Loading...
2008, 11-18 Regular Meeting MinutesMayor Munson called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m., and welcomed everyone to the 148th meeting. Attendance: Rich Munson, Mayor Dick Denenny, Deputy Mayor Rose Dempsey, Councilmember Bill Gothmann, Councilmember Gary Schimmels, Councilmember Steve Taylor, Councilmember Diana Wilhite, Councilmember MINUTES City of Spokane Valley City Council Regular Meeting Tuesday, November 18, 2008 City Staff Mike Jackson, Deputy City Manager Mike Connelly, City Attorney Neil Kersten, Public Works Director Ken Thompson, Finance Director Kathy McClung, Community Development Dir Scott Kuhta, Senior Planner Lori Barlow, Associate Planner Mary Kate McGee, Building Official Christina Janssen, Assistant Planner John Whitehead, Human Resources Manager Carolbelle Branch, Public Information Officer Bill Miller, IT Specialist Chris Bainbridge, City Clerk INVOCATION: Father John Steiner of St. Mary's Catholic Church gave the invocation. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Mayor Munson 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 and unanimously agreed to approve the agenda. Mayor Munson mentioned there would be no executive session tonight. INTRODUCTION OF SPECIAL GUESTS AND PRESENTATIONS: n/a COMMITTEE, BOARD, LIAISON SUMMARY REPORTS: Councilmember Wilhite: reported that she attended the Spokane Regional Transportation Committee meeting where the audit of their federal funding management was discussed; she attended a meeting convened by Greater Spokane, Inc regarding transportation needs for all cities within Spokane County, that there were several legislators in attendance and they discussed ways to deal with cities' needs for new construction and how to fund their maintenance and operation of existing roads, that the presenter at that meeting was a representative from Avista, and also discussed ways to deal with needs through legislative action such as examining the idea of license tab fees. Ms. Wilhite reported that she attended the National League of Cities (NLC) conference last week in Orlando where she attended several sessions on the topic of re- development of cities and transportation issues. Councilmember Gothmann: mentioned he also attended several sessions at the NLC Conference, including one on conducting public meetings to engage the community in dialogue; and said that many cities are engaging the public by providing focus groups to set priorities and goals for the city in general, as he explained that the perception of the public may differ from staffs and council's perception concerning what the City should be doing, or how well things are going; he also stated that he addressed the issue of panhandling at various meetings including the Public Safety Committee of the City of Council Regular Meeting: 11 -18 -08 Page 1 of 9 Approved by Council: 12 -09 -08 Spokane, other organizations and entities, and that he and Mayor Munson will give another such presentation at tomorrow's Kiwanis meeting in Liberty Lake. Councilmember Dempsey: said that she also attended the NLC conference and mentioned that Councilmember Gothmann gave an introduction to panhandling while at the conference, which was very well received; that she also attended the Clean Air Agency meeting where the purchase of their new building was discussed, including the work needed to be done in order to move in; and said the group is preparing regulations on burning; and she reported she attended an Association of Washington Cities (AWC) training session on the topic of records and open public meetings. Councilmember Schimmels: stated that he attended the Solid Waste Liaison Board workshop a few weeks ago. Councilmember Taylor: explained he attended the Spokane Regional Convention Visitor's Bureau annual meeting where he heard about the impact of the Bureau's efforts concerning our economy. Deputy Mayor Denenny: mentioned the special STA meeting where they are working on the 2009 and 2010 budget, said that sales tax revenues are down and some adjustments are needed, and will likely affect future bus purchases, adding that rider fares only account for approximately 25% of the STA budget. MAYOR'S REPORT: Mayor Munson reported that he attended a stakeholders meeting for the TMDL (total maximum daily load) study for the Spokane River, and said that he is concerned about the wastewater treatment plant and whether it, will be allowed to be built; that he and others will meet this Thursday in Olympia with Mr. Jay Manning, Director of the Washington State Department of Ecology, to discuss with Mr. Manning the potential financial hardship which would be placed on this community should such plant not be built. Mayor Munson also reported he met with Judy Cole, facilitator for the Transportation Group for the Greater Spokane, Inc. and