Loading...
2006, 07-25 Regular Meeting MinutesMayor Wilhite called the meeting to Attendance: Diana Wilhite, Mayor Steve Taylor, Deputy Mayor Dick Denenny, Councilmember Mike DeVleming, Councilmember Bill Gothmann, Councilmember Rich Munson, Councilmember Gary Schimmels, Councilmember MINUTES City of Spokane Valley City Council Regular Meeting Tuesday July 25, 2006 order at 6:00 p.m., and welcomed everyone to the 96th meeting. City Staff: Dave Mercier, City Manager Cary Driskell, Deputy City Attorney Ken Thompson, Finance Director Tom Scholtens, Building Official Morgan Koudelka, Administrative Analyst Greg McCormick, Planning Manager Cal Walker, Police Chief Mike Jackson, Parks & Recreation Director Carolbelle Branch, Public Information Officer Steve Stamatoplos, Capital Projects Engineer Bill Schultz, Code Enforcement Officer Karen Kendall, Assistant Planner Scott Kuhta, Senior Planner Steve Worley, Senior Engineer Carrie Acosta, Deputy City Clerk/HR Assistant INVOCATION: Pastor Bill Dropko of Greenacres Christian Fellowship 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 passed to approve the agenda as presented. COMMITTEE, BOARD, LIAISON SUMMARY REPORTS: Councilmember Denenny: reported that he attended the Regional Health Board meeting and the STA Board meeting. One of the issues that came up at the STA meeting concerned the Light Rail issue and they have decided to have a separate meeting for further discussion on August 17, 2006. Deputy Mayor Taylor: attended the grand opening of the new convention center /exhibit hall. He also attended the Lodging Tax Advisory Committee meeting and they are putting together the 2007 appropriations for approval in 2006, and he'd like to come before council to talk about Council's goals for tourism funding. Councilmember Munson: attended the STA meeting and they discussed the need to make sure people in the area are willing to pay for the light rail project. The August 17, 2006, meeting will determine what funding option to ask the people to decide on as an advisory vote only. The November ballot issue will ask two questions: are the citizens willing to pay for the light rail project in the manner proposed, and if not, can the board use STA funds currently being collected to continue the planning for light rail. Saturday he participated in and won the Public Employees Golf Tournament with Councilmember DeVleming, Mr. McCormick, and Mr. Driskell. He also reported that the Cathy McMorris Congressional visit date will be August 16, 2006. Council Meeting 07 -25 -06 Approved by Council: 08 -22 -06 Page 1 of 5 VOUCHER LIST DATE VOUCHER #s TOTAL VOUCHER AMOUNT 17 -14 -06 9468 -9484 $724,964.71 GRAND TOTAL $721,964.71 Councilmember Gothmann: attended an Edgecliff Weed and Seed meeting and toured the Edgecliff S.C.O.P.E. station and attended the Chamber of Commerce goal - setting retreat. MAYOR'S REPORT: Mayor Wilhite reported that she met with the head of the ITA to discuss what they're doing with companies that reside within the Valley city limits. She also attended an open house by Centennial properties; she participated in a roundtable discussion with other cities to discuss common interests; went to Fairchild Air Force Base and met the crew of the NAOC and toured the plane that is responsible for getting the President airborne when the Pentagon is attacked. She also went to the Convention Center dedication and a reception hosted by the BBC. PUBLIC COMMENTS: Mayor Wilhite invited public comment. Mary Pollard, 17216 E. Baldwin Avenue — expressed that she is dismayed that council has been instructed not to counsel her regarding her property problems. The issues of the potential drainage ditch and swale on her property have been ignored. This hampers the historic preservation of her property. She would like a barrier in front of home for added safety for her family and others. She would like council to have the project re- engineered and redesigned to establish better safety in the community. Len Bouge, 304 S. Conklin Road — regarding zoning in the Ponderosa neighborhood. He provided letters to the Deputy City Clerk to distribute to the Mayor and Council regarding zoning. Subdividing or short - platting parcel of land that he owns on Woodruff is not as he had intended when he bought the property as a retirement investment. He would like council to grant a variance to subdivide his property so he can use the property as he intended when purchased. Mr. Bouge also invited council to National Night Out on August 1st. 1. PUBLIC HEARING: Extension of UR-1 — Greg McCormick Mayor Wilhite opened the public hearing at 6.•25 p.m. Planning Manager McCormick outlined the third extension of the interim zoning for UR -1 in the Ponderosa and Rotchford area. City staff will provide a new work plan and other information to be considered in the extension during a later agenda item. Mayor Wilhite invited public comments. Chuck Hafner, 47th and South Woodruff — Would like Council to approve extension for UR -1. Gail Stiltner, 10119 E. 44th Avenue — Spoke in support of the extension. She appreciates the time to work on the goals of the community to maintain its character and have it remain as it is. She expressed concern about the emergency services for the area and inadequate water pressure. She feels the infrastructure does not support more density and she asks that council approve the extension. Mary Pollard, 17216 E. Baldwin Avenue - Advocated for Ponderosa expressing that she would like council to wait two years before policies are established and asked for that time to be given. Mayor Wilhite closed the public hearing at 6.•35 p.m. 