Loading...
2005, 08-30 Study Session MinutesAttendance: Councilmembers: Diana Wilhite, Mayor Rich Munson, Deputy Mayor Mike DeVleming, Councilmember Dick Denenny, Councilmember Mike Flanigan, Councilmember Steve Taylor, Councilmember Gary Schimmels, Councilmember MINUTES CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY STUDY SESSION Tuesday, August 30, 2005, 6:00 p.m. Staff: Dave Mercier, City Manager Mike Connelly, City Attorney Cary Driskell, Deputy City Attorney Marina Sukup, Community Development Director Ken Thompson, Finance Director Neil Kersten, Public Works Director Mike Jackson, Parks & Recreation Director Lisa Bracco, CenterPlace Coordinator "Bing" Bingaman, IT Specialist Chris Bainbridge, City Clerk Mayor Wilhite called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. and welcomed all in attendance. Councilmember Taylor asked that there be a moment of silence in recognition of the loss of life and destruction in Louisiana and surrounding areas as a result of Hurricane Katrina, and to remember and recognize the support of the Red Cross and other's efforts in giving aid. Mayor Wilhite asked for a moment of silence. 1. Spokane County TIB Project Participation — Steve Worley Public Works Director Kersten, standing in for Engineer Worley, explained that this issue was presented at last week's council meeting and is a request from Spokane County for our participation in their capital improvement project of 8`" Street to 32 on Barker Road; and that the County had initially requested a 40% contribution, and per last week's council's direction, staff asked and the County acquiesced to a 20% match. Mr. Kersten stated that staff now seeks Council consideration in how they wish to proceed. It was moved by Deputy Mayor Munson and seconded by Councilmember DeVleming that we participate in the joint project on Barker Road at the 20% level. Mayor Wilhite invited public comment; no comments were offered. Council discussion included points of egress on Barker Road; use of the area by Spokane Valley citizens; Valley Christian School building a school in that area; participation from neighborhood groups such as Turtle Creek development; regular coordination among county and our staff concerning upcoming capital projects; the further confirmation of the need for joint planning; using the funds for other capital improvements within our city limits; appreciation to the County for responding favorably to our request to lower our participation from 40 to 20 %; projected costs of installation and maintenance of traffic signals ($200,000 to $300,000); concurrency issues; the need for safe roads; and that tonight's decision is not setting precedence. Vote by Acclamation: In Favor: Mayor Wilhite, Deputy Mayor Munson, and Councilmembers Schimmels, Denenny, and DeVleming. Opposed: Councilmembers Taylor and Flanigan. Abstentions: none. Motion carried. 2. Proposed Order Granting Motion to Dismiss — Cary Driskell Deputy City Attorney Driskell explained that the written order memorializes the oral motion and vote taken by Council last week in Appeal 04-05; and that if Council determines the order sufficient, a motion is necessary to approve the proposed order. It was moved by Mayor Wilhite and seconded that Council Study Session Minutes: 08 -30 -05 Page 1 of 5 Approved by Council: 09 -13 -05 approve the Proposed Order Granting Motion to Dismiss Spokane Valley Appeal #04 -05. Vote by Acclamation: In Favor: Unanimous. Opposed: None. Abstentions: None. Motion carried. Regular Study Session Discussion Issues (No Public Comment): 3. Outside Agencies Request for Budget Consideration - Ken Thompson (10 minutes per presenter) Finance Director Thompson explained that six agencies will give short presentations for their funding assistance; that the agencies are divided into two categories: one for social service agencies, and the other for economic development, with $31,000 allocated for the social service agencies, and $69,000 for the economic development groups. In response to a question from Deputy Mayor Munson, Mr. Thompson explained that the funds can be allocated any way Council desires. The following agencies made a presentation for funding assistance: SOCIAL AGENCIES: a. Big Brothers /Big Sisters: requested $8500 b. Chase Youth Commission: requested $3000 c. Daisy Girl Scouts request for funding withdrawn; obtained funding from other sources d. Project Access: requested $35,000 e. Valley Community Center: requested $14,823 ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AGENCIES: f. Economic Development Commission: requested $90,000 g. International Trade Alliance: requested $35,000 City Manager Mercier reminded Council that last year, Council decided that each council member came back with a set of suggestions to share with council in order to come to consensus on level of funding, and he suggested scheduling September 13 as this year's opportunity. During Council discussion of future options, it was mentioned that $3,000 has already been included in next year's budget for an educational program for bike helmets. After brief discussion on the