Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout03/29/1994 Adjourned Business Meeting 223 CITY OF YAKIMA, - ::;,:WASHINGTON MARCH 29, 1994 ADJOURNED BUSINESS MEETING 1. ROLL CALL The City Council met in session on this date at 9:30 a.m., in the Council Chambers of City Hall, Yakima, Washington. Assistant Mayor Clarence Barnett, presiding, Council Members Ernie Berger, Bill Brado, Lynn Buchanan, and Bernard Sims present on roll call. Mayor Pat Berndt and Council Member Henry Beauchamp absent and excused. City Manager Zais, City Attorney Paolella, and City Clerk Roberts also present. 2. INVOCATION /PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE The Pledge of Allegiance was led by Assistant Mayor Barnett. 3. OPEN DISCUSSION FOR THE GOOD OF THE ORDER A. PROCLAMATIONS (IF APPLICABLE) Assistant Mayor Barnett read a proclamation declaring March 31, 1994 as Senseless Acts of Kindness. Day in the City of Yakima. He encouraged all citizens to participate by committing a senseless act of kindness. 4. PUBLIC HEARING"FOR KPFF RETAIL CENTER LAND USE APPLICATION (Continued from 3/22/94 - Please bring previously distributed material) This being the time'set for continuation of the public hearing, Assistant Mayor Barnett reopened the public hearing. He announced all the exhibits in the SEPA Appeal are hereby admitted as evidence in the hearing. If any other exhibits are to be added, the City Clerk will continue the numbering of them. After submitting a 14 -page staff report, Exhibit No. 3, to City Clerk Roberts, Joan Davenport, Supervising Planner, was available to answer questions regarding the status of several Hearing Examiner recommendations to be modified based on discussion that took place during the initial March 15, 1994 1/ public hearing. One of those items is the modification of Item 3F1, the •improvements to 17th Street. There were questions from Council Member Sims, with discussion following, pertaining to the three lanes of improvement, the street lightings and the curbing, along with clarification concerning whether or not there would be a sidewalk installed on both sides of 17th Street. Ms. Davenport reiterated the modified condition, three lanes with improvements for South 17th Street, including street lights, curbing and just one sidewalk to be installed on the west side of 17th Street. 224 MARCH 29, 1994 She stated staff indicated they were reasonably comfortable with this recommendation. There is 55 feet of right -of -way, which is enough room to put in the three lanes and one sidewalk. The real question came down to that second sidewalk and whether or not the additional 5 feet of right - of -way was needed; the testimony indicated it could be engineered in 55 feet, although it would require a slope easement or the extra five feet to make that happen. Ms. Davenport stated the staff recommendation includes deleting the 60 -foot right -of -way requirement and clarifying that only one sidewalk be installed on the west side of 17th Street; however, Council will decide that issue. The second Hearing Examiner's item discussed for changes was Item 3F3, the Chalmers Street improvements. In summary, the intent of the change includes a minor wording clarification referring only to improvements. Rather than compelling the applicant to purchase additional right -of -way, or the City condemning the right -of -way, staff wanted to clarify the intent that the frontage improvements would be full on Chestnut and Chalmers along the property that was owned and controlled by the applicant, but not on the property that the applicant cannot control. At the request of Council Member Sims, Ms. Davenport pointed to its location on the site plan map to show that Chestnut would be extended and connected to Chalmers, which now goes into Riverside. She also pointed to areas where the right -of -way has not been given to make Chalmers a full -width street. The third issue is the Greenway Overlay District as it relates to the Greenway Board of Directors approving site plans and exterior building colors and appearance, as well as the landscaping plan. After a considerable amount of discussion about this issue, the staff recommendation was to delete three conditions, 3J, K, and P and to replace them with the recommendations that the staff had presented to the Hearing Examiner. Those are at the bottom of Page 2 and would return the authority for approving those plans to the City Planning Department in consultation with the Department of Ecology for the landscaping and the Greenway Board of Directors. Referencing Item 3S on Page 3, Street Improvement Bonds, Ms. Davenport explained the intent of the additional language is for clarity, although it is,a standard provision where the City Engineer has the authority to take a bond for certain improvements not completed. It would be at the City Engineer's discretion as to what unfinished improvements would be bonded for. Council Member Sims explained his understanding of the intent of the Hearing Examiner to mitigate the S -Curve corner on Chalmers on both sides