2006, 01-24 Regular Meeting MinutesMayor Wilhite called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m., and welcomed everyone to the 84 meeting.
Attendance:
Diana Wilhite, Mayor
Dick Denenny, Councilmember
Mike DeVleming, Councilmember
Bill Gothmann, Councilmember
Gary Schimmels, Councilmember
Rich Munson, Councilmember
Absent:
Steve Taylor, Deputy Mayor
MINUTES
City of Spokane Valley
City Council Regular Meeting
Tuesday, January 24, 2006
City Staff:
Dave Mercier, City Manager
Nina Regor, Deputy City Manager
Mike Connelly, City Attorney
Ken Thompson, Finance Director
Marina Sukup, Community Development Director
Tom Scholtens, Building Official
Mike Jackson, Parks & Recreation Director
Neil Kersten, Public Works Director
Greg McCormick, Planning Manager
Scott Kuhta, Senior Planner
John Hohman, Senior Engineer
Mike Basinger, Associate Planner
Carolbelle Branch, Public Information Officer
Greg "Bing" Bingaman, IT Specialist
Chris Bainbridge, City Clerk
INVOCATION: Pastor Darrell Freeman of the Spokane Valley Nazarene Church gave the invocation.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Mayor Wilhite led the Pledge of Allegiance.
ROLL CALL City Clerk Bainbridge called roll; all Councilmembers were present except Deputy Mayor
Taylor. It was moved by Councilmember Munson, seconded by Councilmember Denenny, and
unanimously passed to excuse Deputy Mayor Taylor from tonight's meeting.
APPROVAL OF AGENDA It was moved by Councilmember Gothmann, seconded by Councilmember
Munson, and unanimously passed to approve the agenda as submitted.
INTRODUCTION OF SPECIAL GUESTS AND PRESENTATIONS Mayor Wilhite acknowledged
and welcomed County Commissioner Mark Richard, and thanked him for coming
COMMITTEE, BOARD, LIAISON SUMMARY REPORTS
Councilmember Denenny: reported that the Spokane Transit Authority (STA) met last Thursday; that he
met with the Department of Ecology (DOE) today and a draft of the proposal was presented to them,
which appears to be a workable solution, and that the group will meet tomorrow from about 9 -2.
Councilmember Gothmann: stated that he made a presentation to the Spokane Valley Business
Association about the City's Comprehensive Plan; that he attended the Spokane Convention Bureau's
Annual meeting where one of the highlights was watching Mike Basinger received his "Way to Go"
award at the Commute Trip Reduction (CTR) Banquet; he also attended the Chamber Awards; and a
Housing & Community Development Advisory Committee meeting which designated approximately $1.1
million in improvement grants; and that he and several Councilmembers attended last night's joint
meeting with the Central Valley School District, where impact fees and their Capital Projects Plan were
discussed.
Council Meeting: 01 -24 -06 Page 1 of 5
Approved by Council: 02 -14 -06
VOUCHER LIST DATE
VOUCHER #s
TOTAL VOUCHER AMOUNT
January 9, 2006
8379 -8394
$243,831.04
January 9, 2006
8352 -8378
$288,264.32
January 17, 2006
8395 -8422
$54,202.56
January 17, 2006
8431 -8450
$82,186.90
$668,484.82
Councilmember Munson: explained that last week he attended the GMA Steering Committee of Elected
Officials where a major milestone was reached as the Committee passed on as a recommendation to the
County Commissioners, a motion to begin to resolve the joint planning issues; he also attended a light rail
steering committee and a STA meeting last week, where they began to work on the statistically relevant
survey within the STA riding area to find out if people want light rail and if so, if they are willing to pay
for it, and that survey results should be available sometime in February; and he also attended the Central
Valley School District joint meeting.
MAYOR'S REPORT:
Mayor Wilhite reported that she attended the Convention Visitor's Bureau annual meting where City
employee Mike Basinger received his award for bicycling to work; she also attended the Spokane Valley
Chamber and Builders Association awards banquet; the GMA meeting, and last night's meeting with the
Central Valley School District.
PUBLIC COMMENTS Mayor Wilhite invited public comments; no comments were offered.
1. PUBLIC HEARING: Interim Zoning UR -1 — Marina Sukup
Mayor Wilhite opened the public hearing at 6:11 p.m. and invited Community Development Director
Sukup to explain the issue. Director Sukup explained the history of this issue and that this process
extends the zoning for another six months, or until September 2006, assuming the Comprehensive Plan
gets finalized and that ordinance passed. Ms. Sukup also mentioned that we are still awaiting the federal
draft floodplain maps affecting Saltese Creek, and that much of the delay in acquiring the map was due to
Hurricane Katrina. Mayor Wilhite invited public comment.
