1974 08 201994
COUNCIL MEETING -SPECIAL SESSION August 2g'J974CouncilChambers8:00 p.m.
Members Present:Councilman Bob Hill,W.B.Moe,Norman Johnson,Gordon Ebbert,Otto Skaug,
and Don Swanson.
This special session of the City Council was called in order to hold a public hearing for the adoption of?h\M<?ses LakeShorelines Management Master Plan.Since discussion had been started atthe previous ,^J
meeting,the hearing at this meeting Is a continuation ofthat public hearing./
Mr.Stan Bech,City Planner,presented a seriesofslides which he had received from the State DepartmentofEcologywhichthoroughlyexplainedwhenandwhytheShorelinesManagementActof1971wasputIntoeffect.Italso explained the duties and responsibilities ofeach cityand county which has any kind of
shorelinewithin Its jurisdiction. It stated that each such city and countymust submit a masterplan ,which would regulate development along their particular shoreline,enabling citizens ofthe community to
retain access and enjoyment of the shoreline.
Following theslide presentation,members ofthe Shorelines Management Citizens Advisory Committee wereKSd.Present were Marvin Whitney,Barbara Jacobs,Vic Gilllland,Clint Connelly and Councilman
Bob Hill.
&i A ENVIRONMENTS
Cn The Advisory Committee had prepared a map showing the City's shorelines and the environments which hadObeenchosenforeacharea.The Council was working with a preliminary shorelines management plan and2"a list ofrecommended changes from the citizens committee.Mr.Bech pointed out the areas which had been
S3 designated as a Natural Environment.Mayor Ebbert read the definition ofthe natural designation.Therecommendedchangewasthat all areas originally designated as Natural become part ofthe ConservancyEnvlornment,which Is a less restrictive designation.The reasoning behind the change was not thatthe
areas were not suitable fora naturaldesignation, butthat the areas are privately owned property.
The definition ofthe Conservancy Environment was read and Mr.Bech showed those areas on the map.TherecommendationfromtheCitizensCommitteesuggestedthatthedefinitionofrecreationunderPermitted ^Uses",be changed to read as follows:"Development for water oriented ordependant recreational facilities.
Tesslca Longston,of KSEM,asked If residences would be allowed In the Conservandy Envlornment.Mr.Bech answered thatthe only land affected was that within 200 feet ofthe normal high water mark ofthelake.Miss Longston then stated that her company owns parts of the land to be designated as Conservancy,and theyhadplannedfornicewaterfronthomesinthearea,which they had planned to put In the 200 foot strip of landaffected.She felt that a private owner cannotdo anything with the land, suchas creating a park,etc.Mr.Bech statedthatthe original Intent of designating the land as Conservancy was that no residences be allowed,I I however,the state's definition of Conservancy will allow for non-consumptive uses which would permit lowdensityresidentialdevelopment.Miss Longston feltthat waterfront developments are usually low densityanyway.It was suggested that low density residential usebelistedas part ofthe Shorelines Master Plan.Mr.Waggener statedthat the Shorelines Act exempts R-l development,butthat it should also be stated inthe CityPlan.Mayor Ebbert asked if control would be through zoning, or what. Mr.Bech stated that per-haps It couldbethe Council's optionto specifically state the maximum density that development could reachInthat area along the shoreline.After considerable discussion of various lot size possibilities,Miss Longstonproposedthattheplanspecifythatresidentiallotsalongtheshorelinebenonarrowerthan100andnolessthan150'deep. Mr.Waggener stated that when the lots are platted, the size ofthe lots willbe determined
by the Planning Commission.
Monty Holm asked why thefirst master plan was rejected by thestate,and how it could have been submitted
inthe first place without Council approval.It was stated that one of the reasons for rejectionwasthat Itdidnot have Council approval. It was suggested that the plan Include the stipulation that the PlanningCommissionor the City Council must approve the size of each lot as it is platted. Miss Longston asked if
Marsh Island <s now conservancy and stated that she had talked with a State Departmentof Ecologyrepresentative,and he hadfelt it shouldbe Urban,since its use is already commercial in nature. Jessica Longston
proposed to the Council that Marsh Island be change to an Urban Environment in the master plan.