since the traffic study was done after 5 o'clock in October. The issue that Central PreMix and Superior Asphalt bring up is that there needs to be some mitigation for safety, due to concern about the alignment of this street. Ms. Davenport indicated that issue would be for the Engineering Department to address. Assistant Mayor Barnett indicated that would be part of any off -site developments and would be a separate 2 f r 225 MARCH }'.:M , 1994 . s, item where Council would direct staff to review the conditions of the entire road structure. He requested Glenn Valenzuela address this issue. Council Member Buchanan stated there is definitely a need to address additional traffic that will be combining with existing heavy truck traffic on Beech Street and on Chalmers Street. Ms. Davenport stated the items that have been discussed so far are proposed on -site improvements. Council Member Buchanan stated that essentially the west side of Chalmers Street is on -site. That is what Item 3F3 was meant to address, the on -site improvements to Chalmers Street. Other issues considered as off -site improvements have not been included at this point. Council Member Buchanan discouraged 2 rebuilding only half of Chalmers Street. He compared this situation with a similar one and expressed concern about City taxpayers having to pay for a lot of road improvements and right -of -way on Chalmers due to increased traffic when the improvements benefit the applicant. Council Member Brado stated the applicant doesn't own the property and something needs to be done because of the street's current condition, especially the corners. Staff needs Council direction to determine a solution to this problem. At the request of Assistant Mayor Barnett, Glenn Valenzuela explained staff agrees the whole issue of 18th Street and some of Chalmers Avenue, the traffic, and some of the improvements should be duly considered by the City in the coming months. Staff doesn't feel these improvements should be conditioned on this development because they are considered off -site improvements. Due to the number of projects that have indicated an interest in developing in this area, there is a possibility that an LID could be the solution. However, an engineering and planning analysis are needed to assess this issue. Council Member Buchanan stated it is important for Council to be aware of these future development projects because we represent the taxpayers as a whole City and an LID will also affect property owners in this area. The roads are adequate at this time, but there will be increased traffic within a few months due to this new development. It is not fair to the people who own the property and it is not fair to the rest of the taxpayers in the City to start building streets so that somebody can build a new project. Council Member Berger requested clarification concerning proposed improvements to the front portion of Wal- Mart's property on 1/ Chalmers. He also asked if the street will be wider than it is now. Ms. Davenport explained there will only be frontage improvements on the west side. Improvements will be made to existing right -of -way, but the problem is on the other side of the street where full right -of -way has not been dedicated. Mr. Valenzuela recommended utilizing a systematic approach to address the aggregate industry's concerns about needed improvements on 18th Street. He suggested an appropriate time for further consideration of this issue is when future development occurs. Responding to Council Member Buchanan's point, City Attorney Paolella explained part . of this issue 3 226 MARCH 29, 1994 relates to off -site improvements and off -site mitigation measures, which ultimately lead to the authority to require the applicant to pay for off -site improvements. Although this is a bit of an unsettled area, there are legal authoritie8, especially in the Growth Management Act concerning impact fees. Currently, the City has no such ordinance in place; this clearly represents a clear basis for doing that. In the absence of any impact fee authority, it is uncertain as to what the precise limits of authority are, but in any case, the City would have to have adopted policies and other sorts of mechanisms in place. These may need to be more developed within the City of Yakima to address these off -site mitigation measures. Council Member Beauchamp stated that will not help in this case, but it needs to be considered because it is really unfair to the rest of the taxpayers in the City. City Attorney Paolella explained those types of policies could be more developed if the Council wishes to do that. Council Member Barnett reiterated his point that we don't have those sorts of mechanisms in place. Even though we have a lot of authority under SEPA and the UAZO, we don't have the full pathway of authorities in place to be imposing off -site mitigation measures. Council Member Brado stated that maybe that is something to look into. Referring to 17th Street, Council Member Brado stated he understood the improvements to include three