1984 08 283749
CITY COUNCIL
CITY OF MOSES LAKE
August 28,1984
Members Present:Norm Johnson,Dave Chandler,Charles Edwards,Bill Reese,
Wayne Rimple,Norm Staat.Absent:Bob Wallenstien
The meeting was called to order at 8 p.m.by Mayor Norman Johnson.
Mr.Reese moved that the minutes of the meeting of August 14,1984,be ap
proved as submitted,seconded by Mr.Rimple,and passed unanimously.
APPROVAL OF BILLS
REGULAR BILLS AMOUNT
GENERAL FUNDS $17,547.56
STREET 8,007.46
ARTERIAL STREET 4,641.85
STREET REPR/RECON 65.00
URBAN ARTERIAL 86,176.89
STREET IMPROVEMENT 98,276.93
WATER/SEWER FUND 12,995.24
WATER SEWER CONSTRUCTION 175,912.98
SANITATION FUND 9,226.70
CENTRAL SERVICES 1,466.26
BUILDING MAINTENANCE 107.70
EQUIPMENT RENTAL 113911.21
FIREMENS PENSION 77.35
TOTAL 426,413.13
Mr.Edwards moved that the bills be approved as submitted,seconded by Mr.
Chandler,and passed with Mr.Rimple abstaining from voting for that portion
of the bills to Moses Lake Steel Supply and Mr.Edwards abstaining from that
portion of the bills to Coast to Coast.
PRESENTATION -CERTIFICATE OF COMPETENCY -TIM C.YAMAMOTO:
A letter was read from Cheryl L.Bergener,Secretary,Water Works Certifica-/0/J>
tion Board,State Department of Social and Health Services addressed the the
Mayor and City Council that stated that a Certificate of Competency was issued
to Tim C.Yamamoto as a Water Distribution Manager.Mr.Yamamoto has success
fully passed the examination that qualifies him for this rating.Mayor John
son presented the Certificate of Competency to Mr.Yamamoto.
I.CITIZEN INPUT -None
II.CONSENT AGENDA
Mr.Rimple moved that the following items on the Consent Agenda be approved:
1.Resolution -Accepting Utility Easement -Johnson and Johnson./O/J
2.Acceptance of Work -Valley Road School Signals.///7
seconded by Mr.Chandler,and passed unanimously.
III.CONSIDERATION OF BIDS -None
IV.PETITIONS,COMMUNICATIONS,OR PUBLIC HEARINGS -None
V.ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS
ORDINANCES -FRANCHISES -KALASOUNTAS/FREDERICKSON
Joseph K.Gavinski presented a letter to the Council regarding the request by ''"?
Mr.Kalasountas and by Mr.Frederickson,by his Attorney,Larry Tracy.Both
gentlemen requested a franchise or easement to cross Lakeshore Drive with an
3750
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES -PAGE 2 August 28,1984
irrigation line.A study session had been held on August 21,1984,to review
these requests.
Larry Tracy,Attorney,distributed a draft of an ordinance that he had pre
pared in his office which included various changes from the ordinance that had
been distributed to the City Council with the Agenda.Mr.Tracy went through
the ordinance and pointed out the changes that he had made from the original
ordinance.Section 2 was completely taken out.Section 3 was changed to Sec
tion 3 and a sentence was added:"Grantee,by this contract,agrees to use
the irrigation water line for distribution of water solely upon grantee's
property and no other."Section 4 was changed to Section 3 and the second
sentence was changed completely.Section 5 was changed to Section 4.Section
6 was changed to Section 5.Section 7 was changed to Section 6,and several
changes were made and the last two sentences were completely left out.Sec
tion 8 was completely omitted.Section 9 was changed to Section 7.Section
10 was changed to Section 8.Section 11 was changed to Section 9.Section 12
was changed to Section 10.The rest of the ordinance was left as it was.Mr.
Tracy stated that he made the changes in line with what he understood the
Council's wishes were at the study session.
Mayor Johnson stated that the Council had not had an opportunity to review the
ordinance;and the City Manager and City Attorney had not had a chance to re
view the ordinance either.Due to the short time between the study session on
the previous Tuesday and the Council Agenda being prepared on Thursday after
noon,and the attorney and city manager had both been out of the office,they
had not had the time to get together and go over all the changes.