The definition of a Pural Environment was then read and Mr. Bech pointed out the areas on the map. There
were no suggested chang.es from the Shorelines Management Committee.••"•"~"'••••
The definition of an Urban Environment was then read and the area pointed out on the map. The only changesuggestedbytheCommitteewasthatdefinitionsfollowing"commercial"and "transportation"uses be omitted
under Permitted Uses.
GOALS AND POLICIES
_Agricultural Areas:Since each person In the audience had a copy ofthe proposed plan,the reading ofthe
i Policies themselves were dispensed with.There were no corrections or additions from the audience or by the
Committee.
J Residential Areas:The Committee felt there was need for a third policy statement:"There should be no
floating homes permitted on the lake."There were no comments from the audience.
COUNCIL MINUTES -SPECIAL SESSION "Page 2
Commercial Areas: The Committee felt that Policy #6 listed In the proposed plan should be omitted.The
pblicystated that new commercial developments will permit visual and physicalaccess to the lake.TheMayoraskedwhyItwasbeingdeleted. Mr.Connelly stated that It was going against some of the otherpoliciesInthe planand Mr.Bech stated that it would be unenforceable andthat merchants would notwant _-
people walking throughand around their establishments,especially at night.
The Committee felt that underthe second goal, the wording of the three policy statements should be chang>ed
to read as follows:
1.The owners of all existing commercial properties should be encouraged to clean and make them aesthet-
-.l.lcally.pleasing.
2.The owners of all existing commercial properties,which are now directly adding pollutants to the lake,
should be required to correct their problem.
3.Theowners of alleys,which run between the commercial buildings and the lake should clean up and im
prove them.
Use Regulations No. 4 and 5 were also recommended to be changed to the following:
4.The owners of all existing commercial properties shall be required to make them aesthetically pleasing ,
If improvements are deemed necessary by the Shorelines Administrator.
5.The owners of all existing and future commercial properties from which pollutants are directly being
added to the lake shall be required to correct their problem."t *.
MayorEbbertasked whothe Shorelines Administrator would be. Mr.Bech answered that a person in the City
Staff would be the shorelines administrator,such as a building inspector,planning director,etc.Mr.»Waggener mentioned that such a city staff decision can always be appealed to the City Council. He felt
that perhaps the plan should reflect the assurance of an appeal.
Monty Holm asked if Use Regulation No. 4 would be left in the plan. He comes within 100 feet from the lakg '
and many people don't like the looks of his establishment.He felt that the regulation is quite severe,because
the shorelines administrator's idea of aesthetically pleasing might be different than his.He felt that if the
regulation is left in at all,the word "required" should be changed to encouraged.MayorEbbertagain men
tioned Mr.Waggener's suggestion that an appeal would always be possible,and each case would be con
sidered on Its own merits.Mayor Ebbert stated that If the word encouraged were used,all the policingabilitywouldberemovedfromthe regulation. Mr.Dennis Opacki, an attorney forthe Milwaukee Road,
stated that he felt that Use Regulation No.4 would becoveredjin the common law statutory law pertainingto publicnuisances.Brenda Teats,311 Northshore Drive, stated that she felt the regulation shouldbe leftinthe plan.She stated thatthereare reasonable people inthe city and reasonable processes to go through toJ
file or combat a complaint.Otto Skaug suggested the insertion of the word "reasonable"into the regulation.
Mr.Opacki felt the regulation should be omitted, as enforcement couldbe made through the statutory "nuisance"
law. Mrs. Teats stated that in her opinion, there is a great amountof difference between something that is
a public nuisance and something that Is aesthetically unpleaslng.Barbara Jacobs stated that If this is some-..
thing that we want enforced,It should be Included In the plan.
Bob Hill questioned Policy #3 underCommercial Areas which was concerned withAlley owners cleaning upand
improving their alleys.Hefelt that it should includeanyonewith property viewed from the lake.
UtilitySystems:The goalofthe Intent ofthe Utility Systems sectionwasread.There were no suggested
changes.
Industry:The goal was read,no changes suggested.
Recreational Areas:The goal was read,no changes suggested.
Transportation Uses:The goal was read.The Committee suggested that Policy No. 1be changed to readasfollows: Railroad construction along the lakeshore or across the lake should be limited to normal maintenance
of existing lines.
