Loading...
2007, 05-22 Regular Meeting MinutesMINUTES City of Spokane Valley City Council Regular Meeting Tuesday, May 22, 2007 Mayor Wilhite called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m., and welcomed everyone to the 116 meeting. Attendance: Diana Wilhite, Mayor Steve Taylor, Deputy Mayor Dick Denenny, Councilmember Mike DeVleming, Councilmember Bill Gothmann, Councilmember Rich Munson, Councilmember Gary Schimmels, Councilmember City Staff: Nina Regor, Deputy City Manager Cary Driskell, Deputy City Attorney Mary Kate Martin, Building Official Steve Worley, Senior Engineer Mike Jackson, Parks & Rec Director Mike Thompson, Fire Chief Marina Sukup, Community Development Director Scott Kuhta, Senior Planner Carolbelle Branch, Public Information Officer Erik Lamb, Legal Intern Greg Bingaman, IT Specialist Carrie Acosta, Deputy City Clerk INVOCATION: Councilmember Rich Munson gave the invocation. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Mayor Wilhite led the Pledge of Allegiance. ROLL CALL: Deputy City Clerk Acosta called roll; all Councilmembers were present. APPROVAL OF AGENDA: It was moved by Deputy Mayor Taylor, seconded and unanimously agreed to approve the agenda as presented. INTRODUCTION OF SPECIAL GUESTS AND PRESENTATIONS: none COMMITTEE, BOARD, LIAISON SUMMARY REPORTS: Councilmember Denenny: mentioned he attended a Spokane Transit Authority (STA) meeting, the Kendall Yards reception, an executive committee meeting for the Health Board where they went through their job descriptions, and he attended the Change of Command earlier today. Deputy Mayor Taylor: stated he attended the Convention and Visitors Bureau Annual Tourism Awards on Friday. Councilmember Gothmann: mentioned he spoke at SVDA meeting and talked about the Appleway Corridor; he attended the Spokane Regional Health District meeting where they decided on the structure. They will have a medical officer and an administrator who will report directly to the medical officer. He stated Spokane County is interested in discussing changes between Spokane Valley and the Housing and Community Advisory Committee regarding HUD funding. He attended the Leadership Prayer Breakfast, State of the City for Liberty Lake, Open House for Pines - Mansfield /Sullivan - Appleway which he stated was very well attended. He attended an All- Military lunch, the Tourism Awards, and Fire District One's dedication of a new ladder truck, two paramedic trucks and a general pumper truck. Councilmember Munson: stated he attended the STA meeting, the Association of Washington Cities (AWC) Resolutions Committee meeting which is the basis of the lobbying effort in Olympia. He indicated AWC will be more active at the national level and will be putting an effort into establishing policies and resolutions that will better reflect the needs of Spokane Valley at the national level. He Council Meeting: 05 -22 -07 Page 1 of 8 Approved by Council: 06 -05 -07 VOUCHER LIST DATE VOUCHER #s TOTAL VOUCHER AMOUNT 04 -30 -2007 11631 -11682 $249,666.07 05 -09 -2007 11727 -11771 $316,612.54 GRAND TOTAL $566,278.61 attended the Tourism Luncheon, the National Prayer Breakfast, and the Police Chaplains Appreciation Breakfast for police officers. MAYOR'S REPORT: Mayor Wilhite mentioned she welcomed people from the Northwest Power Association. She also attended the Sheriff's Prayer Breakfast, the Change of Command ceremony, the Convention Visitor's Bureau Awards, the Kendall Yards Reception, the Military luncheon, the Jr. Lilac Parade and the Lilac Parade. PUBLIC COMMENTS: Mayor Wilhite invited public comments. Sami Perry, 11717 E. View Ridge Lane: At the request of Steve Worley, Senior Engineer, Ms. Perry presented some of her design ideas for the Barker Street Bridge project. Her designs included artistic panels carved into the bridge sides that represent our area and events that take place within our community. She stated the designs will help prevent vandalism, will be maintenance free and will be designed to highlight valley characteristics. She explained that to view the panels, a person would need to be either on the river or on the trail. The panels were designed to represent both agricultural and industrial aspects of Spokane Valley. Councilmember Munson asked what the cost for the artwork would be, and Mr. Worley explained that cost has not yet been determined, but if we can include it in the bid it may be funded by state dollars along with the overall bridge project. Councilmember Gothmann expressed that this is a great idea. Councilmember DeVleming agreed and stated he would like to see the final version before giving approval. 1. CONSENT AGENDA: Consists of items considered routine which are approved as a group. A Councilmember may remove an item from the Consent Agenda to be considered separately. a. Following Claim Vouchers: b. Payroll for Period Ending May 15, 2007: $181,870.48 c. Minutes of May 1, 2007 Joint Council /County Meeting d. Minutes of May 8, 2007 Regular Council Meeting It was moved by Deputy Mayor Taylor, seconded and unanimously agreed to approve the Consent agenda as presented. NEW BUSINESS 2. First Reading Proposed Ordinance 07 -009 Amending Definitions — Cary Driskell After Deputy City Clerk Acosta read the ordinance title, it was moved by Deputy Mayor Taylor and seconded, to suspend the rules and adopt Ordinance 07 -009 as drafted. Deputy Attorney Driskell told Council this is a housekeeping item that adds a definition for City Manager that identifies "or Designee" and will also replace the numbering system with an alphabetizing system so that when a new definition is added in the future there will be no need to renumber everything. Councilmember DeVleming asked what language would be used to make sure it would not be the "or Designee" option should council ever determine they want something done specifically by the City Manager. Mr. Driskell said that provision would be drafted into the document as the need arises. Mayor Wilhite invited public comments; no comments were offered. Vote by Acclamation: In Favor: Unanimous. Opposed: None. Motion carried. 