amount (if any) to increase the budget allocation, it was Council consensus to raise the total amount to $120,000, and to bring the issue of funding allocation back for further discussion September 13, 2005. Mayor Wilhite called for a recess at 7:40 p.m., and reconvened the meeting at 7:55 p.m. 4. Designation of Area for Alcohol Consumption - Mike Jackson and Lisa Bracco Parks and Recreation Director Jackson explained that Council previously designated certain areas within the Parks and Recreation facilities where alcohol may be permitted, and that this is a request to designate the CenterPlace upstairs lounge and dance floor and the executive conference room as additional designated areas, as per the attached draft resolution. After brief Council discussion of the issue including the reason for such requests (weddings, conferences, etc), it was Council consensus to place the resolution on the September 13, 2005 Consent Agenda. 5. Urban Growth Expansion Consideration — Mike Connelly City Attorney Connelly explained that land use decisions can have unintended and /or unanticipated consequences, and that Council may want to consider taking some action regarding Spokane County's action to change the gray area shown on the attached map, from Urban Reserve to Low Density Residential; which would extend that urban growth boundary to the outside of the perimeter of those properties, whereas before it went inside of the perimeter of those properties. Two components to consider when making such decision, Mr. Connelly said, include is it substantive or appropriate for an urban growth area, and does it fit the criteria for a need for low density residential property and the ability to provide services to that property; and the second consideration is procedural, as is there something in the manner in which it was done, something Council wishes to object to. In dealing with the substantive Study Session Minutes: 08 -30 -05 Page 2 of 5 Approved by Council: 09 -13 -05 issue, Mr. Connelly explained that this particular change would allow a change in density from one unit per five acres or ten areas, to six units per acre it if were built out at a maximum density. Mr. Connelly explained that this translates in terms of traffic, to approximately 10,000 vehicular trips if all property were built out at the maximum density. Presently, approximately one -half of the property is already developed at urban densities, he explained, and there are either three or four units per acre on the property on the furthest north edge of the proposed area. City Attorney Connelly said that the most significant impact to consider is that of traffic impacts; that there are adjacent intersections which might be impacted and where the level of service could diminish: the Sprague /Sullivan intersection and the intersection at Saltese and Sullivan. Without a joint planning agreement, Mr. Connelly said the full development of the area could have several consequences: (1) development would likely make it more difficult for properties within the city to meet concurrency, which is limited with existing roads and intersections; and whether the development is in the County or the City, and if it impacts intersections within the City it consumes that concurrency; and if this develops without any type of financial participation by the developer to the county, it would consume the concurrency. Attorney Connelly added that without any type of joint planning agreement, there is also an issue of whether the development and designer standards would be compatible or incompatible resulting in substantial costs if the area were ever annexed to the City of Spokane Valley. Mr. Connelly said water and sewer do not appear to be a problem in the area. Regarding procedural issues, Mr. Connelly gave a brief history of the area: he explained that the request for the UGA change by the property owner was first made in 2003 at about the same time that applications for some of the existing developments were submitted; that the Planning Commission recommended denial and that this area be considered as a part of the five -year plan; the County Commissioners within a few minutes of deliberation, upheld the Planning Commissioner's recommendation to deny the urban growth area extension. That decision was appealed by the property owner to the Eastern Washington Growth Management Hearings Boards, as the property owner felt they met the burden of need to a population allocation study and through the proof that there were sufficient services and that it would not have a negative impact on traffic services. Mr. Connelly said that the only evidence he found in the record regarding traffic was a letter from Ross Kelly indicating that the improvement of certain roadways within the area would benefit Sullivan as it would funnel traffic to Barker Road. After the appeal, Attorney Connelly explained, there was a settlement between the parties and the County, and they agreed to bring the matter back for a subsequent hearing for remand; in June of 2005 the matter was brought back before the County Commissioners and was