1984 03 27u
3701
CITY COUNCIL
CITY OF MOSES LAKE
March 27,1984
Members Present:Norm Johnson,Wayne Rimple,Bob Wallenstien,Dave Chandler,
Chuck Edwards,Norm Staat,and Bill Reese
The meeting was called to order at 8 p.m.by Mayor Norm Johnson.
Mr.Rimple moved that the minutes of the meeting of March 13 be approved as sub
mitted,seconded by Mr.Reese,and passed unanimously.
APPROVAL OF BILLS
REGULAR BILLS AMOUNT
GENERAL FUND $28,770.28
STREET 7,343.52
WATER/SEWER FUND 11,855.69
WATER/SEWER CONSTRUCTION 145.89
SANITATION FUND 10.30
CENTRAL SERVICES 1,874.75
BUILDING MAINTENANCE 77.50
EQUIPMENT RENTAL 13,983.03
FIREMENS PENSION 82.67
TOTAL $64,143.63
Mr. Edwards moved that the bills be approved as submitted,seconded by Mr.Wallen
stien,and passed with Mr.Rimple abstaining from voting for that portion of the
bills to Moses Lake Steel Supply.
I.CITIZEN INPUT
None
II.CONSENT AGENDA
None
III.CONSIDERATION OF BIDS
None
IV.PETITIONS,COMMUNICATIONS,OR PUBLIC HEARINGS
DIVISION/POTATO HILL BRIDGE ACROSS 1-90
/D/9
The City Council set March 27 as the date for a public meeting to gather citizen
comment on possible improvements to the Division/Potato Hill Road Bridge across I-
90 by the Washington State Department of Transportation.Improvements could be
four-laning the bridge with or without an interchange or adding the interchange and
leaving the bridge two lane.
The public hearing was opened.
Ron Covey stated that he is in favor of the proposed interchange but is also
concerned about the increase in traffic and the potential for commercial zoning in
the area of the interchange.He pointed out that development has grown in this
area and it is possible it will eventually become a part of Moses Lake.He pre
sented a petition in favor of the interchange provided the immediate area not be
rezoned for commercial use.
Richard Pearce stated that he is opposed to the interchange because of the possi
bility of increased traffic and commercial development.He pointed out that if
this interchange is built,there may be no reason to continue Yonezawa Boulevard
beyond Division Street.At present it is designed to connect to Highway 17.He
also pointed out that there is a great deal of land that is zoned agriculture on
both sides of the bridge and it would be conducive to commercial development.He
also did not feel an interchange would be a big advantage in fire response time.
He did not feel an interchange was necessary at this time.
3702
CITY COUNCIL MEETING:2 March 27,1984
Rita Seedorf stated that she was opposed to the interchange because it would draw
a lot of traffic from the city center through the Montiake area to the freeway at
this point.Also,land surrounding interchanges is commercial in nature.
Del one Krueger stated that he had moved out in the county along Division Street
because of the rural nature of the area.He felt that the interchange would
change the nature of the area drastically.The interchange would create additional
traffic and bring pressure on the city and county to allow commercial establish
ments in the vicinity.
Glenn Faris stated that if this interchange is allowed,the area will be requested
for commercial uses.He stated that if the county wishes additional access to the
sand dunes area,existing roads should be improved.
Jo Hardy from Dune Lake Loop stated that between 40 and 50 vehicles visit the sand
dunes very weekend the weather is nice.She did not feel the existing residential
areas would see much of an impact if an interchange is constructed.She also felt
that if the area in the immediate vicinity of the interchange become commercial it
would be of a benefit to the area.
Art Carr,Montlake area,wanted to know if the possibility of an interchange would
interfere with the reconstruction of Division Street.
Mr.Johnson stated that Division Street will be reconstructed this year and that
the city has put the project out for bid.
Kay Morgan stated that she was in favor of the interchange and she did not feel the
a small amount of commercial development would be detrimental to the area or the
city.