3 .First Reading Proposed Ordinance 01 -010 Adopting Uniform Development Code Title 24 — Mary Kate Martin After Deputy City Clerk Acosta read the ordinance title, it was moved by Deputy Mayor Taylor and seconded, to approve Ordinance 07 -010 adopting Uniform Development Code Title 24 as submitted. Council Meeting: 05 -22 -07 Page 2 of 8 Approved by Council: 06 -05 -07 Building Official Martin addressed comments brought up at the previous council meeting with regard to Councilmember DeVleming's concern with a portion of the property maintenance code. She informed council the only amendment to the text was to remove text placeholders for a date and timeframe for the effectiveness of the minimum heating requirement. She also determined there is no conflict to the energy code. Ms. Martin explained that based on attorney recommendations, she would like to add perpetual adoption language to 24.40.020, adding "as presently constituted or subsequently amended by the State of Washington" so the City would not need to readopt each time. Deputy Mayor Taylor asked if council has the ability to add to or not accept portions of the State codes. Ms. Martin explained the City has the ability to locally amend any portion of the State codes except residential codes, which can be amended but need the State's approval and cannot be less restrictive than State codes. In addition, the City cannot amend the energy code. Ms. Martin said this perpetual adoption language does not preclude the City from making local amendments. Councilmember Munson asked about the changes made to the grading code. Ms. Martin explained that the changes reflected in the grading code only address private driveways and his concerns will be addressed in the Street Standards in Title 22, which has not yet been brought before council. Councilmember Denenny asked for clarification on the fees associated with requesting a permit extension. Ms. Martin explained that if an extension is requested prior to permit expiration, there is no charge. However, if the permit has already expired there is a charge to extend it. Ms. Martin also pointed out to council that the swimming pool codes were not included in the code. Based on legal recommendation she is requesting to add appendix G, which is currently not adopted. Deputy City Manager Regor recommended to council they move forward with this first reading as it is, and include appendix G in the second reading. It was moved by Deputy Mayor Taylor and seconded, to amend his original motion to move Ordinance 07 -010 adopting Uniform Development Code Title 24, to a second reading. Mayor Wilhite invited public comment. Mary Pollard — 17216 E Baldwin Ave.: Ms. Pollard submitted a letter into the record addressing Hazards, Permit Requirements, and Engineered Grading. Deputy City Clerk Acosta read her comments and attached them to the draft minutes. Mary Pollard — 17216 E. Baldwin Ave.: Ms Pollard submitted a letter on behalf of the North Greenacres Neighborhood Planning Committee addressing Specific Building Codes, Appeals, Exempted Work, Retaining Walls, and Grade. Deputy City Clerk Acosta read the comments and attached them to the draft minutes. Vote by Acclamation: In Favor: Unanimous. Opposed: None. Motion carried. 4. Proposed Resolution 07 -007 Amending 2007 Transportation Improvement Program (TIP)— Steve Worley It was moved by Deputy Mayor Taylor and seconded, to approve Resolution 07 -007 adopting the Amended 2007 TIP as presented by staff. Senior Engineer Worley explained the public hearing on this issue was held April 24 and they did not receive any public comments. Minor changes were made to the amended TIP based on recent issues that have come up. The Street Preservation Projects lists projects that are still undetermined as to funding options; three were submitted for FTA funding through Spokane Regional Transportation Council and he does not yet know the results. He is requesting that although we don't know whether we will be able to do all the projects or not, he would like to have them included in Council Meeting: 05 -22 -07 Page 3 of 8 Approved by Council: 06 -05 -07 the TIP and depending on funding and staffing levels, he will try to get as many of the projects done as possible. Councilmember DeVleming asked which projects the City had requested additional funding. Mr. Worley identified the Evergreen Road project, 24th — 32nd, 8th Avenue, Havana St. to McKinnon Rd, and Sprague Avenue, Bowdish to Pines Rd. FTA funding is the basis for determining when roads will be resurfaced. Councilmember DeVleming asked if utility companies have been notified of the projects. Mr. Worley said he will verify that they will be if they have not. If none of the applications for FTA funds are selected to be reconstructed with FTA money, then the City will resurface the roads as soon as possible in coordination with the utility companies. Councilmember Munson asked which projects score well with STA that are on bus routes. Mr. Worley pointed out that all of the projects are on bus routes, but he still doesn't know how STA will rank Spokane Valley roads when compared to smaller jurisdictions. Mr. Worley explained that because of the TIP funding deadline, a determination as to which projects to proceed with and which are dropped needs to be made as soon as possible; and said that this TIP focuses on 2007 only. Councilmember Gothmann asked if there is information relative to the road study currently happening as far as ranking and the condition of roads. Mr. Worley indicated that yes, based on information from their consultants, scoring of the roads last year helped to identify which roads should be addressed this year. Mayor Wilhite invited public comment, none was offered. Vote by Acclamation: In favor: Unanimous. Opposed: None. Motion carried. 