Mr.Edwards stated that he had not been at the study session and wanted to
know why the Council had dropped the requirement that $4,000 be paid to the
City as a non-refundable franchise.
Mr.Rimple replied that the insurance and bond requirements will cover any
thing that could happen.The big concern is if something happened to the
street in the future that the city could be sued for.
Mr.Gavinski stated that one of the reasons for the fee was that it was com
pensation for the city not ever receiving any money for water service to the
property.
Mr.Edwards asked if permission had been granted by the Moses Lake Irrigation
and Rehabilitation District to draw water from the lake.
Mr.Tracy replied that there was no special permit required and that they have
a water right claim since prior to 1945.
Mr.Edwards stated that he appreciated Mr.Tracy drawing up the ordinance and
it services particularly the needs of the Fredericksons,but he wondered about
protecting the rights of the city.
Mr.Chandler asked about the insurance and whether the ordinance covered the
insurance requirements.
Mr.Tracy stated that he had reviewed the ordinance with an insurance broker,
Mr.Don Andrews of Moses Lake Insurance Company,and Mr.Andrews stated that
he would have no problem drawing tip the requirements that are listed in the
ordinance.
Mr.Gavinski stated that as far as insurance is concerned,it has been pro
vided for before,and insurance is available or can be obtained.
Mr.Rimple stated that as he recalled,the ordinance presented by Mr.Tracy
does follow what was discussed at the study session.
Mr.Chandler stated that the ordinance does include everything that he wanted
in it.
Mr.Rimple stated that in order to define the size of the water line,wording
should be inserted that the water line "should not exceed two inches in
diameter".
3751
CITY COUNTIL MINUTES -PAGE 3 August 28,1984
Mr.Gavinski that he would like to have an opportunity to review the or
dinance.There are sufficient changes to the Kalasountas ordinance in that
Section 8,requiring him to pay to the city $4,000 as a non-refundable
franchise fee would be taken out,that it would have to come back for a first
reading.
The ordinance granting to George Kalasountas the right and franchise to use
and occupy streets and other public places and ways of the the City of Moses
Lake,Washington,to construct,maintain,repair,renew and operate a water
system within and through certain portions of the City of Moses Lake,Washing
ton was read by title only.
Mr.Chandler made a motion that the first reading of the ordinance granting a
franchise to George Kalasountas be adopted subject to review by city staff of
the changes before the second reading,seconded by Mr.Rimple,and passed
unanimously.
The ordinance granting to Mr.and Mrs.J.Lynn Frederickson the right and
franchise to use and occupy streets and other public places and ways of the
City of Moses Lake,Washington,to construct,maintain,repair,renew and
operate a water system within and through certain portions of the City of
Moses Lake,Washington,was read by title only.
Mr.Chandler made a motion that the first reading of the ordinance granting a
franchise to Mr.&Mrs.J.Lynn Fredrickson be adopted subject to review by
city staff of the changes before the second reading,seconded by Mr.Rimple,
and passed unanimously.
ORDINANCE -AMENDING TITLE 17 MLMC -SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE -SECOND READING /qj>/
The letter from Rita Perstrac,Municipal Services Director,was read which
stated that the city's Subdivision Ordinance now requires a specific map sale.
Several recent plats have shown that scale to be unsuitable for the size of
the parcel subdivided.The attached ordinance allows a variable map scale.
This ordinance is a housekeeping matter that will lessen scale variance
requests.The Planning Commission,at their July 17 meeting,recommended to
Council the Subdivision Ordinance be amended as presented.
The ordinance amending Title 17 of the Moses Lake Municipal Code entitled Sub
division Ordinance by Amending Chapter 17.13 entitled "Short Subdivisions",
Chapter 17.17 entitled "Major Subdivisions"',and Chapter 17.26 entitled "Bind
ing Site Plan",was read by title only.
Mr.Edwards moved that the second reading of the ordinance be adopted,secon
ded by Mr.Rimple,and passed unanimously.
ORDINANCE -AMENDING CHAPTER 13.12 MLMC - WATER AND SEWER RATES - FIRST
READING
The ordinance amending Chapter 13.12 of the Moses Lake Municipal Code entitled
"Water and Sewer Rates",was read by title only.
