Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1985-10-14 Committee of the Whole MinutesOctober 14, 1985 TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL 7:00 P.M. COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING ROLL CALL AND PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ROLL CALL OF COUNCIL MEMBERS REPORTS City Council Staff M I N U T E S S City Hall Council Chambers Council President Bauch called the Tukwila City Council Committee of the Whole Meeting to order at 7:05 p.m. and led the audience in the Pledge of Allegiance. L. C. BOHRER, MABEL J. HARRIS, DORIS E. PHELPS, JOE H. DUFFIE, EDGAR D. BAUCH (COUNCIL PRESIDENT), WENDY A. MORGAN, CHARLES E. SIMPSON. OFFICIALS IN Mayor Gary L. Van Dusen, Attorney James Haney, Lucy Lauterbach ATTENDANCE (Legislative Coordinator), Don Morrison (City Administrator), Byron Sneva (Public Works Director). Mayor Mayor Van Dusen reported a zip code resolution is being prepared for presentation to the City Council. The Foster Bridge will be dedicated at 2:00 p.m. on October 25. On October 16 a meeting will be held in Tukwila Council Chambers for Randy Revelle (King County Executive Council) and members of the South King County Suburban Mayor's Association. Lunch will be served at the senior citizen's center. The preliminary budgets will be printed next week. Council Member Phelps stated the Parks and Recreation Committee recommends a Library Board or Commission be established. Councilman Duffie requested the flagpole at the golf course be installed by November 11, 1985. Byron Sneva, Public Works Director, stated the METRO E.T.S. schedule this week will include the letting of bids on the bridge at the golf course. Other bids will be going out. PUBLIC HEARING 1:25 P.M. :30 P.M. Council President Bauch opened the Public Hearing on the vacation 151st Street Vacation of a portion of 151st Street at 7:25 p.m. Ralph Hatton, 3935 South 113th Street, said he was the owner of Lots 1 and 2. He proposed the street vacation request be denied. It would landlock his property and they would have no legal access to the property. Byron Sneva, Public Works Director, said access will be allowed across the vacated property. The access to the property would not be taken away. The vacated property could not be built on, it could be used only for parking. Bill Teplicky, 5714 29th Avenues NE, Seattle, said he would like to see the street vacation granted. The vacated area would be improved and landscaped. Anyone could use it. There being no further comments, the Public Hearing was closed at 7:30 p.m. Council Member Phelps asked if there are other users of this portion of 151st. Is there a fire lane and utilities? Byron Sneva, Public Works Director, said there are no utilities, but there is storm drainage. The City has no desire to maintain the street for public use. Mr. Haney, attorney, said there is a potential that the street vacation would decrease value of Lots 1 and 2. Compensation is a possibility if that is the only consideration. Council President Bauch said if the vacation is granted, permanent easement to the property would be given, the property could not be built on. TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING October 14, 1985 Page 2 PUBLIC HEARING Contd. 151st Street Vacation Council Member Phelps said if the developer puts in improvements they should be dedicated to the City. RECESS 7:40 7:48 P.M. OLD BUSINESS Review Discuss Sidewalk Policies J 3 /1 MOVED BY MORGAN, SECONDED BY SIMPSON, THAT THE COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING RECESS FOR FIVE MINUTES SO A MAP CAN BE SHOWN. MOTION CARRIED. Council President Bauch called the Committee of the Whole Meeting back to order, with Council Members present as previously listed. Byron Sneva, Public Works Director, showed a map of the proposed street vacation with the overhead projector. Mr. Teplicky stated the City Attorney has said the street vacation would cause the property to depreciate. Lots 1 and 2 would not be landlocked. Jenene Rochon, 5136 South 151st Street, said they would not be adversely affected by the street vacation. Ralph Hatton, audience, owner of Lots 1 and 2, said he had been told the petitioner was not interested in buying Lots 1 and 2 at any price. His property will be worthless if the street vacation is granted. MOVED BY HARRIS, SECONDED BY DUFFIE, THAT THE STREET VACATION BE ON THE AGENDA OF THE NEXT REGULAR MEETING OF THE COUNCIL WITH THE RECOMMENDATION TO DENY THE REQUEST. MOTION CARRIED. Councilman Bohrer said the policy was referred to the Community Affairs Committee. The format that the policies had been presented