5. Motion Consideration: Appleway Extension, Metropolitan Transportation Plan (MTP) Request — Steve Worley Senior Engineer Worley gave background information to council on placing the Appleway Extension project on the MTP. The County received funding from the Transportation Improvement Board (TIB) in the amount of $4.2 million to proceed with the extension of the Sprague /Appleway Couplet. When Spokane Valley incorporated, we inherited the project and tried to move forward. Spokane Valley discovered that in order to use the TIB funds, the project needed to be on the MTP. The City has been working with Spokane Regional Transportation Council (SRTC) to try to proceed; however, was not able to meet the timeline the TIB set to get the project on the MTP. The City had an agreement through SRTC to use Federal funds, which would take the place of the TIB funds, and the City would relinquish the TIB funds. In the end, the City still has $4.2 million. Mr. Worley further explained the reason the City has had a difficult time getting the project on the MTP is due to the very involved process and alternatives analysis that takes place through an environmental assessment process. Much of that work has already been done as part of Sprague /Appleway Revitalization plan. The consultants have looked at land uses and transportation alternatives and brought forth a recommendation that was presented at the joint meeting with Council and the Planning Commission. Other than the public meetings on the Revitalization plan, there has not been much Council discussion on this issue. Because of this, Mr. Worley is seeking direction from council as whether or not to move forward to request SRTC put this project on the MTP. If the City can get this project on the MTP, that allows for use of the $4.2 million to start the design process and finish the environmental assessment process. The MTP can be amended every three years and this year it will be amended by the SRTC board. SRTC has requested from all jurisdictions all projects they would like to have included on the MTP. Mr. Worley is asking if his department should submit a letter to SRTC requesting this project be added to the MTP. He also stated Glenn Miles with SRTC agrees this plan meets all of the requirements for public involvement and alternatives analysis. The MTP is scheduled to be adopted at the July SRTC board Council Meeting: 05 -22 -07 Page 4 of 8 Approved by Council: 06 -05 -07 meeting. If we don't ask to be included in this amendment, we will need to wait three years or make a special request of SRTC to amend the MTP again with regard to this project. Councilmember Munson said he would like to know the implications to council. He asked if the City moves forward with this as presented by staff and the timing changes, will the City lose the funds? Mr. Worley clarified that this request is looking only at that portion of Appleway and Sprague from Argonne East. The road portion that already exists does not need to be included in the MTP process. Councilmember Munson asked what will happen if Council decides not to go along with the recommendation. Mr. Worley explained we would need to go back to SRTC and request it be revised within the MTP. He does not think that would be difficult to do; however, he cautions that if we are not sure now, he would not recommend we start spending the money. Development is moving forward based on what was discussed at the joint meeting of the Planning Commission and Council. It was his understanding there was agreement among both parties about what the consultant was proposing. Councilmember Munson stated there was no vote taken and that is what is necessary. Councilmember DeVleming stated that from the time the consultants made their presentation to now, there has not been opportunity for public comment. He believes that should be the process. He further asked if we need to be specific with what we want to do or can we just move forward with the extension of Appleway? Mr. Worley stated in order to get the project included on the MTP, we have to have sufficient detail for what is being requested. This would include the number and direction of lanes, etc. The City only has until approximately mid -June to decide whether to move forward with this project. Mr. Worley clarified this request for the MTP is from Argonne to east of Sullivan Road and is then divided into projects within the corridor based on what is best for development of City Center. The $4.2 million in Federal funds can be used on any project within the corridor. The previous request for TIB funds is not enough to complete the extension of a three -lane road from University to Evergreen. Mr. Worley indicated they are looking to put in a grant application to get the remaining funds from TIB to complete that portion of the project. Deputy Mayor Taylor stated the MTP is a 20 -year plan and updated every three years. He then asked why it is necessary to include the reduction of lanes on Sprague Avenue in the funds application for Appleway. Mr. Worley explained that element of the proposal is necessary because at this time the traffic models do not indicate the need for additional lanes within the corridor. According to the traffic model we have been using, there is no need for more capacity. This proposal will provide landscaping, sidewalk, and maintain the same number of lanes. Deputy Mayor Taylor expressed his concern about concurrency issues, the effects on Sprague Avenue by reducing lanes, and increased congestion pushing traffic to I -90. He stated he is concerned because he hasn't received input from City staff on the project, only from the consultant. Deputy Mayor Taylor further stressed he feels we have had a lot of opportunity for public comment, including workshops and traffic modeling. Councilmember DeVleming has concerns over the attendance at those public forums and workshops. He is concerned with the proposal to reduce lanes and its impact on future growth. He stated he believes it is a step