Mr.Edv/ards moved that the first reading of the ordinance be adopted,seconded
by Mr.Chandler,and passed unanimously.
ORDINANCE - AMENDING CHAPTER 8.08 - GARBAGE COLLECTION - FIRST READING
The ordinance amending Chapter 8.08 of the Moses Lake Municipal Code entitled
"Garbage Collection",was read by title only.
Mr.Edwards moved that the first reading of the ordinance be adopted,seconded
by Mr.Chandler,and passed unanimously.
VI.REQUESTS TO CALL FOR BIDS
WASTE WATER TREATMENT FACILITY -MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS
/0 7S
V/*3
)oiO^
A letter was read from Rita Perstrac,Municipal Services Director,that stated n^Cs
that the city has prepared a contract to complete some of the small items re-"Si?"
quired to complete the construction of the Wastewater Treatment Facility Proj-~•
ect.The contract includes roadways to the Central Operations Facility and /0<^
3752
,0
i/;"
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES -PAGE 4 August 28,1984
Wastewater Treatment Facility,modification to the Central Operations Facili
ty,piping revision to the Main lift station,shoulder rebuild on county roads
over the 20"force main,and removal of the large trickling filter at the old
sewer plant.The proposal for the contract is divided into two parts.The
major portion of the work is partially funded by DOE and is estimated to be
$75,000.The remaining portion of the yard renovation is budgeted in water
and sewer construction and is estimated at $35,000.City staff requests per
mission to advertise for bids on these miscellaneous items.
The invitation for bids was review by Council.The invitation for bids will
be published August 31,1984,and September 5,1984,and opened on September
19,1984,at 2:00 p.m.
Mr.Rimple moved that staff be authorized to call for bids,seconded by Mr.
Edwards,and passed unanimously.
VII.REFERRALS FROM COMMISSIONS
RESOLUTION -ABANDONING EASEMENT -GAVINSKI
A letter from Municipal Services Director,Rita Perstac,was read which stated
that Joseph Gavinski,owner of Lot 9,Sage Bay Division #1 plat,has submitted
a letter requesting the city consider abandoning a 30'easement located in the
side and/or rear yards of lots 1,7,8,and 9,Sage Bay Division #1.The
easement on lots 1,7,8,and 9 now serves no purpose..No city or other
public or private utilities are presently located in this easement nor is
there any plan to use the easement on lots 1,7,8,and 9 for utility pur
poses.Mr.Gavinski states in his letter that this easement was once provided
for a street development then for a sewer main,but neither proposal material
ized.The 30'easement located in the rear yards of lots 14 and 15 is not
recommended for abandonment at this time because at least PUD and cable lines
are now located somewhere within the easement.City staff recommends that the
city abandon the portion of the easement.The Planning Commission,at their
August 16 meeting,recommended to Council that this request to abandon an
easement be approved.
The resolution authorizing abandonment of an easement was read by title only.
Mr.Edwards moved that the resolution be adopted,seconded by Mr.Rimple,and
passed unanimously.
PIONEER WAY COMMERCIAL PARK FINAL PLAT -PHASES I & II
A letter from Municipal Services Director,Rita Perstac,was read which stated
that Wheatland Development Company of Moses Lake has submitted a final plat
for Phases I &II of the Pioneer Way Commercial Park plat,located west of
Pioneer Way between Sharon Avenue and the DSHS building.The Phase III plat
will be finaled at a later date.This final plat consists of 28 lots and is
zoned C-4,Highway Commercial.The plat will be served with city water,
sewer,and fully improved public streets.Wheatland is bonding for street,
utility,and landscaping improvements.Wheatland is proposing to remove the
center landscaped strip on Pioneer Way from the DSHS building north to Sharon
Avenue and financially help install landscaping on the unimproved triangular
piece of land at Highway 17,Pioneer Way,and Clover Drive.The landscaping
"trade"is also a result of the willingness to provide better traffic circula
tion for the 7 lots fronting on Pioneer Way.The "trade"is also a result of
the willingness of Wheatland and city staff to acknowledge Pioneer Way's left-
hand turn problems and compromise on a mutually beneficial solution.Wheat
land also is agreeing to landscape the parking strip in front of the 7 lots
fronting on Pioneer Way.Removing this center landscaped strip will also help
solve the DSHS traffic exit onto Pioneer Way.The city will maintain the
landscaped area.Improving the triangular piece of land is contingent upon
the State Department of Transportation approving the parcel improvement.The
city's Park and Recreation Director will prepare a landscape plan for this
triangular parcel and the parking stip that Wheatland will honor.She sugges
ted the entire landscaping "trade"be contingent upon gaining state approval.