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 July 20, 2006: $157,673.61 Council Meeting 07 -25 -06 Approved by Council: 08 -22 -06 Page 2 of 5 c. Minutes of June 27, 2006, Council Meeting d. Minutes of July 11, 2006, Council Meeting e. WRIA Agreement f. WEB Property Lease It was moved by Deputy Mayor Taylor, seconded, and unanimously passed to approve the Consent Agenda. NEW BUSINESS 3. Second Reading Proposed Ordinance 06 -019 for Street Vacation STV 01 -06 - Karen Kendall After Deputy City Clerk Acosta read the ordinance title, it was moved by Deputy Mayor Taylor and seconded to approve Ordinance 06 -019 for the vacation of Old Indiana Avenue (STV- 01 -06). Assistant Planner Kendall discussed the proposed vacation petitioned for by Day Wireless to provide additional customer parking. Mayor Wilhite questioned the matter of charging for vacated land versus giving the land away and asked if there was a recommendation from staff to require compensation for the vacation. Ms. Kendall informed council that staff has no recommendation and defers that decision to council. Councilmember Denenny would like the policy as it relates to requiring compensation for vacated property be reviewed in the future, but does not feel this is the proper time. Councilmember Gothmann agreed that this vacation be approved and would like to re- evaluate the process of requiring compensation in the future. Ms. Kendall informed council there is a stipulation in the ordinance providing the option for council to charge for vacated land and petitioner has that information when they apply for a street vacation. Deputy Attorney Driskell recommended council table the approval of the ordinance until some of these issues can be looked into. Mayor Wilhite would like a fair policy in determining when a property is deemed to have value and when it is not. It was moved by Deputy Mayor Taylor, and seconded, to table the approval of Ordinance 06 -019 to a later meeting. Vote by Acclamation: In Favor: Unanimous. Opposed: None. Abstentions: None. Motion carried. 4. First Reading Proposed Ordinance 06 -020 Extending UR -1 — Greg McCormick After Deputy City Clerk Acosta read the ordinance title, it was moved by Deputy Mayor Taylor and seconded to advance Ordinance 06 -020 to a second reading. Planning Manager McCormick explained that this ordinance will extend the UR -1 interim zoning through March 31, 2007. Councilmember DeVleming asked questions relating to the progress of the final decision. City Manager Mercier indicated staff will attempt to meet the March 31, 2007 deadline for adopting the Uniform Development Code. August 16, 2006, there will be a public hearing on the FEMA Flood Plain plan. Vote by Acclamation: In Favor: Unanimous. Opposed: None. Abstentions: None. Motion carried. 5. Proposed Resolution 06 -015 Homelessness — Bill Gothmann After Deputy City Clerk read the resolution, it was moved by Councilmember Gothmann, seconded to approve Resolution 06 -015. Councilmember Gothmann explained that the City of Spokane and Spokane County jointly developed a ten -year plan to address homelessness in December of 2005. The funds established in the resolution are primarily local dollars rather than grant dollars. A citizens committee and a committee of elected officials are part of a task force for administration of the funds. The committee of citizens will also make recommendations to the committee of elected officials what the structure should be for the ensuing years' allocations. There is no expectation of cost to Spokane Valley. The resolution also will recognize the appointment of a councilmember to the task force and Councilmember Gothmann suggested he be appointed. Councilmember Munson inquired as to whether the goal of reducing homelessness by one half by 2015 is mandated and what checks are in place to monitor the progress. Councilmember Gothmann explained that at the five year level the progress will be checked and that every year a progress report is given.Mayor Wilhite invited public comments. Chuck Hafner, 47th and South Woodruff - commented that the number of high school and junior high school kids who are homeless is growing. Council Meeting 07 -25 -06 Approved by Council: 08 -22 -06 Page 3 of 5 Mary Pollard, 17216 E. Baldwin Avenue — commented on the high degree of mental illness in our city that seems to be overlooked by officials and the problem of keeping mentally ill people on their medication so they do not become homeless. Vote by acclamation: In favor.: Unanimous Opposed: None. Abstentions: None. Motion carried.. Mayor called recess at 7:25 pm, and reconvened the meeting at 7.•33 pm 6. Motion Consideration: Jail Agreements — Morgan Koudelka It was moved by Deputy Mayor Taylor and seconded to authorize the City Manager or designee to approve the Interlocal Agreement for Jail Services in the City of Spokane Valley. Administrative Analyst Koudelka outlined the details of the jail agreement. He discussed that through this agreement the city will pay its proportionate share of actual cost. For 2005 the City was charged monthly and all charges have been paid. For 2006 and subsequent years the city will pay in monthly installments. In 2006 the total estimated cost to be paid is $380,545.00. Mayor Wilhite invited public comment; none given. Deputy Mayor Taylor made a friendly amendment, and seconded, to change the word "approve" to "execute" in the original motion. Vote by Acclamation: In Favor: Unanimous. Opposed: None. Abstentions: None. Motion carried. The amended motion is: to authorize the City Manager or designee to execute the Interlocal Agreement for Jail Services in the City of Spokane Valley. Vote by Acclamation: In Favor: Unanimous. Opposed: None. Abstentions: None. Motion carried. 7. Motion Consideration: Argonne Road Overlay Project Contract Award — Steve Worley It was moved by Deputy Mayor Taylor and seconded to award the Argonne Road Overlay Project to the lowest responsive bidder, Spokane Rock Products, Inc., and authorize the City Manager or designee to execute the agreement with Spokane Rock Products, Inc. in the amount of $383,833.28. Senior Engineer Worley described the scope of the project to grind and overlay the roadway and to lengthen the concrete median and left turn pocket due to an increase in traffic. Mayor Wilhite invited public comment; none offered. Vote by Acclamation: In Favor: Unanimous. Opposed: None. Abstentions: None. Motion carried. PUBLIC COMMENTS: Mayor Wilhite invited general public comments. Mary Pollard, 17216 E. Baldwin Avenue — questioned the legal ramifications of road improvements and the definition of drainage waste preservation. She indicated that state law requires that after development, the drainage and storm water should continue to remain the same as before the development. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS: 8. Spokane County Conservation District — Linda Graham Ms. Graham has been with the district a little over a year and is the primary liaison to water conservation districts. She would like to acquaint the council with what the conservation district does. Works in cooperation with governments, land- owners, businesses and individuals to protect water resources, expand options for agricultural productions, and protect wildlife. She supplied handouts and brochures to be distributed to council. 9. Spokane County Communications Agreement — Morgan Koudelka Administrative Analyst Koudelka reported that the County has not been charging the city for the maintenance of the County Communications System and it is not included in law enforcement costs. The City and the County have been working on an agreement that fully accounts for all work performed and allocates proportionate amounts to the City. The contract will pay for maintenance and upkeep of the County Communications System. The City will pay estimated costs in twelve equal installments during the contract period and reconcile to actual costs after year -end. The estimated annual cost is $120,000.00. Council Meeting 07 -25 -06 Approved by Council: 08 -22 -06 Page 4 of 5 It was moved, seconded and unanimously passed to adjourn. The meeting adjourned at approximately 8:30 p.m. ATTEST: C -)1.)-A- /'� City Clerk/Deputy City Clerk atiamCz-WX:A) Diana Wilhite, Mayor Council Ivtecting 07 -25 -06 Approved by Council: 08 -22 -06 Page 5 of 5 21 July 2006 Dear Community Leader: RECEIVED JUL 2 4 2006 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY OFFICE OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS TODD MIELKE, 1ST DISTRICT • MARK RICHARD, 2ND DISTRICT • PHILLIP D. HARRIS, 3RD DISTRICT The Washington State Legislature authorized the legislative authority of any county to adopt an ordinance authorizing the publication and distribution of a local voters' pamphlet. In order to implement the legislation it is necessary for the Board of County Commissioners to adopt an ordinance. Once the ordinance is adopted, the Auditor implements the ordinance by rules and regulations. Recently, the Spokane County.Auditor provided you with copies of her proposed rules to implement a local voters' pamphlet. If the Board were to adopt such an ordinance, costs associated with a local voters' pamphlet would be passed on to the public entities having matters on the ballot. The Auditor's office will contact each taxing district regarding those costs. For years 2006 and 2007, a grant that may pick up the associated costs for the local voters' pamphlet was obtained. The Board of County Commissioners has determined to set a special' Public Hearing to consider the adoption of an ordinance authorizing a local voters' pamphlet. Because of the financial implications on taxing districts if an ordinance implementing a local voters' pamphlet is enacted, the Board of County Commissioners believes it is important that you receive a copy of the notice of Public Hearing where the Board will consider the ordinance. Accordingly, enclosed is a copy of the public hearing notice. Please feel free to contact us if you have any questions or comments. You can mail comments to the address below or email them to the Clerk of the Board, Daniela Erickson, at derickson @spokanecou nty.orq. Sincerely, The Board of County Commissioners Todd Mielke, Chair p it. 1 1 16 WEST BROADWAY AVENUE • SPOKANE, WASHINGTON 99260-0100 • (509) 477 -2265 NO. 6-0628 IN THE MATTER OF ADOPTING AN ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING THE PUBLICATION AND DISTRIBUTION OF A LOCAL VOTERS' PAMPHLET AS PROVIDED FOR BY RCW 29A.31.210 AND OTHER A'IA'ITERS PROPERLY RELATED THERETO NOTICE TS HEREBY GIVEN by the Board of County Commissioners of Spokane County (the "Board "), pursuant to the provisions of RCW 29A.32.210, that the Board will hold a special public hearing at 5:00 p.m., or as soon as possible thereafter, on the 31 day of July, 2006, in the Commissioners' Assembly Room, Lower Level of the Public Works Building, 1026 West Broadway Avenue, Spokane, WA 99260. The purpose of the public hearing will be for the Board to consider public testimony and take action on an Ordinance authorizing the publication and distribution of a local voters' pamphlet. The proposed Ordinance provides as follows: Page 1 of 2 BEFORE TFII: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF SPOKANE COUNTY, WASHINGTON ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF SPOKANE, WASHINGTON, AUTHORIZING THE PUBLICATION AND DISTRIBUTION OF A LOCAL VOTERS' PAMPHLET - AS PROVIDED FOR IN RCW 29A32.210 AND OTHER MATTERS PROPERLY RELATING THERETO. BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF SPOKANE, WASHINGTON, as follows: VOTER PAMPHLET ORDINANCE NOTICE OF SPECLAL PUBLIC HEARING Section 1: AUTHORIZATION FOR PUBLICATION AND DISTRIBUTION OF A LOCAL VOTERS' PAMPHLET The Board of County Commissioners does authorize the publication and distribution of a local voters' pamphlet for all future general elections of Spokane County and for any city or town or special taxing district located wholly within Spokane County which will appear on the ballot in the particular general election. The local voters' pamphlet shall provide information on all measures and information on candidates. The Board of County Commissioners gives authority to the Spokane County Auditor to take all necessary steps to publish and distribute a local voters' pamphlet. Section 2: PROVISIONS REGARDING PUBLICATION AND DISTRIBUTION OF A LOCAL VOTERS' PAMPHLET The provisions of chapter 29A.32 RCW shall govern the publication and distribution of a local voters' pamphlet. Section 3: INTERAGENCY AGREEMENTS Upon the recommendation of the Spokane County Auditor, the Chairman of the Board of County Commissioners is authorized to enter into agreement(s) with the Washington Secretary of State's Office, at other than an open meeting, to produce a combined state and local voters' pamphlet. Section 4: AUTHORITY TO ELIMINATE LOCAL VOTERS' PAMPHLET IN CONJUNCTION WITH ANY SPECIFIC PRIMARY, SPECIAL ELECTION OR GENERAL ELECTION The Board of County Commissioners reserves the right to eliminate the production and distribution of a local voters' pamphlet in conjunction with any specific general election. The Board of County Commissioners shall advise the Auditor of such determination in sufficient time to meet any time frames set forth in law for the production of such local