Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council Committees - Public Works/Planning - 10/10/1994e PRESENT: i i PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE October 10, 1994 DON WICKSTROM GARY GILL JOHN BOND MELODY BOND PAUL MANN JIM BENNETT TIM CLARK MR. & MRS. RUST JIM RUST DON RUST LES SNODGRASS TOM GRAHAM PAUL MORFORD TOM BRUBAKER Wickstrom stated that the City was asked to look at possibly more cost savings and to look at more trip numbers. A 7 -hour count was done today (10/10/94) and there were approximately 500 trips a day on the road and about 152 of those were heavy truck trips. Clark mentioned that clearly the issue of safety, was a factor of consideration. Wickstrom said there was approximately 30% of heavy truck trips that were on the road and that they counted zero pedestrians. Mann asked why have the two sidewalks if there was absolutely no pedestrian traffic? Mann then asked if we had one sidewalk would that accommodate pedestrians sufficiently? Wickstrom said that that was an option and before this went to Council it was discussed to delete the sidewalk on the south side. Wickstrom stated this amounts to about 1-1/2% of the total project cost and the way the properties were assessed, for every dollar of improvements they (south side properties) will be getting, they will only be paying 30% or 30 cents on the dollar. Wickstrom said the bulk of the property owned by Trammel Crow picked up a heavier load for the improvement costs. Wickstrom also stated that if you take the sidewalk off, Trammel Crow would have the big savings and the people along the south would see very little savings due to the way the. assessments were distributed. Bennett stated he thought the issues were 1) the cost of the assessment, 2) the loss of the frontage of those parcel owners on the south side and 3) the matter of egress out of •Trammel Crow out onto West Valley Highway. Wickstrom mentioned there were two egresses, the main road and the driveway to the north. Bennett said he thought this was easier for them to come out the back way versus winding through those egresses that were built for that purpose. Wickstrom stated that it was due in part to maintaining fire service and emergency access to the site. Bennett stated that if you allow more truck traffic on this road then you are obviously, by the number of trips, going to create more of a safety issue. If you lessen the amount of traffic by making them use the 1 • • t .g other egress that was built for that purpose, then it's going to be more of a country type road like it was. Mann inquired about the possibility of $167,377 taken from the Miscellaneous Drainage Improvement Fund which is approximately $162,000 and noted there was still a difference of several thousand dollars. Wickstrom stated that each year the City would be budgeting for a quarter of a million dollars or more for miscellaneous improvements throughout the City and this would be an annual program that would be carried on. Wickstrom went on to say there were some commitments that were made so we may have that money there within the fund without having to worry about 1995 funds. Bennett asked what the total cost of the improvements would be. Wickstrom stated $1,164,000 (approximately). Wickstrom said what he looked at was what the minimum improvements would be to get a backbone system in there that as the covenants expired, and as property developed or redeveloped they could add to those existing improvements and still have a cohesive road. He noted as such, the improvements included a 24 -foot wide road section, a drainage system, a cul-de-sac on the end for a turn -around and buying all the right-of-way that was necessary. Going with this backbone system resulted in a savings of 14% of the total project cost which is approximately $167,000. Wickstrom said most of the executed agreements we have, however, relate to full street improvements. So by doing so creates a validity issue of those agreements if we were to use them. The other issue would be the benefit to the property in terms of enhanced property values. With a limited improvement like that, there could definitely be some arguments that the assessment is more than the enhanced value to the properties. Under the proposal presented, the property owners would pay for the minimum on the LID and the City would make up the 14.37 difference, which would lower the Rust's assessment to about $3,000. Jim Rust asked how the City evaluated the properties that they plan to condemn to use for the right-of-way and if the LID, (using that figure that evaluated the properties) , is going to increase the value of the properties it is supposed to. Wickstrom stated that when the City goes out to buy property the offer is based on the appraised value done by an appraiser that analyses comparable properties of recent purchases and any damages are taken into consideration. The offer is then made and negotiated with the property owner. Bennett said he was told by one individual that the LID was going to cost him $49,000, at a value of $5.00 a square foot and $200,000+ an acre. Bennett said his question was on a $49,000 LID, mathematically what was the 14$? Wickstrom said that was the Snodgrass property and that his final assessment was after 2 considering a right-of-way credit (acquisition required) and with the 14% reduction, down to a $26,000 assessment. Les Snodgrass questioned why he was required to sign LID covenants. He said he was essentially using his property as it has been used in the past for years. Wickstrom pointed out that when Snodgrass bought the property there was already an existing covenant. The previous user had buses that were putting a heavy burden on the road and had to secure a Conditional Use Permit. Snodgrass said he believed the previous owner had signed a covenant for 224th or 228th Street Improvements. Snodgrass said he had to sign for the street improvements for S 218th Street and all his business was for storing vehicles without doing any repair work, yet he was forced to sign these LID agreements in order to get an operating permit or a business license from the City of Kent. Wickstrom questioned him about whether he was required to get a variance or a Conditional Use Permit to operate in that district. Snodgrass acknowledged he needed a Conditional Use Permit but, couldn't understand why he needed one when he was