Loading...
2005, 10-25 Regular Meeting MinutesAttendance: Diana Wilhite, Mayor Rich Munson, Deputy Mayor Dick Denenny, Councilmember Mike DeVleming, Councilmember Mike Flanigan, Councilmember Gary Schimmels, Councilmember Steve Taylor, Councilmember MINUTES City of Spokane Valley City Council Regular Meeting Tuesday, October 25, 2005 Mayor Wilhite called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m., and welcomed everyone to the 77 meeting INVOCATION: Pastor Lee Hunt of New Hope Christian Center gave the invocation. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Mayor Wilhite led the Pledge of Allegiance. ROLL CALL: City Clerk Bainbridge called roll; all Councilmembers were present. APPROVAL OF AGENDA It was moved by Councilmember Taylor, seconded by Councilmember Flanigan, and unanimously agreed upon to approve the agenda as presented. INTRODUCTION OF SPECIAL GUESTS AND PRESENTATIONS: City Staff: Nina Regor, Deputy City Manager Mike Connelly, City Attorney Ken Thompson, Finance Director Mike Jackson, Parks & Recreation Director Tom Scholtens, Building Official Carolbelle Branch, Public Information Officer Neil Kersten, Public Works Director, Greg McCormick, Planning Manager Scott Kuhta, Senior Planner Marina Sukup, Community Development Director "Bing" Greg Bingaman, IT Specialist Chris Bainbridge, City Clerk COMMITTEE, BOARD, LIAISON SUMMARY REPORTS: Councilmember Flanigan mentioned that he attended the Spokane Valley Chamber Tourism Committee meeting, and the Valley Chamber monthly meeting. Councilmember Denenny reported that the wastewater dischargers met last Wednesday to put together scenarios to present to the Department of Ecology. MAYOR'S REPORT: Mayor Wilhite reported that she attended an Economic Development Council meeting; went to West Valley High School's groundbreaking; and she will be speaking on an upcoming KBPX radio show broadcast concerning the Comprehensive Plan. Mayor Wilhite also mentioned she and other councilmembers attended an Association of Washington Cities' regional meeting in Spokane. PUBLIC COMMENTS: Mayor Wilhite invited public comment. Dick Behm, 3626 S Ridgeview Drive: said he wanted to take the opportunity to thank the members of the Planning Commission for their volunteerism and dedication to putting together the draft Comprehensive Plan. Margaret Cadwallader, 1119 E 26 she said also wanted to recognize council's hard work especially that which was done in the formative years, and to thank former Mayor DeVleming, current Mayor Wilhite, Council Meeting: 10 -25 -05 Page 1 of 11 Approved by Council: 11 -15 -05 and all councilmembers for their accomplishments; and that she appreciates the constant invitations to citizens to seek citizen input. Len Bouge, 304 S Conklin Road, Spokane Valley: he echoed the sentiments of two previous speakers; and thanked council for their dedication; he said that last October 12 he gave a letter at the CenterPlace meeting; that he has more letters for the Planning Commissioners and others, and he gave those letters to the Clerk for distribution; that his issue is a zoning issue in the Ponderosa and not being permitted a short plat that he wants for retirement purposes. He mentioned he will be out of town for about a month, but that he can be contacted via e -mail. Rick Hansen, 15909 E 23 Court: he read his letter into the record and gave a copy to the Clerk; his letter is about growth and future developments; and that he wants leaders to strike a balance between developers and citizens' desire; and stated that developers need to examine the total plan and total long term impact; and that to object to all growth is not a solution. He said that he believes the goals and policies are a good start but that balance is needed. 1. PUBLIC HEARING: 2 " Public Hearing, Comprehensive Plan Draft Mayor Wilhite opened the public hearing at 6:19 p.m. and invited comments concerning the Comprehensive Plan Draft. Doug Kelley, 1411 E Mission, Spokane: spoke on behalf of Avista and thanked Council for the opportunity to provide comment on the initial Comprehensive Plan. He said there are a couple of policies he would like to make comment on and they are out of chapter six, the Utilities Chapter. The first is PUP 3.5 pertaining to the mandatory undergrounding of utilities, and one particular element in there that he did not recall seeing last time, was that the element refers to underground facilities in significantly reconstructed facilities. He asked for the definition of a "significantly reconstructed facility." Secondly, according to this policy, he said you would be mandating their existing service if it is overhead to go underground, and he will refer in his next policy statement to some of the elements of concern there; that is PUP 3.6, where it not only talks about the City Center, but again talks about that undergrounding of facilities issue, and he has brought and will submit to the record the copy of case law in the State of Washington that recognizes that if a City mandates the undergrounding of facilities, that the City will be the one that will pay for those undergroundings; if the policy moves forward he said he will most certainly act under those policies; but just wanted to make it clear where that cost issue resides. Lastly, policy 3.7 which refers to vegetation management; he said they would submit the following suggested language: "the City will coordinate landscaping and screening standards with utility providers to better serve the mutual needs of reliability and safety. The City will cooperate with utility providers for vegetation management and maintenance on public rights of way." He said that while landscaping and screening