Loading...
1986 11 254024 CITY COUNCIL CITY OF MOSES LAKE November 25, 1986 Members Present:Norm Johnson,Bill Reese,Bill Frederickson,Wayne Rimple, Roger Biallas,David Chandler,and Charles Edwards The meeting was called to order at 8 p.m.by Mayor Johnson. Mr.Edwards moved that the minutes of the meeting of November 11 be approved as submitted,seconded by Mr.Chandler,and passed unanimously. APPROVAL OF BILLS REGULAR BILLS AMOUNT GENERAL FUND $54,302.42 STREET 7 420.30 STREET REPAIR AND RECONSTRUCTION '140^44 BUILDING AND EQUIPMENT 155,842.50 WATER/SEWER FUND 15,298.03 WATER/SEWER CONSTRUCTION 2,523.51 SANITATION FUND 15,300.32 CENTRAL SERVICES 43,987.51 BUILDING MAINTENANCE 108.10 EQUIPMENT RENTAL 5,288.96 LID #53 476.12 TOTAL $613,014.95 Mr.Reese moved that the bills be approved as submitted,seconded by Mr.Rim ple,and passed with Mr.Biallas abstaining from voting for that portion of the bills to A &H Printers,Mr.Rimple abstaining from voting for that por tion of the bills to Moses Lake Steel Supply,and Mr.Edwards abstaining from voting for that portion of the bills to Coast to Coast. I. II. CITIZEN CONSENT INPUT - I AGENDA - tone None III.CONSIDERATION OF BIDS GRADING SERVICES CONTRACT A letter was read from Rita Perstac,Municipal Services Director,which stated /o/9 that three bids were received for providing grading services -one from Hansen and two from the city.The city's submitted two bids -one using the existing grader and one using a new,used grader.The city is required to pay state sales tax on contracted services but not on services it provides.On con tracted services the city must provide more inspection and administration than it does for city employees,at a cost to the city in addition to the bid amount.Not including sales tax or inspection and administration costs,Han sen Construction submitted the low bid;including sales tax the city submitted the low bid. Mr.Frederickson felt that there were too many variables in the city's bid. Mr.Rimple also felt that the city should not bid against private businesses. I Action Taken:Mr.Frederickson moved that the bid be awarded to Hansen Con- I struction,seconded by Mr.Rimple. ^Joseph K.Gavinski,City Manager,stated that the city's bid was intended to be used as a comparison by the Council between the work being done by the city and a private contractor. There was some discussion by the Council. The motion passed unanimously. HUMANE HUT FENCE CONTRACT A letter was read from Rita Perstac,Municipal Services Director,which recom-/^j mended that the bid for the Humane Hut Fence be awarded to Tri-City Fence.Io£^__ )0 \4r \W 4025 CITY COUNCIL MINUTES:2 November 25,1986 Action Taken:Mr.Frederickson moved that the bid be awarded to Tri-City Fence,seconded by Mr.Biallas,and passed unanimously. IV.PETITIONS,COMMUNICATIONS,OR PUBLIC HEARINGS - None V.ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS ORDINANCE -ADOPT 1987 BUDGET -2ND READING A letter was read from Joseph K.Gavinski,City Manager,which presented an ordinance adopting the 1987 Budget. The ordinance adopting the budget for the City of Moses Lake,Washington for the year of 1987 was read by title only. The public hearing was opened. Dave Perrault wanted to know how a budget could be adopted when the city does not know what its revenue will be. Mr.Gavinski stated that the budget is an estimation and based upon existing revenues and not proposed changes. Mr.Chandler moved that the public hearing be closed,seconded by Mr.Rimple, and passed unanimously. Action Taken:Mr.Edwards moved that the second reading of the ordinance be adopted,seconded by Mr.Chandler,and passed unanimously. ORDINANCE -GAMBLING TAX -2ND READING A letter was read from Joseph K.Gavinski,City Manager,which presented an ordinance reducing the gambling tax to 4.5%beginning January 1,1987. The ordinance amending Chapter 3.18 of the Moses Lake Municipal Code entitled Gambling Tax was read by title only. Mr.Edwards stated that the city needs money and the Council is talking about reducing the gambling tax and imposing a real estate tax.He felt the gam bling tax should not be reduced. Mr.Chandler stated that he agreed with Mr.Edwards. Mr.Frederickson stated that he believed the majority of the funds collected on gambling should be used for enforcement of the ordinance and he did not feel the city was using the funds for enforcement. Action Taken:Mr.Frederickson moved that the second reading of the ordinance be adopted,seconded by Mr.Biallas,and passed with Mr.Edwards and Mr.Chan dler opposed. ORDINANCE -REAL ESTATE EXCISE TAX - 2ND READING A letter was read from Joseph K.Gavinski,City Manager,which presented an ordinance enacting the optional 1/4%real estate excise tax. The ordinance enacting a new chapter 3.27 of the Moses Lake Municipal Code entitled Real Estate Excise Tax:1986 was read by title only. Mr.Gavinski distributed three letters to the Council all of which objected to the tax. Gary Mann,Gary Mann Real Estate,stated that the tax would probably cause people to build outside the city limits.He felt the city should encourage growth within its limits instead of discouraging it. Kent Jones,Dave Jones Realty,pointed out that the tax does not consider whether a property owners is making a profit of loss on the sale of his house. He did not feel this tax would not promote growth in the city.He stated that the state already imposes a 1.07%excise tax as well as revenue stamps. n 4026 CITY COUNCIL MINUTES:3 November 25,1986 Ralph Kincaid stated that he did not understand how the city could reduce one tax and then create a different tax.He pointed out that the farm economy is y/ery bad and the city is basically built on the farm economy.He did not feel the city should impose additional taxes until the farm economy improves. Henry Monroe felt that in the long run the city would get more money if the tax is not passed. Mr.Biallas stated that the Council has not eliminated a tax but just reduced it to a more equitable level.This proposed tax would impact those people paying a lesser amount than the people paying the gambling tax.He felt the money from this tax would benefit the residents of the city. Mr.Frederickson stated that he is opposed to this tax as the number of real estate people in the city has fallen from 70 to 40.He stated that the tax would make the city eligible for a loan but that the loan has to be paid back. He pointed out that the budget is balanced and would like to consider this tax at a later date. Mr.Chandler stated that he felt this is a punitive tax and is opposed to it. Mr.Rimple stated that he felt it is the obligation of the Council to the citizens to maintain and upgrade the infrastructure of the city.The 1/2% sales tax imposed is used for the benefit of the city and the citizens can see that.He pointed out that since the county also imposed that tax it reduced the city's revenue by about $100,000.This tax would bring the city,about $40,000 for a capital improvement fund. Mr.Frederickson moved that the second reading of the ordinance be tabled for one year.Motion died for lack of a second. Action Taken:Mr.Biallas moved that the second reading of the ordinance be adopted,seconded by Mr.Rimple,and passed with Mr.Frederickson,Mr.Chan dler,and Mr.Edwards opposed. ORDINANCE - SNOW EMERGENCY/TOWING VEHICLES - 2ND READING A letter was read from Joseph K.Gavinski,City Manager,which presented an ordinance allowing the Municipal Services Department to clear city streets of parked motor vehicles during the time city crews are plowing snow from city streets. The ordinance creating a new Chapter 10.14 of the Moses Lake Municipal Code entitled Snow Emergency -Towing Unauthorized Vehicles was read by title only. Action Taken:Mr.Rimple moved that the C-15 penalty be inserted and the second reading of the ordinance be adopted,seconded by Mr.Chandler,and passed with Mr.Edwards opposed. ORDINANCE - AMEND PARKING REGULATIONS - 1ST READING A letter was read from Joseph K.Gavinski,City Manager,which presented an /&£•? ordinance amending the parking regulations to eliminate parking on Olive Street from Pioneer Way to Juniper Drive except for that portion in front of 704 Olive Street,eliminate parking on Lakeshore Drive at Wanapum Drive inter section,eliminate parking on northwest (lake)side of Marina Drive from Gibby to Burress,eliminate parking on the Valley Road Hill,and allow on-street parking on Central Drive from Pine to Sage Bay Drive.This ordinance was tabled at the last meeting. —Action Taken:Mr.Frederickson moved that this item be brought off the table, seconded by Mr.Rimple,and passed unanimously. The ordinance amending Chapter 10.12 of the Moses Lake Municipal Code entitled Parking Regulations was read by title only. Mr.Gavinski stated that this ordinance was tabled because the Council wished to look at the parking issue on Olive.He stated that at the last meeting the Retirement Inn requested either parking be entirely prohibited on Olive or allow parking on Olive.Mr.Moberg had requested that parking on Olive be restricted except in front of his residence. /OJ7 riP \t^ 4027 CITY COUNCIL MINUTES:4 November 25,1986 Mr.Rimple stated that Mr.Moberg is the only residence on Olive Street and he should be allowed to park there.He felt that the employees of the Retirement Inn should not be allowed to park there. There was some discussion by