Gail Stiltner, 10119 E 44 Avenue, Ponderosa Area: expressed her thanks for the interim zoning and
stated that she supports the extension of the zoning; that their way of life allows no higher density then
one home per acre; that wildlife couldn't take a higher density either as she finds more deer roaming as
construction continues; and she wants to preserve the character of an existing neighborhood and therefore
asks that this zoning be continued. She said she is proud of Ponderosa and wants it to be a unique and
vital part of the Valley.
Mayor Wilhite invited further comments. No further comments were offered and Mayor Wilhite closed
the public hearing at 6:17 p.m. As a means of public disclosure, Councilmember Gothmann stated that
his home is affected by this action.
2. 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 Pay Period Ending January 15, 2006 of $140,170.73
c. Approval of Resolution 06 -001, Amended Fee Resolution
d. Approval of Minutes of Regular Council Meeting of January 10, 2006
e. Approval of Minutes of Special Council Meeting of January 12, 2006
Council Meeting: 01 -24 -06
Approved by Council: 02 -14 -06
Page 2 of 5
It was moved by Councilmember Munson, seconded by Councilmember DeVleming, and unanimously
passed to approve the Consent Agenda as presented.
NEW BUSINESS
3. Proposed Ordinance 06 -001, Extending UR -1 Interim Zoning — Marina Sukup
After City Clerk Bainbridge read the ordinance title, it was moved by Councilmember Munson and
seconded by Councilmember DeVleming, to advance ordinance 06 -001 to a second reading at a later
date. Community Development Director Sukup added to her previous presentation, by stating that staff
recommends approval. Councilmember DeVleming mentioned that page 4 of the Findings has the Vera
Irrigation as District 14, which should be corrected to District 15. Mayor Wilhite invited public
comment.
Judy Bellas, 8803 E 44 Avenue: asked a procedural question concerning passing this ordinance; and
Councilmember Munson explained that two readings are required to pass an ordinance, unless the rules
are suspended. As this issue deals with a moratorium, Attorney Connelly recommended not suspending
the rules. Ms. Bellas expressed her desire that council pass the ordinance.
Vote by Acclamation: In Favor: Unanimous. Opposed: None. Abstentions: None. Motion carried.
PUBLIC COMMENTS . Mayor Wilhite invited public comment; no comments were offered.
ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS:
4. Spokane County Library District Update on New Library Process — Mike Wirt
Mike Wirt explained the Library District's plans to replace the Valley Library by the end of 2006, with a
larger resource library; and further explained the highlights of his January 24, 2006 "Report to the
Spokane Valley City Council." Mr. Wirt added that to every extent possible, they would like to tie the
new facility into our Comprehensive Plan as they balance their facilities; that they would propose a
LCFA, or a Library Capital Facility Area, which can be done though state law, that stated if you want to
build a facility, you must define the area you want to serve and ask the people in that area if they want to
fund the construction of the building. Mr. Wirt explained other alternatives, such as proposing a district -
wide bond issue, but felt that would not bode well for those outside the valley. Mr. Wirt stated that
ideally, they would sell the existing building and use the funds to build a new facility; but the first step is
site acquisition. A plan is to ask the Board of County Commissions to place the issue on the ballot within
the boundaries of the area, to form the LCFA and to approve the sale of bonds to fund the project; and if
the LCFA failed, they could start again and re -define the LCFA; and that a LCFA approval only requires
a simple majority. Mr. Wirt ended his presentation by stating that the hope is that by the end of 2006,
such decision would be made to proceed with the project or decide to wait for further city center
development; locate and purchase the site; and update the estimated building cost, ending with an
approximate move in date of 2011.
Discussion followed and Councilmember Munson stated he feels 2011 is too long to wait to move
forward with these facilities and asked about exploring a partnering with the school district's middle
schools. Mr. Wirt explained that there are extreme security issues with schools which must be overcome
first, and that they have not officially explored that idea. The idea of remodeling versus buying was
discussed, and Mr. Wirt mentioned that while it would be difficult to remodel a big box like Home Base,
ideas have been circulated about the Safeco building as a joint venture with City Hall; that even though
that facility is a little off center and way too big for what they can afford, a joint venture might be
feasible.