There should not be a problem with the approval.The Planning Commission,at
their July 17 meeting,recommend to Council this final plat be approved with
he condition that comments from the City Engineer be addressed on the final
plat and the landscaping agreement between Wheatland and the city include
three conditions.(1)Wheatland remove the landscape strip in Pioneer Way from
3753
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES -PAGE 5 August 28,1984
the DSHS building to Sharon Avenue.If there is asphalt beneath it,the city
will stripe it for a two way turn lane.If there is no asphalt,Wheatland
Develoment will pave the area and the city will stripe it.(2)Wheatland
provide top soil,an irrigation system,and planting material for the triangu
lar piece at the intersection of Pioneer Way and Highway 17.(3)Wheatland
improve the parking strip on Pioneer Way between the street and the si dealk
with sod,irrigation,and planting material.
The public meeting to consider this plat was rescheduled from August 14 to
August 28.Wheatland submitted a variance request on August 13 to waive this
plat's parks and public lands fee.The Council requested the Planning Commis
sion review this variance request.The Planning Commission,at their August
16 meeting reviewed the request and recommended to the City Council that the
variance be denied.This public meeting is to consider the plat with the
variance request and Findings of Fact.
Mr.Edwards moved that the final plat be approved and the comments made by the
City Engineer be addressed,the Findings of Fact be approved,and the variance
to waive the plat's park and public lands fee be denied,seconded by Mr.
Reese,and passed unanimously.
PATTERSON/LLOYD FIRST SHORT PLAT -VARIANCE REQUEST
A letter from Municipal Services Director,Rita Perstac,was read which stated
that the Pattersons and the Lloyds are short platting two lots on the lower
Peninsula near the intersection of Peterson Place and Lakeshore Drive.The
plat is zoned R-l,Single Family Residential,will be served by city water and
sewer,and fronts on Lakeshore Drive.The variance request is to defer full
width street improvements with curbs,gutters,sidewalks,and bike path on
Lakeshore,the length of the plat.The Planning Commission,at their August
16 meeting recommended to Council the variance request be approved with the
condition a covenant run with the land for full street improvements when Lake-
shore on either side of this plat is fully improved.Lakeshore is presently
being reconstructed with 22'wide paving and gravel shoulders and ditches
only.
Mr.Rimple moved that the variance request be approved,seconded by Mr.Chan
dler and passed unaninmously.
VIII.OTHER ITEMS FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION
CONSIDERATION OF APPEAL -CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT -CARROLL
Mr.Patrick Carroll is proposing a mobile/manufactured home park consisting of
about 10 acres located at the intersection of Marina Drive and Burress Street,
just south of Mr.Carroll's existing Broadway Estates Park.The entrance for
the new park in on Burress Street.The park consists of 53 lots,is split
zoned C-2 and R-3,and will be served with city sewer and water.Mr.Carroll
and city staff are working on the park's binding site plan improvements for
street and utility improvements,after presenting ideas to the Planning Com
mission.The binding site plan must be approved by the Planning Commission
and the Council.The Planning Commission at their July 26 meeting,after con
ducting the required public hearing,approved a conditional use permit for the
Carrol Is.
A Notice of Appeal was received on August 6,1984,from Tom Cordell appealing
the Conditional Use Permit ruling of the Planning Commission.Mr.Tom Cor
dell,Appellant,stated in his Notice of Appeal that he appeals the action of
the Planning Commission of Moses Lake taken July 26,1984,in granting a "Con
ditional Use Permit"to Pat Carroll for a mobile home park on Marina Drive.