backwards and the community needs to have more input on this particular issue. Councilmember Munson asked what the consequences are for council in terms of money should we go forward with this recommendation now and then change our minds He agrees with Councilmember DeVleming that we have not had enough public input to make a final decision. Mr. Worley says if Council moves forward with the recommendation to add this project to the MTP, the funding will not be jeopardized if they later change their minds. To request additional funding, we need to know what is being built — two lanes or three lanes, directional flow, etc. Deputy Mayor Taylor said he is worried Sprague will become similar to Monroe Street in Spokane: two lanes each way with a center turn -lane, very narrow and highly traveled. He does not want to shrink Council Meeting: 05 -22 -07 Page 5 of 8 Approved by Council: 06 -05 -07 Sprague Avenue. Mr. Worley explained traffic will use Appleway and have access limited to only the major intersections to keep traffic moving. When new developments come in they will be required to access Appleway off of interior roads. Councilmember Denenny pointed out that overall there will still be the same number of lanes of traffic on Sprague and Appleway - from seven lanes to five on Sprague and adding two lanes to Appleway. Mayor Wilhite asked Mr. Worley when he needs a decision from council in order to apply for TIB funds. Mr. Worley indicated Mid - August. Mayor Wilhite said she does not want to lose the funds, but stated Council needs more discussion to decide. She would like to have this item placed on the agenda for the Council Retreat and have a staff presentation. Mr. Worley clarified the deadline to request this project be added to the MTP is June. The project needs to be on the MTP in order to request TIB funds. Councilmember Denenny expressed he feels there has been a lot of public input in this process and it is now time for Council to take that input and make a decision. Councilmember Gothmann recommended staff provide a schedule of timelines; that there is more discussion among Council; and that there is more opportunity for Council to get public input. He believes Council needs to accommodate the timelines presented by Mr. Worley. Councilmember Munson asked that Council direct staff to move forward with the request to add this proposal to the MTP. Once it is on the MTP, we can then move forward with the grant application to TIB. If it is added to the MTP and a decision is not made as to whether the City will move forward with the project, it will probably delay the application for TIB funds for another year. Deputy Mayor Taylor agrees Council should move forward tonight. He asked staff to provide an analysis of concerns from folks about concurrency issues, impacts that this change may or may not have on our system, and north -south circulation. It was moved by Deputy Mayor Taylor and seconded to direct staff to move forward with a request to SRTC to have the extension of Appleway Avenue east of University Road amended into the 2007 update of the Spokane Metropolitan Transportation Plan, based on the preliminary recommendations of the Sprague /Appleway Revitalization Plan. Mayor Wilhite invited public comment; none were offered. Councilmember DeVleming stated he will vote no because he thinks it sends a message to the public that Council is making a decision without their input. Councilmember Schimmels thinks it is long overdue for Council to step out and get their feet wet. Councilmember Munson doesn't think this vote will inhibit public input. Councilmember Denenny supports the motion. Vote by Acclamation: In Favor: Deputy Mayor Taylor, Councilmember Munson, Councilmember Gothmann, Councilmember Denenny, Councilmember Schimmels. Opposed: Mayor Wilhite, Councilmember DeVleming. Motion carried. Mayor Wilhite called for a break at 7.45 p.m. At that time, Councilmember Schimmels was excused from the meeting. The meeting reconvened at 7:50 p.m. 6. Motion Consideration: Solid Waste Options — Cary Driskell Deputy Attorney Driskell stated this motion consideration comes from failure of staff to follow through on the process they thought they had previously done with regard to solid waste collection. Council had previously directed staff to notify WUTC (Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission) of the City's desire to terminate the tariffs of the City's existing providers, thereby starting a seven -year clock in which those providers would still provide services while other options could be determined for future collection. The letter was not sent and therefore, that seven -year window has not been started. Staff has now offered options to council for consideration. 1) do nothing, WUTC will continue to regulate solid waste collection under tariff with two entities; (2) buy out the existing providers and take over collection; (3) terminate certificate and grant contract with City taking over regulatory lead; and (4) terminate the Council Meeting: 05 -22 -07 Page 6 of 8 Approved by Council: 06 -05 -07 certificate and grant a franchise under which WUTC continues to be the regulatory lead. Under option three and four, the status quo would remain concerning grant of rights and obligations for seven years. Prior decision of council was option four, terminate certificate and grant a franchise under which WUTC would be the regulatory lead. Deputy Mayor Taylor asked Mr. Driskell to describe the pros and cons of option three. Mr. Driskell indicated the agreement would not be materially different; however, the City does not have enough staff nor the regulation set up. Councilmember Munson asked what the options are at end of seven years. Mr. Driskell explained that at the end of seven years if we didn't have something in place, we would have to provide for collection. Under option three the City would be the regulatory lead, whereas under option four we would not. It was moved by