lanes and two sidewalks in the 55 -feet, or if needed, increasing the right - of -way to 60 feet. The City will have a right -of -way on the 1 -82 access for pedestrians, and if there is no sidewalk on the west side, those individuals will have to cross 17th Street to access Wal -Mart. It would be better to have a walkway on both sides of 17th Street. If they can do it in 55 -feet, that would be fine. Referring to the 18th Street signal, Joan Davenport recapped testimony heard from the aggregate industry on March 15 about their perception of how the new signal at 17th Street would impact truck access and traffic movement at 18th Street. Because the distance is short between 17th and 18th Streets, the loaded trucks may have to wait for a signal phase to pull out. There was testimony and written comments concerning that issue. In summary, none of the parties involved, neither Superior Asphalt, Central Pre -Mix, Wal -Mart or Mr. Hall, was interested in having trucks use 17th Street. 1/ The proposal to have signalization of some sort at 18th Street to allow a gap for the trucks to get out has come from Superior Asphalt and Central Pre - Mix. A meeting was held to discuss more fully what that would entail and how it would work. As a result, a private agreement has been reached for the enhancement of 18th Street, to include a partial signal. It was suggested the City share in this enhancement by providing engineering design to be done in -house by the Engineering staff. The physical improvement, the 4 227 MARCH 259 -: 1994 enhancement, and the hardware for the signal was estimated at about $96,000 and would be split amongst the four main private parties for about $24,000 each. This estimate includes just the physical enhancement and does not include the value of the engineering design. Joan Davenport explained the applicant would be assigned the responsibility for financially participating in installation of that partial signal. This is only recommended to Council by staff if all four parties voluntarily agree to participate. If this is not something all four parties want to participate in, then staff is not recommending this signal to Council. As far as the City's involvement, engineering and design, and the other parties' participation, besides Wal- Mart's, a separate agreement would need to be established and it would not be tied td project approval. Council Member Sims asked if all the parties have agreed, when would the agreement be made, and how binding would it be after project approval. Ms. Davenport stated the parties have indicated approval, but they are fully prepared to speak to that. Shelley Willson, Supervising Traffic Engineer, described the partial signal proposed for 18th Street and the separating barrier on Terrace Heights Drive, as well as how they would function. She reported that if this were to become a City contract, then the City would be required to use prevailing wages that would increase the cost of this traffic signal project by 25 -35 percent. She further described the detector loops that would actuate the signal if the traffic were backed up onto the ramp from 18th Street. At this point, there was a considerable amount of discussion concerning how the traffic signal project would be handled; it will be a private contract. City Manager Zais emphasized the fact that Engineering would do the design only and the City would not issue the bids for the proposal. At the request of Council Member Buchanan, Ms. Willson further described the barrier that would be installed on Terrace Heights Drive. Fred French, City Engineer, answered Council Member Sims' question concerning the City's staff costs for engineering design at approximately $25,000. Council Member Sims also asked why staff would not recommend the project be handled in this manner if it was a City recommended project. Shelley Willson explained City staff would not have recommended this solution because it is contrary to standard practices, doing partial signals or mixing stop signs with the signalization. She further explained the Traffic Engineering Department's position, which would have been to develop one of the two roads to a standard that would facilitate the movement of both commercial and truck traffic, instead of the parallel approach. Council Member Buchanan indicated the traffic that will be coming and going to Wal- Mart and Sarg Hubbard Park on weekends will be heavy and should also be considered along with the truck traffic consideration. Assistant Mayor Barnett asked who would oversee the installation of the traffic signal. Council 5 228 MARCH 29, 1994 Member Brado asked if there is any willingness to participate in a separate, private agreement. Bill Hammett, Superior Asphalt, explained their intent to act as the prime contractor for this particular part of the project. He also clarified issues concerning the cost estimate. He stated they have committed to participate in 25 percent of the construction costs. Council Member Sims asked Mr. Hammett if the other parties have also agreed to participate. Mr. Hammett