are always a portion of vegetation management, the primary issue of that is for preserving the integrity of the system and the safety of the public. He then commended the Planning Commission's work and diligence on this draft comprehensive plan; and thanked Council for their time and opportunity for public comment. Julie Prafke, 2104 S Veracrest Drive, Spokane Valley: she said that currently the building which is occupied by the Spokane Valley Chamber Of Commerce is owned by her and her husband; the building's address is 9507 E Sprague. She said the property is the only one in this section of Sprague that is zoned B1; and that generally that is a class for neighborhood businesses in a more residential area; and the rest of the businesses along Sprague in this area are B2, appropriate for destination businesses, retail and office. She requests that when the Comprehensive Plan is adopted, that Council make zoning for this property conform to the rest of the neighborhood as B2. She also thanked the Planning Commission and Council for the work on this Plan. Council Meeting: 10 -25 -05 Page 2 of 11 Approved by Council: 11 -15 -05 Rob Lindsay, 319W 32 " Spokane: said he is the Water Resources Manager for Spokane County; and is here to offer comments on the Comprehensive Plan, specifically the chapter related to the natural environment and the section related to water quality. He submitted his letter to the Clerk, and stated that he submitted an e -mail earlier today. He said he has three comments on the Plan. The first of which is that he was pleased to see that the top policy under the water quality section was that the City of Spokane Valley staff would actively and cooperatively participate with other agencies, including Spokane County, the cities of Spokane, Millwood, Liberty Lake, and also in Idaho; and given that do reside over a sole - source aquifer that we all share in, he said he cannot stress enough how pleased he is to see this spirit of cooperation; and as we move forward in managing consistently our planning policies and objectives throughout the region, it is very important to cooperate and find consistency in our policies. He said he wanted to remind everyone that Spokane County did develop a Critical Areas Ordinance in accordance with the Growth Management Act back in 2003, and as part of that exercise, took a look comprehensively throughout the entire Spokane County area identifying susceptible recharge areas, that is areas that are especially sensitive as they recharge our aquifer that we draw our drinking water from. He said it should be no surprise that the Spokane Valley Rathdrum Prairie Aquifer, which comprises the valley that we reside on, that the entire City of Spokane Valley is sitting on top of the most highly susceptible area within the aquifer; and it is the most sensitive area in terms of a recharge standpoint for our drinking water source. Going back to the Comprehensive Plan, he said he is pleased to see the spirit of cooperation, but noticed that the Plan was fairly lean on policies to achieve that objective in the Plan. He said in his submitted letter, he developed a list of approximately a dozen planning policies that Spokane County incorporated into their Plan; and he went through and selected them with the intent of identifying those he thought were most relevant to our community. He said they are broken down into four areas of threats to water quality, which is the development of a critical areas ordinance which identifies all the different types of critical areas within the City, and also to have policies with respect to coordinating with the purveyors and wellhead protection zones; that it is very important to identify those critical areas around these drinking wells that we all rely on for our water, and we should take a hard look at the policies on how to develop those particularly as they relate to critical materials, handling and storage. He said he included some policies with respect to our stormwater handling and drywells within the community, as the drywells are a particular threat to our groundwater quality and need to be managed more effectively throughout the region. He said the Spokane County Water Resources Department is excited about this plan and looks forward to cooperating with the City of Spokane Valley. Richard Bryant, 12025 E 31 Spokane Valley: He said one of his main concerns is transportation issues in the City according to the comp plan; and that in his travels in the service, he has used multiple uses of transportation and he would like to see the City, as its goal, to take a serious look at maybe putting light rail in with the couplet at the same time, because it can keep a lot of cars off the road and can reduce pollution; and in this area, it has just been in recent years through the EPA that we have not been on the hit -list for nonattainment of clean air. He said he read in Thursday's paper that Councilmember Taylor said that studies that have been done for light rail, show the numbers for ridership aren't there. He said he wondered where Mr. Taylor received his data from, because all the numbers he (Mr. Bryant) has seen and the FTA (Federal Transportation Administration) has shown through studies that indicate numbers it is a very valid system that could be there; where light rail has been in other cities, they have achieved their goals within the first six to nine months of operation; and all are expanding, including Portland, Salt Lake City, and San Jose. He said he realizes a few of these cities are larger than Spokane, but the Valley has a chance to be proactive in planning instead of reactive; and if you say you don't need it right now, but