Mr.Dennis Opacki, ofthe Milwaukee Road,presented a proposal which listed the following policies:
1 Whenever feasible,railraod construction along the lakeshore oracross the lake should be restricted tonormalmaintenanceand repair of existing trackage and construction,maintenance and repairof industrialspurtrackstoserveIndustriesentitledtosuchserviceunderthelawsregulatingcommoncarriersbyrail.
2.All new roadways will be locatedand designed so as notto restrict access to shoreline areas.
3.All new arterlals and through-roads will be placed,If at all possible,at least 200 feet inland from the
shorelines.
4.All collector streets along the shorelines will also provide for safe pedestrian and other non-motorizedpassage.There should also be safe access to special viewpoints.
5 Any highway bridge constructed over the lake will have enough clearance above the water to permit easy"passage by motor boats and will not restrict the water flow ofthe lake or possible flood flows.
6.Efforts will be made to have the existing Pelican Horn Bridge crossing raised,toaccommodate small boat
traffic, contingent upon the allocation of funds byany governmental entity.
1996August20,1974
COUNCIL MINUTES -SPECIAL SESSION ?a^e 3
Mr.Opacki*s proposal also included the following use regulations:
1.No railway construction will be permitted within the 200 foot shoreline area except as provided in the fore
going transportation uses policy statements.
2.All main highways,arterials and through-roads shall be located and designed soas not to overly restrictphysicalandvisualaccess to the shoreline,when their construction is unavoidable,within the ZOO teet
shoreline area.
3.All roads which must be constructed in the shoreline area shall provide for safe pedestrian passage,other
non-motorized passage,and access to special view points.
4 Any highway bridge constructed over the lake shall have enough clearance above the water to permit safe'passage for the majority of boats which normally use Moses Lake and the bridge shall not restrict the
water flow of the lake or be a hazard in case of flood flows.
It was suggested by the Advisory Committee that two policies be added to Goal No.Jl in the plan Policy No.9wouldread:"Construction of new railroad lines inthe Shorelines area should be prohibited.Policy No.10(D would read:The railroad should be required to clean up their properties so they are aesthetically pleasing andC\J .it should be done in a manner which does not negatively affect the natural habitat along the lakeshore.
91 The Committee also felt Policy #8 should be omitted.They also felt that the second goal with its correspondingHpolicyshouldbeomitted.Two use requlations were added to the plan by the Committee (at the Council s opcion)W • also Regulation No.5 would read:"Construction of new railroad lines inthe Shorelines area shall be pro-W hibit'ed."Regulation No.6 would read:"The railroad shall be required to clean up their properties so theyareaestheticallypleasingand it shall be done ina manner which does not negatively affectthe habitat along the
lakeshore.
Barbara Jacobs mentioned that a railroad representative had stated that in some cities,the railroad had allowedtheCitytodeveloothelandsurroundingthetracksintorecreationalfacilitieswithgovernmentfunds.It wassuggestedthatperhapsPolicy#8 should not be omitted,but left in, ifthe railroad were to alow park development.Mr.Opacki statedthat federal and state laws require the railroad to provide industrial spurs and lines
to main lines if they are requested to do so by existing industries.
Monty Holm opposed Policy No.7.He felt the railroad should be left where it is and felt it should not bementionedintheplantoencouragethetracks to be moved.It was asked whose responsibility It was to pay lor.
relocation of the railroad.The railroad would have to pay for it themselves.Marvin Whitney stated that theplanwasnottomovetherailroadoutoftowncompletely,but to have it relocated outside oi the 200 foot strip.
Brenda Teats spoke in favor of leaving Policy No. 7 in the Master Plan.
Mr.Opacki reminded the Council that the Railroad Company is required by Federal and State law to build new
lines for existing industries.Barbara Jacobs stated that the plan prohibits future industrial development within
200 feet of the highwater mark,so only existing industries will be needing future rail lines.
Bob Hill moved that the Public Hearing be continued untilthe next regular meeting oftheCity Council,which
will be Tuesday,August 27. Seconded by Norm Johnson, motion carried.
The meeting was adjourned at 10:10 p.m.
y^e^k-^i foe
MAYOR -Gordon M.Ebbert
ATTEST:
City Clerk - R. R.Gagni