Charlene Martin stated that she is opposed to the interchange.She pointed out
that the extra traffic would make Division a very dangerous street for children to
walk to and from school.
Randy Dickinson stated that he is opposed to the interchange.He felt it would
hurt the downtown businesses as commercial development in the neighborhood would be
inevitable.He stated that it would also increase the traffic flow and create
additional hazards for children walking to and from school.
Leonard Gardner,Don Milbrandt,Jack Black,Barry Moos,Pat Halpin,Bob Massart,
and Marilyn Mathews stated that they are in favor of the interchange for the
reasons already given.
Larry Buckley,Richard Swanson,Martin Seedort,and Thelma Vanderwal stated that
they are opposed to the interchange for the reasons already given.
Mr.Wallenstien moved that the public hearing be closed,seconded by Mr.Edwards,
and passed unanimously.
Petitions and correspondence for and against the interchange were recieved by the
city and distributed to the Council.Also,a letter was read from Shirley Kvamme
supporting the idea of a interchange at this location.
A letter was read from Cecil Lee,Park and Recreation Director which requested the
Department of Transportation include a bicycle path crossing in their design for
the Division/I-90 overpass.The city will be constructing a segment of the bicycle
path along Division Street and providing a bicycle crossing on the overpass will
allow the county to continue this path out Potato Hill Road in the future.
Ron Selstead,Department of Transportation,stated that the state has received
funds from the Federal Highway Administration to correct the vertical clearance
problem on 1-90.He stated that they are in the planning stage now and construction
will not begin until 1986.
3703
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES:3 March 27,1984
Don Goodwin,County Commissioner,stated that the county has no immediate plans to
four-lane Division south of 1-90 but it is a possibility in the future.He felt
that an interchange is 8 to 10 years in the future but now would be a good time to
four-lane the bridge since the state will be making improvements there anyway.He
stated that the county intends to put a bicycle path along Division in the future.
There was some discussion by the Council on the various options available.
Mr.Edwards moved that the city be in favor of the county and state participating
,,in widening the bridge to four lanes on the Division Street bridge crossing 1-90
including a bike path,seconded by Mr.Reese,and passed unanimously.
^V.ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS
None
VI.REQUESTS TO CALL FOR BIDS
None
VII.REFERRALS FROM COMMISSIONS
LPS FIRST ADDITION PRELIMINARY PLAT
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints submitted a one lot subdivision on ^
Valley Road,across from the Grant County Fairgrounds.The lot is five acres in
size and is zoned R-l,Single Family Residential.The church plans to construct
and operate a 14,760 square foot building with landscaping and parking on 2.3 acres
of the lot.City water is available.City sewer is about h mile away near Valley
and Grape.The church wishes to install an on-site sewer system and requests a
covenant to defer city sewer installation.The Planning Commission recommended
that the variance request be denied and this preliminary plat be approved with the
provision that city sanitary sewer be extended now to serve the lot,comments from
the City Engineer be addressed,and the plat be allowed to have two ingresses and
j egresses to the property.
U The Planning Commission's decision to deny the church's variance request to delay
installing city sewer was based on the following reasons:
1.The area's porous soil quality.
2.Grant County Health District's position on groundwater contamination.
3.The thinking that the city should no longer allow new septic tanks anywhere
in the city.
4.Lake clean-up efforts are frustrated with septic tank effluent seeping into
the lake.
5.Platter installed utilities can be reimbursed to the installer for a 15-year
period.
Layne Stark,representing the LDS Church,suggests the Council approve the plat
with an no-site sewer system approved by Grant County Health and a covenant run
with the land for future city sewer installation.This view is supported by Fred
Skinner,the platting engineering,and Dave Hickock,Grant County Health District.
Joseph K.Gavinski,City Manager,stated that he had received a call from Clint
Connelly,Moses Lake Irrigation and Rehabilitation District,to the effect that he
is opposed to the city allowing this property to be platted without requiring them
to hook up to city sanitary sewer.He stated that some clean lake funds remain and
I they are proposing to request those funds for the purpose of hooking up buildings
currently on a septic tank to the city system.