in six years when we will need it, it can be on line by then and would put us ahead of the power curve instead of being like the neighboring cities in crisis management all the time. He would like to see the City with the Comp Plan look into that; and exhaust all possibilities for mass transit before adding another road. Council Meeting: 10 -25 -05 Page 3 of 11 Approved by Council: 11 -15 -05 Barbara Vawter, 11525 E 48 She said she wanted to address the comprehensive plan, and ask what do neighbors do if they strongly disagree with the zoning of a specific area; how do neighbors get together and petition for consideration of rezoning. She said she doesn't know how that is done or how to find that out; but whether the Comprehensive Plan desires for an area to be single family or not, if the lots are unsellable as single family it has de- valued the personal property to zero, and quite possibly a family's sole source of equity. She said the area between Pines and Union, Union is one block west of Pines on Mission; is surrounded by businesses, offices, and multifamily units. She said the lots are huge and long and extend all the way to the freeway; that they are highly suitable to multifamily or business and are on a bus route. She said she thinks they were originally zoned U2, which means four -plex maybe, and she is an owner of one of those lots on the north side of Mission. She said for years she did not object as one business after another surrounded her, believing that they would also be able to convert to business zoning if that was the best choice of land use for their individual lots. She stated there are also many multi - family units further west on Mission from Bowdish past the park. She said it is their opinion that the lots just west of Applebees are unsellable as single family lots. Kathy Tabbert, 18505 E 4 Avenue: She said they are the PUD nightmare people; and she was hoping to remind everyone that when we decide to put in denser housing in an existing neighborhood, to look at the whole picture and that the whole area should be developed; that the plan should ask for how the whole street would be developed, and on her particular road there is a school; and she has seen kids driving down, with busses coming, and SUV's coming, and that one day someone likely will get hit; so when we consider comprehensive plan, PUDs, or any plan like that, denser population should be in there when looking at the whole road and not just the road to the nearest big arterial; because a lot of people will go a different way to avoid the big arterials because they are harder to get on, like the particular development she is speaking of, they went to Barker; but if you go into the Valley you won't go down Barker but will go down a different road. She would like to see in the Comprehensive Plan, more of a comprehensive look at the area and she would like to also have it in there that they cannot look outside the immediate area that the particular development is being built. She said in her position, the neighborhood that was notified of this particular PUD, that is their neighborhood; but then they brought in other neighborhoods and considered those neighborhoods. And lastly, she asked if it would be possible to receive notification when proposals are completed, as sometimes extensions are granted and the neighbors are not aware. Tom Tabbert, 18505 E 4 Avenue: Spoke concerning UL .3.2 and UL .3.3 and the development of PUDs and that he'd like to strike that from the comprehensive plan; he said PUDS allow developers to come into an area, throw out minimums regarding zoning, and put in as many homes as they can fit into the area; he said he would rather see council give some teeth to the residents, and he would like to see some laws put together to give residents the ability to fight proposed PUDs. Polly Crowley, 2805 N Argonne: she spoke of a correction that should be made and she referenced Capital Facilities page 33; that Argonne and Park no longer exist and those should be listed as Centennial and West Valley School District, and an additional high school is contract -based education; she said it appears these figures were obtained from the superintendent of public instruction; and that they will submit in writing the square foot and capacity of those buildings. Mary Pollard, 17216 E Baldwin Avenue: said she was speaking for the North Greenacres neighborhood; she then read and paraphrased her written summary of priority issues: "the whole idea of appealing to the government officials and leaders is a recognition of a system that should be human and compassionate. This is what citizens expect when they come to their city council. Impassioned pleas for justice are met with wooden bureaucratic interaction that is empty of what is common sense and human. Instead of fairness and goodness, government exists as a displaced codified fact that is separate from reality. It is deliberately designed to be so uniform that any human intervention by officials is daunting. The ballast is tipped to the developer and not neighborhoods. The city must create a more balanced and Council Meeting: 10 -25 -05 Page 4 of 11 Approved by Council: 11 -15 -05 fair process. The picture must include all citizens instead of pandering to a single industry housing. The humane treatment of our present problems requires interim policies they are absent and we cannot wait a generation for safe roads, parks, roads, etc. We are asking that you would include policies that provide these human necessary elements. This is our community's plan, not a business venture. When I read the land use, zoning is a facade. There is really not any low density residential. All