Deputy Mayor Taylor and seconded, that we chose option four (4), and authorize staff to send a letter to the Washington Utilities Transportation Commission giving preliminary notice of the intent to terminate the certificates, and to draft and discuss status quo franchises with Sunshine and Waste Management to haul for seven years. Mayor Wilhite invited public comment. Ken Gimpel, 12122 E 1st Avenue: Mr. Gimpel is the Municipal Relations Manager for Waste Management. He expressed he wanted to clarify the differences between option three and option four. He stated a contract is established in good faith between the City and its providers; it can be done at any time; and it is an open -ended contract in which everything is on the table for negotiation. Option four grants a franchise that allows the City's providers to operate in the Spokane Valley using the rate structure of WUTC. Mark Torre, 2405 N University Road: Mr. Torre from Sunshine Disposal has serviced this community for nearly 25 years. He expressed the implications the Council's decision could have on his Valley business. Most of their revenue comes from the service to the Valley. He asks that Council consider this when exploring all the options. Bob Evans, 12623 E Broadway — Vice President of Sunshine Disposal has worked for Sunshine for nearly 35 years and reiterated the concerns and implications to their small, family owned business and asks Council to consider their concerns. Councilmember Gothmann would like to discuss whether the City should have mandatory collection, whether we should be subsidizing some rate - payers, and if there is a way to capture quality control of service. Under a franchise the City would have limited control. Mr. Driskell explained this motion simply starts the seven -year clock. During that time, the City can explore options for a future contract or franchise agreement. The next proposed action will be a final notice of intent to the WUTC and will be clear as to the differences between a contract and franchise agreement. Mr. Driskell expressed he could foresee this coming to council within a month and it will clearly state to the WUTC the intent of Council. Vote by Acclamation: In favor: Unanimous. Opposed: None. Motion carried. PUBLIC COMMENTS: Mayor Wilhite invited general public comments. None were offered. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS: 7. Lodging Tax Committee Recommendations — Steve Taylor Deputy Mayor Taylor listed the requests submitted to the Lodging Tax Committee and the recommendations they made for appropriations: Valley Chamber of Commerce marketing proposal, $50,000; Convention Visitors Bureau marketing proposal, $78,000; Valleyfest advertising, $5,000; Council Meeting: 05 -22 -07 Page 7 of 8 Approved by Council: 06 -05 -07 Spokane Winery $7,500 for brochures; and Spokane Soccer Association website and informational packets, $17,000. After these appropriations, the City will still be left with approximately $250,000. Councilmember Gothmann would like public input before accepting the recommendations. Councilmember DeVleming asked that adoption be placed on a future agenda as a motion item. Mayor Wilhite stated she would like more information from Spokane Valley Chamber and their back -to- school effort and advertising dollars. Councilmembers DeVleming and Gothmann suggested next package include proposals from the various agencies and have people available for questions. Councilmember Munson recommended moving the next two agenda items to the Council Retreat due to time constraints. Consensus #9 be moved to a future meeting. 8. Panhandling Update — Cary Driskell/Erik Lamb Legal Intern Lamb told Council that currently the City regulates panhandling under Spokane Valley Municipal Code 8.25.020, described as aggressive panhandling that regulates begging that intimidates or threatens or coerces people into giving money. Mr. Lamb defined panhandling and cautioned Council that in terms of regulating panhandling, the City needs to remember that legally it is a form of expression and is protected. He presented options for regulation as being 1.) to promote a public awareness campaign to encourage other means of charitable contributions and discourage donating to individual panhandlers; 2) to expand the definition of aggressive begging to include other behaviors such as fraud, exploitation of children or obstruction of traffic with intent to intimidate; or 3) to continue enforcement of SVMC 8.25.020. It was moved by Deputy Mayor Taylor and unanimously agreed to extend the meeting to 9: 10 p.m. Mayor Wilhite said she would like staff to provide more information with regard to an educational campaign and bring the item back to council. 9. Sprague Appleway Revitalization Plan — Scott Kuhta This item was moved to a future meeting. INFORMATION ONLY: These items were not discussed or reported: 10. Department Reports EXECUTIVE SESSION: There was no executive session. It was moved by Councilmember Munson, seconded, and unanimously agreed to adjourn. The meeting adjourned at 9:05 p.m. ATTEST: Diana Wilhite, Mayor Carrie Acosta, Deputy City Clerk ;lac Council Meeting: 05 -22 -07 Page 8 of 8 Approved by Council: 06 -05 -07 NAME PLEASE PRINT TOPIC OF CONCERN YOU WILL SPEAK ABOUT ADDRESS TELEPHONE S Gtmi Peorl 6(6( a, tlo 5,114{ Nlgsit d 11111 1?\,e0,44 2YI1 S N. ali ✓ti 9z4.945¢ 9 L 5 e 11 :, 6 ) Cr( GENERAL PUBLIC COMMENT SIGN -IN SHEET SPOKANE VALLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE:44147467400 CITIZEN COMMENTS YOUR SPEAKING TIME WILL BE LIMITED TO THREE MINUTES Sign in if you wish to make Qublic comments. DRAFT DOE dam safety regulations (Chapter 173 -175) if exempt; justification of exempt status is required e. Proof of notification of the proposed construction submitted to the U.S. Army Corp of Engineers. f. If fish are proposed to be stocked in the pond, proof of Washington Fish and Game approval is required. 