I
Mr.Wallenstien moved that the recommendation from the Planning Commission be
accepted,seconded by Mr.Reese,and passed unanimously.
VIII.OTHER ITEMS FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION
None
IX.COUNCIL QUESTIONS AND COMMENTS
None
X.CITY MANAGER REPORTS AND COMMENTS
None
The meeting was adjourned at 9:25 p.m.
)Jkj l^C
City Clerk
BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF MOSES LAKE,WASHINGTON
)
IN THE MATTER OF
LDS Church First Addition Preliminary )Findings of Fact,Conclusions of
Plat )Law,and Decision
3704
This matter,having come on before the Moses Lake Gitf Council for action
on March 27,1984,now makes the following:
y-J FINDINGS OF FACT
/Ms1.The Corporation of the Presiding Bishop of The Church of Jesus Christ of
Latter Day Saints,a Utah Corporation,has submitted a preliminary plat for 5
acres of land located on Valley Road across from the Grant County Fair Grounds
for the purpose of constructing a church.
2.The area is zoned R-l,Single Family Residential and Churches are a condi
tional use in an R-l zone.
3.The Church is requesting a conditional use permit to construct and operate a
church with a 60'high free standing steeple in the R-l Zone.
4.City water is available to the property.The Church is requesting a variance
of the city subdivision regulations to allow on-site sewage disposal rather
than connecting to city sanitary sewer.The Church is agreeable to a covenant
to run with the land for future sewer improvements.
5.The church and parking area will be built on 2.3 acres of the 5 acre tract.
6.A public hearing scheduled upon notice was held on February 16,1984 on the
matter of issuing a conditional use permit for the construction and operation
I ,of the proposed church in the R-l Zone.
[J 7.The Planning Commission approved the conditional use request for the con
struction and operation of a church with a 60'high free standing steeple in
an R-l zone.
8.A public hearing scheduled upon notice before the Planning Commission on the
issue of platting the land in question was held February 16,1984.
9.Written comments were received from the Grant County Fair Association and the
Grant County Health Department.There were no comments from the audience at
the public hearing.No written protests by any person were filed with the
city prior to or during the public hearing.
10.The Planning Commission recommended to the City Council that the preliminary
plat be approved with the stipulation that the required variance to defer
connection to city sanitary sewer be denied and that city sanitary sewer be
required to be extended through the length of the plat fronting on Valley
Road.
11.The City Council,at their meeting on March 13 tabled any action on this
preliminary plat until the meeting of March 27 in order to have time to
consider the information presented by Western Pacific Engineering and the
Grant County Health District on an on-site sewer system.
12.The City Manager,at the March 27 Council meeting,stated that he had received
a call from the Moses Lake Irrigation and Rehabilitation District stating
I they were opposed to any on-site sewer systems.He stated that the District
is going to apply for additional funds for the purpose of connecting existing
septic tanks to the city sanitary sewer.
3705
CONCLUSIONS
1. The City Council of the City of Moses Lake is vested with the authority and
has the jurisdiction under the law to entertain and grant a request for a
variance and to approve a preliminary plat within the city's corporate limits
if the criterion required by law is met.
2. There appears,after the public hearing before the City Council on the issue
of the variance request and preliminary plat of the LDS Church,some opposi
tion to the granting of a variance for an on-site sewer system.
3. Since the City of Moses Lake is cognizant of the need for the orderly devel
opment of land within its corporate limits so as to serve the welfare and
best interests of the entire community,the City Council of the City of Moses
Lake believes that approving the variance for an on-site sewer system for the
LDS Church First Addition Preliminary Plat would not be in the best interests
of the residents of the City of Moses Lake.
DECISION
1. The City Council of the City of Moses Lake denied the variance for an on-site
sewer system for the LDS Church First Addition Preliminary Plat and approved
the preliminary plat.
Dated April 3,1984
CITY OF MOSES LAKE
JohnsorKyMayor
H