densities appear to be considered. We need an expectation of what our neighborhoods will be like. We don't want them chewed up by poorly designed, high densities that ruin the character of neighborhoods. The problem is this is not just about density but about the infrastructure needed to support density. Consistently neighborhoods and citizens have demanded that zoning be fixed. We want something predictable, not up zoning. This is how the policy reads. This is a zoning free -for all. LUP 1.8 allows zone changes within the low density residential category only when specific criteria are met. Substantial changes within zone change areas, clear mapping areas, adequate facilities and services, sewer, water, capacity, etc. consistent with densities in the vicinity of the zone change. The last two are going to continue the conflicts and disenfranchisement of average citizens. We want a predictability to where we live. Instead, every time a developer waves his magic attorney three times in the air and threatens lawsuit, the Council is bullied into change. While expediting development is cost effective, is it not without cost, and the neighborhood is expected to pick it up now. They are approved without conditions for approving less improved connective roads, and yet there's laws that require those kind of things. Impact fees are really important. We cannot afford a minimum standard city. Citizens of modest income cannot afford to repair constantly and rebuild inferior quality. Impact fees are being lost every time a development is approved. Those most able to pay, pay nothing. And the City assumes the entire community can pick up these extensive costs through taxes. We say enough. Study, assess, and collect them. Without impact fees, it's a policy of anti - community, pro -tax your citizenry. This is the one fee we actually get something back for. It builds a solid economy and it promotes economic development. The thirteen agencies that the development applications go to, have such minimum standards that hardly anything does not pass muster. We are finding absent, there's nothing about green space for multi - family housing; this is really vital because it looks like Motel 6, and that there should be a goal that there's incentive to build ownership and affordable housing for lower income people. An example of that is Dishman Commons. We did a revision to chapter 10 (which she handed to the Clerk). Agricultural, livestock issues; they are still on the table. Lighting is not apparent in the plan." She concluded by acknowledging Council's efforts, and stated that she lauded what the staff has done. She said that no one received the invitation of the October 18 hearing] until late; that invitations came out on the 20 and that she arrived last week but arrived too late to testify. Mayor Wilhite indicated more public hearings on the comprehensive plan will be held. Councilmember Taylor asked, and it was confirmed that legal notice was adequately published in the newspaper concerning these public hearings. James Pollard, 17216 E Baldwin Avenue: he thanked all the Greenacres neighbors who worked on the neighborhood plan; and said that the opinion delivered by Mary is the opinion of dozens of people and not just the opinion of the Pollards. One point brought up was he said, was about preserving and adding trees with mitigation policies and plantings; and that the goal to this would be to mitigate tree removal due to development, by replanting on or near sited development, or by contributing to the city's tree fund. He explained that trees contribute to better air quality and beautify the city. Another point he mentioned was about sub -area neighborhood planning, which he stated is a pro- active approach to avoid or minimize land use conflicts and adverse impacts on neighboring uses. He said that by recognizing non - conforming use and balancing their needs with good development practices; that it promotes quality of life by jointly planning with those who have intimate knowledge of the characteristics of an area; and sub -area neighborhood planning finds out what impacts the community is concerned about, and simultaneously proposes regulations and ordinances to make changes better fit with the community. He said neighborhood plans give continuity of thought and purpose that stand throughout changes in leadership. Council Meeting: 10 -25 -05 Page 5 of 11 Approved by Council: 11 -15 -05 Chuck Simpson, E 9003 Cataldo: said they are land surveyors and civil engineers; and he has comments concerning Chapter 2 and LUP 1.1, which states "encourage development of parks and dedication of open space and adjacent to residential areas. Open space dedication shall be proportionate to the size of development." He said he thinks that is fine but asks who will maintain that. On LUP 1.6: "consider special development techniques, zero lot line, plot averaging, planned unit developments in single family areas, provided they result in residential development consistent with the quality and character existing neighborhoods." He said he in the central part of the valley where you own either a half -acre or an acre; and he doesn't see how that fits in with this. Concerning LUG 1.6: "provide a well connected street system and minimize dead ends and cul -de -sacs streets." From the development layouts they do for people, he said that a lot of developers want cul -de -sacs and a lot of people want to live in cul -de -sacs because it isolates the neighborhoods and they don't have the ongoing traffic and is safer. Then in discussing continuity of the streets and traffic calming, he said it appears you want your streets so they can go through from