Council Meeting: 01 -24 -06 Page 3 of 5
Approved by Council: 02 -14 -06
5. Land Capacity Analysis — Scott Kuhta /Mike Basinger /Greg McCormick
Planning Manager McCormick and Senior Planner Kuhta gave their PowerPoint presentation on our Land
Quantity analysis; explaining that the County's population projection and allocation of the future
population to al jurisdictions within the County, will be used to adjust the Urban Growth Area (UGA)
boundaries; and that the GMA requires UGA's to be large enough to accommodate the 20 -year
population projection. Mr. McCormick explained that the first step is to identify all lands what would be
used for future development. Mr. Mercier added that this is not a calculation of population growth, but is
a calculation of capacity of the land to accommodate the dwelling units and the number of people who
would be living in those units. Mr. McCormick further explained that the County wants to see a
population proposal from all the jurisdictions; and to accommodate that request, we have to do land
capacity analysis to see if we have the land to accommodate the expected rise in population; and these
calculations are an effort to determine how much of the anticipated population can be accommodated in
the UGA; and based on that, to see what's left over and then start adjusting the UGA boundaries if
necessary, stressing that the numbers are still being adjusted as these are preliminary figures. Mr. Kuhta
added that we still have to show if we have enough industrial and commercial development land; and
maybe identify new future centers; and that we adopted the County's environmental work and
supplemented that with the new information we have. Staff added that this topic will be further
developed and explained at the February 11 retreat.
6. Draft Maintenance Contract — Neil Kersten/John Hohman
Public Works Director Kersten explained that the draft maintenance contract with Spokane County was
discussed in December, and that he now has more detail on the contract and its elements, and that the
contract changes incorporates the finalized model agreement. Director Kersten then went through the
various sections of the contract, including section 1 the transition plan where the City may reduce or
increase services by 10 %; and that the City may at its option, give the County 30 day's notice of
termination of a specific street maintenance activity. Mr. Kersten then went over the major contract
changes as shown on the transition plan PowerPoint slide. Director Kersten also explained that section 3
of the contract contains the provision that the City will direct services of the County's operational
workforce and equipment, and will oversee the daily work needs and schedules. Additionally, he
explained, the County currently charges a 24% overhead on all work; that they have discussed the overall
impact to City staffing levels and suggest adding two, FTE's at the grade level 14, with one position to be
filled after completion of the landscaping bid, and the other position to be filled after completion of the
street sweeping and stormwater maintenance bids, with funds for those positions provided from
reductions of the County's overhead /management fees. Mr. Kersten stated that if Council approves, staff
will prepare an update of the position descriptions concurrent with the County Street Maintenance
agreement; and staff will bring that agreement back to the February 14, 2006 council meeting for council
consideration. City Manager Mercier added that this proposal respects council's desire to continue
contracting where possible and economical; and that the list of services which can be transferred to the
City are optional opportunities, and we still preserve the right of 10% adjustment in contract. It was
Council consensus that staff bring the contract back for council approval consideration.
7. Uniform Development Code Proposed Ordinances (2) — Mike Connelly
City Attorney Connelly explained that this is a continuation of the process to streamline and reduce the
existing zone code prior to adoption of a new uniform development code; that Council will see two
ordinances; the first of which will take all those portions of the adopted County code that have no
application for the City of Spokane Valley, and will repeal them, adding that he found a slice of rural
residential so that adjustment will need to be made; and that the second ordinance addresses the recently
passed ordinance which started re- numbering the development code in anticipation of the final Uniform
Development Code; and that the numbering system will be incorporated into the new uniform
development code; but he will ask that the first re- numbering ordinance be repealed so as not to cerate
another layer of numbers. Mr. Connelly added that a more detailed presentation is scheduled for the
Council Meeting: 01 -24 -06 Page 4 of 5
Approved by Council: 02 -14 -06
Retreat, but in the meantime, he asks that these ordinances be presented to the Planning Commission for
public hearings, and then brought back to council for further action. There was Council consensus to
move these ordinances forward.
It was moved by Councilmember Munson, seconded by Councilmernber Devleming, and unanimously
agreed to adjourn. The meeting adjourned at 8:05 p.m.
Christine Bainbridge, City Clerk
Ci-cadv:esdkidlt
Diana Wilhite, Mayor
Council Meeting: 01 -24 -06 Page 5 of 5
Approved by Council: 02 -14 -06
NAME
PLEASE PRINT
ADDRESS
'TELEPHONE
.yL
StiOkane
SPOKANE VALLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING
Tuesday, January 24, 2006
B. f _ i • I l - �_
SUBJECT: Interim Zoning, UR -1
j k'OU WOULD L1 LTO SPEA at the �tblic �e riji nlcase belon
PRINT NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD. There may be a time limit for your comments.
