Loading...
2005, 11-29 Special Meeting MinutesMINUTES City of Spokane Valley City Council Special Meeting Tuesday, November 29 2005 Mayor Wilhite called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m., and welcomed everyone to the 78 meeting Attendance: Diana Wilhite, Mayor Rich Munson, Deputy Mayor Dick Denenny, Councilmember Mike DeVleming, Councilmember Mike Flanigan, Councilmember Gary Schimmels, Councilmember Steve Taylor, Councilmember City Staff: Dave Mercier, City Manager Nina Regor, Deputy City Manager Mike Connelly, City Attorney Ken Thompson, Finance Director Mike Jackson, Parks & Recreation Director Tom Scholtens, Building Official Neil Kersten, Public Works Director Morgan Koudelka, Administrative Analyst Greg McCormick, Planning Manager Scott Kuhta, Senior Planner "Bing" Greg Bingaman, IT Specialist Chris Bainbridge, City Clerk INVOCATION: Councilmember Taylor 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 Deputy Mayor Munson, and unanimously agreed upon to approve the revised agenda as submitted. INTRODUCTION OF SPECIAL GUESTS AND PRESENTATIONS COMMITTEE, BOARD, LIAISON SUMMARY REPORTS Councilmember Schimmels: reported that he is a Consolidated Irrigation Water District Board member, and that they have been and continue to chlorinate the system on the south side from Liberty Lake to Pines Road, as that is a permanent feature in the water system. Deputy Mayor Munson: said that he attended a League of Women Voter's luncheon today where they discussed issues addressed by the various municipalities. Councilmember Flanigan: explained that the Hotel /Motel Committee met twice and has unanimously formulated its recommendation for grant awards, which will be coming forward at the December 6 meeting. Councilmember Denenny: stated that there was a full group meeting for those associated with TMDL /UAA (total maximum daily load /use attainability analysis), and that the dischargers' and the Sierra Club proposals were presented to the Department of Ecology, which proposals will then be reviewed to determined if they can provide permits for new discharge and for expansions; and that tomorrow night at Centerplace at 5:30 p.m. will be a meeting to discuss the issue of phosphorus in things such as dishwater detergents and fertilizers. Councilmember DeVleming: mentioned that the Christmas tree is up and the official lighting is set for December 1. Council Meeting: 11 -29 -05 Page 1 of 7 Approved by Council: 12 -13 -05 MAYOR'S REPORT: Mayor Wilhite reported that she attended the League of Women Voters meeting; and the Hotel/Motel Committee meeting; and that she gave a presentation before the Inland Northwest Coalition regarding capital projects as the City of Spokane examines going to the legislature for funding for a children's park at Maribeau Point; and that she also spoke with Representative Lynn Schindler and will be talking with other legislatures regarding seeking funding for that park; that she attended the name change ceremony for the Spokane Valley Post Office; and the GMA Steering Committee meeting. PUBLIC COMMENTS Mayor Wilhite invited public comment; no comments were offered. 1. PUBLIC HEARING: Appeal APP 04 -05 — Mike Connelly Mayor Wilhite opened the public hearing at 6:13 p.m., and invited City Attorney Connelly to the podium. Attorney Connelly explained that this is an opportunity for Council to consider this quasi - judicial matter, which is an appeal which was filed by a neighbor owning property adjacent to the development under consideration. Mr. Connelly went over the history of the issue; that the project was approved by the Hearing Examiner, which was appealed by the appellant; the developer filed a motion to dismiss the matter on the technical grounds that the appeal did not contain specific allegations of error; that Council upheld that motion and granted the motion to dismiss the appeal on technical grounds; the matter was then appealed to the Superior Court; that prior to hearing the matter in Superior Court, the parties agreed to dismiss the appeal with the understanding that they would remand the matter to the Council for a full hearing on the merits of the appeal filed by the appellant. Attorney Connelly stated that tonight's procedure is governed by Spokane Valley Ordinance provision 10.35.150; that we do not have specific council procedures to be used at this hearing and are simply following the general guidelines in the ordinance; that specific procedures were adopted subsequent to this matter and will not be followed for purposes of this appeal. Attorney Connelly reminded Council that this is closed record appeal and there will be no contributions to the hearing other than that from the parties involved in the appeal. Mr. Connelly said that the decision of the Hearing Examiner is presumed correct and supported by the record and the law; and the appellant asks Council to find that the decision was not supported by evidence presented, the record, or by the law. Mr. Connelly further explained that the parties will have an opportunity to present their argument but may not present new evidence; and at the close of this hearing, Council can affirm the Hearing Examiner decision, reverse or deny the decision, or remand the matter back to the Hearing Examiner for further consideration; and if Council does reverse or remand the matter to the Hearing Examiner, Council