one residential neighborhood to another area, yet you want to calm them down, and the only way to do that is by dead ends and cul -de -sacs, or T- intersections. He said it sounds like you want to do away with private roads; and if you follow your standard of private roads, then private roads shall be developed and constructed as public streets; then someone would be crazy to develop a private road because you would be maintaining a road that you might as well let the county maintain. He said he thinks most reasons people want a private road is the parcel or property they want to develop is a little too narrow, so they can get by with a narrow road. He added that another portion says to have sidewalk only on one side rather than on both sides; and that CFP -4.6 says new development must be connected to public sewer and water. He said that is great but there are parts of the valley that won't be sewered until 2002; so if he owned a five or ten acre piece and wanted to retire, he couldn't develop it; and added that septic tanks have worked for years; a lot of people say they don't work and a lot of people say they do. He said it would be stretching it too far to connect it to sewer. Bonnie Quinn, 727 W. Garland, Spokane, 99205: said she represents Auto Row, which consists of Appleway Automotive, Gus Johnson Ford, Hallmark Hyundai, Spokane Chrysler, Dishman Dodge, and Jaremko Nissan /Saab. She said they strongly favor the comprehensive plan and the auto row overlay. John Peterson, 8412 E Sprague Avenue: speaking on behalf of Pring Corporation, he said his comments tonight are subject to a complete review of the overall comprehensive plan which he has not had an opportunity to fully review. He expressed concerns regarding the comp plan and the overall outlay for a city center, and said there has been quite a bit of publication for different ideas for a city center located in areas where they have some property located; that he does not know the timeframe to implement a change of the city center from its location here to the designated area; that the city center uses there appear to downgrade the zoning of the existing properties zoned there, which is now B3, a commercial zone. He explained that it has been a commercial zone for many years and he is concerned with the comp plan and no zoning matrixes posted at this time, and wonders what our actual uses will be for land that has been zoned commercial for a long period of time. He said he would ask and hope that there would be some procedure or format that somebody could come in, if all of a sudden faced with a comp plan change and zoning matrixes that they are not familiar with, that we could come in and timely get a change of zoning or some sort of a statutory procedure that would allow something to change that would fit, because he doesn't know how long it's going to be before the city center will be there, and before that takes place. He requested there be a procedure for a zone change and if possible, not knowing what the planning department is doing in that regard, if they made any zoning matrixes, he'd like to see those if possible. Mayor Wilhite invited other public comments, and no further comments were offered. Mayor Wilhite then asked if City Clerk Bainbridge had anything for the record. City Clerk Bainbridge stated she wanted to acknowledge two informational staff memos dated today regarding the comprehensive plan, which memos will be included in the public comment book for council review. Council Meeting: 10 -25 -05 Page 6 of 11 Approved by Council: 11 -15 -05 Mayor Wilhite informed everyone that tonight's public hearing is the beginning of the process for this comprehensive plan, that CDs are available at City Hall; and hard copies of the Plan are available for review at the library. Mayor Wilhite stated that Council will begin discussion of the plan beginning with the Transportation chapter; that she estimates three or four meetings to discuss that chapter, but that schedule is tentative. Following deliberation on the Transportation Chapter, she explained that Council will move to the Land Use Chapter, followed by Utilities Chapter; and further order would be determined later and the public will be kept informed of which chapter will be under deliberation. Mayor Wilhite announced that other public hearings will be held but likely not until after the first of the year due to the holidays. Mayor Wilhite added that the public is welcome and encouraged to submit written comments via letters and /or e -mail. Deputy City Manager Regor also acknowledged Mr. Hansen's written comments as part of the public hearing process. Mayor Wilhite closed the public hearing at 6:59 p.m. Mayor Wilhite called for a recess at 7:00 p.m., and reconvened the meeting at 7:10 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. Payroll for October 15, 2005 Pay Period in the Amount of $139,359.71 It was moved by Councilmember Schimmels, seconded by Councilmember Denenny, and unanimously agreed upon to approve the Consent Agenda. NEW BUSINESS 3. Motion Consideration: Approval of 2005/2007 Community Development Block Grant Project List — Greg McCormick It was moved by Councilmember Flanigan and seconded by Councilmember Denenny, to direct staff to prepare the appropriate CDBG application materials for submission to Spokane County for the following projects: (1) Montgomery Avenue: University Road to Argonne Road, estimated cost $635,270; (2) Barker Road, Appleway to Sprague Avenue, estimated cost $783,293; (3) Vera Terrace Sewer Project (full -width paving), estimated cost $207,815; and (4) a Neighborhood Cleanup Project, estimated cost $75,000. It was also mentioned that these projects are not in a priority order. Mayor Wilhite invited public comment. Kathy Tabbert, 18505 E 4 Asked the nature of the Appleway Way to Sprague Avenue project. Planning Manager McCormick replied that the project is the first portion of a larger project for full -width construction of Barker out to four lanes. Mayor Wilhite invited further public comment; no further comments were offered. Vote by Acclamation: In Favor: Unanimous. Opposed: None. Abstentions: None. Motion carried. 