in caused some confusion in that a recommended policy was listed and then alternatives that were considered by the committee but were not recommended for passage by the Council. Ultimately the form of this policy will be that the alternatives will be deleted and only the policies will remain. For purposes of this discussion the Committee felt the Council should have the benefit of seeing alternatives that were considered by the committee. There had been a policy that stated that the preferred alinement was a 6' buffer planting strip next to the curb with the setback sidewalk also 6' wide. The representatives at this meeting said they were not in favor of that configuration for the sidewalk since they felt that most of the sidewalks in the commercial/ industrial area at present are adjacent to the street. They prevailed on the committee to change the recommendation to eliminate the buffer zone and the policy then would be put the sidewalks adjacent to the street. It is noted that as a consequence of this review there are some comments. The first is that the buffers were deleted but the committee did not thoroughly review the impact. One of the considerations in the buffer was to obtain some additional separation between pedestrian and street traffic which is often at high speed and in adverse weather. This might cause splashing of water from the gutters onto persons on the sidewalk and that has been considered in setting the current philosophy for a sidewalk within Policy 9. That policy needs to be reviewed again to be sure it is consistent with this new approach of putting the sidewalks at the edge of the street. The committee and those in attendance have received copies of two additional letters; one from Tri -Land Corporation and one from Segale Business Park. There is a representative from Segale in the audience so they will discuss the contents of this latest letter. TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING October 14, 1985 Page 3 OLD BUSINESS Contd. Review Discuss The purpose of bringing this issue back is to set a public hearing Sidewalk Policies date and the recommended date is November 11 so those interested can contd. speak. The items for review at that hearing should not be just the policies but the policies and the sidewalk plan. Council Member Harris said there is a fallacy in Policy 4. The comments say that residents have not paid to have sidewalks built on their streets and that is absolutely untrue. LID 1 was for sidewalks in the residential district and all of the residents paid via an LID for their sidewalks. She said she was not sure what she was advocating as a way to finance the sidewalks but the way that is suggested to the tune of $1.5 million for the City to pay is not the way to do it. Councilman Bohrer said the proposal is not for the City to pay $1.5 but $1.1 million. The committee in suggesting this funding phase felt it was a fair approach to funding the sidewalks and also a way as recommended by the Chamber of getting the sidewalk plan implemented in a relatively short time. It involves a contribution by the property owners in the sense that they would be contributing the easement, it does not involve other contribu- tions by property owners to the cost of building sidewalks. It should be noted that those property owners though they have not built sidewalks in the past did landscaping in accor- dance with City codes and regulations at that time and as a matter of investment and they considered the cost of maintaining the landscaping which was legal under the City laws in that period of time and the cost of creating it at the outset is probably over a ten year period of time either greater than or equal to at least the cost of putting in the sidewalks. Council Members Phelps asked for explanation of Policy 9. A comment indicates that the engineers who originally recommended 6' sidewalks are now recommending the alternative. Does that mean the Alternative A or the Policy 9? Councilman Bohrer said he believed they were referring to Policy 9. Council Member Phelps said Alternative A seemed to break sidewalk design down into some sort of use category as opposed to potential zoning with the City's cascading zoning arrangement where we look forward someday to regional /commercial offices. Some of them have already made that conversion. She was opposed to setting those kinds of separate standards. Councilman Bohrer said that was one of the reasons the committee did not accept it. One reason it did say 5' minimum in the other areas was that the expectation was that there would be a buffer next to the street. It was in the previous policy