must make findings that the record and the law does not support the Hearing Examiner decision. Regarding a procedural matter, Attorney Connelly pointed out that the tab for Section VI of the appeal notebook is mis- placed and should be located all the way at the end of the booklet immediately before the brief filed by the developer; and that the index mentions the inclusion of Section IV which instead should be Section VI. Additionally, Attorney Connelly said that the last page in the Appeal Notebook is a handwritten document which is a Request for a Continuance by the appellant; and the addition to the record is a memorandum which was filed by Hilleri Viljanen just before closing today, a copy of which has been provided to each councilmember. Regarding the continuance request, Mr. Connelly recommended that Council first listen to the party requesting the continuance; after which the opposing party should have an opportunity to respond; that Council should then make a decision on the continuance, and if that decision is denied, Council would then proceed with the hearing giving the Appellant the first opportunity to speak, followed by the opposing party, and then rebuttals by each party if necessary. At that point, Mr. Connelly explained that Council can continue the matter for decision purposes, or deliberate tonight in open session or in Executive Session; adding that time has been set aside for Council consideration on this matter again in two weeks. Hilleri Viljanen: Regarding the Motion for Continuance, she stated that she is not properly prepared due to a timeline, illness, and other factors including the Thanksgiving holiday where she could not properly approach attorneys and others she needed to talk to; and she therefore asked for a one month continuance to give her time to get proper counsel; that she has had some counsel but not to the end; that she feels the Council Meeting: 11 -29 -05 Page 2 of 7 Approved by Council: 12 -13 -05 matter important enough that she needs proper counsel in order to have her viewpoint properly presented; and that this matter has long range consequences if allowed to continue. Attorney Connelly: stated that the notice for this hearing was mailed to all parties including Ms. Viljanen, November 10, 2005; and was published in the in local newspaper November 11, 18, and 25 of 2005. In response to Council inquiry, Mr. Connelly confirmed that no new facts or evidence may be presented unless there are exceptional circumstances which neither Council nor staff has not been apprised of existing; and the only thing that can be provided to Council is either written or oral argument, to argue whether the record and the law supports the decision made. F.J. Dullanty, Jr.: said he speaks on behalf of the applicants; that they originally stipulated to a dismissal on the basis that it seemed more expeditious to allow Ms. Viljanen her day in court on the merits of this matter and to quickly get a hearing to satisfy all concerns on this matter; that they object to a continuance on the basis that it is extremely expensive for developers to hold property as they have money and loans tied up all with no basis to re -coup that unless there is the opportunity to move forward. Mr. Dullanty stated that Ms. Viljanen is familiar with the case; they supplied written argument as required on November 21, and Ms. Viljanen just served her brief about an hour ago and while he has had an opportunity to go over it, he has not had the opportunity to review the document in detail; but the brief is well written and therefore appears she does not need additional preparation time; that she had counsel prior to today and he is not clear why counsel is not here today; that there is no reason for a delay as it will not serve justice, and will not add anything to Council's knowledge of the case nor will it add anything to the record; and he feels both parties are prepared to go forward and therefore he asks Council to deny the motion and proceed to hold the hearing. Council discussion: Councilmember Flanigan said that the brief appears to be well done; that there can be no new facts; that this was originally being taken to Superior Court so they must have been preparing for that in the interim; and that he feels in the interest of justice, the continuance should be denied; the person who owns the property needs to know the outcome; and Council cannot forcibly sit on that investment without rendering a decision. It was moved by Councilmember Denenny and seconded by Deputy Mayor Munson to deny the continuance. Vote by Acclamation: In Favor: Unanimous. Opposed: None. Abstentions: None. Motion carried and continuance denied. Hilleri Viljanen: stated that she is not totally prepared to argue this case on her own; the opponent has an attorney, and she feels she should have the same representation as she's being denied due process. She stated that this appeal is being considered under SVMC 10.35.150 as it existed prior to amendment; which became effective July 6, 2005; that this was after the appeal was first engendered. She said the applicability to today is not appropriate; there is an interim plan which she feels should be respected; that the planning was aggressive and too early in allowing this type of zoning density, which she stated is the key problem —a zoning density too high; that it was allowed before there