4. Motion Consideration: Request to Use Spokane Valley City Logo — Mayor Wilhite It was moved by Deputy Mayor Munson and seconded by Councilmember Taylor to allow the Spokane Area EDC to use the copyrighted logo for Spokane Valley in their marketing materials. Mayor Wilhite mentioned that a letter of request was received from the Spokane Area EDC requesting the use of the City's logo in the EDC's marketing materials, on their website, and in their printed materials that are used in recruitment, expansion and retention efforts. Mayor Wilhite then invited public comment. Clark E. Hager, Sr., 11717 E Lenora Drive: said he doesn't have the greatest problem with the EDC also having access to the trademark logo of the City of Spokane Valley; that a controversy has arisen about an ad that he placed in the Valley News Herald and Valley Voice where he placed a logo of the City of Spokane Valley on a piggy bank; he said that he takes full responsibility for the placement of that logo on that ad; that he does not apologize for the ad; and that this places in mind who owns the logo of the City of Spokane Valley. He said he knows that the State of Washington has a law that grants to those individuals who get and pay for a trademark, that they have exclusive rights to that trademark; the Council Meeting: 10 -25 -05 Page 7 of 11 Approved by Council: 11 -15 -05 question is who owns that trademark; he said that each citizen paid for and authorized the creation of that logo and therefore each citizen has an ownership interest in that logo and then probably has the right to use it. However, he said he recognizes the possibility that the citizens who are the owners of the City may have granted their subordinate legislative representatives to create an ordinance granting limited access to the logo and to limit those who may not have access to that logo; and that there may have been an ordinance created giving the City Clerk the power to grant permission for who can and cannot use it; that the question needs to be determined on who has the ownership and use of the logo. To clarify that, Mr. Hager then requested as a public record request, "any and all ordinances that have been created giving specific authority to an individual to the exclusion of all owners of that logo, which he believes to be the citizens of the Spokane Valley." Dick Behm, 9405 East Sprague: said he owns several trademark logos for business and commercial purposes; and that his understanding is people cannot use his logo on a different product, but can use the logo as long as the logo represents the product. Mayor Wilhite said she will request the City Attorney to research the issue. Vote by Acclamation: In Favor: Unanimous. Opposed: None. Abstentions: None. Motion carried. PUBLIC COMMENTS Mary Pollard, 17216 E Baldwin Avenue: spoke regarding the noise ordinance governing construction hours; said that it is more than a temporary inconvenience, and she wants some mitigation; she stated that you can't use the noise ordinance to regulate vibration of a house that makes people sick (due to excessive noise); and that this issue needs some attention. Clark E. Hager, Sr., 11717 E Lenora Drive: said he has a question about the new hire from the City of Spokane, the city attorney, and if he is still the chair of the Public Disclosure Commission and whether that represents a conflict of interest. Mayor Wilhite informed Mr. Hager that Mr. Connelly no longer serves as chair of that commission. Mr. Hager acknowledged that that clarified the issue. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS: 5. Appeal 02-05 — Cary Driskell It was moved by Mayor Wilhite and seconded by Councilmember Flanigan to ask the City Attorney to prepare the Findings, Conclusions and Decision to remand the application back to the Hearing Examiner. City Attorney Connelly explained that this is part of a double appeal brought to council several months ago; that the appeal dealt with a PUD plat that had been approved in part and denied in part by the Hearing Examiner. He explained that the neighborhood appealed the approval, and Council upheld the approval; and that matter has been appealed to Superior Court, and that we are in the midst of that suit now. Attorney Connelly said the Hearing Examiner denied the PUD aspect of the project based on an ordinance that prohibited PUDs from being attached to arterials; and Council has not taken final action on that appeal. In the interim period, he stated, that the Planning Commission recommended a change in the ordinance to remove that restriction; Council approved the change in that ordinance last week; and we are still faced with the appeal that we have not taken action on. Mr. Connelly said that options are to uphold the Hearing Examiner decision, which might be at least inconsistent with current law passed last week; to uphold the appeal and reverse the decision of the Hearing Examiner and simply approve the project; or to remand the matter back to the Hearing Examiner for reconsideration in light of the new law. Mr. Connelly stated that it is his office's recommendation that Council remand the issue back to the Hearing Examiner for reconsideration in light of the new