Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council Committees - Public Works/Planning - 04/06/1998 (5) . PUBLIC WORKS/PLANNING COMMITTEE APRIL 6, 1998 PRESENT: Tim Clark Tom Brubaker Judy Woods Don Wickstrom Tom Brotherton Jim Harris South 188th Street Vacation Wickstrom noted that this item came back from the last Council meeting for further discussion. He referred to the Transportation Plan of 1996 indicating peak hour traffic in '96 along 188th &-80th and noted what the projection will be for traffic in 2010 when the corridor is implemented. Clark stated that Toysmith's issue here is simply trying to make a left turn onto Central Avenue (East Valley Highway). The easiest way to do this is to make a right turn onto 80th. Clark felt that by vacating the street, we would set aside the needs for one and we would be doing this on a public right-of-way. Tom Brotherton clarified that the reason for the request to close this street is to permit a more economical development across a larger piece of territory. This might not be possible if it were divided. He said since there is an alternative route, this does not look like a burden on Toysmith. Judy Woods agreed. Clark noted that the piece of land immediately south of 188th is badly incumbered. Howard Montoure, property owner on the comer of 188th && 80th PI South addressed the Committee. Judy asked if Mr. Montoure testified at the public hearing. He stated that he sent a letter which has been made part of the public record. Mr. Montoure claimed that he was never notified of the potential street vacation. Judy reconfirmed that his major concern was his desire to build a structure with appropriate ingress and egress. Mr. Montoure claimed that he wants to be able to use only that portion of the road necessary for his building. He said he agrees with the vacation on the remaining portion of the road because it is substandard. Wickstrom noted that there are certain conditions related to the vacation; one being they have to pay us for the value of the right-of-way. Trammel Crow could pay us for • the whole thing if they chose to do so and Howard would still end up with half the right of way. 1 Todd Timberlake of Trammel Crow the original petitioner on the street vacation, stated the following: the brief history of this parcel was it's part of a larger development which we built over time; this is Phase IV of four phases and there was a built-in sentence in our DNS stating we had the ability to do this. We have made every effort to work with the neighbors on this issue. One reason for such a long continuance was Trammel Crow had been working with Howard Montoure and Toysmith to address their concerns. At the initial February 20th street vacation, Howard had expressed three concerns and one was he didn't want to pay for the removal of the culvert and we agreed to do that; he was concerned about emergency vehicle access and we offered to grant Howard an easement for emergency vehicle access across the northern portion of what would be the vacated street; and lastly,we offered to purchase from the City of Kent his portion of the street. We felt we had met the objections at the time then this offer came "out of left field" and changed the terms we had agreed to with Howard. Brubaker made the following clarification: Howard Montoure has a potential buyer who has a development proposal. Mr. Timberlake's company submitted a petition to the City to vacate this road (S. 188th Street); they received some objections from the adjoining and non-adjoining property owners one of them being Mr. Montoure and he asked to have three conditions fulfilled, which they agreed to. Subsequently, Mr. Montoure received an offer to purchase his property and the offer is probably contingent upon the • development proposal. He is asking for additional conditions beyond the original three that were set forth and the problem we are all facing is, nobody really knows what final form that proposal will take. The City will have to review the proposal, it will have to go thru SEPA or whatever development review is required and, it will have to impose mitigating conditions. The proposal that Mr. Montoure's buyer is submitting may look radically different once it comes thru that process. Mr. Montoure stated that his original proposal was to have the street vacated; Trammell Crow to pay for all of it, and then they would deed over our half of the road to us and give us a five foot easement on their side so we would have twenty feet for emergency vehicles. Woods stated with the new condition, Trammell Crow may not want to pay Mr. Montoure's part of the vacation. Mr. Timberlake stated that they had offered to make sure there was no out of pocket expense, but Mr. Montoure is asking us to buy and improve and then, give it back to him. Jim Harris stated that this street vacation is unprecedented by any other vacation having been back before Council five times. He suggested that no action be taken and that this be denied without prejudice. This is something that has been done in the Land Use Planning Board;we do this at the Short Plat Committee; they can come back sometime in the future when things are worked out. Brubaker made the following clarification: At • the next Council meeting (4/7/98) when this comes up under Other Business, the motion will be to reject without prejudice until such time as the parties have worked this out. Committee concurred. 