they discussed the Mayor's concern about the need for disbursing and collecting funds for transportation needs within the City, and of his desire to take care of our city first so as not to allow streets to deteriorate, even if it means that the City could not support the North /South freeway; that he also attended the STA Board meeting, and attended several other meetings where Councilmember Gothmann gave the panhandling presentation. PUBLIC COMMENTS: Mayor Munson invited general public comment. Ed Mertens, 1310 N Pierce Road: he read his statement explaining about his previous request for an appeal to council to have a four -way stop at Pierce and Boone based on an accident he was involved in last December; mentioned he received twenty seven signed petitions from his neighbors in support of the two -way stop as well; that he recently saw a surveyor on the hill side of Pierce who indicated he was taking a grade approach reading; Mr. Mertens said that he is now living near a basically illegal 11% grade with a stop sign on it; and when he read that staff is considering installing a stop sign ahead and /or steep grade sign, he said none of this would be necessary if just two new stop signs were installed on Pierce and Boone; and he suggested council come see the problem and help the twenty -seven homeowners who feel as he does that such stop sign is needed. 1. PUBLIC HEARING: Proposed Amended 2008 Budget — Ken Thompson Mayor Munson opened the public hearing at 6:23 p.m. and invited Finance Director Thompson to the podium. Mr. Thompson said the one item to amend the budget involves last winter's harsh weather which resulted in substantial snow plowing and de- icing; and that while the amount to amend the budget is not to exceed $500,000; staff feels the actual cost will be closer to $300,000. Mayor Munson invited public comment; no comments were offered and Mayor Munson closed the public hearing at 6:25 p.m. Council Regular Meeting: 11 -18 -08 Page 2 of 9 Approved by Council: 12 -09 -08 2. CONSENT AGENDA: Consists of items considered routine which are approved as a group. A Councilmember may remove an item from the Consent Agenda to be considered separately. a. Payroll for pay period ending October 31, 2008: $345,344.18 b. Council Regular Meeting Minutes of October 14, 2008 c. Council Study Session Meeting Minutes of October 21, 2008 d. Council Regular Meeting Minutes of October 28, 2008 e. Council Study Session Meeting Minutes of November 4, 2008 It was moved by Councilmember Wilhite, seconded, and unanimously agreed to approve the consent agenda.. NEW BUSINESS: 3. First Reading Proposed Ordinance 08 -024 Code Compliance Amendment (graffiti) — Cary Driskell After City Clerk Bainbridge read the ordinance title, it was moved by Councilmember Taylor and seconded to advance Ordinance 08 -024 to a second reading. City Attorney Connelly explained that this ordinance contains code enforcement changes which were approved by the Planning Commission; and he explained the proposed changes to Title 7, which adds the definition of graffiti, and declares all graffiti upon public or private property to be a nuisance. Mr. Connelly added that there was substantial work from Cary Driskell, the Sheriff's Office and the Neighborhood Association to combat graffiti and these changes are part of that overall effort; and said that this includes a two -tier approach: that manpower will be provided if the property owner allows that, to abate the graffiti. Mayor Munson invited public comment; no comments were offered. There was brief discussion about cleaning up graffiti, and mention that the majority of it is vandalism; and only perhaps 10% is gang related. Vote by Acclamation: In Favor: Unanimous. Opposed: None. Abstentions: None. Motion carried. 4. First Reading Proposed Ordinance 08 -025 UDC Code Compliance Related Ordinance — Cary Driskell After City Clerk Bainbridge read the ordinance title, it was moved by Councilmember Taylor and seconded to advance Ordinance 08 -025 to a second reading. City Attorney Connelly explained that this is the second half of the code compliance changes amending sections of Title 19 to make it compliant and consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. After Mr. Connelly explained the proposed changes, Mayor Munson invited public comment; no comments were offered. Vote by Acclamation: In Favor: Unanimous. Opposed: None. Abstentions: None. Motion carried. 