submitted to the Council two weeks ago. It was old Policy 10. The arterials in the CBD are signed at 35 mph, but in practice a lot of cars drive 40 45 so it is a rapid movement of traffic. There is one alternative that we have not shown here. That is the offer of the opportunity of going either way, either the sidewalk against the street or a setback; the option to be determined by the local business. In some instances they might prefer it one way and some another way. There is some beautiful landscaping down there and I would like to see it wherever possible preserved without having the rigidity of perhaps either of these two specific policies. Council President Bauch said he would like to speak on Policy 6 which is the one he had a quarrel with, and that is fair play. We have required all of the business people in the CBD to put in the sidewalks that are there. We even address any new undeveloped land that they have to put it in. The current code requires redevelopment to put it in and you can go down the streets and you can see where redevelopment has occurred in the City and they put it in and he felt it unfair TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING October 14, 1985 Page 4 OLD BUSINESS Contd. Review Discuss Sidewalk Policies contd. for their share of tax money go to pay for those areas that have not chosen to redevelop or have not developed at the present time. He thought Policy 6 should also include the provision that the City can go ahead and put in the sidewalks and fund them but when redevelopment occurs that developers refund that prorated share of the sidewalk reimburse the City for that prorated share of that sidewalk just like the new developer did. Right now along Interurban or West Valley Hotel where the new hotel is going in they are having to put in curbs, gutters and sidewalks and street lights. We are putting in street lights all over town for people who are already there. We look at the proposals from administration we are putting in hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of street lights at no cost to the businesses and we make the new developer or the redeveloper put it in. We made Costco put in street lights and sidewalks so he felt in fairness the sidewalks should be put in but an agreement should be made so redevelopers reimburse the City for that cost. Councilman Simpson asked if Councilman Bohrer spoke of the offset of the landscaping and prorating that? Council President Bauch said he was talking about the cost of the concrete. Councilman Simpson said in Community Affairs it was felt that this would offset the cost because of the upkeep on the landscaping. Council President Bauch said the developer and the redeveloper have to donate that right of way and they have in the City. That is nothing new, they are not doing anything more than everyone else in the City has not already done, this is not a new situation. Councilman Bohrer said he thought Mr. Bauch's recommendation was good. The concern is though that in another place it is limited to redevelopment. He thought redevelopment phrase is a fairly narrow defintion under the Planning Department, the change of use is more applicable to what really happened at Costco. Council President Bauch said he did not know what trigger makes them develop sidewalks, there is some trigger because you do down there and see new stretches of sidewalk all over the place when they get the building permit. Whatever that trigger is, it is triggered by our current ordinance that says that all development and redevelopment in the City would eventually mean we would have sidewalks all over town, and the City should not wait. Byron Sneva, Public Works Director, explained what triggers the development of the sidewalks, if they apply for a building permit and remodeling consists of more than 25% of the floor space or a dollar amount of a certain amount then it is classi- fied as a redevelopment and sidewalks are required. &".3 /3 Councilman Bohrer said his concern is whether 25% is always going to be a small enough net to catch a change which might allow someone to go in and take a warehouse and go to retail use where there might be significantly greater amounts of traffic but because they have not triggered the 25% change in assessed valuation they might not need a sidewalk having not done that. My recommendation would be to simply add a change of use criteria on the redevelopment. We had this discussion in committee and it is my understanding that redevelopment was tied to that 25% change in valuation. Council Member Phelps said 25% is probably adequate. It would be interesting to get a