Loading...
2008, 09-30 Study Session MinutesMINUTES CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION Tuesday, September 30, 2008 Mayor Munson called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. and welcomed everyone to the meeting. Present: Councilmembers: Rich Munson, Mayor Dick Denenny, Deputy Mayor Rose Dempsey, Councilmember Bill Gothmann, Councilmember Gary Schimmels, Councilmember Steve Taylor, Councilmember Diana Wilhite, Councilmember Staff: Dave Mercier, City Manager Mike Connelly, City Attorney Ken Thompson, Finance Director Neil Kersten, Public Works Director Kathy McClung, Community Development Dir. Mike Stone, Parks & Rec Director Scott Kuhta, Senior Planner Lori Barlow, Associate Planner Greg Bingaman, IT Specialist Carolbelle Branch, Public Information Officer Chris Bainbridge, City Clerk 1. Document Imaging Update — Chris Bainbridge /Greg Bingaman City Clerk Bainbridge and IT Specialist Bingaman went over the PowerPoint explaining the highlights of the Laserfiche document imaging system being purchased via VPCI Consultants; mentioned some of the tools of the software and explained that the first installation phase will begin November 3 this year to include the City Clerk's Office, Finance Department, and Human Resources; and the next phase will include Admin, Legal, and Parks and Recreation, followed by the two largest departments of Public Works and Community Development. Ms. Bainbridge also mentioned that this first phase cost is approximately $164,000, which does not include the approximately $30,000 purchase of the independent server or the cost of the two temporary people to scan documents, which is estimated at a total of $50,000 for the two people over nine to twelve months; and added that once the entire city is on board, she anticipates spending very close to the fully budgeted amount of $500,000. Ms. Bainbridge mentioned numerous benefits to the document imaging system including that it will free staff to do other tasks, give the public and the staff greater access to documents, numerous people can view the same document at the same time, that it will make many staff tasks more efficient and cost - effective; and will greatly assist in responding to the numerous public record requests. 2. Panhandling Committee Report — Councilmember Gothmann Councilmember Gothmann went through his PowerPoint and written report giving examples of the problems associated with panhandlers, and stressed several times of the importance of not directly giving to panhandlers as many have drug and /or alcohol problems, and said there are numerous public service agencies such as Spokane Valley Partners, Meals on Wheels, 2 Hands, and others, which can assist panhandlers with meals, shelter, etc., and mentioned the program used in Anchorage Alaska which encourages giving special wooden nickels which panhandlers can cash in for food, clothing, and other essentials. Councilmember Gothmann mentioned the recommendations of the Panhandling Committee such as having an ordinance prohibiting panhandling within one hundred feet of an ATM, bus stop, traffic signal, or freeway entrance; to prohibit motorists and passengers from giving while in a traffic lane, and to prohibit panhandling while intoxicated. Mayor Munson suggested adding into any local ordinance, provisions for law enforcement to address the issue; and Attorney Connelly mentioned that a "public drunkenness" prohibition might be better described as "disorderly and lewdness" according to state statute, but that he will research that further. Study Session Meeting Minutes: 09 -30 -08 Page 1 of 7 Approved by Council: 10 -14 -08 Continued discussion included advertising on websites, via posters, radio and newspapers to inform citizens of the alternatives to giving money directly to the panhandlers; and Councilmember Gothmann suggested entering into an agreement with Anchorage to acquire some of their materials. Aside from education and enforcement, Councilmember Gothmann suggested having a standing committee, perhaps regionally, to further handle these issues, and to involve businesses, service clubs, members of the faith - based community, and to include a media director; that such could be funded by Spokane Valley and /or businesses, the city of Spokane, or others, to help address this area -wide problem, and that it would be best if such committee were run by businesses throughout the area rather then by Spokane Valley or other municipalities, although Councilmembers might want to be represented on such a committee. City of Spokane Research Analyst Todd Babcock was invited to speak, and he mentioned they are waiting to hear from the Center for Justice at the Gonzaga Law School concerning sample ordinances as the committee is searching for a good example of an anti - enabling ordinance or something that has some Constitutional review, but they have not found any samples yet; as penalizing drivers could be problematic. Further discussion included similar problems faced in other cities, and additional problems to panhandling such as vandalism, anarchists, and obstructionists; and Chief VanLeuven estimated there are between thirty and fifty panhandlers in Spokane Valley, said there are some panhandlers here with outstanding warrants from other states which will not extradite those people; and added that "no trespassing" signs are a good deterrent. Mayor Munson thanked the members of the committee and suggested he and Councilmember Gothmann visit the Board of County Commissioners, and the City of Spokane, to give them a similar presentation; with the idea of speaking to civic organizations later; and he asked