6. Private Driveways in excess of 150 feet in length measured from the intersection of the public way to the building the driveway serves shall be considered engineered grading regardless of the amount of excavation or fill required for construction. Specifications for these private driveways shall contain the following details in addition to the information required under SVMC 24.50 060(1 &2): a. Dimensions. Unobstructed width of 20 feet and an unobstructed height of 13 ft 6 inches. • Planning Commission Recommend DIGIt Title 24 ,,uilding Codes b.Surface. The surface of a private driveway shall be designed and maintained to support a 75,000 pound fire truck. The road shall be surfaced so as to provide all - weather driving capabilities_ c. Turn radii. Turn radii of 28.5 feet minimum are required. Smaller radii may be used if a design is submitted that will allow a 75,000 pound fire truck to drive over the curb or road shoulder. d.Turnaround. For private driveways over 150 feet in length. a 120 foot hammerhead, 60 foot "Y" or a 96 foot diameter cul -de -sac is required. e. Grade. Private driveways shall be paved with a hard, non slip, water repellant surface, such as asphalt or Portland cement concrete, Grasscrete. grassblock paver blocks or other or equivalent hard surface material The soils engineering report shall include data regarding the nature, distribution and strength of existing soils. Conclusions and recommendations for grading procedures and design criteria for corrective measures, including buttress fills, when necessary, and an opinion on adequacy for the intended use of sites to be developed by the proposed grading as affected by soils engineering factors, including the stability of slopes shall be included. The engineering geology report shall include an adequate description of the geology of the site, conclusions and recommendations regarding the effect of geologic conditions on the proposed development, and opinion on the adequacy for the intended use of sites to be developed by the proposed grading, as affected by geologic factors. 9. Regular Grading Requirements. Each application for a grading permit shall be accompanied by a plan in sufficient clarity to indicate the nature and extent of the work. The plans shall give the location of the work, the name of the owner and the name of the person who prepared the plan. The plan shall include the following information: a. General vicinity of the proposed site. b. Limiting dimensions and depth of cut and/or fill. Total volume of cut or fill. c. Location of any buildings or structures where work is to be performed and the location of any buildings or structures within 15 feet of the proposed grading. 24.50.070 Excavation and Fill 1. All excavation or fill within Pipeline Hazard areas identified in SVMC19.130.040 shall meet the standards and notification requirements of that section. 2. Unless otherwise recommended in the approved soils engineering or engineering geology report, the slope of cut surfaces shall be no steeper than is safe for the intended use and Page 13 of 17 P:1Community Development \Development Reaulatioris\1 PC Rcommendation Drafts\PC Recommended DRAFT Title 24 04-13 - 07.docPA t1Develeoment- Regulation datie - oNt Vefe+e 1AC -Recom mended Gba4 ges Titae 24-- 04- 43- C7.4os Deanna Griffith From: James & Mary [marjam17216 c@msn.comj Sent: Tuesday, May 22, 2007 12:49 PM To: Deanna Griffith Subject: NGA Title 24.doc Testimony to City Council for May 22, 2007 Attachments: NGA Title 24.doc Please forward this to the City council as official public testimony and have it read into the record Thank you, Mary Pollard North Greenacres Neighborhood e 5g ?owl . Page 1 of 1 N orth Gmnscm N eighborhood Planning Chairwoman: Mrs. Mary Pollard 17216 E. Baldwin Ave. Greenacres, (aka Spokane Valley) Washington 99016 Planning Committee: Pete Miller Janice Austin John Patrouch Diane Johnson Jennie Willardson Laurel a Bob Ladd Kurt Parker To: City Council RE: Development Regulations Hearing May 22, 2007 NGA Title 24 24.40.30 Local Amendments to adopted codes. Provision to allow homeowners and do it yourself home additions that work on summer vacation schedules can be a very expensive problem. There should be a definition that protects additional permitting since 6 months due to our seasons — unless you are a contractor can easily be too short for someone utilizing their vacations and weather to work on home additions. Ex. You put in footings in the fall and wait until the children are out of school and start framing in summer. Teachers often work on this schedule and they are not free for 9 months. A 9 month window is more reasonable and would not make a public eye sore by giving 3 months more latitude. This is a arbitrary time line and should be amended to 270 days. There should be 270 days rather than 180 days for building permits and continuation of work. This is adopted from the County Rule that due to our seasons six months is not reasonable. (example: You pour a basement in October and you cannot continue work until spring or summer. It may even be a problem with getting a contractor out once the season hits. This is too short of a time to require new cost of permitting. Make it 9 months. Comment from Engineer from Thomas Dean and Hoskins- We hired them for some work and so solicited his opinion about this 180 day rule 1 Thanks, As a follow up to our conversation, since winter can be quite prohibitive to concrete and foundation work in this area, I believe it would be more reasonable for Title 24 to allow 270 days for a permit to expire. Jerry Navarra Thomas, Dean & Hoskins, Inc. 303 East Second Ave. Spokane, WA 99202 (509) 622 -2888 Fax: (509) 622 -2889 24.40.020 Specific Building Codes 1 don't know where because they are written but the County allows exemption of a vapor barrier on new construction if there is vinyl siding. That is a protection that is worth safeguarding and to keep our housing stock viable for more than 20 years should not exempt this vapor shield. 