the Council. Action Taken:Mr.Edwards moved that the first reading of the ordinance be adopted,seconded by Mr.Frederickson,and passed unanimously. ORDINANCES -AMEND MUNICIPAL CODE -2ND READINGS A letter was read from Joseph K.Gavinski,City Manager,which presented several ordinances amending the Municipal Code.The amendments are housekeep ing matters which bring the ordinances into conformity with actual practice, recent organizational changes,and/or court decisions. Amend Chapter 2.08 -Mayor and Council The ordinance amending Chapter 2.08 of the Moses Lake Municipal Code entitled Mayor and Council was read by title only. Action Taken:Mr.Edwards moved that the second reading of the ordinance be adopted,seconded by Mr.Biallas,and passed unanimously. Create Chapter 2.26 -Municipal Services Department The ordinance deleting Chapter 2.24 of the Moses Lake Municipal Code entitled Public Works Department and Chapter 2.28 of the Moses Lake Municipal Code en titled Community Development Department and creating a new Chapter 2.26 of the Moses Lake Municipal Code entitled Municipal Services Department was read by title only. Action Taken:Mr.Edwards moved that the second reading of the ordinance be adopted,seconded by Mr.Chandler,and passed unanimously. Amend Chapter 2.52 -Division of Emergency Services The ordinance amending Chapter 2.52 of the Moses Lake Municipal Code entitled Division of Emergency Services was read by title only. Action Taken:Mr.Edwards moved that the second reading of the ordinance be adopted,seconded by Mr.Chandler,and passed unanimously. Amend Chapter 2.76 -Firemen's Civil Service The ordinance amending Chapter 2.76 of the Moses Lake Municipal Code entitled Firemen's Civil Service was read by title only. Action Taken:Mr.Edwards moved that the second reading of the ordinance be adopted,seconded by Mr.Chandler,and passed unanimously. Amend Chapter 2.80 -Police Civil Service The ordinance amending Chapter 2.80 of the Moses Lake Municipal Code entitled Police Civil Service was read by title only. Action Taken:Mr.Edwards moved that the second reading of the ordinance be adopted,seconded by Mr.Chandler,and passed unanimously. Amend Chapter 2.92 -Elected Officials The ordinance amending Chapter 2.92 of the Moses Lake Municipal Code entitled Elected Officials was read by title only. Action Taken:Mr.Edwards moved that the second reading of the ordinance be adopted,seconded by Mr.Chandler,and passed unanimously. Amend Chapter 3.30 -Utility Occupational Tax The ordinance amending Chapter 3.30 of the Moses Lake Municipal Code entitled Utility Occupational Tax was read by title only. n 4028 CITY COUNCIL MINUTES:5 November 25,1986 Action Taken:Mr.Chandler moved that the second reading of the ordinance be adopted,seconded by Mr.Edwards,and passed with Mr.Frederickson opposed. Repeal Chapter 10.08 -Parking Meters /OJ7 The ordinance repealing Chapter 10.08 of the Moses Lake Municipal Code enti tled Parking Meters was read by title only. Action Taken:Mr.Frederickson moved that the second reading of the ordinance be adopted,seconded by Mr.Chandler,and passed unanimously. Repeal Chapter 10.20 -Noisy Vehicle The ordinance repealing Chapter 10.20 of the Moses Lake Municipal Code enti tled Noisy Vehicle was read by title only. Action Taken:Mr.Chandler moved that the second reading of the ordinance be adopted,seconded by Mr.Edwards,and passed with Mr.Rimple opposed. Amend Chapter 10.24 -Parade Regulations The ordinance amending Chapter 10.24 of the Moses Lake Municipal Code entitled Parade Regulations was read by title only. Action Taken:Mr.Edwards moved that the second reading of the ordinance be adopted,seconded by Mr.Reese,and passed unanimously. Amend Chapter 12.32 -Addresses and Street Names The ordinance amending Chapter 12.32 of the Moses Lake Municipal Code entitled Addresses and Street Names was read by title only. Action Taken:Mr.Edwards moved that the second reading of the ordinance be adopted,seconded by Mr.Chandler,and passed unanimously. Amend Chapter 13.04 -Sewer Regulations The ordinance amending Chapter 13.04 of the Moses Lake Municipal Code entitled Sewer Regulations was read by title only. Action Taken:Mr.Edwards moved that the second reading of the ordinance be adopted,seconded by Mr.Chandler,and passed unanimously. Repeal Chapter 13.20 -On-Site Sewage Disposal Systems The ordinance repealing Chapter 13*20 of the Moses Lake Municipal Code enti tled On-Site Sewage Disposal Systems was read by title only. Action Taken:Mr.Chandler moved that the second reading of the ordinance be adopted,seconded by Mr.Edwards,and passed unanimously. Amend Chapter 16.12 -Building Permits The ordinance amending Chapter 16.12 of the Moses Lake Municipal Code entitled Building Permits was read by title only. Action Taken:Mr.Frederickson moved that the second reading of the ordinance be adopted,seconded by Mr.Chandler,and passed unanimously. Amend Chapter 16.32 -Radio Antenna The ordinance amending Chapter 16.32 of the Moses Lake Municipal Code entitled Radio Antenna was read by title only. Action Taken:Mr.Chandler moved that the second reading of the ordinance be adopted,seconded by Mr.Frederickson,and passed unanimously. Amend Chapter 17.09 -Definitions The ordinance amending Chapter 17.09 of the Moses Lake Municipal Code entitled Definitions was read by title only. /097 jo?? //<>/ /Q7y /os^e lOS(* /oei l&> 4029 CITY COUNCIL MINUTES:6 November 25,1986 Action Taken:Mr.Chandler moved that the second reading of the ordinance be adopted,seconded by Mr.Rimple,and passed unanimously. Amend Chapter 17.13 -Short Subdivisions The ordinance amending Chapter 17.13 of the Moses Lake Municipal Code entitled Short Subdivisions was read by title only. Action Taken:Mr.Chandler moved that the second reading of the ordinance be adopted,seconded by Mr.Reese,and passed unanimously. Amend Chapter 17.17 -Major Subdivisions The ordinance amending Chapter 17.17 of the Moses Lake Municipal Code entitled Major Subdivisions was read by title only. Action Taken:Mr.Chandler moved that the second reading of the ordinance be adopted,seconded by Mr.Biallas,and passed unanimously. Amend Chapter 17.26 -Binding Site Plan The ordinance amending Chapter 17.26 of the Moses Lake Municipal Code entitled Binding Site Plan was read by title only. Action Taken:Mr.Chandler moved that the second reading of the ordinance be adopted,seconded by Mr.Reese,and passed unanimously. ri/Amend Chapter 18.06 -Definitions The ordinance amending Chapter 18.06 of the Moses Lake Municipal Code entitled Definitions was read by title only. Action Taken:Mr.Chandler moved that the second reading of the ordinance be adopted,seconded by Mr.Edwards,and passed unanimously. Amend Chapter 18.14 -RR,Rural Residential Zone The ordinance amending Chapter 18.14 of the Moses Lake Municipal Code entitled RR,Rural Residential Zone was read by title only. Action Taken:Mr.Chandler moved that the second reading of the ordinance be adopted,seconded by Mr.Edwards,and passed unanimously. Amend Chapter 18.52 -Grant County Airport Zone The ordinance amending Chapter 18.52 of the Moses Lake Municipal Code entitled Grant County Airport Zone was read by title only. Action Taken:Mr.Chandler moved that the second reading of the ordinance be adopted,seconded by Mr.Reese,and passed unanimously. Amend Chapter 18.57 -Signs and Billboards The ordinance amending Chapter 18.57 of the Moses Lake Municipal Code entitled Signs and Billboards was read by title only. Action Taken:Mr.Chandler moved that the second reading of the ordinance be adopted,seconded by Mr.Edwards,and passed unanimously. Amend Chapter 18.63 -Mobile Home Parks The ordinance amending Chapter 18.63 of the Moses Lake Municipal Code entitled Mobile Home Parks was read by title only. Action Taken:Mr.Chandler moved that the second reading of the ordinance be adopted,seconded by Mr.Edwards,and passed unanimously. Amend Chapter 18.67 -Planned Development District Zone The ordinance amending Chapter 18.67 of the Moses Lake Municipal Code entitled Planned Development District Zone was read by title only. l__, 4030 CITY COUNCIL MINUTES:7 November 25,1986 Action Taken:Mr.Chandler moved that the second reading of the ordinance be adopted,seconded by Mr.Edwards,and passed unanimously. Amend Chapter 18.78 -Zoning Board of Adjustment The ordinance amending Chapter 18.78 of the Moses Lake Municipal Code entitled Zoning Board of Adjustment was read by title only. Action Taken:Mr.Chandler moved that the second reading of the ordinance be adopted,seconded by Mr.Edwards,and passed with Mr.Frederickson opposed. ORDINANCE -CREATE CHAPTER 12.22 -SNOW REMOVAL - 1ST READING A letter was read from Joseph K.Gavinski,City Manager,which stated that a Councilman had requested that the ordinance concerning snow removal be brought back before the Council with a time limit of 36 hours for the removal of snow, ice,and sleet from sidewalks. The ordinance repealing Chapter 12.20 of the Moses Lake Municipal Code enti tled Snow Removal and creating a new Chapter 12.22 entitled Snow Removal was read by title only. Dave Perrault pointed out that the ordinance cannot be enforced.He stated that the Dept.of Transportation plows the snow to the side and would cover the sidewalks with snow after the property owners have cleaned it off. Wayne Baker stated that he is against the ordinance and does