presentation from the building official on that. Usually when there is a change of use in the tenant improve- ment application most of the cost is plumbing and fire code restrictions and they are much higher for that kind of a building TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING October 14, 1985 Page 5 OLD BUSINESS Contd. Review Discuss Sidewalk Policies contd. S L than they are for the warehouse. The 25% usually catches everyone of them. Mayor Van Dusen said he felt the City was close to solving the issues on the sidewalk because many people want to see it completed. With respect to Councilman Bohrer's comments, he wanted to remind everyone that it has been pretty well even across the board that everyone in the City for years has put in landscaping. It is one of the common things that has been required, with or without sidewalks. One thing about landscaping is that we built in flexi- bility so we don't destroy some of the landscaping that has been built up over the years. Hopefully that can be taken care of. I would like to see us go back a bit and talk about financing because there have been people who have gone out and made sure we put in sidewalks. There have been people who fought it. If we go with our plan now I think we are penalizing the people who went along with the City in trying to get it in and we are rewarding the people who have drug their feet on it. I would like to have some more discussion on that. As long as we have flexibility, I think we can go forward. Council Member Harris said the part she is interested in is the financing. Some of the people down there have already put in sidewalks Segale put in sidewalks Andover East and West have sidewalks. Many put in sidewalks at their own expense. We insisted on sidewalks and the people have paid for them and now we are saying those who dragged their feet are benefiting, because they are going to get sidewalks paid for by the City and those who have already paid for theirs are going to help those people pay for them. This is not the fair and equitable thing to do. Councilman Bohrer said he did not view it in many of these cases as people having drug their feet on the issue. In many instances there was not any requirement for the sidewalks at the time the buildings were built. Warehouses were built, they were in a warehouse area, there was not expectation of much foot traffic, that was the atmosphere in the City twenty years ago. Some years ago the City adopted a sidewalk ordinance that said if there is new construction there will be sidewalks and sidewalks were created at that time. There is also an inequity to force someone who put in landscaping that was entirely legal under the City's laws when sidewalks were not required and which has been expensive to maintain and which has contributed to the beauty of the City to now say, "You have got to put in sidewalks and you have to pay for them.' We could have given the option 10 20 years ago to build sidewalks but we were not bright enough to do that then. As a consequence developers are going to have to pay twice, you are not only going to have to put in landscaping and maintain it for 10 15 years, now you have to build your own sidewalks, you still may not have any reason to have a sidewalk, you know you still have a warehouse, you are in a warehouse area, a sidewalk is not going to benefit your property at all, but it may benefit the City in that it goes from one area to another and serves as a conduit for people to get there. It may not benefit the business that it goes in front of. There is not any perfect equity for this and everyone will not be happy with the solution. Not everyone will believe any path that is chosen is going to be equitable. Council President Bauch said that is why he proposes that when a warehouse remains a warehouse they do not have to pay for a sidewalk the City will pay for it, but when the usage is changed that is the time they will have to pay for the sidewalks. Council Member Harris asked what happens to the warehouse who puts in not only the landscaping but the sidewalks, does the City reimburse them? TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING October 14, 1985 Page 6 OLD BUSINESS Contd. Review Discuss Sidewalk Policies contd. Council President Bauch said they had to put in sidewalks and landscaping when they go out and tear up the landscaping to put in a sidewalk they have to modify their landscaping to make it match. Council Member Harris asked about the ones who have already put in both and maintained their land? Council President Bacuh said they pay nothing. &"3 5- Council Member Harris said they have