was time to look at the process; and she requests that the density be lowered to a more appropriate density or maybe a PUD with some green space and maybe some park space left rather than just houses; that 16 houses in a small area doesn't add up for 2.16 acres. She further explained that the B3 zoning added to that problem as well to UR -22; that chapter two of the March 2003 Valley adopted Comprehensive Plan states that the policies in this chapter strive to improve quality of life, provide opportunities for innovative approaches to land use, and protect the community character. She stated that she has expressed this before to Council and to the planning people. She continued reading and paraphrasing from her submitted brief. She added that she does not seek minimum standards but wants appropriate standards such as moderate or higher; and that the proposal intends to place 16 residential dwellings in the midst of a historical UR 3 -5 zone; and that represents over - crowding land and the residential quality of life previously existing in the neighborhood. E.F. Dullanty, Jr.: stated that he is here tonight at the request of Progress Property, the owner /applicant in this matter; that by application they requested a zone change on two different zones, changing UR 3 -5 to a UR 7 to allow a slightly higher density; and the other was changing B3 to be down zoned from Council Meeting: 11 -29 -05 Page 3 of 7 Approved by Council: 12 -13 -05 commercial to UR -22; that both zones complied with the Comprehensive Plan goals and policies; the result was an application for 16 units on 2.8 acres; and they received approval for 15 units. Mr. Dullanty stated that the allowed density in a UR 7 zone is six units per acre; and for a UR 22 is 22 acres per acre; that both designations comply with the existing designation on the Comprehensive Plan; that there is a net density on the UR 7 of only 5.85 units which is clearly below the allowed six units; and on the UR 22, they are substantially below; that the applicant vested his rights on the property through the then existing adopted interim plan, which was Spokane County's Comprehensive Plan. He stated that the Plan is a guide whereas the Zoning Code is designed to implement the guide and is specific on what can and cannot be done regarding land use regulations. Mr. Dullanty stated that should a conflict arise between the Comprehensive Plan and the Zoning Code, that State law states that the Zoning Code prevails. He stated that he feels there is no conflict and that the Hearing Examiner was correct in his findings; use issues and density issues were all dealt with at the adoption of the Comprehensive Plan level. Mr. Dullanty brought attention to page 59 of the record which marks the beginning of the staff report; which report states the process in analyzing this project to ensure compliance with the Comprehensive Plan and the Zoning Code; that staff analyzed each goal and made appropriate recommendation based upon analysis; it was then submitted to the Hearing Examiner for a public hearing; the applicant had an opportunity then to bring in additional evidence into the record as to whether one would agree with the application or not, and the reasons therefore; and that Ms. Viljanen participated extensively at that process. After further explaining the process, Mr. Dullanty stated that his client met each and every criteria in the adoption of the zoning code and of the comprehensive plan and has complied with all requests. He continued that Ms. Viljanen's appeal objected to traffic and air quality, which are SEPA issues and that the Hearing Examiner made a specific finding that there was not a SEPA appeal; there was a traffic study made and submitted to determine there were no impacts, as mentioned in the record. He stated that Ms. Viljanen has failed to meet the burden of proof showing the Hearing Examiner's decision was not correct; and he therefore asks Council to dismiss the appeal and allow the project to go forward. Hilleri Viljanen: in rebuttal, Ms. Viljanen stated that there is over - zoning in density in that area; and if necessary, she will appeal again as she has 14 days to appeal; that she will not allow that density to go forward; and further suggests that a PUD might be the best possible solution; that she is available to mediate if they desire as she prefers that as a means to come to an amicable conclusion; she asserted that the 20 -year Comprehensive Plan prevails over Zoning; and suggested placing a moratorium on that area of 2.16 acres if needed until the proper plan can be developed; she mentioned that a traffic engineer study is subjective at best, and she requests Council look at this issue carefully; and that she originally talked with Parks and Recreation Director Mike Jackson to have a mini park and a community center there for everybody's use, and not have congested housing. E.F. Dullanty: he added that they had originally asked for a PUD; and a PUD would have allowed sixteen units, but they were granted fifteen; but the regulations do not allow a PUD in that area, at least not at the time of the application; and regarding a moratorium or a hold -off until the new plan is complete; that there are rules to use to adopt a moratorium and this does not fit the condition for such; and that the applicant has a vested right to have the application considered at the time such application is made, so a moratorium would not be applicable. Mayor Wilhite closed the public hearing at 7:00 p.m. There was then a majority opinion from Council to move forward on this matter tonight, rather than deliberate at a later date. Deputy Mayor Munson said he has not seen evidence to reverse the Hearing Examiner's findings. It was moved by Councilmember DeVleming and seconded by Deputy Mayor Munson to deny the appeal. After brief Council discussion, the vote was taken by acclamation: In Favor: Unanimous. Opposed: None. Abstentions: None. Motion carried. Council then directed staff to prepare finalized Findings and Order for a future meeting. 