5. First Reading Proposed Ordinance 08 -026 for Code Amendments — Christina Janssen After City Clerk Bainbridge read the ordinance title, it was moved by Councilmember Taylor and seconded to advance Ordinance 08 -026 to a second reading at the December 9, 2008 Council meeting. Community Development Director McClung explained that she will be removing the residential lighting standards from this batch amendment and send that back to the Planning Commission, as the way it stands herein proposed, it could pose a problem for every street light and there are no exceptions; she further explained that one of our Code Compliance Officers and Building Official Mary Kate McGee tested different neighborhoods and discovered that almost all lights would trigger this; and said we need a measurable standard; that she spoke with Mr. Trabun who initially brought this to Council's attention, and he understands the situation. Assistant Planner Janssen then explained the proposed changes and history of the proposals via her PowerPoint presentation. City Attorney Connelly added that Chapter 19.30.030 #7 was removed as it was unnecessary because it was determined that this was simply a re- statement of existing state law. Mayor Munson invited public comment; no comments were offered. Vote by Acclamation: In Favor: Unanimous. Opposed: None. Abstentions: None. Motion carried. 6. First Reading Proposed Ordinance 08 -027 Amending 2008 Budget — Ken Thompson After City Clerk Bainbridge read the ordinance title, it was moved by Councilmember Wilhite and seconded to advance Ordinance 08 -027 to a second reading on the December 9, 2008 Council agenda. Finance Director Thompson explained that this is the first reading to amend the 2008 budget, and as Council Regular Meeting: 11 -18 -08 Page 3 of 9 Approved by Council: 12 -09 -08 explained earlier is needed in order to pay for street maintenance from January and February's harsh winter; and that the maximum amount to amend is $500,000, while the expected actual amount is $300,000. Mayor Munson invited public comment; no comments were offered. Vote by Acclamation: In Favor: Unanimous. Opposed: None. Abstentions: None. Motion carried. Mayor Munson called for a five- minute recess at 6:57 p.m. and reconvened the meeting at 7:05 p.m. 7. First Reading Proposed Ordinance 08 -028 for Street Vacation STV -02 -08 — Lori Barlow After City Clerk Bainbridge read the ordinance title, it was moved by Councilmember Taylor and seconded to advance the ordinance to a second reading at a future city council meeting. Associate Planner Barlow went through her PowerPoint explaining the history and location of the proposed vacation. Ms. Barlow stated that because the Planning Commission's vote on this street vacation resulted in a tie, there is no Planning Commission recommendation; however, staff recommends denial of the request based on the findings stated in the Request for Council Action form, i.e.: (1) the change of use or vacation would not better serve the public because the street is needed to provide access for the full development of the property; (2) the street is necessary for public use and public access because development is underway to improve approximately 250' of 5 Avenue to provide access to a residential lot; (3) a substitution of a new and different public way would not be more useful to the public because residential development is underway that uses 5 Avenue for access and 5th Avenue should be continued to provide access for infill development; (4) conditions may change in the future as to provide a greater use or need than presently exists because infill development of the large lots adjacent to the right -of -way is anticipated and supported by the Comp Plan; and (5) no objections to the vacation were received from property owners, the general public or agencies with jurisdiction except the City's Public Works Department objected based on the plan to improve the west portion of 5 Avenue extending from Progress Road to the west boundary of parcel 45231.1508, should those properties develop; and she said that this property (Lot 1 and Lot 2) received preliminary approval as a short plat, and part of those conditions of approval is that in order to provide access to Lot 2, they are required to construct about half - width of 5 Avenue from the intersection of Progress Road up to the lot; therefore, development is underway which relies on 5 Avenue to provide access. She also mentioned that 6 Avenue provides access to Lot 1; while Lot 2 has no access and is proposed as off 5 Avenue, and that Lot 1 is part of the short plat which is a two -lot short plat. Ms. Barlow mentioned that an objection was received from the owner of a property which faces 6 which is not an adjacent property; but it was that property owner's opinion that we should maintain 5th Avenue right -of -way to eliminate the need for the traffic to access 6th to the potentially developed properties. Ms. Barlow included the review criteria that Council must consider in order to grant a vacation, and further stated that during the Planning Commission hearing, public testimony was taken from Arne Woodard on behalf of the applicant, and that Mr. Woodard is here tonight as well. Planner