for Council's comments concerning drafting of an ordinance. Councilmember Gothmann suggested staff draft an ordinance simultaneously with he and Mayor Munson making presentations to other jurisdictions; and Councilmember Taylor mentioned that the City of Spokane is working on an ordinance and he would like to see a package of ordinances. Mr. Babcock mentioned that other cities such as Tacoma, Seattle, Issaquah, and Portland have implemented ordinances and implemented programs a few years ago; but that no ordinance he has seen includes any anti - enabling clause. Being mindful of staff's workload, it was determined that Council can shop this presentation to other jurisdictions to determine if there is regional interest to address this problem uniformly while staff works on drafting an ordinance to address panhandling. There was Council consensus that staff draft an ordinance to include anti - enabling provisions or to discourage people from giving from their cars while in the middle of a public right -of- way and other safety issues, that Mr. Mercier will consult with staff to determine the best timeframe to bring this issue back before Council, and that Councilmember Gothmann and Mayor Munson will get together to work on mentioned issues with other entities. 3. Spokane Transit Authority (STA) Visioning Video — Mayor Munson Mayor Munson mentioned that the STA 3 -D simulation regarding transit oriented development is an independent designed video; and after viewing, said we may decide if we would like the same type of work done to help us show the public what the Sprague / Appleway Revitalization Plan (SARP) may look like in twenty to thirty years. After the showing of the video, it was determined that staff will research the cost to produce a similar video for the SARP. Mayor Munson called for a ten - minute recess at 7:30 p.m., and reconvened the meeting at 7:40 p.m. 4. Sprague /Appleway Revitalization Plan Book II, Development Regulations Mayor Munson remarked that in addition to being members of Council, Councilmembers are also citizens, some of whom own or have owned businesses, are homeowners, and understand the idea of property values; and that Council is not being driven by staff to make decisions; that Councilmembers were elected to represent all citizens of this City and not just a few. Study Session Meeting Minutes: 09 -30 -08 Page 2 of 7 Approved by Council: 10 -14 -08 Senior Planner Kuhta mentioned last week's discussion concerning the extent of the Plan, and said it was the consensus of those five Councilmembers last week that we continue with deliberations as the Planning Commission has recommended at least with the zone district boundaries, and that can always be re- visited later, including whether to phase the Plan or arrive at an alternative to phasing; but that today will continue with deliberations with the regulations as presented. Mr. Kuhta said staff would like to direct Council's attention to the orientation section, 2.0, which is the applicability section which addresses nonconforming use; and he suggested Council deliberate on the plan by taking the corridor by segments; and to view the public comments specific to those areas. Mr. Kuhta then brought Council's attention to the handout of the existing regulations concerning nonconforming uses and structures; and to the handout of proposed changes. That regarding the proposed orientation section, Mr. Kuhta said that the most significant change is that it refers to the UDC (Uniform Development Code) for nonconforming provisions; so that any nonconforming provision or regulation which was included in the Plan, now references the nonconforming regulations currently in the UDC so they are consistent and will be consistently applied. Mr. Kuhta said there is mention of "Standards and Guidelines," and that standards are mandatory whereas Guidelines are not; but because staff cannot make subjective determinations based on guidelines, the reference to a project being approved in relation to guidelines was removed, and language was changed to clarify that guidelines are only recommendations, to be followed or not. Mr. Kuhta said that there was a lot of testimony regarding the exterior improvements meeting the 20% threshold and whether 20% was too restrictive; that staff made no proposed changes and leaves that discretion to Council. As a reminder, Mr. Kuhta said that the original administrative draft came in at 10 %, staff recommended changing that to 15 %, the Planning Commission recommended 20 %; and that many comments indicated that figure should be higher. Mr. Kuhta reviewed the track changes of the handout on the applicability section of 2.0 Orientation. Conversation moved to the architectural changes concerning exterior improvements, what would trigger the architectural regulations i.e. if the cost of the changes exceed more than 20% of the assessed or appraised value; another mention of standards versus guidelines; not painting or maintenance, but a major re -do of the building exterior; that there were few general comments on the architectural standards but nothing specific; that it would be difficult to have explicit cost comparisons of a typical construction, that it would likely be more expensive, but would create a nicer looking building; keeping in mind the percentage is based on the appraised or assessed value of the entire property, which is the building and land and not just the building; a reminder from Mr. Kuhta that there are no staff members with the expertise of doing an architectural construction estimate; that Councilmember Taylor said he would like to know if such architectural standards