already paid for theirs, now their taxes are going to have to pay for the ones who have not put in the sidewalks, there is an inequity. Mayor Van Dusen said if use is changed then the business would have to reimburse the City. Marketing is changing fast, what is warehouse now may be retail and then a warehouse and then a combination, and a rental space and it seems we do not have a clear answer. Council President Bauch said the present policy as defined says that undeveloped land will have to reimburse the City for sidewalks when they develop or redevelop they will have to reimburse the City. Mayor Van Dusen said the City will have to set up a mechanism to determine that. Ann Nickols, Segale Company, said if the City puts in the sidewalks in front of a warehouse that is determined to have no benefit from the sidewalk, when he redevelops and does use the sidewalk then he will have to pay. That is fine, but in the meantime he is benefitting by having sidewalks there. Is that what you are saying, that the sidewalks will be put in? Council President Bauch said he is benefited but more especially the pedestrians, the citizens of Tukwila, are benefiting in that they are going from Point A to Point B throughout the City. He will probably gain by not having to tie his money up at interest rates. Council Member Harris asked if the City will then reimburse the ones who have tied up their money in sidewalks when they do not need it and they are in the warehouse district? Council President Bauch said it does not apply to them because the only ones in the warehouse district who have sidewalks are those who were required to put them in under the City's ordinance. Council Member Morgan said she thought we are all moving toward an economic climate that welcomes quality businesses and people with businesses with futures to our community and it seems that part of the history of community is a changing way in which we look at those kinds of amenities and whose responsibility they are and it seems that it is appropriate for the City to take the part in the encouragement of these kinds of amenities that make this an attractive business area and if, in fact, it does come to pass that we have a great many changes in uses of the buildings and that is probably going to be the case, and a higher density of people, then we will want these kinds of amenities for them. Those who came before who paid for what they have are in a sense part of the history of the City and although they may feel some bitterness the people coming after will also pay in some equity, but all of us have to join together at some point and say that we want to do something better for the City than we have. She said she had no problem with the City paying a fairly good share or any problem with changing uses or redevelopment paying their share. She favored dropping the buffer and making the requirements flexible in width so it is more adaptive to the needs. She also thought that sidewalks do not have to be in a straight line. It would be fun to walk around some of the landscapinc down there and not hold everybody to a uniform next to the curb. Make it rather an experience to walk down there a positive exper- ience. TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING October 14, 1985 Page 7 OLD BUSINESS Contd. Review Discuss Sidewalk Policies contd. Prop. Res. adopting 1986 -1991 CIP for City. Prop. Ord. vacating certain property located within City dedicated for Str. purposes generally described as Maule Ave. from 143rd to 58th Ave. S. NEW BUSINESS Budget Transfer to replace portable radio lost in fire on 8/15/85. Approve consultant selection report auth. P. W. to negotiate agree- ment w /Centrac Engr. for design of S. 158th signalization of inter- section w /SR -181. Approve consultant selection report auth. PW to negotiate agree- ment w /Gardner Engineers for design of 1986 Resi- dential Str. Proj. Council President Bauch said even when you look at Attachment A, the $1,106,800 one -half of that is being picked up by the City to start with, the traffic signals and the pointers, etc., and so the redeveloper is only asked to pay for a prorated share of the other half and that is the concrete in front of his building, so we are really not asking all of that much. I think it is at least a token effort towards having an equity position. Council Member Morgan asked if it was a general opinion of the committee that those representing the business district were amenable to this revised draft. Councilman Bohrer said the impression of the committee was that those present favored deleting the buffers, at least. The issue was referred