Any documents for Council consideration should be provided to thc City Clerk for distribution.
%re
_ P.' POI .. kw
1 SF
- ra w A
,:.
}add r1
f �i�.le ° fsi°
0131 MELEE'
Zaa
—
Land Capacity Analysis
Legend
Low Density Residential
Medium Density' Rildernial1
M1igh Density Residential
Mixed Use
Corridor Mixed Use
WA Office
City Gaiter
Puhlla +Quasi - Pubi is
Neighborhood Commercial
Community Commercial
Region;il Commercial.
Light Industrial
Heavy Industrial
Park/Open Spat
Urban Growth Atra
DNR and associated but'1•ea
Wetlands (75 " buffer)
f.r hood A (Type: A)
Water Bndles (750' buffer)
1v`a�ru Lund
Partially Used
I 1
fl-- T 1
Ifi/
Dare: 4 4+%
Map Location
t
2 Miles
1 1
,'acuirffi 171.9 ra>ferlrtr Mir Shown anZha impisav1119paa u:
#rMercif wad :l rtaNed arr wgmsafrlri r@S"urralr. ner 00 1 MAO w dr..C�rlr1
{m R1fOr rrrrrel.911111,+ thr devrtrle ❑v rauarr rrrsy, orthir rrrg11P grad
expre l mi ow !might ,,Obr rrc r 7n fr fit err crranrlrnr.Y.
rt. corT). f1n accuracy tank et the f`+{►` '411404w J +�11�k1Y C'.e afeMautt
1 11)epErnment, Divi.riran jr Plautrfng ). 92141710
r vPre:i if Nile Ulf erl alp.eluse F 114}, f'alteshunll }° Bevratpmeat Qep�Ytaorne
S1i�1
• Val iey
Spokane Valley
Land Quantity Analysis
City Council Presentation
January 24, 2006
City of Spokane Valley
Population and Land Area
• Incorporated March 31, 2003
• Population
• 2000 - 80,927
• 2003 - 82,005
• 2004 - 83,950
• 2005 - 85,010
• Land -Area = 38.5 square miles
Methodology (cont'd)
STEP 2 - Deduct all parcels not developable due
to physical limitations:
Identify all parcels containing the following "critical areas ".
- Flood Plain
- Wetlands
Methodology (cont'd)
STEP 5 — Determine population capacity
within Spokane Valley and adjacent UGAs.
• Convert Developable acres to dwelling units,
based on Comp Plan densities
• Multiply number of dwelling units by either 2 or
2.5 to determine population capacity.
Spokane Valley Analysis
Spokane Valley Incorporated Area.
Vacant and Partially Used Land = 3,282 acres
Net Developable Acres = 1,683 acres
Potential Dwelling Units = 9,834 units
Population Capacity = 22,283 people
UGA Analysis
r ral
Min Mgt
• %00:ri/ Gl1
M ri r r./
Net Developable Acres = 443
Potential Dwelling Units = 1,772
Population Capacity = 4,429
UGA Analysis
I
1
South UGA
Net Developable Acres = 341
Potential Dwelling Units = 1,364
Population Capacity = 3,410
Ponderosa UGA
Net Developable Acres = 22
Potential Dwelling Units = 88
Population Capacity = 219
UGA Analysis
r
1 1 I Jl:1:1:1111
4 OD Pi
1-4 11
rho `� i
o
VA,,--4/1" 1
artillimeiP5& j
r4 p
CHI
war
.10
o e'I
11111° a�
Alcott UGA
Net Developable Acres = 106
Potential Dwelling Units = 423
Population Capacity = 1,058
*Wane
Val Vallq
Spokane Valley
Land Quantity Analysis
City Council Presentation
January 24, 2006
City of Spokane Valley
Population and Land Area
• Incorporated March 31, 2003
• Population
• 2000 - 80,927
• 2003 - 82,005
• 2004 - 83,950
• 2005 — 85,010
• Land Area = 38.5 square miles
Methodology (cont'd)
STEP 2 - Deduct all parcels not developable due
to physical limitations:
Identify all parcels containing the following 'critical areas'.