would be a significant burden to the cost of an improvement, and Mr. Kuhta said staff can research that issue. Mayor Munson said in summary, Council wants to know what is the impact on property owners to comply with these new regulations. Mr. Kuhta added that feedback from other cities was that with 50% in exterior improvement to additions, not much change was noticed as that is a high threshold; and Councilmember Gothmann mentioned that it appears the more desired figure is between 20 and 50 %; and Mayor Munson said the impact information is important in making that determination. Deputy Mayor Denenny mentioned that his concerns are more of in looking at a 20,000 square foot building, add 4,000 square feet, and what would be triggered in additional costs, including parking, landscaping, etc; and mention from Mr. Kuhta that such scenario would not result in having to move the building, because it only applies to the net new floor area; and one would never be forced to move a building; but that 4,000 square feet would have to be added towards the front, and there could be some unique characteristics of the lot that would need to be addressed on an individual basis with the property owners; and in some cases, Ms. McClung explained, staff would want to at least require justification of why a change should not require adherence to the Plan; and Mayor Munson added that the desire is to build flexibility into the Plan so as not to even appear to have an unintentional taking of any kind; after which Mr. Kuhta asked if Council wants this Code to apply to existing businesses and structures? Attorney Connelly mentioned that specific criteria must be included any time the Director is given discretion, and any decision could be appealed to the Hearing Examiner, then to Court. Councilmember Taylor suggested applying the Study Session Meeting Minutes: 09 -30 -08 Page 3 of 7 Approved by Council: 10 -14 -08 architectural standards only to the building expansions instead of having to completely re- orient the building with the new floor area; or as suggested by Councilmember Gothmann, to apply the architectural standards only to an improvement greater than 20% of floor area, which means it would not apply to old buildings, except for the architectural standards. Deputy Mayor Denenny said that what council needs to consider is, what threshold will encourage re- development of deteriorating properties and what will encourage commitment to the core area, and what will create an inducement for creating the vision. Mayor Munson added that much of this decision making will come from individual property owners, whether to keep the building as it, renovate or remove, and at what cost; which is where the impact from the regulations falls into place; as if this becomes prohibitive, the improvement will not be done and therefore no re- development; so the ideal is to have a plan which will encourage redevelopment without too high an impact on building cost, and those who want to renovate, to be able to do so to meet their individual needs; and those who don't change will have a more difficult time in competing with the more modern looking buildings. Councilmember Taylor asked if in researching what other communities have done concerning the threshold, did staff run into specific difficulties in terms of redevelopment and having to re- orient business because of the requirement to be closer to the road. Associate Planner Barlow who researched other communities, mentioned that they did not address that level of detail; but if the threshold was too small there would be more likelihood of change; and in cases where there was 50% required, that jurisdiction saw no change in existing structures as the threshold was too high; and that every situation which presented itself, was dealt with individually as there was no one situation which could be easily addressed concerning expanding an existing structure; which means it relies on the criteria set by those jurisdictions, then being flexible in evaluating the situation to see how it meant the intent as best as possible; that in her research some areas were dealing with corridor development or strip malls, and one or two were looking at city center development; and in those jurisdictions where this only applied to new development, the process was cleaner, as new development was introduced, that would cause the existing business to more likely conform; but that particular plan had not been implemented long enough to determine that was actually the case. Mayor Munson added that if the idea doesn't work, the plan can change. Councilmember Gothmann then speculated if we should perhaps starts with the more restrictive, and after evaluating, if needed the restrictions could be lessened, as doing it in the reverse would be difficult. Deputy Mayor Denenny said he would prefer defining "new" building, and have something included which would trigger reconstruction; and Councilmember Gothmann added that the city center core would be very restrictive; as it should be all new development. Another option voiced by Councilmember Taylor would be to allow staff the discretion on a substantial disruption of a business redevelopment project, adding specific criteria for such discretion. City Manager Mercier mentioned that if Council were to require all new construction to conform with all the regulations proposed, then there is not much judgment needed on that; and that renovations for existing buildings would not apply except to the architectural standards; and if so there is no discretionary range on the part of the Community Development Director. Councilmember Wilhite