not want the snow plowed to the side as it covers up the sidewalk.He also did not feel the ordinance could be enforced. George Nuss suggested that the city not plow the streets at all unless the snow can be hauled off. Shirley Kvamme stated that she is opposed to the ordinance. Action Taken:Mr.Edwards moved that the first reading of the ordinance be denied,seconded by Mr.Chandler. Mr.Biallas stated that the reason he asked the ordinance to be brought back was the four hour time limit on the snow removal and he requested that it be changed to 36 hours.He stated that the ordinance would be enforced on a com plaint basis as the weed ordinance is.He stated that his reason for request ing the snow removal was because of the elderly people who walk. Mr.Frederickson stated that he is in favor of the ordinance. Mr.Chandler stated that his objection was that the ordinance could not be enforced. Mr.Reese felt that the city does not normally have a snow removal problem and felt it was being blown out of proportion because of the problems experienced last year. Mr.Rimple stated that the present ordinance requires property owners to clear their sidewalks. The motion passed with Mr.Biallas and Mr.Frederickson opposed. Mr.Gavinski stated that the current ordinance is vague on the amount of time a person is allowed before he is in violation of the ordinance and it could be challenged on that.The proposed ordinance sets a time limit and allows the city to remove the snow if it becomes necessary. RESOLUTION -PAWNBROKERS LICENSE - VAN WOERT A letter was read from Fred Haynes,Police Chief,which presented a resolution which would grant a pawnbrokers license to James and Sharon Van Woert.The Van Woerts currently own and operate the 01de World Trading Company in Ephra- ta.He recommended that the resolution be approved and the license issued. 5h§rGfis9luHfinWo^^license t0 James E-and //(sf /Obo Pb 4031 CITY COUNCIL MINUTES:8 November 25,1986 Action Taken:Mr.Edwards moved that the resolution be adopted,seconded by Mr.Biallas,and passed unanimously. VI.REQUESTS TO CALL FOR BIDS -None VII.REFERRALS FROM COMMISSIONS BIG BEND CENTER BINDING SITE PLAN Rita Perstac,Municipal Services Director,stated that McCarthy Management and Development of Spokane has submitted a binding site plan for the development of a shopping center and enclosed mall.The proposed 33 acre mall is located south of Highway 17 between Stratford Road and Central Drive.The mall's buildings consist of approximately 250,000 square feet and will include three large stores and 20 to 25 smaller stores.The site is zoned C-2,General Com mercial,and will be served with city water and sewer.The Planning Commis sion recommended to Council the Big Bend Center Binding Site Plan be approved as follow: 1.Comments from the City Engineer and Fire Marshal be addressed. 2.Developer not be required to participate in traffic signal costs at High way 17 and Stratford Road as requested by the Department of Transportation. 3.Developer install a signal light at the mall entrance on Stratford Road and the city set up a reimbursement schedule for the signal for property located east of Stratford Road. 4.Developer be required to dedicate 35'for Central Drive right-of-way (from mall's south property line to Park Street)with the stipulation that no planter strip be in Central Drive. 5.City pay for full-width street improvements to Central Drive from Valley to the mall's south property line. 6.City pay for half the cost of the street improvements plus necessary over- sizing for a street wider than 36'from the malls south property line to Park Street. 7.Developer install a 36'wide fully improved street from Park to Highway 17 including curbs and gutters but no sidewalk on the west side. 8.City be required to construct the street improvements on Central Drive at the same time the developer constructs their street improvements. Mike Tuohy,705 Edgewater,felt that the mall should only have one ingress and egress off of Stratford Road and it should not be close to the intersection of Stratford and Highway 17.He felt that measures other than a traffic light should be considered on Stratford such as medians and acceleration and de celeration lanes.He also felt the proposed parking lot should be landscaped in more areas than just around the perimeter. Ron Baker,representing the owners of the property across Stratford from this proposed mall,stated that the developer has indicated they will pay for 50% of the cost of the traffic light and the property owner across the street should pay for half.He stated that the traffic light would be needed at this time whether or not the other property is developed.He pointed out that the Penhallurick family provided the right-of-way for Highway 11-G in 1959 and in the purchase agreement the Highway Dept.agreed to put in a water line in Stratford Road from the Elks to the bowling alley.In 1964 the city let the contract for the water main but it is unclear where the money originated from for the project.He stated that when the county needed additional right of way for that road is was agreed between the Penhalluricks and the county that the county would construct and maintain the road in perpetuity.There is nothing in the agreement about assessments against the Penhallurick property for future traffic.He felt the traffic light should be paid for by the mall developers. Dan Altimore,representing the developers,felt that a repayment schedule of some kind should be developed so that if the property to the west uses the light,they would pay their fair share of the cost. u 4032 CITY COUNCIL MINUTES:9 November 25,1986 Ms.Perstac stated that the city would discuss with the Department of Transportation a light for the northbound off-ramp of Highway 17 whether or not the mall is constructed. Mr.Chandler wanted to know what the developers propose for landscaping. Mr.Altimore stated that a landscape plan has not been submitted and further that the proposed layout submitted is not final either and will not be until final commitments are received from major stores. There was some discussion by the Council on the proposed traffic lights. Mr.Frederickson wanted to know how many acres of undeveloped property is owned by the Penhalluricks. Mr.Baker stated that there is approximately 35 acres. Mr.Rimple wanted to know why Penhallurick is objecting to participating in the cost of the light if and when that property is developed commercially and the businesses utilize the light. Mr.Baker stated that it goes back to the Penhallurick family giving up prop erty so that Stratford Road is the width it is now;when Strand Diversified was putting in their development it was discovered that a lift station would be required and they stated they could not afford it,so the price of the land was reduced by the cost of the lift station.He stated that it is not the sort of thing for which the Penhalluricks could be reimbursed.He pointed out that the undeveloped property to the east is being asked to help pay for a traffic light that is being installed for the benefit of the mall. Mr.Rimple stated that he felt the light would benefit the property when it is developed.He also stated that if the studies show a light is necessary,he would support the idea. Action Taken:Mr.Rimple moved that the Big Bend Center Binding Site Plan be approved as recommended by the Planning Commission and the Findings of Fact be accepted,seconded by Mr.Chandler,and passed unanimously. PENINSULA ESTATES BINDING SITE PLAN A letter was read from Rita Perstac,Municipal Services Director,which stated //<?<* that B &R Associates of Everett has submitted a binding site plan for 18 lots as an expansion of the existing mobile home park,located at the intersection of Peninsula Drive and Wanapum.This Phase 2 will have access on Peninsula Drive and will be served with city water and sewer.The Planning Commission recommended to Council that the binding site plan for Phase 2 and the variance request for Wanapum Drive be approved with the stipulation that the comments from the City Engineer be addressed and the developer provide a covenant for street improvements to Peninsula on the west side abutting the developers property and the developer not be required to improve Wanapum Drive.The Com mission appeared agreeable to B &R Associates'request that their covenant for 25%LID participation be limited to a ten year period,that B & R Associ ates,at 100%developer's cost,be allowed to install their half of Peninsula Drive improvements for the entire length of their property prior to the forma tion of an LID before,or if,the LID is formed in the ten year period,and then be relieved of LID commitments for the widening of Peninsula Drive,and the approach ramp to the bridge not be their responsibility. Action Taken:Mr.Rimple moved that the Peninsula Estates Binding Site Plan De approved as recommended by the Planning Commission and the Findings of Fact be accepted,seconded by Mr.Chandler,and passed unanimously. VIII.OTHER ITEMS FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION REQUEST FOR SEWER SERVICE OUTSIDE CITY LIMITS -COCHRAN A letter was read from Rita Perstac,Municipal Services Director,which stated //^ that Jim Cochran has requested permission to extend a sewer main from Highway 17 across the Starfoods Corporation's south property lien to