24.30 Appeals 24.31 The appeal of a decision or determination should have a fee that is nominal so that there is social equity in allowing people with little money to petition their public officials. No more than $200. This should be a flat rate — because a recent appeal cost $300 and then the cost of the record and other copies came to $450. This violates any sense of social equity. 2006 International Residential Code c. Table R301.2 (1) Climactic and Geographic Design Criteria with following Radon is not on the list — I would think that Radon should be added to the top column and Barrier or venting placed below this title. :Blighted Property — If the property constitutes a threat to public safety due to changes in the right of way by the city — the city should not be able to create a blighted property - It would seem there should be a more stringent and definitive definition besides drugs Etc. to create a public threat. Pa under 108.7 Blighted Properties Would this section 11, pose a violation of the 4th amendment by condemnation of a property for the purposes described in this chapter to be for a public use.? Also highest and best use when you have a property that is currently in your possession and because of this phrase becomes something you can no longer get a loan for because the bank considers the property uses — is there a way of ensuring people have control of their properties rather than being held hostage for highest and best use. 2 Exempted Work 24.50.030 Public Right of Way should never be exempted under grading ordinance.. Even though this later comes under building roads. It is necessary to protect properties from steep slopes created on the sides or front of their property — the additional line of requiring that any changes in grade of creation of slopes does not create a negative impact or danger to the neighboring property. Item 12 — pg. 9 The present ordinance states it must be safe for its intended use. Roads must also be safe for pedestrian use for walking and entering properties. This should be stated since this is the very reason why 1 no longer have access to my front door. You cannot assume common sense will be followed. Requirements for retaining walls needed Even as a side yard change = this creates a weed patch slope. There should be requirements for retaining walls somewhere in the code — there is no requirement in this city to erect a retaining wall. It is a slippery path they are creating. Does not obstruct a drainage course - pg 10 — The GIS maps must be noted although they are not always definitive. IN an area that has not be developed they are accurate and you can also rely on public testimony of what is experienced. These must be considered in making decisions. Neighboring properties should be consulted prior to final approval to ensure the project engineer is not unaware of something that is important or has lost sight of in their list of priorities. A. 66.7% slope again is way too high at 5 feet and too steep for care. It should have landscape requirements to guarantee and preserve the aesthetics of neighboring properties and to ensure their property values are not negatively affected. (Developer builds a castle and leaves the neighboring property in the moat) 24.50.080 Setbacks 1. The top of cut slopes shall not be made nearer to a site boundary line than one fifth of the vertical height of cut with a minimum of 2 feet. 2. The toe of fill slope shall be made not nearer to the site boundary line than one half the height of the slope with a minimum of 2 feet with no required set back from the boundary greater than 20 feet. Where a fill slope is to be located near the site boundary and the adjacent off-site property is developed, special precautions shall be incorporated in the work as the building official deems necessary to protect the adjoining property from damage as a result of such grading. These precautions include but are not limited to: a. Additional setbacks. b. Provision for retaining or slough walls. c. Mechanical or chemical treatment of the fill slope surface to minimize erosion. d. Provisions for the control of surface waters. e. Consultation with a professional engineer. 3 3. The building official may approve alternate setbacks. The building official may require an investigation and recommendation by a qualified professional engineer or professional geologist to demonstrate that the intent of this section has been satisfied. A two foot setback from a neighboring property whether it is an engineered slope or not must be adhered to. This is essential because its like building steps without a landing without the two foot setback. This also ensure that the neighboring property does not become the drain line of their slope. Pg. 12 #6 e. Grade. Private driveways equal to or exceeding a 10% slope are required to have those areas of the driveway that equal or exceed a 10% slope paved with a hard, non slip, water repellant surface, such as asphalt or Portland cement concrete. Rules about Public right of Way approach should be in this section? The public right of way approach to a driveway should be addressed here and should not exceed an 8% grade for an urban approach. This is consistent with county standards. If you take out indicating the percent of a grade, it will leave the problem for the person who purchases the property. #6 Pg 12 Private driveways must asphalt at least the length of the driveway that goes past the neighboring house and go past at least 100 feet from the back of the neighboring house to protect neighboring home from dust generated by road built alongside their home. It was be advisable that without asphalt zero lot line placement ofa road should be prohibited. Also a 66.7% slope that is 5 feet high is way too high for a side yard where there once existed a flat grade. This is not inconceivable to occur because I have a 8 foot grade next to my property that obscures my view and has a 6 ft fence on top delis mesa the developer created and so there is no a 14 foot obstruction where it was flat fields before development. Then two foot houses were erected on top of this — There should be height restrictions if there is elevation and it should not be granted purely to put in sewer before sewer is put into the rest of the area. This has destroyed the characteristics of our neighborhood. 