2. PUBLIC HEARING: Proposed Amended 2005 Budget — Ken Thompson Mayor Wilhite opened the public hearing at 7:08 p.m. and invited Director Thompson to explain the issue. Finance Director Thompson explained the proposed amendments to the 2005 budget as outlined in Council Meeting: 11 -29 -05 Page 4 of 7 Approved by Council: 12 -13 -05 VOUCHER LIST DATE VOUCHER Number(s) TOTAL VOUCHER AMOUNT 11 -14 -2005 8007 — 8051 1,378,070.66 GRAND TOTAL 1,378,070.66 his Request for Council Action form; and mentioned the typographical error that $560,000 should be $580,000. Mayor Wilhite invited public comment; no comments were offered and Mayor Wilhite closed the public hearing at 7:10 p.m. 3. PUBLIC HEARING: Parks & Recreation MasterPlan — Mike Jackson Mayor Wilhite opened the public hearing at 7:11 p.m., and invited Director Jackson to give an overview of the Plan. Parks and Recreation Director Jackson briefly discussed the plan; and mentioned that notice for this public hearing was published on two occasions; that Draft Plan copies are available at City Hall, CenterPlace, the Library, and on the website; adding that eventual adoption will provide direction and guidance for the future, and in some cases, will provide for a range of options. In response to Council question, Mr. Jackson said that the old University High School building was not considered; and that while a skate park is part of the Plan, the location has yet to be determined Mayor Wilhite invited public comment. Bill Gothmann, 10010 E 48 said that he had the chance to read the Plan, and was impressed as it provides an excellent outline; that he compliments MIG as they provided 23 different sources of funds to fund the proposed capital projects. Mary Pollard, 17216 E. Baldwin Avenue: stated that she is thrilled with the amount of hard work that went into that Plan; that North Greenacres is interested in a central walkable community park as they are geographically isolated; that Barker Center is too far; she suggested a 30 -acre park for the general area would stress a neighborhood park. She also mentioned there is a need for a more concerted plan for tree planting, such as Adopt -A -Tree, or other incentives to get trees planted for the parks and other areas. Kurt Parker, 1816 N Greenacres Road: said under the North Greenacres Area, that the Barker Road site would not be easily accessible; under the Greenacres Community Park, that sports fields are not the same as parks; and he would rather see sports fields elsewhere in a larger area, perhaps in an industrial area. Mayor Wilhite invited further public comment; no further comments were offered and Mayor Wilhite closed the public hearing at 7: 22 p.m. 4. 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 November 15, 2005, in the amount of $140,002.04 It was moved by Councilmember Taylor, seconded, and unanimously agreed to approve the Consent Agenda. Mayor Wilhite called for a short recess at 7:25 p.m.; and reconvened the meeting at 7:30 p.m. NEW BUSINESS 5. Second Reading Proposed Ordinance 05 -030 Excess Property Tax Increase — Ken Thompson After City Clerk Bainbridge read the ordinance title, it was moved by Deputy Mayor Munson and seconded by Councilmember Flanigan to approve Ordinance 05 -030 confirming the city's desire to levy the I% increase in property tax for 2006 as authorized under Washington law. Director Thompson explained that there is a need to document the desire to increase the 1% as per the law; that it won't change taxes for 2006, but does put us in position in 2007 to levy the 1% more than what was levied in Council Meeting: 11 -29 -05 Page 5 of 7 Approved by Council: 12 -13 -05 2006. Mr. Thompson also mentioned that a minor change was made in the recitals of the ordinance, as it was felt the two additional "whereas" clauses were superfluous and were thus removed. Mayor Wilhite invited public comment. No comments were offered. Vote by Acclamation: In Favor: Unanimous. Opposed: None. Abstentions: None. Motion carried. 6. First Reading Proposed Ordinance 05 -032 Amending 2005 Budget — Ken Thompson City Clerk Bainbridge read the ordinance title, and Director Thompson mentioned the Montgomery Avenue Rehabilitation Street Project amount of $580 is correct in the ordinance. It was moved by Councilmember Taylor and seconded by Councilmember DeVleming to suspend the rules and approve Ordinance 05 -032. Mayor Wilhite invited public comment; no comments were offered. Vote by Acclamation: In Favor: Unanimous. Opposed: None. Abstentions: None. Motion carried. 