the west side of Airway Drive.The line will be built to city standards.The Council has granted permission for the extension of city water from Harvest Manor 200' north on the west side of Highway 17 and then 300*across Starfood's south 4033 CITY COUNCIL MINUTES:10 November 25,1986 property line to Airway Drive.The Council granted permission to Jim Cochran to extend city water from Starfoods property across Airway Drive and south 770'on the west side of Airway Drive.These water mains will be built to city standards and will be public.The Council granted Starfoods permission to extend a privately-owned sewer side lateral from Harvest Manor north on the west side of Highway 17.The sewer main will be a mix of private and public lines and staff is concerned about this mix. Ms.Perstac stated that Mr.Cochran is requesting permission to connect a pri vate sewer line to the city main. Joseph K.Gavinski,City Manager,stated that if the Council grants the request,it should be made clear that this is a private lateral and the city is not accepting it as a city main since it is not built to city standards. The city would bear no responsibility for any future maintenance,repair,or replacement of the line in the future.It is essentially a private side lateral serving more than one location. Action Taken:Mr.Frederickson moved that Mr.Cochran's request be granted with the stipulation that it be understood that it is a private lateral and the city would bear no responsibility for any future maintenance,repair,or replacement of the line in the future,seconded by Mr.Chandler,and passed unanimously. INCINERATION SITE -HIGHWAY 17 A letter was read from Rita Perstac,Municipal Services Director,which stated that the existing earnest money agreement on the 171.8 acres of vacant land proposed for the city's incineration site expires February 15,1987.Jerry Jensen,owner of the property,has expressed interest in extending the agree ment for another 12 months for a $500 payment to him. Action Taken: Mr.Edwards moved that staff be authorized to extend the earnest money agreement,seconded by Mr.Reese,and passed with Mr.Rimple opposed. IX.COUNCIL QUESTIONS AND COMMENTS POLICE DEPARTMENT Mr.Biallas stated that since becoming a Councilman he has had a continuous flow of rumors which have had no basis in report. Action Taken:Mr.Biallas moved that the Council make a statement of un qualified support for the City Manager,Police Chief,and other city depart ment heads,seconded by Mr.Chandler,and passed unanimously. X. CITY MANAGER REPORTS AND COMMENTS NATIONAL GUARD Joseph K.Gavinski,City Manager,stated that the National Guard will hold an activation ceremony for a company to be based in Moses Lake in the second weekend in December. The regular meeting was recessed at 11:30 p.m.and the Council met in execu tive session to discuss personnel matters.The executive session was adjour ned at 11:45 p.m.and the regular meeting was reconvened.The regular meeting was adjourned at 11:45 p.m. /" " BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MOSES LAKE,WASHINGTON IN THE MATTER OF: BIG BEND CENTER BINDING SITE PLAN FINDINGS OF FACT,CONCLUSIONS, AND DECISION This matter,having come on before the Moses Lake City Council for action on November 25,1986,now makes the following: FINDINGS OF FACT 1.McCarthy Management and Development Co.of Spokane has submitted a bind ing site plan for the Big Bend Center,a shopping center and enclosed mall. 2.The property is situated in Grant County and is legally describeddn Attachment A. 3.The proposed center will consist of approximately 250,000 square feet of gross lease area located on 33 acres lying between Stratford Road on the east,Central Drive on the west,and Highway 17 on the north. 4.The area is zoned C-2,General Commercial and Business,and will be served with city water and sewer. 5.The mall will consist of three large stores and 20 to 25 smaller stores in the enclosed area.Several out lots on the peripheral property will also be used for commercial use. 6.Access to the center will be via Stratford Road and an extension of Cen tral Drive. 7.At their meeting on September 11,1986 the Planning Commission declared this project to have a non-significant adverse impact on the environment. 8.A public hearing scheduled upon notice before the Planning Commission on the issue of the Big Bend Center Binding Site Plan was held on October 30,1986. 9.There were no comments from the public present. 10.The following written comments were received from the City Engineer: Binding Site Plan 1.Change the title to read Plat of Big Bend Center Binding Site Plan 2.Easement for sewer line to Highway 17 is required per our previous discussion.We will provide a legal description in the next couple of weeks. 3.Right-of-way dedication for Central Drive is not shown on the plat. Also,show existing right-of-way and width. 4.Surveyors certificate must conform to code requirements. 5.Plat should use different symbols for found and set pins. 6.Vicinity map scale is not 1"=400'as indicated. 7.Please show Bureau of Reclamation bearing on the north and east line of Section 15. 8.Show extra 10'right-of-way on Stratford Road -Auditors File #482492,Grant County,Washington. 9.Show proposed sewer easement beyond Golden Corral.Estimate 15' width will be required. 10.Moses Lake Municipal Code requires a 1"=100'scale for plats un less otherwise approved by the City Engineer prior to submitting the plat.I feel a 1"=100'scale would clarify many dimensions on Stratford and Central,especially when easements are added to the plat. 11.Clearly define the previous platted tracts.There appears to be some question on Tracts 3,4,5,6 and 7 between the vicinity map and the plat map. 12.The required extensions of utility and street improvements must be resolved.Per previous meetings,the plat will require construction of the following: a.Extension of sewer on Stratford Road from the Golden Corral Plat. b.Possible reimbursement to the Golden Corral for their sewer extension fronting on the plat. c.Fire flows to the plat will require extension of the water line from Central and Park to Stratford Road. A 10" main is recommended. d.Full width street improvements to Central Drive from Valley Road to Park including dedication of additional right-of-way. As this street will eventually be a neighborhood arterial,ad ditional width may be required by the city. e.Extension of Central Drive north of Park as required by the plat.Such an extension must end in a cul de sac unless a variance is approved. f.Extension of a sewer line from Park and Central north is pro posed by staff for 1987 construction.The status of a possible reimbursement should be resolved. g.Construction of a signal light on Stratford Road with future reimbursement for property to the east should be resolved. h.Washington State Dept.of Transportation has requested platter participation in signal lights on Stratford Road at Highway 17. This item needs to be resolved. i.Street lighting on Central and Stratford Road fronting on the plat. j.Improvements required for the binding site plan must be con structed or bonded for prior to filing of the site plan. 13. Other items to be resolved include: a.Right-of-way for Central Drive from Valley Road to the plat. (City staff is working on this.) b.Possible reimbursement for sewer and water to Vista Village on Central Drive to Park Street. c. Possible reimbursement for K-Mart Lift Station. 14.All deed restrictions,easements,or covenants existing or proposed shall be drawn on the binding site plan. 15.Submit a closure of the binding site plan survey. Improvement Plan The improvement plan provided with the submittal does not meet the requirements established by code.The following items must be shown on the improvement plan: n 1.Existing and proposed utilities including a.Sewer b.Water c.Storm Drain d.Electricity e.Gas f.Telephone g.Cablevision 2.Site plan scale shall be 1"=100' 3.Existing and proposed structures,natural features,and all proposed improvements within and adjoining the proposed binding site plan. 4.Topography of the area with a maximum of 2'intervals on contours. 5.Zoning classification on and adjacent to the property. 6.Proposed regrading of site. Other items the developer should be aware of include: 1.All storm water must be maintained on site.Grading plans on drainage will be reviewed as part of the building permit. 2.A landscape plan is required as part of the building plans. 11.Written comments,as follows,were received from PFI Architects,concern ing the developers improvements for the mall: A.The developer will provide a traffic signal at the northerly drive on Stratford Road. When the property to the east is developed the developer of that parcel is to reimburse the developer of Big Bend Center 50%of the cost of said signalization. The City of Moses Lake will provide all design specifications and working drawings for said improvements and the developer will con struct with their contractor. B.The developer will provide an easement to the City of Moses Lake for extension of sanitary sewer from the Golden Corral north. C.The developer will provide sidewalk to the City of Moses Lake specifications on Stratford Road contiguous to the property. D.On Central Drive the developer proposes the following: 1.A dedication to the City of Moses Lake of 20'of property on the east side of the existing 40'right-of-way contiguous to the property,to Park Place. 