voters' pamphlet. Section 5: SEVERABILITY If any section, word or words of this Ordinance is found to be unconstitutional or otherwise invalid, such unconstitutionality or invalidity shall not affect the remaining' portions of this Ordinance. Section 6: EFFECTIVE DATE This Ordinance shall take effect and be in force upon the date and year of its passage and adoption. Any person may appear at the time, place and date set forth herein above and present testimony in favor or opposition to the proposed Ordinance. Additional information with respect to this notice may be obtained by contacting Vicky Dalton,,Spokane County Auditor (509) 477 -2262. All meetings and hearings will be conducted in facilities that arc accessible to everyone. Additional information with regard to the accessibility of the Public Works Building, Commissioners' Assembly Room, or notification of an ADA accommodation should be made to Daniela Erickson Clerk of the Board, at (509) 477 -2265. ATTEST: Page 2 of 2 PASSED AND ADOPTED this 18th day of July 2006. Daniela Erickson, Clerk of the Board Publish: The Spokesman Review BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF SPOKANE, COUNTY, WASHINGTON "APPROVED TQDD MIELK.E, Chair APPROVED MARK RICHARD, Vice -Chair APPROVED PHILLIP D. HARRIS, Commissioner >- n.6 06)1.11 C,1ej k� RECEIVED Dear Mayor Wilhite and City Council, JUL 2 5 2006 Thank you for your diligence in continuing to give purview to the difficult situation and adverse condition that is being imposed upon our property. This is certainly out of my realm drUp9 ' `NE VALLEY and so far the mitigation posed would further impact our property without restitution of our expenses and potential losses of just the mitigation within our yard. We are looking very carefully at the proposed changes to our property because there does not appear to be recourse if this fails to solve our water problem as well as danger of the grade. A It is not our desire to sue the city. It is our expectation for the city to utilize their authority to redress the mistake that was originally approved. We have a record of months of Contact trying to bring to the city's attention this potential problem. There is not an entitlement to bad engineering. It works at whose expense? Who is to risk their lives? My statement was if anyone is harmed on my property due to this road, I will hold the city responsible for their failure to act on solid information prior to approval and after the approval of this road. The build out of this road cannot continue. It is an abrogation of justice. You are the regulators. You have the power to enforce higher standards. Why would Spokane Walley allow bad engineering for the citizens of any street? It is unconscionable. You are actually trying to bankrupt our family in providing protection for our family by cutting off discourse with elected officials and shielding them from the full facts that there has not been mitigation proposed that acts ally deal bring more loss to our property. I fed the construction crew and gave more kindness to them than we have been offered. Issues: Public safety hazard — child cannot be seen below grade of road trying to access road from shoulder. Road typically unplowed and there is greater probability that in the case of occupants of a car going off the road will rollover due to the grade. Jim & I hired Thomas, Dean and Hoskins to review Mr. Whipple's engineering plans and they were found to have imposed a street design that was not necessary because Knox Avenue was approved at a grade that could have just as successfully been used on Baldwin Ave without creating a dramatic grade difference. We have also found the drainage way indicated as the prior condition by Mr. Whipple to be inaccurate according to maps we located in the county. Historically Washington State case law requires that after development drainage or storm water should continue to leave development property in same manner and location as before development. Workshops have been held at municipalities as well as Spokane County that give court cases that state this consistently. When we testified about Mr. Tupper's project closing in the drainage way between Chris & Erica Sphuler's property line on the east side of his development and on the west side, that is our property line of the development, we were consistently ignored. Spokane County is working to ensure that natural drainage ways are kept open while these properties so close to the river are not given the due diligence of protection that is warranted. Water is a common problem we must all work together on. Thomas, Dean and Hoskins engineer, Mr. Jonathan Galow remarked they have had to keep natural drainage ways open through center of developments when they drew up plans. Further, the Sphuler property has a minor drainage way and a more major drainage way that converges on their property. They are watching this situation very carefully, as are we. Further, our water did not leave our property through a dry well, nor did it flow across the frontage of our property, this will create a new erosion condition that did not exist before. It flowed north. Putting it into the ground is not the same manner. Storm water management policies cannot take even sheet flow of even one foot and concentrate it into a pipe or a ditch. You can see that this has been a serious problem that is compounding as the issue of every water problem is thought to be another drywell opportunity. The swales created, have so little inspection that we witnessed all the swales along Flora compacted - that violates how swales are to be engineered, as well as cement trucks cleaning their chutes in the swale. Please be aware there is a new state law effective February of 2006 Underground injection control program to put in a new dry well that doesn't have pre - treatment cannot be utilized. WAC Ch. 173 -218 they need a treatment to ensure it won't harm the aquifer or the river. Continued point saturation of water will create concentrations of pollutants further polluting the aquifer and river. Optimally, one cannot simply line the street with dry wells. This disrupts the flow of water. You can't just capture it. In the case of Phillips vs. King County Generally a city or a county is not liable and has immunity but if the city allows in the right of way