stated that Bob Hall has agreed to participate and so has Central Pre -Mix, but he couldn't speak for Wal -Mart. Jack McCullough, an attorney representing KPFF Engineering, stated that Wal -Mart is in agreement with the condition set forth. He described this as a two -part approach. One is to impose a condition, such as staff has recommended here, which requires payment of money by Wall -Mart to participate in the project. That would be the condition that would attach to the rezone and the master application approval. The second part of it would be the agreement, which would not be a condition of the rezone. Council Member Berger asked if there is any provision if the $96,000 maximum does not hold and it turns out to be considerably more than that. Mr. Hammett stated he thought the cost of the signal is pretty much fixed, and there are some design differences that could be made to possibly decrease the costs of the median barrier and the impact attenuators. The total construction costs also include the sales tax. He stated that Superior Asphalt, Central Pre -Mix, and Bob Hall are committed to 25 percent of the construction costs, not to include whatever the engineering design cost is. Bob Hall stated he supports the cooperative effort and he sees this as an opportunity for all parties to win a good public /private partnership that can put a first class intersection in place. Wayne Kalbfleisch, Central Pre - Mix, explained their reasons for participating in this cooperative effort. It will alleviate their concerns about the truck traffic, and will further enable their company to continue as further development occurs in the Terrace Heights area. Council Member Buchanan stated this is really a good way of getting things done. He wished there were more projects that had everybody working together. Assistant Mayor Barnett stated that everybody has done a great job. At this time, Assistant Mayor Barnett provided opportunity for public comment. Council Member Sims asked Glenn Valenzuela for his recommendation concerning the other two issues that were addressed by Superior Asphalt and Central Pre -Mix, the street improvements on Chalmers, Riverside, and 18th Street. Mr. Valenzuela recommended that the Council direct staff to take a very close look at 18th Street at Riverside to determine what can be done to enhance those streets for, not only safety, but to make them more attractive to future commercial and recreational uses in the 6 f : 2 2 9 MARCH# 9, 1994 ' area. Council MemberSims• asked if that would include buying the right -of -way in 'those corners. Mr. Valenzuela stated that needs to be considered. Council Member Sims stated he was not aware of the other projects slated for that area, but would certainly think that now would be considerably less , i expensive than later. Mr. Valenzuela stated that he would hope Council would direct staff to study that issue and come back with a recommendation within two to three weeks. Council Member Sims asked if a crosswalk was recommended. Mr. Valenzuela indicated the Hearing Examiner did not address this, nor did staff or the applicant support that idea. Council Member Sims questioned whether it was a-consideration and it seemed as though that would have to be a high -rise, handicapped accessible overpass as opposed to anything else. Assistant Mayor Barnett asked whether that would be part of the overall street study to be considered when improving the street for the safety of the pedestrian. Council Member Brado commented that maybe that should discouraged. Assistant. Mayor provided opportunity to KPFF to make any further comments. Jim Towslee, with KPFF Engineers representing Wal -Mart, referred to the traffic mitigation measures proposed as part of the project. He explained they are proposing to actually dedicate additional right -of -way where their property fronts Chalmers to bring that up to the full standard City right -of- way. He pointed to its location on the site plan map and explained where existing City right -of -way stops. Since there is no right -of -way connecting Chalmers with 17th Street or existing right -of -way with Chestnut, their proposal includes dedicating additional right -of -way along Chalmers, dedicating full right -of -way and an extension of the right - of -way to make a public connection between 17th Street, Chalmers, and Riverside. Mr. Towslee further stated they will also do full improvements on Chestnut, the new Chalmers being built to City standards, and half frontage improvements on the extension of Chalmers. They are also proposing to dedicate right -of -way on South 18th Street to accommodate the standard City right -of -way for whatever future improvements are deemed necessary. They are also proposing the full three -lane improvements with curb and gutter. He referenced the sidewalk discussion about whether there is to be one I/ sidewalk or two, with the staff recommendation to put one sidewalk on the west side to accommodate pedestrians from downtown and back through the project site. He indicated two