2.The developer will improve one half of the street (18'-0"of asphalt with curbs and sidewalks)on the east side,all desig ned and constructed to the city's specification. 3.The City of Moses Lake will improve the west half of Central Drive,from Valley Road north to Park Place and the east one half from Valley Road north to the developer's property. 4.The developer will improve an extension of Central Drive north of Park Place to state Highway 17 and dedicate it to the city in the following manner: Provide 36'of asphalt width with cubs and sidewalks on the east side,contiguous to the property. The city,at their cost,will extend a sewer line in the dedi cated portion to serve property north of Highway 17. 5.All improvements will be made by the developer's contractor. 12.Comments were received from the Washington State Department of Transpor tation which requested the Commission to consider the following condition of approval to the binding site plan: In the event future traffic control devices are needed at the two intersections of SR 17 ramps and Stratford Road,the developer shall participate in the funding of such device in direct proportion to the traffic volumes attributed to this development. 13.Comments were received from McCarthy Management and Development Co.in reply to the comments from the Department of Transportation as follows: A.That the formula be developed now rather than after the fact so that we may take into consideration the ultimate cost which may accrue to us. B.That any formula devised take into consideration any increase in development north on Stratford Road and in the airport area which would normally increase the traffic flow at this interchange regard less of the addition of a shopping center. C.That any such formula also take into consideration the potential expansion of the area to the east of the proposed shopping center location across Stratford Road which could be developed in the future. 14.Comments from the Fire Marshal indicate that fire hydrants will be re quired every 300'around the buildings and within 300'of any satellite buildings.A fire flow of approximately 2,400 gallons per minute will be required.The fire flow may be greater or lesser,depending on the type of construction and quality of the sprinkler system(s)supervision. Parking lot dividers adjacent to entry-ways or intersections shall be set back so the turning of fire apparatus will not be hampered. 15.Comments from the Park and Recreation Director indicate that landscaping should be required along the Stratford Road parking strip and that a to tal landscape plan be submitted to the city before a building permit is issued. 16.The Police Department performed a security survey and submitted their report for the developers use. 17.Mr.Gregory wanted to know how long Central Drive would be. 18.Al French,PFI Architects,representing the development,stated that Cen tral would extend to Park and then it would be a public frontage road to service the property.He stated that there is a total of three entrances to the mall,a signaled entrance on Stratford,one near Schuck's on Stratford,and one at Valley and Central. 19.Rita Perstac,Municipal Services Director,distributed two letters that were received about 4 p.m.-one from Dr.Richard Penhallurick and one from Sun City Properties.She stated that Sun City Properties is requesting a public road to be extended from Grape or Central to Strat ford through the mall property.A meeting was held with Don Worley, James Schmidt,Ron Baker,the City Manager,and the Municipal Services Director to discuss this proposal.The consensus was that since people will probably be using the mall road as a drive through anyway it should not necessarily be a public street.Also,the City Engineer could not support another intersecting street on Stratford so close to Highway 17. 20.Ms.Perstac stated that the developers are proposing to install a traffic signal on Stratford to service the most northerly entrance to the mall. This signal will cost about $100,000 and the developers would request a reimbursement schedule be set up for property located east of Stratford Road.The letter from Dr.Penhallurick states that he will not partici pate in the cost of the traffic signal on Stratford as he has provided a water line from the Elks north and also provided the lift station and over-sizing of the lines in this area and has not been paid for them. Ms.Perstac stated that city staff has researched this area and could find no documentation that Dr.Penhallurick paid for any of the improve ments.According to city records,Strand Diversified paid for the lift station and the Elks put in the water line.Dr.Penhallurick may hold an interest in Strand Diversified or the city records may be incomplete. 21.Mr.Gregory wanted to know about the request from the Department of Transportation for a signal light at the Highway 17 overpass. 22.Ms.Perstac stated that the city has done no data collection but the DOT has set traffic counters.The observation of the city at this time is that Highway 17 and Stratford will have to be signalized in the near fu ture,especially at the northbound off-ramp from Highway 17,because of the existing traffic.Stratford Road is being widened to 4 lanes to Harris Road in the county and the DOT is also proposing to give Broadway to the city and therefore to route more north/south through traffic on Highway 17.Both these projects will increase the need for a traffic signal at this location.The state is also scheduled to overlay Highway 17 from 1-90 to the base in the next couple of years.The developers are willing to pay their fair share of the traffic signal at Highway 17 and Stratford but want that share established at this time. 23.Mr.Gregory felt that putting a signal at the south off-ramp of Highway 17,the north off-ramp of Highway 17,and at the mall entrance would be putting a lot of signals in a short space. 24.Ms.Perstac stated that staff feels a traffic signal is needed at the mall entrance but is not so sure the signal at the south off-ramp of Highway 17 is needed because most traffic there appears to turn right southbound onto Stratford. 25.Mr.Collier pointed out that the signals would be about a block apart, which is what is currently existing in the downtown area. 26.Mr.Gregory felt that there would be about a 10%to 20%increase in traf fic because of the mall. 27.Mrs.Kvamme felt there would be more of a need for a traffic signal at Valley and Central. 28.Ms.Perstac stated that the city has done traffic studies and it is not felt that a traffic signal is needed at Central and Valley at this time. The main concern at this time is Central Drive improvements and the traf fic signals on Stratford.The traffic signal to improve the mall is re quired and the developers will put it in at their expense.The signals at Highway 17 and Stratford will be necessary in the future and it is appropriate that the developers participate in the cost. 29.Mr.Pedersen felt that a traffic light might be necessary at Central and Valley in the future. 30.Ms.Perstac stated that the undeveloped property in the area is R-3 but that the mall traffic,by itself,will not create a need for a signal at this location at this time.If the vacant R-3 land is developed to full density,a traffic light could be required in the future. 31.Mr.French stated that they did not feel traffic signals were needed at Highway 17 and Stratford. 32.Ms.Perstac stated that city observation indicates that signals would be needed but that has not been confirmed by the Department of Transportation. 33.Mr.French stated that the current contributors to the need for a light should share in the cost of the light.The traffic light in front of the mall will serve mall traffic and the developers will install that.He did not feel it would be realistic to have the developers participate in the traffic signal on the north off-ramp of Highway 17 since the need is already there and not connected to the mall.He felt that there is some question about the need for a traffic light at the south off-ramp and perhaps other alternatives could be looked at to control the traffic rather than a light.The unknown at this time is how much of the traffic is generated by the mall and to require a light at Central and Valley puts the developer into a position of second guessing where development in the city will take place. 34.Mr.Gregory wanted to know if the developer could participate in a light on a percentage basis if it would be determined how much traffic is going to the mall.He wanted to know if the developer would be willing to par ticipate in the future if it is determined that a light is needed. 35.Mr.French stated that if the study determines whether a traffic light is needed and it is based on current use and based on the use attributable to the shopping center,participation might be possible.However,based on current use there is no need for a traffic light at Central and Valley at this time. 36.Mr.Gregory wanted to know if the developer would be willing to partici pate in a light on a percentage basis in the future if the traffic in creases such that one is needed. 