rezoning of a parcel of pro-
perty approximately 10.5 acres in size and located south-
westerly of Academy Drive in the 2700 block, changing the
zoning classification thereof from unclassified to P-1.
MOTION by Burns, SECOND by Wisner to introduce and adopt
Ordinance 4153. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
I. Resolution 1696 - Relates to the proposed vacation of street
right-of-way, situated on that portion of land designated as a
, public street located south of the cul-de-sac and just north of
State Highway 18. MOTION by Larson, SECOND by Wisner to intro-
duce and adopt Resolution 1696. Councilman Burns voted no.
MOTION CARRIED.
Councilman Whittall questioned if this subject would go before
the Council as a public hearing. A public hearing is sche-
duled September 2, 1986.
J. Resolution 1703 - Adopts and approves a Comprehensive.Plan for
the City pursuant to the provisions of RCW Chapter 35A.63 of
the laws of the State of Washington, designating its policies
as guidelines for exercising the City's authority under SEPA,
and directing that this resolution and the Comprehensive Plan
it adopts and approves be filed with the Auburn City Clerk and
be available for public inspection.
See Section II-A, Page 6 of these minutes regarding the
adoption of the City of Auburn's Comprehensive Plan.
VIII. MAYOR'S REPORT
MOTION by Larson, SECOND by Wisner to authorize the Mayor to exe-
cute the purchase of real estate property at 504 Auburn Way South
in an amount not to exceed $75,600.00. MOTION CARRIED [JNANIMOUSLY.
' IX. ADJOURNMENT - The meeting adjourned at 9:50 p.m.
�
�
Bonnie Middleton, Acting City Clerk