The grounds for the appeal are:(a)The action of the Planning Commission
was arbitrary and capricious;(b)The Planning Commission failed to follow
the procedure called for by Chapter 18.51 of the Moses Lake Municipal Code;
and (c)The Planning Commission failed to make Findings of Fact that are pre
requisite to granting a conditional use permit.
Mr.Cordell stated that he felt the Planning Commission did not address the
problem of increased traffic in the area to his satisfaction.He also felt
that the Findings of Fact should have been prepared prior to the Planning Com
mission actually granting the Conditional Use Permit.
/v(/
/OSA
3754
CITY COUNCIL MEETING - PAGE 6 August 28,1984
Mr.Carroll stated that he was working on a binding site plan with city staff
at this time and that the Conditional Use Permit was issued so he could go
ahead with the construction.
Mr.Gavinski stated that from his standpoint it isn't clear from the findings
that are written that a clear finding was established that there would or
would not be an impact as a result of the traffic itself.There is reference
to comments having been solicited and the Planning Commission making their
decision based upon some of the comments.
Mayor Johnson asked if Mr.Cordell should be referred back to the Planning
Commission.
Mr.Gavinski stated that from a procedural standpoint the Council could grant
the appeal with the understanding that it is sent back to the Planning Commis
sion for clarification on the traffic issue,or stipulate further consider
ation on the appeal and send it back for clarification instead of actually
denying it.
Mr.Edwards asked if the major ingress and egress would be from Broadway?The
Municipal Services Director answered that the main entrance and exit were on
Burress.
Mr.Carroll stated that he had no objection to working with the traffic issue
because he is a property owner here and he knows what he is doing is going to
have a very small impact.The traffic issue was brought up at the Planning
Commission meeting even though it is being discussed now,it is not relavent.
It was ruled on the Planning Commission meeting and even if it was capri-
cious;it was ruled upon.The issue here is,and Mr.Cordell's complaint is,
that they didn't follow their procedures properly.So,he didn't think that
sending it back to the Planning Commission to rule on the traffic issue that
it can be brought up again,the issue here is that Mr.Cordell objects to the
way that they passed it,not the traffic.The project is designed to minimize
the traffic.
Mr.Cordell stated that that was partially right.Part of the Appeal was
based upon the traffic problem.He didn't think that they considered that
enough or really didn't consider it at all.The protest was that Mr.Carroll
stated in his EIS it would not significantly affect traffic.His engineer
states that there would be more traffic and later they said there wouldn't be
traffic coming down Marina Drive.He don't know whether there will be more
traffic or not,he is not a traffic engineer,but it looked to him like there
very well might.Other people drive down Marina,the other basis is this
business of waiting until,you do the binding site plan to impose the condi
tions,because neither the public nor Mr.Carroll has a clue as to what you
are going to impose.At that point the public does not have any imput,and he
is out a bunch of dough and specifically what he was worried about and what he
is worried about that at some point the Planning Commission has said that they
are going to recommend this,that they want a full width city street,a 60-
foot wide street.Maybe without that 60'wide street you aren't going to have
an increase in traffic but he could assure that you are.There is no way you
can help that.Where are you going to get the other 20 feet?You only have a
40'wide easement there.Either it is going to have to come from Mr.Carroll
and he says he isn't going to do it or you are going to have to buy it from
me,from Harold Hochstetter,Barry Queen,Roy Adams,and from Gary who owns
the Big Sun Resort.It is going to cost the city alot of money.You should
address the issue now before you get into the binding site plan.This is
backwards,that is what he is saying.The Planning Commission apparently
didn't realize that.Mr.Carroll needs to know what the conditions are going
to be and so does he.They talked about changing it,yet this road question
was completely left up in the air.There is nothing specific about the sewer
and water,whether they are going to bring it down Marina or if they are going
to bring it down Burress.
Mr.Rimple asked if that was not addressed in the preliminary plat?Mr.
Gavinski answered that that would be addressed in the binding site plan when
that comes back for consideration.