37.Mr.French wanted to know how the percentage would be determined and at what time in the future.If a traffic light is determined to be needed and then another development is proposed which would increase the traf fic,would that developer be required to participate in the cost of the signal even though his project has not yet been completed and is not con tributing to the traffic.It is difficult to anticipate growth and how much of that growth is laid to any one single developer. 38.Mr.Law stated that the developer will put in the one on Stratford to service the mall,there is no light needed at Central and Valley at this time,and the developer would participate in the light at Highway 17 and Stratford. 39.Mr.Gregory pointed out that the need for a light at the north off-ramp has already been determined and the mall traffic has nothing to do with that and the developers should not have to participate in the cost,but if a light is needed at the south off-ramp they would participate in that cost. 40.Ron Baker,Boundary Engineering,stated that there is an existing traffic report showing origin and destination of traffic and it shows the base and the downtown business district as the two extreme points of the majority of the traffic.The developers of a shopping center along that route should not be burdened with the cost of traffic lights on a state highway. 41.The Planning Commission considered the items on the City Engineer's comments. 42.They concurred that the construction of a signal light on Stratford Road should include reimbursement from property to the east. 43.The Department of Transportation has requested platter participation in signal lights on Stratford Road at Highway 17. 44.Mr.Gregory did not feel the developer should have to participate in north off-ramp signals since it is justified at this time but that he should participate in south off-ramp signals if they become necessary. 45. Mr.Collier stated he would like to see some traffic studies done first. 46.Ms.Perstac stated that staff will be conducting those studies. 47.Mr.French stated that his traffic engineer is conducting a study at this time on the amount of traffic that would be attributable to the mall off the south off-ramp and he has been in contact with the DOT. 48.Mr.Law moved that the developers not be required to participate in the signal light at the north off-ramp of Highway 17,seconded by Mrs. Kvamme,and passed unanimously. 49.Mrs.Kvamme stated that she did not feel a traffic light is needed at the south off-ramp,the street just needs to be widened. 50.Mr.Law moved that if the city traffic studies show there is a need for a traffic light at the south off-ramp of Highway 17,during the next five years,the developers be required to participate in the cost as per es tablished formula,seconded by Mr.Gregory. 51.Mrs.Kvamme moved that the motion be amended so that the developers par ticipate in the widening of the street if that proves to be more advan tageous than a signal light.Motion died for lack of a second. 52.Mr.Pray felt that five years is a long time to leave a developer hanging about the cost of a possible traffic control device.He felt that the increase in traffic would show up within the first year after the mall is completed. 53.Ms.Perstac pointed out that the mall is to be completed in phases. 54.Mr.French stated that the covered mall will be completed in the first year and the second phase might be an additional department store that may come in during the second year. 55.Mr.Law moved to amend the motion to a two year time period,seconded by Mr.Gregory. 56.Mr.French pointed out that there is still the question of how to handle the traffic from Highway 17 onto Stratford Road.If it is decided to put in an additional lane,that would be done by the State Highway Department and the developer would not be participating in that.Until it is deter mined how much traffic would be attributable to the mall there is no way of knowing how much it will cost the developer.He felt that the other two lights would control the traffic and he did not feel a light would be needed at the south off-ramp,especially if there is a free right turn. 57.Mrs.Kvamme felt that no decision should be made on the south off-ramp until after the light at the north off-ramp has been in for awhile,to see if that would handle the traffic appropriately. 58.Mr.Pedersen pointed out that if a major development went in at the base, there would be an increase in traffic which would not be attributable to the mal1. 59.Mr.French stated that based upon the traffic analysis there is a traffic light needed at the Stratford mall entrance and a light is needed at the north off-ramp of Highway 17.Other than these two lights,everything else is conjecture.They decided to put the mall in this area because there is a potential for growth and that potential is there whether or not the mall is developed. 60. The motion and second was withdrawn. 61.Mr.Pray moved that it be recommended to Council that the developer not be required to participate in either of the traffic lights at Stratford and Highway 17,seconded by Mrs.Kvamme. 62.Mr.Gregory felt they should be required to participate in part of the cost for a certain length of time because the generation of traffic is possible. 63.Mr.Pray pointed out that the developers are putting a tremendous invest ment into the city and are not arguing about any of the required improve ments and the more cut and dried it can be kept,the better.If the city does have some additional expense,a lot of it will be off-set by in creased revenues. 64.The motion passed with Mr.Gregory opposed. 65.Ms.Perstac stated that the city needs 35'on Central Drive for a full width street improvement.The developers have stated they would be will ing to dedicate 20'.The 35'is needed so that Central can be developed with four travel lanes and a center turn lane and no on-street parking. Central Drive would be a dedicated city street from Valley to Highway 17. 66.Mr.Pray pointed out that Grape,Valley,and Stratford are all four lane streets.He wanted to know if staff really sees that much of a demand for Central to be a four lane street. 67.Mr.Angel 1 stated that studies have been done on how much traffic could be generated in that area if it is developed to its maximum potential and a four lane arterial to serve the mall and the area to the west is wery necessary. 68.Mr.French stated that the developers did not want to give up the extra right-of-way because it was proposed to have a planter strip down the center of Central. 69.Ms.Perstac stated that at one of the first meetings with the developer the planter strip was discussed so that it would tie in with the current design of Central south of Valley.The City Engineer has taken a closer look at the proposal and with the possibility of the Vista Village Shop ping Center exiting traffic onto Central,and if the R-3 area is devel oped,there could be a lot of turning movements on Central.At the staff level the planter strip has been eliminated and a turn lane is proposed. The extra 35'is needed for the development of the four travel lanes,the turn lane,and the sidewalks,curbs,and gutters. 70.Mr.French stated that the developer was objecting to the planter strip and this is the first time the left turn lane and sidewalk has been mentioned. 71.Ms.Perstac pointed out that Central's right-of-way width and sidewalk was discussed from the beginning with the developer and the developer's architect acknowledges sidewalk improvements in written correspondence to the city. 72.Mr.Law moved that it be recommended to Council that the developer be required to dedicate 35'for Central Drive with the stipulation that there will be no planter strip in Central Drive,seconded by Mr.Peder sen,and passed unanimously. 73.Mr.French wanted to know if requiring more dedicated right-of-way would also increase the amount of improvements the developer would have to put in. 74.Ms.Perstac stated that the developers are proposing to improve half of the street,or an 18'width.In essence they are requesting a variance to installing full-width improvements on a 36'wide street.She stated that city ordinance discusses the city paying over-width costs when a subdivision's street improvements are required by the city to be more than 36'wide. 75.Mr.Collier stated that the city has problems with half streets and no one likes them. 76.Earl Amick,developer of Vista Village Shopping Center,stated that he dedicated 40'for Central Drive and put in water and sewer and brought Central up to grade over the hill.This dedication was given with the understanding that the other property owner was to dedicate 40'for the remainder of Central Drive. 77.Mrs.Kvamme felt that it should all be improved. 78.Ms.Perstac stated that the staff has discussed with the developer the possibility of the city sharing in the cost of improving Central Drive. The developer is proposing that Central Drive be improved full width by the city from Valley to the developers'south property line,the developer would pay half the cost and the city would pay half the cost from the development's south property line,with the city to pay for the oversizing,to Park,and from Park to Highway 17 the developer would pay for a 36'wide street with full improvements on the east side only.The city is requesting that the developer put in curb and gutter on the west side for drainage control and when that property on the west is devel oped,the sidewalk be put in. 79.Mr.Law moved that it be recommended to Council that the city pay for the improvements to Central Drive from Valley to the south boundary line of the mall property,the city pay for half the cost of the improvements from the south boundary line to Park Street and the necessary oversizing of Central from the south boundary line to Park Street,the developer put in a 36'wide full improved street from Park to Highway 17 including curbs and gutters but no sidewalk on the west side,and the city be re quired to construct the improvements to Central Drive at the same time the developer does,seconded by Mrs.Kvamme,and passed unanimously. 