-Flood Plain
- Wetlands
Spokane County
Comprehensive Plan Update
• Required 5 -year update
• Requires UGA proposals from all jurisdictions
• Land Quantity Analysis
• Following Regionally adopted process
• Consistent with Spokane County's process
• Steering Committee Review and
Recommendation
• Spokane County Allocates Population and
Approves Urban Growth Areas
Land Quantity Methodology
STEP 1 - Identify all potential lands for future
development:
1. Vacant parcels using Assessors properly use code;
2. Identify 'partially used' properly by using 5 times
minimum lot size;
3. Remove parcels if assessed improvement vatue is >3
times tho assessed land valuo;
4. Remove all properties Bagged by Assessor es 'lox
exempt' such as schools, churches, parks, other
publicly owned land.
Methodology (cont'd)
STEP 3 - Deduct the percentage of land that will
not be available for development within 20 years
(market factor),
1.Removo 30% of all available residential land as
unavailable for development.
2,Remove 78% in Centers/Mixed Use areas,
STEP 4 - Deduct land needed for public purposes:
1.Deduct 20% of available land for development for public
purposes — primarily rights-of-way.
Methodology (cont'd)
STEP 5 — Determine population 'capacity
within Spokane Valley and adjacent UGAs.
• Convert Developable acres to dwelling units,
based on Comp Plan densities
• Multiply number of dwelling units by either 2 or
2.5 to determine population capacity.
Spokane Valley Analysis
Spokane Valley Incorporated Area
Vacant and Partially Used Land = 3.282 acres
Net Developable Acres = 103 acres
Potential Dwelling Units a 9,834 units
Population Capacity = 22,283 people
UGA Analysis
East UGA
Net Develepable Acres = 443
Potential Dwelling Units =1,772
Poptiation Capacity = 4,429
•
•
•
UGA Analysis
Northwood UGA
Net Developable Ares = 426
Potential Dweing Urits = 1,703
Population Capacity = 4.257
Northeast UGA
Not Developable Aces = 25
Potential Dwelling Urits = 99
Popttation Capacity = 240
0
Southeast UGA
Net Oovetopable Acres = 20I
Potemiel Dwelling Units = 1,122
Population Capacity = 2,805
2
�u 7 , 4 ,1 Northeast 1.•
4. : _ r y
SA" n x-.126,,
IN l _ r E tgect rrr " " � •
•
r
_ 1'
t
r OlaMtan ; b - ? East
1 Alcett l 1 4 Southeast
"•P
cy r` E
' ri
1
1 Ponderosa Y .., Sew
r -
Methodology (cont'd)
STEP 5 — Determine population 'capacity
within Spokane Valley and adjacent UGAs.
• Convert Developable acres to dwelling units,
based on Comp Plan densities
• Multiply number of dwelling units by either 2 or
2.5 to determine population capacity.
Spokane Valley Analysis
Spokane Valley Incorporated Area
Vacant and Partially Used Land = 3.282 acres
Net Developable Acres = 103 acres
Potential Dwelling Units a 9,834 units
Population Capacity = 22,283 people
UGA Analysis
East UGA
Net Develepable Acres = 443
Potential Dwelling Units =1,772
Poptiation Capacity = 4,429
•
•
•
UGA Analysis
Northwood UGA
Net Developable Ares = 426
Potential Dweing Urits = 1,703
Population Capacity = 4.257
Northeast UGA
Not Developable Aces = 25
Potential Dwelling Urits = 99
Popttation Capacity = 240
0
Southeast UGA
Net Oovetopable Acres = 20I
Potemiel Dwelling Units = 1,122
Population Capacity = 2,805
2
Growth Capacity Analysis
Area
Vacant and
Partially
Used Lana
Not 00v9iaptble
Acne
Potential
New 0/Units
Population
Capacity
City datwlan,
Villa
3,049
1,552
9,314
22,233
Nnr1tw,a11906
44
25
99
246
Nort1r'ooa UGA
790
428
1,703
4,257
east 1906
790
443
1,772
4,429
Se •ha,a1 Ma
501
231
1122
2,805
Beet300A
809
341
1,364
3,410
1cn48re;a 1906
39
22
68
219
C4Kec1.1 UGA
239
134
535
1,337
Alcoa UGA
189
106
423
1,058
lntat
6,220
3,330
16,420
40,046
UGA Analysis
South UGA
Net Demlapatte Acres = 341
Potential DweU't19 Units • 1,364
Population Capacity a 3,410
Ponderosa UGA
Net Developable Acres = 22
Potental DweIFn9 Units =138
Popula ion Capacity = 219
rap
UGA Analysis
Alcott UGA
Net Developable Arles • 106
Potential Dwelling Units = 423
Population Capacity = 1,058
Ed9eclitVDishman UGA
Net Developable Acres • 134
Potential Dwetn9 Units • 535
Population Capacity ='1,337
UGA Analysis
3