approved by the County Commissioners, along with about five other areas in similar circumstances. Mr. Connelly said regarding process, the issue of notice was raised as the County did not send notice to the other jurisdictions, including the City of Spokane Valley; the applicant advised Mr. Connelly that they mailed notice to property owners within 400 feet of the proposed property location which was approximately 1,000 mailings; and they felt that at least one of those property owners was the City of Spokane Valley. Mr. Connelly said he has not yet been able to further trace that to confirm if it was received by the City of Spokane Valley. Mr. Connelly said that the property was posted in two locations. The extension of this particular UGA boundary was not, said Mr. Connelly, presented or considered by the Spokane County Steering Committee of Elected Officials and that he believes there is a dispute between Spokane County and some other members of that committee as to whether these types of changes should be submitted to them; but that this particular change was not. Mr. Connelly said that the last factor for Council consideration is that there has been one appeal filed by a neighborhood group, Kathy Mitke, and a neighborhood group with respect to the Five Mile Prairie matter but not with respect to the Turtle Creek matter. Attorney Connelly then outlined several policy decisions for Council to consider: (1) do nothing and let the decision stand and the property would likely be developed at urban densities over a period of time; Study Session Minutes: 08 -30 -05 Page 3 of 5 Approved by Council: 09 -13 -05 and if that is the decision, Council would be able to participate at the hearing level, but the effectiveness of doing so without a joint planning agreement would be questionable regarding whether Council could convince the Hearing Examiner that Council's concerns are legitimate as without an agreement, there would be no document guiding his decision. Mr. Connelly said Council could also (2) appeal to the Eastern Washington Growth Management Hearings Board; that Board does not approve or disapprove projects, but their duty would be to determine if the process complied with state law; and if there were sufficient procedural issues to demonstrate noncompliance, the matter would be sent back to be done correctly. That does not mean, however, said Mr. Connelly, that this area would not be an urban growth area, but would mean that the process getting there was not done correctly. A successful appeal would also bring to the City of Spokane Valley, said Attorney Connelly, the opportunity to present additional facts in evidence, if it was felt there was a substantive case to reject this area as an urban growth area; or having another hearing with proper notice would enable the presentation of evidence regarding traffic impacts and any other issues council may feel would be determinative in designating the area a UGA. Attorney Connelly described that a the third (3) option would be to continue to negotiate a joint planning agreement with the County, adding that such agreement would provide a mechanism for funding of traffic improvements, and for development and design standards compatible with the City of Spokane Valley's standards in the event of any future annexation. Discussion ensued regarding which areas might be directly impacted and of the need for a traffic impact analysis; the number of vehicular trips due to the 976 homes; capital facilities plan, land use analysis and traffic litigation considerations when considering UGA expansion. 6. Advance Agenda Additions — Mayor Wilhite Mayor Wilhite suggested forming a citizen Ad Hoc Committee to address one of Council's goals, communication infrastructure, in order for that Committee to work to put together a communication infrastructure plan to present to council about what will be needed to keep present with technology demands, including options for fiber, wireless, and the associated costs to provide such infrastructure. After Council discussion, Mayor Wilhite indicated she would circulate a list of potential people for the committee and would like Council to consider the desired size of the committee. There was Council consensus to place this issue on an upcoming agenda. City Manager Mercier also suggested Council might want to consider writing a mission statement for such committee. It was determined Councilmembers will send Mayor Wilhite Ad Hoc Committee suggested mission statements. Other advance agenda additions included Councilmember DeVleming's suggestion to include the right -of -way boundaries and properties. Mr. Mercier responded that staff hopes to come to conclusion at the next joint meeting on that topic. 7. Memorandum Regarding Hearing Examiner Decision on PE- 1940 -04 This was an information only item and therefore, there was no discussion. 8. Council Check in — Mayor Wilhite- No report. 