80.Mr.Collier wanted to know if the Commission wished to do anything with the suggestion from Sun City Properties.They have suggested that an arterial street be placed on the master plan to connect Grape Drive to Stratford Road and intersect with Central Drive. 81.It was the consensus of the Commission that nothing be done with the sug gestion since the two pieces of property are not adjacent. 82.Mr.Pray moved that it be recommended to Council that the Big Bend Center Commercial Binding Site Plan be approved as previously stipulated and the comments from the City Engineer and Fire Marshal be addressed,seconded by Mr.Law,and passed unanimously. 83.On November 11,1986 the City Council set November 25,1986 as the date to consider this binding site plan. 84.On November 25,1986 the City Council considered the Big Bend Center Binding Site Plan. 85.Mike Tuohy,705 Edgewater,felt that the mall should only have one in gress and egress off of Stratford Road and it should not be close to the intersection of Stratford and Highway 17.He felt that measures other than a traffic light should be considered on Stratford such as medians and acceleration and deceleration lanes.He also felt the proposed park ing lot should be landscaped in more areas than just around the perimeter. 86.Ron Baker,representing the owners of the property across Stratford from this proposed mall,stated that the developer has indicated they will pay for 50%of the cost of the traffic light and the property owner across the street should pay for half.He stated that the traffic light would be needed at this time whether or not the other property is developed. He pointed out that the Penhallurick family provided the right-of-way for Highway 11-G in 1959 and in the purchase agreement the Highway Dept. agreed to put in a water line in Stratford Road from the Elks to the bowling alley.In 1964 the city let the contract for the water main but it is unclear where the money originated from for the project.He stated that when the county needed additional right of way for that road is was agreed between the Penhalluricks and the county that the county would construct and maintain the road in perpetuity.There is nothing in the agreement about assessments against the Penhallurick property for future traffic.He felt the traffic light should be paid for by the mall developers. 87.Dan Altimore,representing the developers,felt that a repayment schedule of some kind should be developed so that if the property to the west uses the light,they would pay their fair share of the cost. 88.Ms.Perstac stated that the city would discuss with the Department of Transportation a light for the northbound off-ramp of Highway 17 whether or not the mall is constructed. 89.Mr.Chandler wanted to know what the developers propose for landscaping. 90.Mr.Altimore stated that a landscape plan has not been submitted and fur ther that the proposed layout submitted is not final either and will not be until final commitments are received from major stores. 91.Mr.Frederickson wanted to know how many acres of undeveloped property is owned by the Penhalluricks. 92.Mr.Baker stated that there is approximately 35 acres. 93.Mr.Rimple wanted to know why Penhallurick is objecting to participating in the cost of the light if and when that property is developed commer cially and the businesses utilize the light. 94.Mr.Baker stated that it goes back to the Penhallurick family giving up property so that Stratford Road is the width it is now;when Strand Di versified was putting in their development it was discovered that a lift station would be required and they stated they could not afford it,so the price of the land was reduced by the cost of the lift station.He stated that it is not the sort of thing for which the Penhalluricks could be reimbursed.He pointed out that the undeveloped property to the east is being asked to help pay for a traffic light that is being installed for the benefit of the mall. 95.Mr.Rimple stated that he felt the light would benefit the property to the east of Stratford Road when it is developed.He also stated that if the studies show a light is necessary,he would support the idea; CONCLUSIONS 1.The City Council of the City of Moses Lake is vested with the authority and has the jurisdiction under the law to approve a binding site plan 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 on Novem ber 25,1986 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 binding site plan 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 Big Bend Center Binding Site Plan is approved as recommended by the Moses Lake Planning Commission. Dated:December 4,1986 CITY OF MOSES LAKE u BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MOSES LAKE,WASHINGTON ) IN THE MATTER OF:) )FINDINGS OF FACT,CONCLUSIONS, PENINSULA ESTATES PHASE 2 BINDING ) AND DECISION SITE PLAN ) ) This matter,having come on before the Moses Lake City Council for action on November 35,1986,now makes the following: FINDINGS OF FACT 1.B &R Associates has submitted a binding site plan for Phase 2 of the expansion to the Peninsula Estates Mobile Home Park. 2.The property is situated in Grant County and is legally described as fol1ows: A portion of Tracts 51 and 52,Battery Orchard Tracts,as filed for record on Page 31 of Book 1 of Acreage Plats,records of Grant County, Washington,also being a portion of Section 33,Township 19 North,Range 28 EWM,described as follows: Commencing at a monument marking the intersection of Interlake Road and Peninsula Drive;thence along the centerline of Peninsula Drive south 31°47'54"west,895.00 feet;thence north 58°12'06"west,20.00 feet to the point of beginning;thence continuing north 58°12'06"west,125.00 feet;thence north 31°47'54"east,90.00 feet;thence north 58°12'06" west,20.00 feet;thence north 31°47'54"east,115.00 feet;thence north 46<>59'32"west,59.02 feet;thence north 31°47'54"east,513.40 feet,to the southerly right-of-way line of Interstate 90;thence,along said right-of-way,the following four courses:north 86°08'00"east,114.00 feet;thence south 06°51'45"east,128.50 feet;thence south 31<>47'54" west 100.00 feet;thence south 58°12'06"east,30.00 feet;thence leaving said right-of-way line,south 31°47'54"west,596.00 feet to the point of beginning. 3.Phase 2 consists of 18 lots lying between the existing mobile home park and Peninsula Drive. 4.The area is zoned R-2,Single Family and Two Family Residential,and will be served with city water and sewer. 5.At their meeting on June 12,1984 the Planning Commission declared this project to have a non-significant adverse impact on the environment. 6.At their meeting on July 10,1986 the Planning Commission approved a con ditional use permit for the construction and operation of the proposed 70 unit mobile home park expansion in the R-2,Single Family and Two Family Residential Zone. 7.A letter dated October 9,1986 was read from W.Ron Baker of Boundary Engineering which outlined the improvements on Peninsula Drive which Mr. Boyden would be obligated for.Full width improvements including as phalt,curb,and sidewalks are desirable on Peninsula.City staff would support a city cost sharing program for an LID with adjacent property owners paying one half of the improvement cost and the city paying the balance out of street funds.Mr.Boyden would support this concept and agrees to the LID providing his 25%share of improvement costs are limited to Peninsula Drive only,extending from the south boundary of Tract 51 to the approach ramp of the 1-90 bridge,approximately 1,200 linear feet.This agreement to an LID is conditioned on the assumption that he not be required to fund improvements on the approach ramp to the bridge.The Planning Commission has proposed a two year delay of im provements on Peninsula Drive to allow the state to reconstruct the bridge and approach ramp.This proposal is acceptable to Mr.Boyden but the agreement to participate in the LID should have a termination date of five years. 8.A letter dated October 16,1986 was read from W.Ron Baker of Boundary Engineering in which Mr.Boyden agrees to modify the length of the LID proposal to a ten year period instead of the five years as previously stated.Also,if Mr.Boyden wishes to install his share of improvements prior to the formation of an LID he would be relieved of future LID com mitments required in this covenant. 9.Mr.Baker stated that Mr.Boyden is agreeable to participating in an LID if one is formed and that would include his entire property adjacent to Peninsula Drive,not just adjacent to Phase 2.However,he may want to improve his side of the street before or if the LID is not formed. 