law, in order to provide all parties a chance to be heard, and to go through an orderly process to protect due process. Deputy Mayor Munson, asked how we could change the law now and go back for reconsideration. Attorney Connelly explained that the vested rights belong to the applicant; that council can change the Council Meeting: 10 -25 -05 Page 8 of 11 Approved by Council: 11 -15 -05 law at any time; but because no final decision was made, it is within Council's jurisdiction on an appeal to remand the matter for further consideration, therefore it would be valid and lawful. Councilmember DeVleming stated public comment should be allowed as this is now a motion. Because this is now up for motion consideration, Ms. Regor stated it would be appropriate to ask for public comment. Mayor Wilhite invited public comment. Mary Pollard, 17216 E Baldwin Avenue: said that because of the uniformity of a very bad practice happening all over the city, and that was the impetus of that change; and that the timing of that change was very terrible because everyone was waiting for ordinance changes, and because they don't have attorneys they are being ignored. She said this sends a message to the community if you have an attorney and don't get your project through, you just get the City Council to change the ordinance; she said she knows Council tried hard to be impartial, but that it really doesn't change anything in some ways if council were to start over or it were remanded to the Hearing Examiner, and he probably ends up with the same results because he ends up with a law that is very amenable to him; but she said it doesn't change the danger to the communities, and she stated that she is very deeply disappointed that they were able to manipulate council this way. Deputy Mayor Munson said he will vote against the proposed motion as he feels council should apply the law consistently, and not give the appearance of "cherry- picking" situations. Councilmember Taylor stated that he is uncertain that there is an issue of appearance of fairness; that there is a situation that if the development had not gone forward as a PUD, it could have gone forward as a straight plat and gone around the arterial requirement in the PUD ordinance; and that the same number of cars would be going out on a non - arterial and the only difference is that it is a PUD; and the proposed PUD has spaces for open space which would not have been case for straight plat. Vote by Acclamation: In Favor: Mayor Wilhite, Councilmembers Schimmels, Taylor, Denenny, Flanigan, and DeVleming. Opposed: Deputy Mayor Munson. Abstentions: None. Motion carried. DISCUSSION: Council Deliberation, Comprehensive Plan Draft Transportation Chapter: Council discussed possible methods of deliberation, including going through the document line by line; throwing out comments and issues for deliberation; or going through the chapter, choosing and identifying issues, perhaps lumping some issues together, keep a running tally and proceed to deliberate thereafter. It was council consensus to follow the last stated recommendation. 3.0 Introduction. Deputy Mayor Munson suggested striking the last bullet on the introduction: "Continued dependency on driving may not be sustainable in the future, either economically and /or environmentally," as he said the sentence is subjective as it could depend upon how far in the future one is willing take the limited factor of driving. Councilmember DeVleming voiced his agreement. On the last paragraph of 3.0, Councilmember DeVleming suggested adding "economic impacts;" Deputy Mayor Munson agreed. Bicycles: Deputy Mayor Munson mentioned there appears to be a continuing reference to using bikes; that he wants to make sure there are bike paths; he does not want to develop a comprehensive plan that requires the building of an extensive bicycle network that is used by a few for a few months a year; that he would rather concentrate on walking trails and green areas which is a focus in the natural environment section. Deputy Mayor Munson referenced page 5, paragraph 16B; and said he feels that is too exacting to build a large plan upon; and that we should state we want bicycle trials, and want to ensure our roads provide safety for bicycles. Mandatory Verbiage: Senior Planner Kuhta noted there are parts of this Plan which contain sections of the County -wide planning policies, which policies are not subject to change but are for reference; and we are to develop our own plan under the umbrella of the County -wide planning policies and Growth Council Meeting: 10 -25 -05 Page 9 of 11 Approved by Council: 11 -15 -05 Management Act regulations. It was also suggested that the planning staff provide clear guidelines on what verbiage is mandatory and not subject to change. Director Sukup explained that each chapter contains an introduction, followed by a planning context which outlines the rules to follow, whether it is the GMA, the County -wide planning policies, or rules of SRTCs. She also mentioned that the reason these other policies are contained in our Plan, is to remind the community that our plan does not stand alone and these regulations must be taken into account when formulating our own plan. Deputy City Manager Regor stated that "Policy Topic 5- Transportation" is a verbatim section of the County -wide Planning Policy and not a specific city goal and policy and is there as a reference. It was noted by Councilmember Taylor that whether that (or other) section is included in our Plan, the City must still operate under those guidelines. Financial Incentives: Mayor Wilhite noted page 5 section 16C states that we are to provide regulatory and financial incentives