4 Deanna Griffith From: James & Mary [marjam17216 @msn.com] Sent: Tuesday, May 22, 2007 4:58 PM To: Deanna Griffith Subject: Title 24 Public Comment May 22.doc Attachments: Title 24 Public Comment May 22.doc comments far tonight 5/22/2007 Page 1 of 1 24.50.050 Hazards From Mary Pollard 17216 E. Baldwin Ave. Greenacres, WA 99016 To City Council Title 24 Public Comment May 22, 2007 1. Whenever any existing excavation, embankment or fill on public or private property has become a hazard to persons or property, or adversely affects the safety, use or stability of a public way or drainage channel, the owner, owner's agent or other person in control of the property, shall repair or eliminate the excavation or embankment, within the period of time specified on the written notice. 2. Unless exempt, any excavation, grading or fill performed without a permit, shall be considered hazardous and a public nuisance, subject to all enforcement actions and penalties as found in SVMC 17.60. Under Hazards it should be included that a public way must ensure that access to private property is not impeded and removed. This creates 0 danger. Public right ofway is utilized by pedestrians to access roadways and to access private and public property, to escape traffic, as 0 clear zone to avoid collision or when sliding on ice. Changes to public right ofway must guard that we do not create public. endangerment. Roads normally are built to hold up the cars but roadways and right ofway are also pedestrian access points and so must be built to ensure people are not falling down on embankments and 33% slopes. ADA requires no more than 5% as a grade that is safe to walking. This part of the code needs to be elucidated, to render intelligible, to provide much more clear direction to protect the public, health and safety, and life and limb as stated in the purpose of the grading ordinance of the County. Unfortunately, if safe do not define the objective, these provisions that are already in place are not heeded nor enforced. 2450.060 Permit Requirements A SEPA checklist shall be submitted, along with all other plans to complete an application. Under the SEPA checklist, applicant .should provide existing GIS maps indicating natural drainage ways in order that these natural drainage ways be preserved so we are complying with Spokane Valley's Comprehensive Plan. Currently, what is available is not being utilized It is of the utmost importance that we do not change these natural drainage ways. When engineers are wrong, the victims of these errors are thrust into a civil problem not of their choosing or making. The City, does not represent a particular person or group, must and has a duty to protect all people alike that ensuring that we are not allowing damages that force people into civil suits. This has an overarching impact to every person in Spokane Valley. Engineered Grading d. Requirements for swales or drainage devices to manage storm water and landscape irrigation runoff. There must be drainage ditches or channels between these slopes and the adjacent property line to ensure that pesticides and herbicides, as well as water runoff is kept off the adjacent property. It should ensure that if you have a slope over 5 feet (engineered grades end up with these things) that the setback from the adjacent property should be increased beyond a 2 ft minimum and that the existing county code of 1 /2 the height of the slope should be the minimum setback from the adjacent property most be enforced. (Ex. Next to my property — the 9 ft slope would have required a 4 % ft setback from our property line. A drainage channel should have been provided to capture runoff from their property. — and rain gutters should be provided to ensure that all the rooftop stormwater runoff is not being directed into the adjacent property as has been permitted by our property. Creating neighborhood conflicts should be avoided by good standards when properties are developed and homes are initially built.) Fill over 500 cubic yards When there is an excessive amount of grading there must protective measures for adjacent property owners. EPA has literature that demonstrates that high levels of arsenic and lead are in soils of historic pear and apple orchards before 1947. These stay in the soil and when the soil is disturbed this can create high levels absorbed into children, etc. and we can reduce exposure with more stringent methods and measures to keep the dust from migrating creating health hazards. There is a flow chart of how to determine if properties are high risk and this should be part of our grading ordinance or part of a SEPA checklist with provisions in the grading ordinance to address this public danger. Also, vibration of graded material (there was equivalent to 6,000 truck loads that was graded) when there is such a massive amount there should be limitations on the amount of noise and vibration exposure that neighboring properties are subjected to . Life Lines published Spring 2006 Vol 8 #2 States Noise Exposure Raises Risk of Heart Attack. Middle aged adults near high traffic roads were 46% more likely to suffer a heart attack than those in a quieter neighborhood and the risk was even more severe for women. The study included 4,115 men and women and controlled for other factors such as smoking, obesity and family history of heart attack. Noise acts as a danger signal to the body and causes hormonal reactions and a sharp increase in blood pressure and heart rate. Though this stress response is normal in humans, over the long run, frequent or persistent exposure may damage the cardiovascular system.