10.A public hearing scheduled upon notice before the Planning Commission on the issue of platting the land in question was held on October 16,1986. 11.There were no comments from the public present. 12.The following written comments were received from the City Engineer: Binding Site Plan a.Right-of-way dedication line must extend across the entrance road. b.Peninsula is misspelled in the following: 1)dedication 2)twice on vicinity map 3)on site plan c.Dedication:add phase 2 to the plat of Peninsula Estates d.Provide a covenant for full width street improvements to Peninsula Drive and Wanapum Drive fronting the plat. e.Dimensioning on Peninsula is confusing.Show the distance from Interlake to Margaret and from Margaret to W.S.P.H.B.C. f.Provide a street name for entrance street g.Bearings and dimensions of interior lot lines. Site Plan a.Show proposed utilities b.Show proposed sewer service to lots fronting on Peninsula Drive. c.Show proposed water service to lots fronting on Peninsula Drive.To minimize street cuts you should consider a parallel line on the west side of Peninsula. d.How will on-site drainage be handled. e.Show proposed electrical service,telephone service,and cablevision. f.Show proposed street improvements within the site,i.e.typical x- sec,paving,curb,sidewalks,etc. g.Setbacks on Peninsula Drive should be specified. h.Fire hydrants -on-site hydrants will be required.Contact the Fire Marshal for hydrant requirements.I estimate 2 on site will be required. i.A title report is required with the Binding Site Plan. j.A certificate of Grant County Treasurer is required with the final binding site plan. k.Submit a closure of the binding site plan exterior boundary. 1.Change the titlenon .the binding site plan to Major Plat of PeninsulaEstates Phase 2 Binding Site PTan. 13.A written comment was received from Pacific Northwest Bell to the effect that they would like a five foot utility easement around each lot to facilitate buried cable placement. 14.There were no comments from the audience at the public hearing.No writ ten protests by any person were filed with the city prior to or during the public hearing. 15.Mr.Bailey pointed out that the City Engineer recommends a covenant for the full width street improvements. 16.Rita Perstac,Municipal Services Director,stated that the City Engineer reviews the binding site plan for compliance with city regulations and makes his recommendations based on those requirements. 17.There was some discussion by the Planning Commission on the proposed raising of the bridge and the changes that may make in the area. 18.Ms.Perstac pointed out that the geography of the area is not conducive to widening Wanapum and the grade would probably be changed when the bridge is raised.She stated that there may be a problem getting the needed right-of-way on the east side of Peninsula Drive for sidewalks and curbs since that area is already platted.The Department of Transporta tion is involved in this area and they may have to purchase some property in order to raise the bridge.Mr.Boyden is asking that if the LID is not needed or formed,that he be allowed to place curbs and sidewalks on his side of the street the full length of his property adjacent to Penin sula before the 10 year LID formation period ends. 18.Mr.Bailey stated that the developer is willing to participate in an LID for sidewalks and curbs on both sides of the street and to put them in on his side if the LID cannot be formed.He did not feel the developer should have to put sidewalks and curbs on both sides of the street. 20.The Planning Commission recommended to the City Council that the binding site plan for Phase 2 of Peninsula Estates be approved with the stipula tion that the comments from the City Engineer be addressed and satisfied with #4 under Binding Site Plan being changed to read "provide a covenant for street improvements to Peninsula Drive on the west side abutting the developers property and Wanapum Drive be addressed at such time as it is discussed with the Department of Transportation". 21.At the November 13 Planning Commission meeting Rita Perstac,Municipal Services Director,stated that Rich Boyden,developer of the Peninsula Estates Mobile Home Park Phase 2,has requested the Planning Commission reconsider its motion concerning Wanapum Drive. 22.Mr.Bailey stated that his motion did not include Wanapum,only Peninsu la.Wanapum was to be a separate issue as far as the motion was concerned. 23.Mr.Pedersen stated that if it was not the intent to include Wanapum he would agree with that. 24.Mr.Bernd stated that he did not remember Wanapum being included in the moti on. 25.Ms.Perstac stated that Mr.Boyden has requested a variance so that he would not be required to improve Wanapum. 26.The minutes of the October 16 meeting were amended to show that Mr. Bailey's motion concerning the Peninsula Estates Phase 2 did not include Wanapum Drive. 27.Mr.Bailey pointed out that the exclusion of Wanapum from his motion at the October 16 meeting is not the issue.The issue is whether or not Mr. Boyden should be required to improve 116'of Wanapum on his property. 28.Ms.Perstac stated that full width street improvements include pavement, curb,gutter,and sidewalk.She pointed out that Wanapum is a city street on state-owned right-of-way.The right-of-way is bigger than the street so that Mr.Boyden's property would not abut the improved street, -6^weJheWSni^mofn^*90?he stated that there is aserious ditch problem 29.Mr.Pedersen wanted to know if fill would have to be placed in the area in order to construct improvements on the south side. 30.Ms.Perstac stated that not much fill would be needed on the south side but a great deal would be needed on the north side. 31.Mrs.Kvamme stated that sidewalks are only required on one side of Penin sula and wanted to know if sidewalks could be put in on the south side of Wanapum.She stated there is quite a bit of pedestrian traffic in this area. 32.Mr.Bernd felt that sidewalk only should be required. 33.Ms.Perstac stated that to bring Wanapum up to city standards would re quire additional asphalt,curbs,gutters,and sidewalks.It would be more complicated than Peninsula since nothing has been done on this road for about 25 years and there may be a need for storm drains or other improvements. 34.Mrs.Kvamme wanted to know if the state could be required to meet city standards when they redo the overpass. 35.Ms.Perstac stated that their policy is to replace what is there and they would probably issue a turnback agreement which would give the right-of- way to the city if the city somehow required it to be built to city standards. 36.There was some additional discussion by the Planning Commissioners on the possibility of the Council requiring an LID for street improvements in this area under a health and safety condition. 37.The Planning Commission recommended to Council that the variance be granted. 38.The Planning Commission also recommended to Council that the safety issue on Wanapum drive be studied as it concerns sidewalks. 39.On October 28,1986 the City Council set November 15,1986 as the date to consider this binding site plan. 40.On November 25,1986 the City Council considered the Peninsula Estates Phase 2 Binding site Plan. CONCLUSIONS 1.The City Council of the City of Moses Lake is vested with the authority and has the jurisdiction under the law to approve a binding site plan 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 on Novem ber 25,1986 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 binding site plan 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 Peninsula Estates Phase 2 Binding Site Plan is approved as recommen ded by the Moses Lake Planning Commission. Dated:December 4, 1986 CITY OF MOSES LAKE Mayo'r ~ ATTACHMENT A That portion of Tracts 3,4,5,and 6 of Park Orchard Tracts and Tracts 1 and 2 Replat of Tracts 1,2,9,10,11, 12, 13, 14,21,and 22 of Park Orchard Tracts in Section 15,Township 19 North,Range 28 East,W.M., Grant County,Washington,described as follows: Beginning at the southeast corner of the NE 1/4 of said Section 15; thence north 0°14'49"east along the east line of said NE 1/4 680.71'; thence north 89°36'12"west 40.00'to the true point of beginning of this description;thence north 0o14'49"east parallel with the east line of said NE 1/4 260.00';thence north 89036'12"west 320.00';thence north 0O14'49"east 130.36';thence south 89°51'56"east 320.00';thence north 0o14'49"east 299.12'to the south line of state highway right-of- way;thence along said state highway right-of-way the following six (6) courses,north 89°52'26"west 5.00';north 0O14'49"east 98.14',north 71°15'1"west 289.48',north 49°07'56"west 614.83',north 54o50'56" west 296.40',north 44032'56"west 13.48';thence leaving said state highway right-of-way south 8°53'49"west 805.33'to the southeast corner of Tract 7;thence south 0°14'55"west along the west line of Tract 3 a distance of 658.65'to the southwest corner of Tract 3;thence south 26°48'50"west along the west line of Tract 2 a distance of 401.38'to a line 330.0'north of and parallel to the south line of said NE 1/4 of Section 15;thence south 89°5r56"east along said parallel line 979.43' to a line 360.00'west of and parallel to the east line of said NE 1/4; thence north 0°14'49n east along said parallel line 352.36';thence south 89036'12"east 320.00'to the true point of beginning of this description.