said she preferred to have the new construction conform to the new code; as market will dictate where customers will go as they will likely be drawn to newer, more attractive establishments. Councilmember Taylor clarified his suggestion to keep the language as it, but provide additional language to allow discretion for substantial business disruption based upon specific criteria that staff will follow for allowing such discretion. Mayor Munson and Councilmember Wilhite stated their preference to just go with the new structures, as the process would be cleaner; and Councilmember Taylor disagreed stating that particular development will occur where the land is less expensive, which is on clear land versus redeveloping a property; and that there is a lot of redevelopment that needs to occur along Sprague and a large component of this Plan is that we are encouraging re- development, and that a substantial portion of that will be renovation of existing building; and if you exempt all the existing buildings, then perhaps there is no need for the plan. Mayor Munson countered that he feels this would be progress; that the City will not spend money to Study Session Meeting Minutes: 09 -30 -08 Page 4 of 7 Approved by Council: 10 -14 -08 renovate buildings or development, as the individual business owners will; and if the rules are clear and flexible, it will give choices to those who want to develop. Councilmember Taylor added caution that the amount of effort and the purpose of the plan is to make sure the plan is not watered down so we spend a lot of time and money on the plan, and something gets "out there" which will not achieve the hoped for results. Mayor Munson countered that by using architectural standards, we will make process in achieving the way the area looks; and if the first step is to change the architectural look of the city, the next step with the new buildings, will be to move them closer to the street to achieve the final look; with the entire Plan being phased. In concentrating on the core, Bowdish to Farr, the question posed by Deputy Mayor Denenny was how to encourage re- development; and what improvements will it take for those existing properties to transition; and to develop a timeframe for those properties until the values come up to new uses; that some encouragement will be needed for more than just new development; yet he mentioned he struggled with the type of structure to allow the change. Councilmember Taylor stressed that the intent of the plan is to establish a form -based code to allow building structures to accommodate varying uses; and the question is to arrive there in ten to twenty years; or forty or fifty years; and that the time matters to him as Councilmember Taylor said he would like to see this occur in his lifetime. Mayor Munson stated that the time doesn't matter, because if the market and the property owners want it to happen, it will; whether new or renovated; and the choice of when is up to the property owners; and said that we need to give flexibility to the property owners. Mayor Munson mentioned that he has heard that people says this Plan costs too much; but he explained that this will not be done with taxpayer money; on a relative scale on how much will be spent, the percentage will be small; and if such is the case with individuals fronting the cost; they must be given latitude on how to get this done. Attorney Connelly said there are two different items here: one is the change in the structure, but there is also a use component; which are separate and apart. Mr. Kuhta quoted that "use changes in existing buildings shall conform to applicable sections of the code" and said the intent for that is, for example, what are the zoning, signage, parking and landscaping regulations for that particular use; and if a use is changed, for example a dentist office to a retail shop, the part of the plan that would be triggered is, we must determine if that type of retail is allowed; and if they want to change their sign the sign would have to conform to the new regulations, and that there is a parking calculation for that use; and that the use must conform to the zoning. To reiterate, Mayor Munson said the conception of the public is that one cannot change one's property, is not correct as property owners can add to the floor space and still have a business. Planner Kuhta added that in the current UDC on nonconforming uses and structures, it states that a nonconforming use can be expanded to a property or an adjacent property that was under the same ownership when it became nonconforming; for example, if there was a used car lot and that owner also owned the lot next to that car lot but which other lot was not being used as a car lot; the car lot can be expanded if that becomes a nonconforming use; and that is a change which would be in affect if this recommendation is adopted. Mr. Connelly added that some of the confusion could be eliminated by under 2.0.1c, wit the word "applicable" and moving that to after the word "code" to read "Use changes in existing buildings shall conform to sections of the code application to that use, including, but not limited to zoning, parking and signage standards." There was no objection to that suggestion. Mayor Munson said he does not recommend a change to the 20% as the land is included as well as the structure; but he does recommend that the full weight of the zoning only be applied to new construction; and only the architectural standards would be applied to any renovation; and Councilmember Gothmann stated that the architectural standards only would be applied for the noted increase in floor space, as