something that causes damage to a individual - the city would be liable for owning property and then allowing a condition on their property that causes damage to another. Road Law - If you get someone into the road - you must have a way to get them out of the intersection. On the south side of the road, people will not have room to get out of the radius of the turn in the event a car loses control. There should be a clear zone- for safety a roadside recovery area that is as wide as practical. Public Safety is absolutely lowered. My ,grandchild trying to crawl over the grade cannot be easily seen by an approaching car coming out of my property. How many other children would be put at risk. I have children here all the time. The turn radius weite t re r - ofiefd — I am a business owner and students needing access to my home to my front door from the street has been removed. There is a basic tenet of property rights that public roads are owned are for the use of the public. What a developer does within his development is his right but design of public roads should not be changed with the ability for those most affected to have recourse or input. The justice of protecting individuals from being harmed lies in your hands. Please help to lower the road not just for us but for the good of the entire neighborhood. July 25, 2005 Spokane Valley RE: Two Plans for Review. Natural Drainageway per plan inaccurate Problems with mitigation as proposed We met with Mr. Driscoll, Mr. Kersten, and Mr. Hohman on Friday, July 21, 2006 along with Mr. Jonathan Galow, the engineer representing ourselves from Thomas, Dean and Hoskins. Mr. Galow helped in defining the line of fill proposed and also gave his expert opinion that the road grade could be improved for a more useable and safer road for all concerned. Mr. Kersten, Public Works Director, stated Spokane Valley would oversee the work to our property if accepted and would not sign off until they were satisfied. Proposal i.ncludes changing our property. It would bury my century old tree on the far east, and partially cover two other trees, requiring the removal of a smaller pear tree. He listed they would have all our plants replaced. The lilacs are old growth that are more like trees. He encouraged checking with an arborist. We phoned Mr. Rich Baker, who is recognized as an expert arborist. He indicated that our old trees are more susceptible to change and would not tolerate it as well. He also stated that the area that must be kept open for the tree to survive has to be as large as the canopy of the tree because that is where their roots are. This was reiterated by Ivlr. Jim Flott, who had been Spokane City's Urban Forest person until he entered into his own business as a professional arborist. Mr. Kersten didn't think it would need more than 2 :feet.. Also, the cost of an arborist is $80 an hour. Zi tdJ The trees in our yard give us great pleasure and add to the ambience and su' port the --e4 value of our home. Risking these features is inconceivable. We asked that a bond or something would be required to ensure the trees are not harmed and this was discarded as unnecessary. This is our property We had to hire an expert engineer to protect our property and are out $500. Now the city thinks I should pay $160 for an assessment from an arborist to protect our property to remedy a situation not of our making. This is medical money needed to support our disabled daughter. We are being penalized to get justice. We asked for an independent engineer to be hired to objectively do the work. It is known as peer review. The city accepted the contention of line of sight as the reason for the radical change in grade. Knox was approved at a grade that is equally useable for Baldwin. Variances are given in all kinds of circumstances for developers, yet when Flora Meadows was still in the drafting stage, Mr. Whipple indicated the city refused to exchange the location of the culdesac and the road that T's into our property. Yet, if you RECEIVED JUL 2 5 2006 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY look at the location of Indiana and Flora and Flora and Baldwin, the distances are not any different. Review of these plans have revealed better solutions that should be implemented. We are not discussing changing what is on his property but the public right of way. The public right of way did not go through a public process for change nor was their any public notice of change to the grade of this road. The city's standard egiesslingress contract is not protective of our interest nor does it use language that is indicative of the situation that it was to attempt to mitigate. We are not being given any ability to hire capable people that we trust to work on our property, nor given any guarantee of redress if we are unhappy with the result. This is no different than being in a car accident and the person who hits you tells you he will fix your car but he's not a mechanic, and then you are asked to sign release to fix it and also cannot hold him responsible if it doesn't work. That is preposterous. The city has decided that the road crew are now arborists, landscapers, fence installer, etc. One of the earlier suggestions to fill in our yard discussed utilizing the left over fill from his development that was covered with weeds. There isn't any mention of quality, and redress if plants that must be replaced later die. There isn't any standard of mulch for the tree and expertise of how to handle this. The fence will not protect our property in the event a car propels itself into our yard. The cost of the fencing wouldn't even touch what we have already lost in property value, use, time and consultation fees. Restitution is hardly served by risking loss of the trees on our property and possibly killing the lilacs with too much water, since they'd run it through our property. Natural drainageways are to remain the same. The location and way the water leaves the property should be unchanged. That is not part of this plan. Further, it was contended in Mr. Whipple's drawings that the water naturally left our property going to the west along our frontage. We insisted that the water exited across Baldwin. Obtaining county records, we found major natural drainageways that indicate that the path went across Baldwin as we have visually