7. First Reading Proposed Ordinance 05 -033 Amending Street Dedication - Neil Kersten After City Clerk Bainbridge read the ordinance title, it was moved by Deputy Mayor Munson and seconded by Councilmember DeVleming, to advance Ordinance 05 -033 to a second reading, as amended noting the choice of alternate one; and that such resolution could be placed on a consent agenda. After Public Works Director Kersten explained the issue, that the City does not yet have a formalized process for accepting dedication of real property for road purposes if the property to be dedicated is outside the boundaries of a final plat, Mayor Wilhite invited public comment. No comments were offered. Vote by Acclamation: In Favor: Unanimous. Opposed: None. Abstentions: None. Motion carried. 8. First Reading Proposed Ordinance 05 -034 Amending SVMC 10.10.040 Stormwater Utility — Ken Thompson City Clerk Bainbridge read the ordinance title. It was moved by Deputy Mayor Munson and seconded to suspend the rules and pass Ordinance 05 -034. Director Thompson explained that this is simply a housekeeping issue; that the annual stormwater fee is stated in the Master Fee Schedule, with reference to that schedule in the Ordinance, rather than have the fee amount stated in the ordinance. Mayor Wilhite invited public comment. Dick Behm, 3626 S Ridgeview Drive: voiced his concern about pushing this through tonight, and would prefer to hear more discussion on how the fees are used. Mr. Thompson clarified that this ordinance change simply takes the fee previously referenced, and places it in the fee resolution; and added that Mr. Behm's previous concerns about the stormwater fees will be responded to by the State Auditor's office. Vote by Acclamation: In Favor: Unanimous. Opposed: None. Abstentions. None. Motion carried. 9. Proposed Resolution 05 -026 Position Reclassification — Nina Regor It was moved by Councilmember Flanigan and seconded, to approve Resolution 05 -206. Deputy City Manager Regor explained the proposed reclassification according to her November 29, 2005 Request for Council Action form; and added that this is a senior level attorney position on the classification matrix; and if an additional attorney were to be hired, that would likely result in a proposed entry -level position. Mayor Wilhite invited public comment; no comments were offered. After brief discussion, Council voted by Acclamation: In Favor: Deputy Mayor Munson, and Councilmembers Schimmels, Taylor, Flanigan, Denenny, and DeVleming. Opposed: Mayor Wilhite. Abstentions: None. Motion carried. 10. Motion Consideration: Milwaukee Railroad right -of -way, Phase I, Environmental Assessment — Neil Kersten It was moved by Deputy Mayor Munson and seconded to direct staff to proceed with the performance of a Phase I Environmental Assessment of the Old Milwaukee Railroad Right -of -way. Public Works Director Kersten explained that although the County has no concerns with the area, staff feels it would be prudent and therefore recommends an environmental assessment be completed as described in the November 7 memorandum from Neil Kersten and Steve Worley. Mr. Kersten stated that there is a three to six months projected timeline from start to report back to council; that the assessment will cost approximately $15,000 to $20,000, so the City Manager could sign a contract and get the process started. After brief council discussion on the possibilities connected with the area, Mayor Wilhite invited public comment. Council Meeting: 11 -29 -05 Page 6 of 7 Approved by Council: 12 -13 -05 No comments were offered. Vote by Acclamation: In Favor: Unanimous. Opposed: None. Abstentions: None. Motion carried. PUBLIC COMMENTS: Mayor Wilhite invited public comments; no comments were offered. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS: 11. Spokane County Full Cost Allocation Plan — Morgan Koudelka Administrative Analyst Koudelka went through his PowerPoint presentation to explain the issue of Spokane County's Full Cost Allocation Plan and how it could affect our service agreement with the County. Councilmember Flanigan voiced his continued concerns that Spokane Valley citizens are also County citizens and pay for county services, and that he would like to know exactly what are we paying for in terms of our taxes. Mr. Koudelka mentioned that the County will stay with the current plan for now; and Deputy Mayor Munson suggested we begin to plan and cost our the capital requirements to be a full- service city just in case this cannot be resolved. Mr. Mercier added that this is only a recently revealed concept and we are still working to determine how totally developed the process is. l 1 a. Communication Grant — Cal Walker It was mentioned that this added item is really an information only item and will be discussed at an upcoming council meeting. DISCUSSION: Council Deliberation: Draft Comprehensive Plan, Land Use and /or Utilities Chapter In the interest of time, it was Council consensus to postpone this discussion to another date. Council then briefly discussed upcoming meetings, and it was suggested that Councilmembers e -mail meetings date preferences and/or conflicts to Mayor Wilhite. Mayor Wilhite also mentioned the upcoming Comprehensive Plan public hearing set for December 12 at CenterPlace. It was moved by Councilmember Flanigan, seconded, and unanimously agreed to adjourn. The meeting adjourned at 8:42 p.m. Christine Bainbridge, C' Clerk )� Council Meeting: 11 -29 -05 Approved by Council: 12 - 13 - 05 Diana Wilhite, Mayor LL-ekINA 43v Page 7 of 7