9. City Manager Comments - Dave Mercier City Manager mentioned his comment is for a request of Council to entertain a motion to adjourn into executive session. It was moved by Deputy Mayor Munson and seconded, to adjourn into executive session for 45 minutes or less to discuss pending litigation, and that afterwards, there may be a decision made. Council adjourned into executive session at 8:30 p.m. At approximately 9:10 p.m., Mayor Wilhite declared Council out of Executive Session and reconvened the regular meeting. It was then moved by Councilmember Denenny and seconded to authorize Mayor Study Session Minutes: 08 -30 -05 Page 4 of 5 Approved by Council: 09 -13 -05 Wilhite to send a letter to the Board of County Commissioners, on behalf of the Council, pertaining to an offer to begin negotiations regarding joint planning agreements. Councilmember DeVleming stated he would like the language of appeal removed from the letter, and Deputy Mayor Munson voiced opposition to that suggestion. Vote by Acclamation: In Favor: Mayor Wilhite, Deputy Mayor Munson, and Councilmembers Schimrnels, Taylor, Flanigan, and Denenny. Opposed: Councilmember- De Vlerning. Abstentions: None. Motion carried. 11 was moved by Councilmember Flanigan, seconded, and unanimously agreed upon to adjourn the meeting. The meeting adjourned at 9.14 p.m. _ / Hi istire Bainbrid, e, City Cler Study Session Minutes: 08 -30 -05 Approved by Council: 09 -13 -05 • c wW ati. Diana Wilhite, Mayor Page 5 of Mayor Diana Wilhite 11707 E. Sprague Ave., Ste. 106 Spokane Valley, WA 99206 Councilman Michael DeVleming 11707 E. Sprague Ave., Ste. 106 Spokane Valley, WA 99206 Councilman Gary Schimmcls 11707 E. Sprague Ave., Ste. 106 Spokane Valley, WA 99206 Councilman Dick Denenny 11707 E. Sprague Ave., Ste. 106 Spokane Valley, WA 99206 Dear Mayor Wilhite and City Council: Arpin Law Office 1 117 East 35' Avenue Spokane, Washington 99203 (509) 838 -9066 Fax: (509) 838 -9051 August 30, 2005 Deputy Mayor Rich Munson 11707 E. Sprague Ave., Ste. 106 Spokane Valley, WA 99206 Councilman Steve Taylor 11707 E. Sprague Ave., Ste. 106 Spokane Valley, WA 99206 Councilman Mike Flanigan 11707 E. Sprague Ave., Ste. 106 Spokane Valley, WA 99206 Re: Spokane County Urban (,rorr. th Area Expansion RT Development, et al; Spokane County File No. 03- CPA -S1 RECEIVED AUG 3 0 2OJ5 CITY CE GALLEY CLERK 1 represent Rich Dahill and his various entities in connection with certain real property they own in south Spokane County. In 2003, Mr. Dahrn submitted a request that the Comprehensive Plan be amended to include these properties in the Urhan Growth Area (UGA) and that the same he designated Low Density Residential. The Board of County Commissioners recently approved this amendment by Resolution 05 -0649. 1 understand that City Attorney Mike Connelly is briefing the Council on the procedural history of this amendment request and that the City may be considering filing an appeal of the Board's decision to the Growth Management Hearings Board. 1 ask that the Council consider the following information together with the enclosed materials, which were presented to thc Board at its public hearing on the amendment, prior to taking any action, as we submit that the record supports the Board's decision to include this area in thc UGA. Further, given the history of this area and the prior Board's failure to include this land in the original UGA and the apparent political nature of that decision. we ask that you not place Mr. Dahill in the middle ol'an apparent dispute Spokane Valley has with Spokane County relative to joint- planning efforts. In 2003, my clients submitted a Comprehensive Nan amendment request to have their properties included within Spokane County's Uri Growth Area (UGA) and redt.ipated from Urban Reserve to Low Density Residential. Shortly after the subm ittal, Spokane County'sl]ivisionof Building and Planning sent a letter requesting certain additional information in order for the application to be considered "complete," allowing Planning to continues to process the saute. Thereafter. the Planning Department made a recommendation to the Board that this item, together within the other UGA requests, be deferred until the 5 -yew update. However, the Board recognized that the amendment process did not preclude considering these amendments annually and that the applicants had provided the additional information requested by the County in connection with the amendment guests. `therefore, the Board directed Staff to process the applications. Based on that decision, my clients expended time and resources preparing additional materials and presenting the same at the public hearings before the Planning Commission. The Spokane County Planning Commission recommended that Mr. Dahrn's amendment be denied, relying primarily on its position that this amendments should be processed during the 5 -year update. In addition, the Planning Commission of fered the following justification for that recommendation: The PC recommends the existing Urban Reserve designation be retained and the request be considered during the Urban Growth Area (UGA) 5 -year update through the Growth Management Storing Committee of Elected Officials as described in the Countywide Planning Policy No. 19. The PC finds insufficient information