witnessed over the years. County interpretation of natural drainageways has meant that water left in the same location and manner as before development. This is not what has been proposed. This would be creating a pattern of erosion that has not been characteristic prior to this development. We will need a foundation of 3 feet before we can build a fence onto of this. We will need to be able to have a 6 foot fence to shield us from the lights and the large arrow sign to notify traffic. that they must turn. The city has created numerous problems and the treatment we are receiving has taken any control from us but to say no. Any recourse if we have problems will be lost and the blanket contract is too vague and strips us of any follow up in the event of future problems. Also, there has been no mention of compensation for my tune, professional consultation fees, and loss of the use of our property while they are fixing a mistake that is not of our making. Considering all of the above, we must decline this solution. Sincerely, James & Mary Pollard �s Via Vit „e„,4 /t6i7ei.L ,as(z41 ;de 74-e aw,Z 46thil ,e/4LV/4 idi/g h 4e) -. .6d bra /;' rdteietedi. July 25, 2006 TO: City of Spokane Valley Officials RECEIVED JUL 2 5 2006 CIr( OF SPOKANE VALLEY Drainage 1. Disrupted the natural flow of drainage way going across Elora. County regulations interpret that rather strictly and have caused developments to retain the drainageway even through the middle of their development. A natural drainageway that flowed out of my property going north across Baldwin is being redirected in its entirety to the east as indicated on the engineer's proposal. This is not acceptable as it changes the location and the method the water left the property. ® T am requesting an interpretation of the comprehensive plan goal that states to preserve natural drainageways. This development was vested while we were still under the old comprehensive plan and so the county interpretation would be valid. It is my opinion that my natural drainageway has been effected by changing all the natural drainage patterns on three sides of my property. 0 #2 Our concern about the natural drainageway and the site of the road was continually brought into question throughout the entire process. The Lots & Lands SUB -12 -04 development states in #33 of the Hearing Examiners l:indings of Fact that " The owners (Pollards) of the 1.7 -acre parcel located directly west of the site, which parcel is improved with a single family dwelling originally constructed in 1900 and fenced for horses, expressed several concerns regarding regarding the preliminary plat. This included potential flooding of the site during frozen ground conditions and sununer storm events, preservation of a natural drainageway on the site,..." Please. note: The decision of the Hearing Examiner does not address the fihling in of a natural drainageway because these changes were not mentioned at the public hearing. The change in road grade also was not discussed. Public road changes should require a public hearing that allows the citizens most affected to have equal representation of their concerns before a decision is made. The development to the east of our property created problems due to withholding this information during the public hearing and not revealing the impacts to the adjacent or neighboring properties. This is where the east side of our property was changed despite conflicting with the goal to preserve natural drainageway. The Sphuler property has a minor and a major drainageway that converges on their property and despite their vigorous objections development grade closed the natural drainage way between our properties. Snow, Plowing and Partial Thaws When snow pack rises above the curb, we will have tons of water pouring into our property as the low spot. Slight elevation of the asphalt curb may fill with ice in adverse conditions and it would seem likely the water will just spill over the top as water higher on the hill thaws and the hill is more subject to light. In the event of a wet fall, and hard frost we will have conditions of deep slush and ice pooling in front, unable to leave the property due to the frozen ground. Record of Testimony City has not executed diligence in oversight of these developments. They have admitted to relying on the same engineers who have a conflict of interest to oversee the projects they plan. Their loyalty is to the person who pays them and have no interest in designing something that complements adjacent properties or does not harm others. The city's policy of permitting review by those with a conflict of interest is an example of lack of due diligence in protecting the public good. The local conditions were not considered. Spokane County has continued to evaluate and record the natural draingeways in the county since our neighborhood became part of Spokane Valley. We have testified at every opportunity about the unique nature of this neighborhood due to its close proximity to the river. We begged for study and planning so our community could be built to the highest quality. We warned the city in March that this piecemeal approach without review of how the pieces fit together would have a disastrous result. There is no excuse. Record of Testimony regarding Flora Meadows February ;9, 2005 Testimony as sent to Micki I-Iarnois - Spokane Valley Planning Department (Flora Meadows (SUB- 04- 05/PUD- 02 -05) This development is a few hundred feet from the Centennial Trail - it would be important to note that it is also close to the river. We are requesting for an Environmental Review by the EPA. There is presently a study of the impacts to the river and aquifer. These people involved in the study should have an opportunity to be notified and give their expertise. paragraph 4 - Also, a study of the natural drainageways is requested. This complies with the draft comprehensive plan under Natural Environment to ensure that natural drainageways are not destroyed, especially so close to the river. 