Mr.Gavinski stated that the problem is that there are two differences of
opinion as to how the procedures work.From the City's standpoint it has been
set up this way so that an applicant can know that he has the conditional use
n
3755
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES -PAGE 7 August 28,1984
permit before he goes through the process of obtaining his binding site im
provement plan and bringing that before the Planning Commission and the City
Council and have the public hearing because from the City's standpoint when
the policy was established it seemed difficult and odd to have the binding
site improvement plan approved and then request a conditional use permit and
not get the conditional use permit approved.
Mr.Carroll stated that he started the process and he was told that it is al
lowed through the conditional use permit process but then you have to submit
the binding site plan.After the preliminary binding site plan is submitted
and it is generally in accordance with requirements they give you a condition
al use permit and then you have to submit a final binding site plan.The
municipal code (17.26.060)states that when the planning administrator deter
mines that the completed binding site plan is acceptable,the plat administra
tor shall set a date for a public hearing before the Planning Commission.The
public hearing that was held was for the conditional use permit there still
has to be another public hearing before the Planning Commission.He read the
distribution and mailing of the notice of the public hearing,and he feels
that there will be another public hearing,that notice will be sent to all the
individuals and property owners that abut the property and they will have a
chance to come down and bring up any issues.In anything that you do in the
city there will be an impact.Even a single family house will have an impact.
I believe that we can prove eventually that what I have done,as far as traf
fic is concerned,is to Mr.Cordell's best interest.
Mr.Edwards moved that this appeal be returned to the Planning Commission to
settle the Findings of Fact and continue the appeal to the next City Council
meeting,seconded by Mr.Chandler,and passed unanimously.
CONSIDERATION OF CLAIM -GORDON KRUSE CONSTRUCTION CO.
A letter was read from City Manager Joseph K.Gavinski which stated that Gor
don Kruse Construction has submitted a claim to the City of Moses Lake on the
Central Operations Facility construction portion of the wastewater improvement
program.Mr.Kruse is requesting payment of $525,924.Discussions have been
held and further discussions are pending.He recommended that the Council
deny the claim at this time.
Mr.Edwards moved that the claim be denied,seconded by Mr.Chandler and
passed unanimously.
MONTLAKE PLACE VACATION
City Manager,Joseph K.Gavinski,stated that Dr.Black came to the Council
requesting an abandonment of an easement and requesting the vacation of right-
of-way along with that that the City not require the reimbursement at fifty
percent of the appraised value.Since that time Dr.Black has come in and
explained further why he took that position,stating that the street is there
and he is willing to take that responsibility from the city,that the city
does not have to have the street put in,in turn he will convert that to a
private drive-way,put in the utilities,and still pay the city $1,100.He
has discussed this with the city attorney.He will not require the city to
put in the utilities,where if he would sell the property to someone else they
might require the city to put in the utilities.It was originally platted by
Percy Driggs and part of the improvements were placed in.There is a bond
that the city holds.The bond has been reduced to between $1,200-$1,900.If
the city were to put those improvements in now it would cost approximately
$12,000,which the city would have to make up the difference,if in fact the
improvements were put in.Dr.Black is asking for reconsideration of the
city's positition in the ordinance that has already been passed.He is
requesting that the reimbursement be reduced from $5,500 that the city would
have required at 50%of the appraised value,down to $1,100,with him putting
in a drive in the same place and him being responsible for the installation
and maintenance of the driveway.It will become a private driveway.An or
dinance was not presented to Council until he found out what the Council want
ed to do.If the Council decided to consider it he will bring back an or
dinance to the Council for the next Council meeting.
Mr.Chandler moved that the City Managetr bring back an ordinance repealing
Ordinance 1139 and a new ordinance be brought back abandoning the easement and
vacating he right-of-way,seconded by Mr.Edwards,and passed unanimously.
/ojy
/0<f7
3756
1
&
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES -PAGE 8 August 28,1984
IX.COUNCIL QUESTIONS AND COMMENTS - None
X.CITY MANAGER REPORTS AND COMMENTS
REPORT ON PINE STREET
A letter from City Manager Joseph K.Gavinski was read which stated that a
request was received from Our Lady of Fatima Catholic Church to consider the
reopening of Pine Drive from Central Drive to Knolls Vista Drive.There are
30'of right-of-way that have to be obtained from the current owner of the
Pilgrim Congregational Church Plat,before the street could be reopened.