sidewalks could be built within the existing right -of -way. He explained the difficulty of building the second siadewalk due to the grade difference between the roadbed and the sidewalk relative to the existing property which will require the construction of a retaining wall. Mr. Towslee indicated their contention all along has been to build the sidewalk, but it is the other appurtenances that would make it necessary to question whether there is really value added for • 230 MARCH 29, 1994 the additional costs. They are also proposing a 280 -foot turn lane on Terrace Heights Drive to accommodate the right turn vehicles and a fully actuated traffic signal at 17th Street. This will not only serve our project, but the auto dealers and t %e future hotel across the street. It will also service all te other vehicles, including park traffic that come through this new arterial connection. Mr. Towslee estimated the :total of these improvements to be in excess of $300,000 and described this.as a very fair and substantial contribution towards the ,public infrastructure in terms of traffic. The issue has.come up about the 18th Street underpass and the potential impacts caused, not necessarily by the project, but the signal on.l7 Street. There been some evidence in the record that :improvemen ; to' the 18th Street underpass is not wa:rr-.anted from a strictly traffic engineering standpoint, but some evidence has been heard from the local business owners that they feel this is going. to be a problem, if not today, but in the future.. In the interest of the team playing that Mr. Hall has articulated, Wal -Mart has agreed to help solve this problem 'in an equitable manner. From a traffic standpoint, Mr. Towslee expressed his thought that they will be more than mitigating the ; project's, direct impacts and providing important infrastructure to this new signal. Assistant Mayor Barnett asked Mr. Towslee if they had seen a copy of the latest staff recommendation._ He said they had and are in agreement with the staff recommendations as they had been given to them. Council Member Buchanan asked what size the sidewalk would be. Mr. Towslee stated whatever the. City wants. One sidewalk can fit easily, whether it is . 5 feet wide or 7 feet wide. Council Member Brado expressed his thought that he would like to see the two sidewalks put in, even though there will be the added expense for a small retaining wall, if they can do it within the 55 feet of right -of -way. For the purpose of clarification, Assistant Mayor Barnett asked how the identifying language in the staff report would be changed. Council Member Brado stated the wording should be changed to say both sides of 17th Street. Assistant Mayor Barnett questioned whether that is agreeable to all parties, since it was said it could be done either way. Mr. Towslee explained the point they were trying to raise earlier that the second sidewalk will cost a lot more than the first sidewalk, and they were questioning whether or not it really provides the benefit for that extra amount of money. They are certainly willing to do it; but the point they were trying to make earlier in the Hearing Examiner's report was that they don't have the ability to donate more right -of -way on property that they don't own. Mr. Towslee explained they can do it within 55 feet, if necessary. Council Member Barnett stated all areas of differences need to be resolved. Mr. Towslee stated they were comfortable with the staff report and the construction on the 17th Street side. 8 231 MARCH:29, 1994 Assistant Mayor Barnett provided.opportunity for anyone else who wished to speak. There being no one, Assistant Mayor Barnett asked if there were any more questions from Council. Council Member Buchanan asked if the issue of the Greenway Overlay District is settled to the satisfaction of the 1/ Greenway Board of Directors. CecVogt stated they feel they can work with the parties involved and feel comfortable with the way things are going. At the request of Council Member Sims, City Attorney Paolella provided legal explanation concerning the private contractual agreement to be made amongst the parties to fund this traffic signal improvement. The City's involvement includes engineering design work and . the approval of the specifications. The funding would be a private matter. In terms of the condition, the applicant would participate in a private financial agreement to install the signal. It would not be conditioned that the City be part of this agreement in a formal way. This agreement would be a separate contractual document involving the private parties. Since they are all in agreement, it is anticipated that they would draft a contract they all would sign that sets forth the financial aspects along the lines of what has been discussed, the $24,000. From the City Council's perspective in terms of the condition, their condition would be that Wal -Mart participate up to $24,000 in this financial agreement. Assistant Mayor Barnett referred to page 4 of the staff report, Recommended Condition which says