to the Chamber of Commerce and they spoke both at this meeting and an earlier meeting. They addressed the subject of equity of funding and said there is no answer to the equity problem either but feel that the approach now recommended by the committee and expressed in these policies with the City funding the construction and the businesses donating the easements recommended was an approach that could go forward rapidly because it would not create controversy whereas trying to establish local LIDs or some other technique to fund could unnecessarily delay construc- tion of sidewalks. There are a number of places where sidewalks are desperately needed. MOVED BY BOHRER, SECONDED BY DUFFIE, THAT A PUBLIC HEARING BE HELD ON NOVEMBER 12, 1985 AT THE COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING ON THE SIDEWALK POLICIES AND PLAN. MOTION CARRIED. COUNCIL MEMBER HARRIS LEFT THE MEETING AT 8 :50 P.M. MOVED BY MORGAN, SECONDED BY PHELPS, THAT THE PROPOSED RESOLUTION ADOPTING THE 1986 -91 CIP BE ON THE AGENDA OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL AT THE DISCRETION OF THE COUNCIL PRESIDENT. MOTION CARRIED. MOVED BY MORGAN, SECONDED BY BOHRER, THAT THE PROPOSED ORDINANCE VACATING CERTAIN PROPERTY LOCATED WITHIN THE CITY DEDICATED FOR STREET PURPOSES GENERALLY DESCRIBED AS MAULE AVENUE FROM 143rd TO 58th AVENUE SOUTH, AMENDING THE OFFICIAL STREET MAP OF THE CITY AND ESTABLISHING AN EFFECTIVE DATE BE ON THE AGENDA OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE COUNCIL AT THE DISCRETION OF THE COUNCIL PRESIDENT. MOTION CARRIED. MOVED BY BOHRER, SECONDED BY DUFFIE, THAT THE BUDGET TRANSFER BE ON THE AGENDA OF THE NEXT REGULAR MEETING OF THE COUNCIL. MOTION CARRIED. MOVED BY MORGAN, SECONDED BY PHELPS, THAT THE APPROVAL OF CONSULTANT SELECTION BE ON THE AGENDA OF THE NEXT REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL. MOTION CARRIED. MOVED BY MORGAN, SECONDED BY SIMPSON, THAT CONSULTANT APPROVAL FOR 1986 RESIDENTIAL STREET PROJECT BE ON AGENDA OF THE NEXT REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL. MOTION CARRIED. TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING October 14, 1985 Page 8 NEW BUSINESS Contd. Budget Transfer to design str. widening southbound on SR -181 from I -405 to Strander Blvd. Budg. Tsfr. to design traffic signal at SR -181. Motion to release budgeted Don Morrison, City Administrator, explained the proposed funds to proceed w /City accoustical and redesign improvements. Hall accoustical redes. improvements. MOVED BY PHELPS, SECONDED BY MORGAN, THAT A DISCUSSION WITH THE CONSULTANT BE ON THE AGENDA OF A FUTURE COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING. MOTION CARRIED. Prop. Ord. relating to termination date for addl. sales use tax authorized by RCW 82.14. 030. Prop. Motion to name bridge north of golf course Foster Bridge. Prop. Res. adopting policies for naming City property. Prop. Res. estab. policy guidelines for future vacations of Maule Ave. ADJOURNMENT 10 :10 P.M. MOVED BY MORGAN, SECONDED BY SIMPSON, THAT THE PROPOSED BUDGET TRANSFER BE ON THE AGENDA OF THE NEXT REGULAR MEETING OF THE COUNCIL. MOTION CARRIED. J-3 J 7 MOVED BY BOHRER, SECONDED BY DUFFIE, THAT A FORMAL COUNCIL MOTION SETTING FORTH THE COUNCIL POLICY TO ACCEPT THE PROPOSED TRANSFER BE ON THE AGENDA OF THE NEXT REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING. MOTION CARRIED. MOVED BY SIMPSON, SECONDED BY MORGAN, THAT A NEW ORDINANCE BE PREPARED REPEALING THE TWO FORMER ORDINANCES REGARDING THE ADDITIONAL SALES AND USE TAX WITH A SUNSET PROVISION AND IT BE ON THE AGENDA OF A REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING. MOVED BY MORGAN, SECONDED BY BOHRER, TO AMEND THE MOTION STATING THE DATE OF DECEMBER 31, 1988 AS DATE OF EXPIRATION. MOTION CARRIED. MOTION CARRIED, AS AMENDED. MOVED BY BOHRER, SECONDED BY DUFFIE, THAT THE PROPOSED MOTION TO NAME BRIDGE NORTH OF GOLF COURSE "FOSTER BRIDGE" BE ON THE AGENDA OF THE NEXT REGULAR MEETING OF THE COUNCIL. MOTION CARRIED. MOVED BY BOHRER, SECONDED BY PHELPS, THAT THE PROPOSED RESOLU- TION WITH THE FOLLOWING DELETIONS BE ON THE AGENDA OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE COUNCIL: SECTION 1 (A) "IN TUKWILA.", SECTION 1 (D) WORD "FULL SECTION 1 (E) WORD "FULL." MOTION CARRIED. MOVED BY MORGAN, SECONDED BY SIMPSON, THAT THE PROPOSED RESOLUTION BE ON THE AGENDA OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE COUNCIL. MOTION CARRIED. MOVED BY MORGAN, SECONDED BY SIMPSON, THAT THE COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING ADJOURN. MOTION CARRIED. Edgar D. Oauch, ouncil President Norma Booher, Recording Secretary