doing the same thing that Voyager Bus Co. and Holmer Towing was doing. Wickstrom noted that Voyager Bus Co. did sign a road covenant and said it was a repeat of the same condition that was already existing. Snodgrass commented that there was opposition to this project and it was the City's own liability that the City was concerned about, yet the City would be spending a small fraction of the percentage of the total cost and felt the street count was very inaccurate with the Trammel Crow traffic on the street. Wickstrom stated that the counter, Melody Bond, was in the audience & according to her only about four trucks went into Trammel Crow. She took counts in the back from the Rust's driveway and could see all the driveways. There were approximately 400 passenger type/courier vans. She went on to say that maybe 20% of all the traffic was passenger vehicles out of that driveway. Wickstrom pointed out that the total protests were around it or 12% and typically if property owners are protesting they will show up at the meetings or write a letter. If they are in support, you generally do not hear from them. Snodgrass felt there was tremendous overkill on a two or three block deadend and mentioned if something needed to be done for the City of Kent's liability, why not do modest improvements on the "S" curves to make them satisfactory without the rest of the improvements. Wickstrom stated that the proposal was a basic backbone improvement that eliminates the "S" cUrv►e problem and emphasized the fact that the lanes are not adequate in width for the type of vehicles using the road. Wickstrom also said the road needed drainage to service all the properties as they redevelop or develop, plus service the street; a cul-de-sac was needed on the end and the City was buying all the right-of-way so that there would not be a property owner unable to add to the improvements. Wickstrom went on to say that when you add them up, the bill came K� up to almost $1,000,000 and the difference on the sidewalks, curb and gutters and the widening came up an extra $167,000. Wickstrom said the City would contribute so they could keep the covenants full to resolve the validity issue. Clark mentioned the City clearly had a problem in terms of the constant growth and whether this continues to be a developing, more urban setting. Clark said the we could not pretend that, in fact, it was still farm country and we could leave farms alone. He said that was not even a possibility and said the City was liable and we would negligent if we did nothing about the circumstances. On the other side of the coin, he said the City was trying very hard to not be oppressive in terms of trying to find a way to at least restore some safety to this particular area where the City is clearly liable. Clark questioned Wickstrom whether there was any other way to make the street safer. Wickstrom replied that the City needed those basic pieces, something had to be done and this was essentially the minimum that needed to be done. Bennett felt that one day of traffic counting is not a true test of what goes on someplace and suggested that it be done over a longer period time. He continued that if there was egress out of this area through two other roads, it almost seemed like the City was using that egress to make this road, when if they used the other road that it was designed to be used for, there would not be the impact on the road. Bennett commented that if one really wanted to fix this road right, they would buy the property that affected the "S" curve and run the street straight like it should have been originally and then some of the things already discussed would make sense. Bennett felt that this was a very expensive mandate and said that he had seen all opposition to this project except from the City of Kent. He said he hadn't seen any proponents from any of the other parcels, but remarked that it seemed like the City of Kent was the spokesperson for the property owners who do not find it necessary to come to the meetings. The Committee voted (2-1) to proceed with the proposed LID as supplemented with City funds and with the stipulation that more traffic counts be taken on S. 218th Street. Reiten Road Landslide Repair Wickstrom commented that the City had a landslide problem on Reiten Road just before Olympic Rise. He said that the problem was taken care of on Maclyn Street and that the City had originally budgeted for $65,000 and that $21,000 was left over. Wickstrom explained that the City was trying to squeeze two projects out of a budget that was established for one and that the difference of $6,800 could be transferred from what was left over from the completed Green River Bridge fund and be used for the Olympic Rise slid repair. The Committee voted unanimously to do a budget transfer of $6,800. 4 Wickstrom stated that a 3 -day morning count on pedestrians was done between Central Avenue & Hazel Street. The lowest count was 23 and the highest was 33 between Hazel & James Street in the AM; the PM counts range from 50 to a low of 29. East of Hazel at 94th Avenue there were a total of 12 for those 3 -day periods that were actual crossings. Wickstrom said the bulk of the pedestrians crossings were from Woodford/Clark down to Central Avenue. Clark said he had observed that particularly at school time, either before or when school is letting out that you get that rush of kids and they will try to sneak through any available space. Clark said he felt this left an accident waiting to happen. Wickstrom said Woodford has the most pedestrian traffic crossing. Clark commented that the City probably would not be able to attract the pedestrians to the use of the bridge if it were higher up. Clark said he would struggle with a half -million dollar structure to accommodate the low numbers. Wickstrom stated at this point a t not be cost effective or wise to I Avenue. Mann suggested taking picks up, then the City shoul( commented that there was no easy that if the commuter rail train and Smith Street there would be suggested at that point in time complete review of possibilities Meeting adjourned at 5:40 PM. :otal of 12 counts in 3 days would )ut a pedestrian bridge at Lenora a periodic count and if traffic I address it again. Wickstrom solution. Wickstrom also stated station was put in between James L definite impact on James. Mann the Committee would be given a and options. 0