2 S. 272nd/277th Corridor (House Move Authorization) Wickstrom said this is a house the City purchased some time ago and since we are in the midst of our 277th Corridor project we have to move it. Pierce County Housing Authority has asked to take the house; it would cost us $12,000 to get rid of it and we would like to declare it surplus at zero value and negotiate a deal with them to relocate or dispose of it. Committee unanimously recommended declaring the house at 11459 SE 266th St as surplus with zero value and authorize the Public Works Director to dispose of same. LID 340 - S. 196th/200th St Corridor Improvement Green River to East Valley Hwy Wickstrom explained that we had our informal public meeting; about 50 of the 260 property owners attended. He said that we are asking for approval to move forward and pass a resolution which sets a hearing date on the creation of the LID. There will be an actual hearing; all the property owners have received their assessments. Wickstrom said we are requesting May 19th for the public hearing date. Joyce Barnier, a property owner included in the LID stated the following: She has talked with a number of property owners involved in this and none of them feel that they are benefiting from this LID. They feel the only ones who are benefitting are the East Hill and West Hill residents as a transportation improvement. Mr. Barnier said several property owners feel this is not their sole responsibility. Wickstrom disagreed with Ms. Bamier's statement. He said this is in the industrial area; the road is from East Valley Highway to Orillia Road to service the major industrial area. He stated that Ms. Barnier's property is being excluded because it is wetland. Ms. Barrier said she never received any notice that she was excluded. Wickstrom explained that we are re-working the boundaries; this is a very big LID and Ms. Barrier's property is being excluded because it is in the farmland, open space designation plus, it is shown as wetland and that was one of the criteria for not being assessed. Ms. Barnier will not be in the actual LID when it is formed. Wickstrom again stated that it is strictly for the benefit of the industrial area;we have over 5 1% of signed agreements committing to this project which was conditioned as part of their development; they could not develop unless they had concurred; executed an agreement to participate and, pay a portion of this project because it relieves their traffic impact on the City system. He stated that without this road there is no concurrency in the area. Council has adopted this project; it's part of the transportation plan which identifies this as a needed element of the concurrency plan. Without this, there will be no new development because we can't meet • the 6 year time frame in order to comply with our road service levels. Wickstrom said this is a very critical element for servicing. He said all the properties are zoned industrial in the area; Boeing is big property owner that fronts on this project. It also provides the 3 only grade separated crossing of the railroad tracks throughout the entire valley; from 15th N.W. in Auburn up to 405 in Renton. Wickstrom again said it has much more of a benefit than serving the East Hill; it doesn't go to the East Hill at this stage. That's another project in the future. It services the industrial traffic out of the valley and into the valley floor. Committee unanimously recommended that Council pass the Resolution of Intent for the creation of LID 340 which sets May 19th as the public hearing for the LID formation. Condemnation - 196th/200th Street Corridor Project Wickstrom explained that we are seeking condemnation authority for a portion of the 196th Street Corridor project in the vicinity of 196th St &- UPSP rail tracks. The parties responsible for the Western Processing cleanup site are proposing to place the final cap on it this year and if they do so, we would want them to put in the preload for the westerly ramp of the bridge that will cross the track and have them do it as one piece. We already have condemnation authority so that is not the issue. The issue here is, we subsequently found that on the legal description for Coluccio's property involved in the condemnation ordinance, is short in terms of the description of the take; the County had us put bike lanes on it from the original plans which didn't include bike lanes; on a revised plan they want bike lanes that required more take off Coluccio's property. He said we need to amend the ordinance to reflect this. Committee unanimously recommended adoption of the respective amendment to the condemnation ordinance and add property to take same. UPRR Spur Crossing - Ordinance Brubaker stated that the City is involved in litigation with Toys R Us and Union Pacific Railroad regarding this spur crossing at 196th St to access the Toys R Us property. He said that the action we have before the King County Superior Court is to get a judgement that essentially says, Union Pacific asks us for a franchise before it builds its spur crossing across our road, so they can have the property rights to come across our road. Brubaker stated we asked the court to declare since that franchise has expired, their property rights have expired. We are not petitioning to close the crossing, we are just trying to clarify ownership interest in this crossing. He said that as part of that litigation, we want to clarify procedures with Union Pacific. First, this is a 1981 franchise which states in the ordinance that it has expired. Brubaker also clarified that the franchise we extended to Union Pacific Railroad last December, which they did not accept, has also expired by its term. • Committee unanimously recommended the approval. of the UPRR Spur Crossing Ordinance. 