that Council would need to direct the City Legal Department to prepare an agreement, etc. Mr. Paolella explained that in further discussion with the Planning Department and the private parties involved, there is a slight adjustment to that now. It is anticipated that the private parties would draft the agreement, since they all concur on this concept and would bring it back to the City. Assistant Mayor Barnett closed the public hearing. Assistant Mayor Barnett stated the first motion would be to adjust any of the staff recommendations as Council sees fit. It was MOVED BY BRADO, SECONDED BY SIMS, TO ADOPT THE FIRST PORTION DISCUSSED WITH THE AMENDMENT TO BOTH SIDES OF 17TH STREET. Assistant Mayor Barnett stated then, depending upon the Council's wishes, adopt these recommendations up to the signal, then the signal would be a separate motion, and a third motion would be whatever Council wants to do on the road study. The question was called for a vote on the motion. The motion passed by unanimous voice vote; Berndt and Beauchamp absent. Now Assistant Mayor Barnett stated he would entertain an appropriate motion for the signalization. Council Member Sims asked if that would include the replacement of the Hearing Examiner's 9 23 2 MARCH 29, 1994 Recommendations J, K. and P with the staff recommendation, the three parts. It was MOVED BY BUCHANAN, SECONDED BY SIMS, TO ADOPT THE EXAMINER'S RECOMMENDATION WITH THE CHANGES LISTED IN THE STAFF REPORT AND DIRECT LEGAL STAFF TO PREPARE THE APPROPRIATE LEGISLATION REGARDING THE REST OF IT. The motion passed by unanimous voice vote; Berndt and Beauchamp absent. City Attorney Paolella stated for clarification purposes, that Council has adopted the Hearing Examiner's recommendation as to. the Rezone, the Street Vacation, and the Class 2: Approval. Council Member Buchanan stated now all we have: to' do.: is: ask staff to bring back plans and proposals for.' 18tth • Stre"et, Chalmers and Riverside Street improvements.:.. There was discussion concerning the motion regardingr 1'8:th Street improvements, and City Manager• Zai i ndicated the motion was on that .recommendation and that's all :inclusive. Council Member Sims asked if that included the sidewalks on both sides of the street. City Manager Zais directed Council's attention to the next discussion concerning the improvements on 18th Street, Chalmers, and Riverside. Assistant Mayor Barnett stated he didn't know the best way to handle that, but thinks we need to direct staff to take some sort of action. It was MOVED BY BUCHANAN, SECONDED BY SIMS, TO DIRECT STAFF TO BRING BACK TO THE COUNCIL THEIR PLANS FOR PROPOSALS FOR THE 18TH, CHALMERS IMPROVEMENTS. The motion carried by unanimous voice vote; Berndt and Beauchamp absent. Assistant Mayor Barnett asked Glenn Valenzuela if he understands the intent and purpose of the motion. He said he did. City Manager Zais suggested one more item that should be on the record as a motion. There should be a direction that is separate from this project, which is certainly applicable in the future and that is the issue of pursuing authority for Council to consider other types of mitigation fees'or impacts that deal with off -site improvements for these kinds of projects. The City has no expressed authority except where it can be stretched under SEPA or otherwise. Council Member Brado stated staff has done a good job under that and if there really is a need to do something, that gives all the authority needed. Assistant Mayor. Barnett stated that he thought all those things are going to be resolved as we progress further under the Growth Management Act and all the other mandates that we've been given over the past year. Council Member Buchanan stated that he thought there should be a study session on that issue. City Manager Zais stated we will come back with some options on that. Those are discretionary; they are not necessarily all required under Growth Management; they are a tool available to the Council to consider. 5. AUDIENCE PARTICIPATION None 10 . • 233 MARCH ,2 1994 6. OTHER BUSINESS None information Items: Items of information supplied to Council were: Memorandum from Transit Planner regarding State Summary Report and Six Year Transit Development Financial Plan public hearing notice. 3/24/94; Agenda for April 7, 1994 Downtown Area Redevelopment Committee, meeting and minutes of its February 3, 1994 meeting;( Agenda for the March 24, 1994 Yakima "Air Terminal Board meeting and minutes of its February 24, 1994 meeting; Assignments Pending in Office of Environmental Planning as of March 29, 1994; and Washington Rail News; April /May 1994. 7. ADJOURNMENT . It was MOVED BY BUCHANAN, SECONDED BY BERGER, TO ADJOURN THE MEETING AT 10:30 A.M. The motion carried by unanimous voice vote; Berndt and Beauchamp absent. • READ AND CERTIFIED ACCURATE COUNCIL MEMBER DATE 6/67q COUNCIL MEMBE ATE ATTEST: Pc 0..}t_Z-„_..) /`2 CITY CLERK • AS TANT MAYOR • Minutes prepared by Deputy City Clerk Skovald. An audio and video tape of this meeting are available in the City Clerk's Office • • 11