consistent with the Capital Facilities Plan to support and provide full urban services for the request. The PC finds the SEPA checklist submitted with the amended request does not adequately address impacts to the environment, transportation system, storm raster, public sewer and water, police and fire protection, schools, and parks. In addition, there have been no changes to the population allocation or a revised land quantity analysis performed to document the overall need for additional land in the UGA. The prior Board concluded a 2- minute deliberation with a decision to adopt the Nanning Commission's recommendation, stating that application should be processed during the 5-year update. directly contradicting its prior direction. The prior -Board did not to even hold a hearing on the proposal, and instead adopted the Planning Commission's justification.' My client appealed the Board's decision to deny its application, challenging the decision based on a number of procedural and substantive grounds. Spokane County settled the appeal by agreeing to remand the matter for a public hearing in front of the Board of County Commissioners. This public hearing was held on June 7, 2005. Notice was mailed to all property owners and taxpayers within As outlined in the attached package which was presented to the Board on June 7, 21X)5, al its public hearing. the meted refutes the veracity of these justifications. 1000 feet of the proposal's boundary. This amounted to approximately 1000 mailings. over 250 of which were mailed via certified mail. Spokane Valley was mailed a notice as part of this mailing, In addition„ two signs were posted, one on Barker Road and one of the west boundary of the proposal. Not a single person or entity attended the public hearing to speak in opposition to the application. The Bawd deliberated for approximately hail and hour before approving the application. During those deliberations, the Board commented on what appeared to be a politically-drawn t boundary, noting that the current VGA boundary was drawn around my clients' property, despite the fact that there were vested developments and weer and sewer had been earterrded, at my client's expense, to serve the growth proposed to occur of this land. The Board noted that the record did not support either the Planning Commission's findings or the Board's reliance of the same. All services are available, many because of my clients' financial backing and the area is characterized by urban development As such the Board approved the amendment, enlarged the UGA and designated these properties low Density Residential. 1 have reviewed the record and find only one comment submitted by Spokane Valley. By letter dated February 5,2004. Community Development Director Marina Sukup offered three general comments of the application. First, she noted that Spokane Valley was just starting the process o f adopting its oWn Comprehensive Plan and as part of that process will be looking at its ability to accommodate new growth and any need for additional land.. Ms. Sekup next comments that, in her opinion, the County -Wide Planning Policies envision UGA expansion as part of a 5 -year update proms and, thus, she believes that the application should not have been accepted. S he concludes with requesting that the application be deferred and property owners interested in developing in this area 'be directed to Spokane Valley. See attached letter. To my knowledge, this is the only comment submitted by Spokane Valley. As you can see, the letter contains no substantive objection to the inclusion of the property. To my knowledge, Spokane Valley did not submit any other comment or otherwise involve itself in the amendment process. Rrther,1 do not recall that Spokane Valley submitted either written or oral comment to Planning Commission, the prior -Board or the new Board at their hearings on the amendment. White it is clear that Spokane Valley wanted a different process to be instituted to handle the amendment request, it does not appear as though it attempted to involve inlet fin the process which was used to ensure that any substantive concerns were addressed. This being said, both my clients and I appreciute Spokane Valley's desire that future growth in the area be guided Through joint - planning efforts. To the extent either myself or my client can provide any assistance in that regard, we are willing to do so. However, given the fact that these properties met all the criteria for inclusion in the lUGA boundary in 1997, and the final UGA boundary in 2001, we ask that the City Council not attempt to disturb the Board of County Commissioners' recent decision to include the property at this time. Mr. Dabm and 1 are more than happy to meet with any of you to discuss your concerns or to further elaborate on the history of these properties. 1 hope you find the enclosed materials useful in understanding the Hoards decision and hope that you can respect the same. As always. i f you have any questions or need additional information, please do not hesitate to contact me. enclosures cc: Mike Connelly Rich I)ahm