2 " page. second paragraph, " On Baldwin, the location of the road exiting his development is not in a good location. This is a part of the road that is typically the most wet and icy since it is in the path of the natural drainageway, I have been referring to. Entrance to his development would be better served below my property since it is a treacherous part of the road every winter. August 18, 2005 Testimony before the Hearing Examiner and given in writing. pg. 4, paragraph 4, Water - The roadway in front of my hone has always been a very icy stretch of road due to the trees and the pitch of the road. Also, the natural drainage of the property and the road contributes to the condition of making this wet and icy. Mr. R.oberge commented that the water would puddle to about 4 -5- inches in certain conditions. While the soil here does drain, in conditions where the frost line is still frozen and there is an early quick thaw - this creates water problems that you should be aware of. The water would gather in the filed about 1/3 of the field below the Foster property. I would like to see the plans :Flipped to where the road on Baldwin comes out Further west of where it is planned in order to prevent cars spinning and sliding as they try to turn in front of my property. I am concerned about them sliding into my yard - as a prior neighbor actually took out all my above ground irrigation piping and spigots, when he slid off the road. Also visibility isn't the greatest and there is the hill with the new development road can turn down Baldwin at this point. 1 believe public safety would be better served having a more level spot and more distance between the two roads accessing Baldwin. Sewer Plans and Drainage Site Plans - we would like to be able to review sewer plans and drainage plans and grading prior to approval in order to give comment while it is still a plan and a great deal of money is so invested that there isn't any ability to change plans. (This was a point of contention on the development next to me when 1 was horrified to see the fieed suddenly become an elevation of 11 feet at one point.) It was eventually lowered to about 7 feet but the shock was considerable and distressing and was never mentioned in the initial hearing since these plans come later. The city only requires minimum standards and so if their minimum standard is met and adverse consequence to the adjacent property cannot be mitigated and it causes resentment of the developer to have the neighboring property causing a fuss after they are vested in a plan. Historic Registry Linda Yeomans, a historic registry consultant visited and assessed our home for eligibility for the historic registry and felt we quality for the state and local registry. We have been discussing preparing our home for the registry but have been unable to act since the City has not chosen to contract with Spokane County in preserving our heritage. The state registry would be an honorary registry but there is virtually no protection without the city having an ordinance. I requested at the public hearings and inquired several times in conversation with Marina Sukup, our Community Development Director, the need for the city to address this oversight. Result: Consideration of the historic value of my home could not be utilized because the city has not provided accessibility to this designation. My home is not protected to allow optimal curb appeal and ability for people to stop and pull over, since there is no longer any shoulder for someone to utilize to stop the car and the road that T's into the front of our home makes it impossible for anyone to park somewhere else and safely utilize the street in front of our home as a pedestrian. Where are my property rights? Is this a single interest city? 1 have taught piano for 30 years and students are dropped in front of my home and picked up. This will interfere with the ability for parents to safely drop off their children and pick them up. We could look out my front window and see parents pull up. I am a tnernber of the National Music Teacher's Association and on the State and Local level, Access to my property for individual students is important to maintain, With all the testimony that was given throughout this process, I would like to know why it was not considered and weighed in the decisions regarding this development. Mao, exchanging the cul -de -sac with the through street would .have solved much of this problem. Why was a variance not considered? There are similar street distances throughout this area My trees are of great value and any damage to them by fill would be at the cost of the comparable value that Eastern Washington University has set as the price of a tree. Omissions in plans we would like to see include: Plans should show prior conditions Present conditions Proposed mitigation. The city should note that witnesses at my home and neighborhood have all agreed that this is a dangerous slope to access the road; This route has been utilized for 106 years. Slopes must be made safe for the use they are intended. You put it in front of a natural drainageway and the route J. utilize to access my street. Please formally respond to why an alternative was not considered: A. final note, Mr. Neil Kersten, Public Works director informed me that Jell .Rd, does not qualify for a road barrier in front of our home. They were concerned about safety of those in a car who might hit the barrier. We would like to know what the city intends to do to protect the unprotected citizens, who will be utilizing my front yard and will not have the protection of a car if they are inadvertently in the path of a vehicle that leaves the road and lands in my yard. We look forward to your answers, Sincerely, James & Mary Pollard 17216 E. Baldwin Ave. Greenaces, WA 99016 Spokane Valley Mayor and City Council City of Spokane Valley 11707 E. Sprague Ave. Spokane Valley, WA 99206 Dear Mayor Wilhite and Members of the Spokane Valley City Council: It has been a while since I have contacted you regarding our request for relief from the zoning moratorium (of Dec 2004) re our property at 4308 S. Woodruff Rd. Parcel # 45324.080I - Ponderosa Acres 4 Addition. 