to promote efforts of the public and private sector to conserve energy, and she speculated how to accomplish that without running the risk of "gifting of public funds." Attorney Connelly said there are legal ways to do provide financial incentives. Councilmember DeVleming also mentioned that there is a cost associated with these policies and we need to keep in mind who will be paying for these policies. Planning Commission: Councilmember Flanigan suggested each councilmember read and review the minutes from the Planning Commission meetings so as not to duplicate their six - months worth of time and effort, and to gain insight into their deliberations and perhaps save time during Council's own deliberations. Councilmember Schimmels added the need to read, review, and question what the Planning Commission has done in order to make necessary changes, but to do so without "reinventing the wheel." Definitions and abbreviations: Deputy Mayor Munson asked for a definition of the word "circuitous" as found on page 9, last sentence in the first paragraph: "excessively circuitous." Director Sukup explained that it deals with the requirements for putting streets on a plan that are not there now; and that an example of a circuitous route is making the transition from Appleway back to Sprague, using the extension of Appleway. Page 11, paragraph 3.2.5 third bullet: Deputy Mayor Munson asks that SOV should be defined. Deputy Mayor Munson stated that there are other abbreviations particularly in the tables, that need to be spelled out. Goals and Policies: Deputy Mayor Munson mentioned that page 11, paragraph 3.2.5, third bullet implies the need for parking meters as a way to reduce the number of SOV vehicles; and he believes we should ban parking meters in the city; and wants to insure such is specified under the policies and goals. Concurrency: Councilmember Flanigan stated he would like to encourage looking more at the total vehicle miles (TVM) rather than timeframes, as the TVM has more of an impact on the roads. Planning Commissioner Crosby stated that they looked at the LOS (level of service) more than TVM for intersections, as the intersections' failures are more controlling than the TVMs. Neighborhood /Sub -area Circulations Plans: Councilmember Denenny mentioned this section (3.2.7.2) as a statement of visioning as it states how we want our roadways designed; and he asked if Council agrees with the statement. Councilmember DeVleming said he feels this whole section warrants more discussion. Councilmember Taylor added that cul -de -sacs also warrant further discussion. Typos and Formats: Deputy Mayor Munson suggested having the tables a larger font for ease in reading. Councilmember Taylor mentioned that under Transit 3.4, the local option election actually authorized an additional 3 /10ths of one percent, and not an additional three cents as noted. Council Meeting: 10 -25 -05 Page 10 of 11 Approved by Council: 11 -15 -05 Freight & Goods; and Truck Routes: Deputy Mayor Munson said this section 3.2.7.4 leads to the question of how do we want Appleway and Sprague to look; what kind of traffic do we want on it; do we want only truck traffic on the east/west corridor, then allow truck deliveries on Sprague only, and he asked if this is the area to discuss this or leave that up to economic development? It was determined that that question will be left for further consideration. Truck Routes were questioned concerning through truck traffic; and discussion ensued regarding current truck routes, weight limits, and trucks allowed or not on Barker Road; and if truck routes can be mandated by Council. It was moved by Councilmetnber Taylor, seconded, and unanimously agreed upon to extend the meeting to 9:10 p.m. Deputy City Manager Regor suggested Council may find it easier to start with goals and policies and maps as points of discussion; to have staff identify what text is mandatory, and to settle on which version to work from. Council concurred they will work from the "clean" copy rather than the strikethrough version. Ms. Regor also mentioned that she has copies of the land use designations for inclusion in the front pocket of Councilnember's comp plan notebooks. Ms. Regor also mentioned that Council will receive copies tomorrow of the two memos mentioned earlier for the record; and that public hearings are intended to be forums to collect comments from the public, and that other than during public hearings, if the public desires to have their comments included as part of the record, such comments may be submitted in writing by letter or e-mail. She mentioned that November 14, 28, and December 12 are reserved for off -site meetings; and that Council stated their intent to have those meetings as public deliberations and if that is the case, there will be no forum for public input other than written comment. After brief discussion, it was determined that to better involve the public at those off -site meetings, the preferred method would be through a public hearing. There was council consensus if the locations warrant taping of public hearings, that the three above - mentioned meetings should be public hearings; and staff will work to find appropriate locations. It was also mentioned staff should invite members of the Planning Commission to council meetings where comprehensive plan deliberations are to take place. There being no further business, it was moved by Councilmember Flanigan, seconded, and unanimously agreed upon to adjourn. The meeting adjourned at 9:10 p.m. ATTEST Diana Wilhite, Mayor ,) Christine Bainbridge, City Clerk Cuukick, Wiki(ate., Council Meeting: 10 -25 -05 Page 11 of 11 Approved by Council: 11-15-05