4 I . Union Pacific Railroad - Franchise Ordinance Brubaker stated that this ordinance is clarification that we expect Union Pacific Railroad, if they are going to cross our road, to change their tracks if we change our road. We don't charge them anything to cross our road; no fees for this franchise; the only consideration that we ask is if we modify our road, they will modify the tracks. Brubaker stated that we feel in light of the litigation, it's important that we provide them with a clear offer. He said that he doubts if they will accept it however, we want to show the court that we have made every effort to give them a clear and viable right to have this franchise. Clark asked if this has more to do with the crossing or with the spur. Brubaker stated it's to do with the crossing and the spur. It's the crossing of S. 196th that we have control over however, without the access across our street, they cannot use the spur to access Toys-R-Us. Brubaker said that Toys-R-Us is the only business serviced by the spur south of the street. If the crossing were to close, the only business that would be affected would be Toys-R-Us. Committee unanimously recommended approval of the Franchise Ordinance. For further clarification, Brubaker stated the following. The first ordinance that we discussed, since it just clarifies certain issues,will come before the Council on April 21 st. The franchise ordinance, by law, cannot be passed on the same night it is introduced. Storm and Surface Water Drainage Codes Authority to Inspect) - Ordinance Brubaker explained that this is a housekeeping measure and it makes changes to our storm and surface water utility and our storm drainage code. It clarifies what already exists in the City Construction Standards which states the City's right to enter property to inspect these systems since they all form part of a regional web and to require maintenance and improvements. If we find there is an obstruction, we want to have the authority to correct the deficiency and this gives the City authority to enter the property and post the cost of repari as a lien against the property. He stated that this is a right that is currently exercised by the City with the water and sewer systems. This just clarifies that we intend to do the same with our storm drainage. Committee unanimously recommended adoption of an ordinance adding new sections to Chapter 7.05 and 7.07 of the Kent City Code to require that storm and surface water systems comply with City construction standards and to provide authority to allow for • inspection and to require maintenance and correction of defects in those systems. 5 • Sewer Service West of the Green River Wickstrom stated we have a long standing issue with Sea Tac regarding their desire to service what is located in the City of Sea Tac. They approached us about forming their own utility. The Metro sewer trunk lines presently exists on the east side of the river and we have joint use of this line. Sea-Tac's proposal is to extend that line over to the west side and service part of their city. At that time, Council thought it would put development pressure on the adjacent farmlands plus there were traffic implications and drainage implications that we thought we should address. Sea Tac however did not feel that we should address this other than thru SEPA so an official could make the right determination. Wickstrom stated that in the end, Sea Tac was not allowed to extend to the west. He said that Polygon is developing and bringing the sewer system across the river along the power lines where we have a trail, which is our Lagoon Conversion project. Wickstrom said that if we can resolve this issue between the cities with a franchise agreement this would help work out the issues of traffic, drainage and land use. He stated that the other issue is on the north end. Coluccio, one of the property owner's, has asked as part of the negotiations that we allow him to be serviced by our system. The property is designated in our Sewer Comp Plan to be serviced by our system although a County franchise and approval by the Boundary Review Board would be required. We would control the system; we relinquished our annexation interest in . that area to Tukwila because there was overlapping Potential Annexation Areas (PAA's). Originally Coluccio made us an offer that he would extend the sewer and give us latecomer fees. However,we do have a right-of-entry agreement from him which is mute to that issue. Wickstrom said that the issue here is, in order to allow service to this system it would be either a pump station or force main. We have that outstanding ordinance about servicing outside the city limits; this is in the County and we have the right to dictate traffic mitigation and drainage mitigation. Wickstrom said that our recommendation is for Committee to recommend a motion to continue what we are proposing. Committee unanimously recommended that Council concur with the Public Works Department's recommendation to allow the Coluccio property to be serviced by Kent's system. 110th Avenue S.E. Access Closure at S.E. 274th Street Wickstrom stated that 110th Avenue is presently a private road and we have told the property owners that if they could turn the road around and grant us easements as part of that and get everyone to concur with eliminating their access off 11 Oth, we would install a berm providing they give us the necessary easements to do this. Brubaker stated • that since it's a private road, it doesn't include a street vacation . There is a provision that when they shortplatted their property it was in King County. There were conditions imposed on the short plat that would continue to linger against the property. One is a 6 'Tract X' designation which is one of the County s favorite tricks which states, "if in the future we choose to build a road on it and if we do build a road, we will ask the property owner to enter into an LID." Brubaker said the property owners are concerned about the "Tract X" designation and as a condition of closing off the road where it accesses the 277th Corridor, they would like Council to do what it can to remove the "Tract X" designation. Brubaker said he will draft the proper language to do this. Once this is done, they will be able to re-route the road and this will create a smoother access along 274th Street. Committee unanimously recommended that Council direct the Law Department and Engineering Department to prepare the necessary documents to accomplish this matter. Meeting adjourned: 5:00 p.m.