1 understand that the new ordinances, etc. will be approved and enacted as a whole - not in segments/phases. That will dramatically affect our future. l know the Planning Dept is in the process of writing the ordinances, etc. based on the recently adopted Comprehensive Plan. But that will, no doubt, take a long time. We are not gett.i.ng any younger and feel that now is the time (while we are able) for us to arrange for our living in the future. We and our daughter & son -in -law want us to bc close so they can assist us as we grow older. Because of the timing noted above, WE ARE MODIFYING OUR REQUEST: We are asking that you grant us a variance to proceed with short platting our property now so that we may proceed with finalizing our plans on placing a home on our property. We trust there is no charge involved other than the `normal' short plat & building fees,. I ask for a reply to & approval of this request no later than August 31, 2006. We have been `at this' for a long time. We also ask that a specific person be designated by you to follow this request through the system, help us with details and keep us informed as to when we may proceed. We would short plat the property into two parcels. The total single parcel is 1.23 acres. We want to divide it into one parcel of 1/4 to 1/3 acre for our home and the remainder of the property will stay with the present house. The intent is to sell the present house & newly created parcel on which it stands to our daughter & son -in -taw.. The issue has been discussed with the hvo closest neighbors most affected by the location of our new home. The folks immediately west of our property feel our `new' house would be an excellent addition. The folks directly across the street (Sunderland) are definitely in agreement that our new home would improve neighborhood appearance and resale of their home in the future. We agree. As I've said before, we think it only fair & reasonable to permit those owners of record prior to the moratorium to have their property zoning remain as it was when purchased_ In our case - 3.5 Units per acre. Certainly, that can not create great congestion or other problems or increase traffic flow to any degree in the area. 1 again, suggest that in the Ordinances being written, a `grandfather' clause be included which allows owners of record prior to adoption of the 1 unit per acre moratorium be permitted to maintain the zoning at time of purchase. It could also include a provision that zoning of 'grandfathered' properties would change to current zoning upon sale of the property, Again, we ask that yon consider and approve our request very soon so that we may proceed. Thank wvu. L Len Bouge 304 S. Conklin Rd - Offcc: Spokane Valley, WA 99037 cc: Marina Sukup Phones: Home: 9224443: Office: 926 -5300 July 25. 2006 RECEIVED JUL 2 5 2006 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY NOTE: Pleas.. _aference Agenda Item 5) Proposed i__solution 06 -015 Homelessness Homeless presentation Bill Gothmann July 25, 2006 1. Substitute House Bill 2163 was passed by the Washington State legislature in 2005 to address the problem of homelessness. In the measure, the legislature sets forth a goal to cut homelessness by half by the date, July 1, 2015. 2. The measure sets up a state interagency on homelessness, requires an annual census of th.e homeless, and requires local governments to develop ten -year plans to address - homelessness. 3. The measure also sets up a fund for homelessness by adding a surcharge of $10 for each document recorded by the County Auditor for such documents as plats, deeds, etc., but excluding vital records (births, deaths, and so forth). 4. The City of Spok:ane and Spokane County jointly developed a ten -year plan in December of 2005. I believe you were sent have copies of that plan. In it, there is a one day count of 1983 individuals who received homeless service from service agencies: 1824 from the City of Spokane and 159 from other areas of the County. As a result of this and other data, it is generally agreed that the City of Spokane has both the predominant problem and the predominant resources to address homelessness within Spokane County. 5. As of June 30, the 2163 fund for the County stands at a little over $653,000. It continues to grow as documents are recorded by the County Auditor, and is expected to be over $500,000 each year. 6. In recent meetings between the County, the City of Spokane, the City of Spokane Valley and others, the .following guidelines were developed by representatives and elected officials to see that these funds are allocated to the homeless providers: A. The County receives the funds and is required to assure compliance with state statutes in the use of the funds. Thus, the County's Housing and Community Development department will perfonn this function. B. Since the City of Spokane has over 85% of the homeless in the County and since the City of Spokane has the predominant resources to meet the problem, their .Human Services Department will serve as administrator of 2163 funds for the entire County. F. Together, a Citizens' Committee and the Committee of Elected Officials are part - ofa task force for administration of the funds. a). A committee of ten citizens: five from the City of Spokane and five from the County (of which two or three will be from the City of Spokane Valley), will • serve for approximately 15 months to analyze and recommend recipients for the funds. Our goal is to complete this allocation by the fall of this year. b). This comrnittee will also make recommendations on what the structure should be for ensuing years' allocations, and make recommendations to elected officials. c). A committee of elected officials will pass on the recommendations of the Citizens' Committee. 7. The purpose of the Resolution before you is to: A. Recognize the City of Spokane as rnaking decisions on our behalf for 2163 funds B. Recognize the joint task force C. Appoint citizens and a Councilmember to the Task Force. SPOKANE VALLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING Tuesday, July 25, 2006 ?UBLJC :HEARING SIGN -IN SI-I:EET SUBJECT: Extension of UR -1 IF YOU WOTTI.1) LIKE T() SPEAK at the Public Hearin 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 the City Clerk for distribution. NAME PLEASE PRINT ADDRESS TELEPHONE e,,1 c1c. aXV►e rL low s1A,o04.6u Cc a Z6cv4e -Ot S, ea/014 rr-, - R h o gzi - 4`Fy- le a \ ��T\ 1 *-y∎ \ (r) t1 `t' fSU.c, .=?D..5‘-c,aq, SPOKANE VALLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING Tuesday, July 25, 2006 ?UBLJC :HEARING SIGN -IN SI-I:EET SUBJECT: Extension of UR -1 IF YOU WOTTI.1) LIKE T() SPEAK at the Public Hearin 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 the City Clerk for distribution.