well as the 20% rule regarding exterior improvements; and that full standards would apply only to new construction. To clarify, Mr. Mercier asked if Council would want to exempt existing buildings in the city center core; and Councilmember Gothmann said yes, that he would like to apply the fully standards to the city core. Mr. Mercier said if that is the case, language would need to be included; and that mention needs to be treated here as well as elsewhere in the plan. There was Council consensus to Study Session Meeting Minutes: 09 -30 -08 Page 5 of 7 Approved by Council: 10 -14 -08 examine this proposed language and impact information during the next scheduled deliberation; and Ms. McClung said staff will provide the impact information as well. Deputy Mayor Denenny encouraged Councilmembers to visit the properties in question. Councilmember Taylor said he would like to see what types of permits have been pulled along Sprague, for example, where the storage space was just expanded. Councilmember Taylor asked if there is consensus on the new language regarding the nonconforming use, i.e., incorporating for the nonconforming standards of the Plan, that which is already in the UDC; which is item #h: "Non- conforming uses shall be regulated by Spokane Valley Municipal Code (SVMC) Title 19.20.060" and Council concurred. Mr. Kuhta mentioned under the current code, if a business was 100% destroyed they could not re -build that business on the footprint there, as the language is that "if a business is more than 80% destroyed by fire or natural disaster" then they'd have to conform to the new code. Councilmember Taylor said that therefore, under c5 "any nonconforming structure damaged by fire, flood, neglect or act of God may be replaced if restoration of the structure is initiated within twelve months and the damage represents less than 80% of market value of the structure" and he asked if that was very different from what was in the proposal; and Mr. Kuhta said it was not in the proposal. Mr. Taylor further stated that a question arose that if a business burned down, and the business was a nonconforming use, would the owner be able to rebuild that, and under the existing UDC, nonconforming use, the owner would not be able to rebuild. Mayor Munson mentioned the letters concerning property owners' insurance carriers stating they would have to replace what was burned down; and asked if this was confirmed, and if so, would that make it difficult for the property owners to rebuild; and he said he would like to discuss this at the next deliberation. Mr. Kuhta said that he spoke with some insurance carriers and that it part of the existing UDC that is not on the table, the 80% versus 20 %, and if Council wants to change that, it should be done through the UDC. Mayor Munson reiterated that he would still like further discussion on what insurance companies will do; and Councilmember Taylor clarified that if we are using the current UDC standards, and a new plan has different standards along Sprague, then what is applied throughout the remainder of the City; as the new construction will be more expensive then the replacement value. Councilmember Gothmann said the Scotts showed him a copy of their insurance information, and it might be interesting to compare that with what we have; and Mayor Munson said it all depends on the policy, whether it is current market replacement or cost replacement. 5. Advance Agenda Additions —Mayor Munson Mayor Munson mentioned the materials distributed earlier to Council concerning the Regional Transportation Projects Prioritization Criteria, and asked Councilmembers to familiarize themselves with the material so that it may be discussed at the next council meeting. Similarly, Deputy Mayor Denenny mentioned the materials concerning the EPA, Spokane River Water September 26, 2008 Quality Stakeholder Meeting which discusses the current status of work by Washington and Idaho states, and the EPA on actions to improve water quality in the Spokane River, and Deputy Mayor Denenny summarized the contents of that statement made by Christine Psyk. Mayor Munson also asked Councilmembers to review this as it will be discussed as part of the legislative agenda. 6. Council Check -in — Mayor Munson Councilmember Dempsey mentioned the recent television report concerning people in the Barker Road area north of the river requesting temporary bus service, and she asked if it would be possible to ask the STA if they would provide such temporary service while the bridge is under construction. Mayor Munson replied that he has personally asked that on several occasions but was informed that such cannot be done because of the significant cost; and Deputy Mayor Denenny added that Council could ask members of the STA to come in and give an overview, but the system is very complicated, and any change in one route affects many more changes in many other routes. Mayor Munson said he will contact the STA and invite them to a meeting; or as an alternative, Deputy Mayor Denenny suggested getting an information sheet Study Session Meeting Minutes: 09 -30 -08 Page 6 of 7 Approved by Council: 10 -14 -08 from them to include in an upcoming council packet. In other matters, Councilmember Gothmann extended kudos to Police Chief VanLeuven on his department's handling of two major police incidents in the same week. 7. City Manager Comments — Dave Mercier. Mr. Mercier had no further comments. There being no further business, Mayor Munson adjourned the meeting at 9:10 p.m. ATTEST: Christine Bainbridge, ity Clerk Study Session Meeting Minutes: 09 -30 -08 Page 7 of 7 Approved by Council: 10 -14 -08