Mr.Rimple moved that Pine Drive not be reopened,seconded by Mr.Johnson.
The vote was taken and Mr.Rimple and Mr.Johnson voted for the motion,Mr.
Staat,Mr.Reese,and Mr.Edwards voted against the motion,and Mr.Chandler
abstained from voting since he is a member of the Hope Community Church (for
merly Pilgrim Congregational Church).The motion failed.
Mr.Rimple stated that this had become before the Planning Commission some
years ago and that there was quite alot of objection and support to close Pine
Drive.
Mr.Staat stated that Northshore Drive has since been repaved and improved.
Mr.Gavinski stated that he gave the information about Pine Street to the
Council to help them make a decision.
Mr.Rimple stated that if it is reopened,you have to buy 30'of right-of-way.
Is the church willing to sell their 30'of right-of-way?Is the City willing
to go out and buy 2100 square feet of property?
Mr.Gavinski stated that the request came from the Catholic Church and there
is a representative from the church here this evening.There was some discus
sion at the Council meeting regarding this request.The Council requested
information about the status of the property,because Mr.Robert Hill stated
that the city did not have the necessary right-of-way to reopen it even if the
city wanted to reopen it.
Mr.Chandler stated that Hope Community Church got a letter from Our Lady of
Fatima Church and it was discussed,and the Hope Community Church was not op
posed to reopening Pine Street,they wanted to know if it would be paved,
would it be curbs,gutters,and sidewalks?Would Hope Community Church have
to pay for those curbs,gutters,and sidewalks?Those are the questions that
Hope Community Church wants answered.Mr.Chandler said that it would not fit
in if there were no curbs,gutters,and sidewalks put in.
Mr.Gavinski stated that it would be an installation like there is on Lake-
shore and Peninsula,with no curbs,gutters,or sidewalks.He stated that
when this issue came up for closing the street it created alot of discussion
for and against.
Mr.Johnson stated that there was a house full of people at the public hearing
that did not want it closed,but they were voted down.Mr.Rimple said that
there was a house full of people who wanted it closed.Mr.Johnson stated
that,however,there were fewer of them than the other.
Mr.Edwards stated that he had voted to remain open.
Mr.Gavinski asked if the Council wanted to do anything further on it.
Mr.Johnson would like the City Manager to come back to Council with some fig
ures of the cost of purchasing the right-of-way.
.£SALES TAX DISTRIBUTION
Mr.Gavinski stated that the sales tax received was almost $236,000,even
though the sales tax on food is off.
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES -PAGE 9 August 28,1984
DIVISION STREET -(REPORT)
Division Street bicycle paths should be done tomorrow and they will begin on
the sidewalks.There have been some comments why the bicycle path ends where
it does.The bicycle path was moved from one side to the other after the
citizens of the Montiake area requested the sidewalk be put on their side of
the street.There was not right-way all the way,and that is why it stops
where it stops.Equipment should be on site for paving on September 5,paving
should begin by the 10th and be completed by the 20th.
The regular meeting was recessed at 9:30 and the Council met in an executive
session to discuss labor negotiation.The executive session was adjourned at
10:00 p.m.and the regular meeting was reconvened.The regular meeting was
adjoured at 10:00 p.m.
ATTEST:
Ojq0jJ .£Xity Clerk ^
3757
/€>/<?
BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF MOSES LAKE,WASHINGTON
In the Matter of:
Pioneer Way Commercial Park Final
Plat
FINDINGS OF FACT,CONCLUSIONS,
AND DECISION
3757a
This matter,having come on before the Moses Lake City Council for action on
August 28,1984,now makes the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1.The Findings of Fact prepared for the Pioneer Way Commercial Park Pre
liminary Plat are incorporated herein by reference.
2.The Pioneer Way Commercial Park Phases I and II were presented as a final
plat to the Moses Lake Planning Commission on July 17,1984.
3.This property is situated in Grant County,Washington and is legally
described as follows:
All that potion of the NE1/4 of Section 26,Township 19 North,Range 28
East of the Willamette Meridian lying southwesterly of the southwesterly
right-of-way line of a highway known as Pioneer Way,southeasterly and
southerly of the southeasterly and southerly right-of-way line of a
street known as Sharon Avenue,easterly of the easterly right-of-way line
of a United States Bureau of Reclamation irrigation canal designated as
EL 20 Y upon the Plat of Irrigation Block 41,bearing page No.222-116-
28811-21 and now on file in the office of said Bureau at Ephrata,
Washington,and northerly and northwesterly of the following described
line:Beginning at the intersection of said right-of-way lines for
Sharon Avenue and canal EL 20 Y;thence south 07°53'52"east along the
easterly line of said canal right-of-way 602.53 feet to the True Point of
Beginning for said line;thence north 82°06'08"east 200.00 feet;thence
south 07°53'52"east 85.87 feet;thence north 82°06'08"east 260.00 feet;
thence south 07°53'52"east 138.02 feet;thence north 53°01'03"east
159.21 feet to the northwest corner of the city plat known as Capital
Tract,in accord the plat thereof recorded in Volume 11 of Plats at page
38,records of said county;thence continuing north 53°01'03"east along
the northwesterly line of said plat 500.00 feet to the northeast corner
therof which is a point on the southwesterly line of said Pioneer Way and
the end of said described line;
EXCEPT therefrom the South Pioneer Short Plat in accord the plat thereof
recorded in Volume 2 of Short Plats at page 20,records of Grant County.
4.The Planning Commission,at their meeting on July 17,1984 recommended to
the City Council that the Pioneer Way Commercial Park Final Plat Phases I
and II be approved with the stipulation that the following comments from
the City Engineer be addressed:
a.Streets and utilities have not been constructed.A bond will be
required for 150%of construction costs.The developer's engineer
should submit a detailed cost breakdown for review and approval.
b.A maintenance bond wll be required after construction and acceptance
of utilities.
c.Surveyor's certificate does not confrm to community standards.No
approval has been given to set corners and monuments after construc
tion improvements.
d.Deed restrictions and covenants should be submitted with plat.
e.No title report has been received.
f.No County Treasurer's report has been received.
g.No certificate from City Finance Director,
h.No date of survey.
3757b
i. No elevations on subdivision corners.
j.No lot and block closures
k.No vicinity map scale 1"=400'
1. No lot corners or monuments have been set in the field.
m.There are two bearings on east line of Lot 13.Which is found,and
which is record?
n.Length at south line of Lot 20 not shown.
o.Found bearing on north line of Capital Tract.
p.Minimum cul de sac radii is 60'per Communty Standards and city code
(17.28.030).
and the following requirements:
a.Wheatland remove the landscape strip in Pioneer Way from the DSHS
building to Sharon Avenue.If there is asphalt beneath it,the city
will stripe it for a two way turn lane.If there is no asphalt,
Wheatland Development will pave the area and the city will stripe
it.
b.Wheatland provide top soil,an irrigation system,and planting
material for the triangular piece at the intersection of Pioneer Way
and Highway 17.
c.Wheatland improve the parking strip on Pioneer Way between the
street and the sidewalk with sod,irrigation,and planting material.
5.On August 13,1984 Wheatland presented a request to city staff for a
variance to waive the required parks and public lands fee of approximate
ly $4,000 for this plat.
6.The City Council,at their meeting on August 14,1984,when reviewing the
final plat with the requested variance determined that it be returned to
the Planning Commission for review before any action is taken on the
plat.
7.The Planning Commission,at their meeting on August 16,recommended to
the Council that the variance request be denied.
8.On August 28,1984,the City Council denied the variance to waive the
plat's parks and public lands fee.
CONCLUSIONS
1.The City Council of the City of Moses Lake is vested with the authority
and has the juridiction under the law to approve a final plat within the
city's corporate limits if the criterion required by law is met.
2.There appears after the public meeting before the City Council concerning
this final plat,no opposition to its approval.
3.The City Council is cognizant of the need to serve the welfare and best
interests of the entire community,and believes that this plat will serve
the best interests of the residents of the City of Moses Lake and bears a
substantial relationship to the public welfare of the entire community.
DECISION
1.The Pioneer Way Commercial Park Phase I and II Final Plat is approved as
recommended by the Moses Lake Planning Commission.
Dated September 11,1984
CITY OF MOSES LAKE