Barlow also mentioned the constructed house located on the west end of 5th Avenue; she further explained that Public Works noted that they met with the applicant previously, about a year ago to discuss the potential for a possible development in the area, and at that time, Public Works told the applicant that they would support the connection of St. Charles from 6 Avenue up to 4 Avenue so long as 5 Avenue provided the east/west connection from Progress up to that point where St. Charles would connect; and said these were all preliminary discussions as there was no application to support that; and that tonight's request is a request to vacate nearly 300' of 5 Avenue; and she said that if this request were to be granted, some provisions would need to be made for the turn - around of 5 Avenue where it dead -ends. Mayor Munson asked who gave the approval to build the home currently in the right -of -way; and Ms. Barlow said she believes that was a recent development within the last few years, which was a building permit approved by this City; but that the right -of -way was not in place so it was the opinion at the time that we did not have the ability to deny the building permit; and mentioned that the house does present an obstacle to connecting 5 Avenue from Progress. City Attorney Connelly mentioned that there was no Council Regular Meeting: 11 -18 -08 Page 4 of 9 Approved by Council: 12 -09 -08 right -of -way there; that that right -of -way had been vacated prior to Spokane Valley becoming a city; there was a building application which was applied for and it was not to build on the right -of -way, but to build on what at one time may have been a right -of -way but wasn't at this time. In response to Councilmember Taylor's question of why there would be right -of -way going east/west along 5 and not right -of -way through St. Charles going north/south; and Mr. Connelly said that we inherited this; and in looking at a map of our city, the lack of connections between streets is prevalent throughout the city, which is because roads were either never dedicated, or were vacated. Councilmember Taylor mentioned that most times when a vacation request is received, it is in conjunction with pending development, hence the need for the vacation; and that normally a plan or map showing why a vacation is needed is supplied, but he said that is not the case with this and Council has not seen those documents. Planner Barlow responded that staff knows conceptually the proposal was for a 14 -lot subdivision, but the pre- application conference was over a year ago, and at this time, it wasn't appropriate to bring forward an application as it was never submitted; and again stressed that there is no binding application at this point, which makes this a stand -alone street vacation request. Councilmember Taylor said that the request can be made as a pre- cursor to an application; but that Council is still being asked to make a judgment on this proposal, but Council doesn't know the full proposal and how it will look, including needed accesses. Mayor Munson asked if Council decides to deny the vacation, and the applicant moves forward to develop the fourteen lots, does that mean the denial ends the ability of the developer to proceed with development? Attorney Connelly said there are a few ways to address this: (1) if Council denies the vacation and a preliminary plat application is subsequently submitted, when such is actually submitted, staff will recommend certain conditions, one of which may be that a road needs to be constructed, or that connections be made, or that vacations occur; and added that many preliminary plat applications have conditions of approval to vacate a road in order to put in a new road; or (2) another way would be to condition a vacation request upon certain things occurring prior to finalizing a vacation, one of which could be the approval of a preliminary plat or the establishment of a roadway or having certain connections; and he added that he feels the applicant will likely discuss his future plans during comment tonight, but until an application is received, and specific conditions can be cited, what will happen with this property is an unknown. Therefore, if Council were to deny this vacation request, Mr. Connelly said it would not prejudice the development of this property, as it would simply come back to Council later as a petition to vacate as part of a preliminary plat; and Mr. Connelly said that Council can make it clear that any such denial would not be prejudicing the applicant's ability to apply in the future. Planner Barlow said that the developer feels it is important to the project to vacate the right -of -way, this property has numerous development options; that collectively the pieces owned by Mr. Elliott provide a large site and it could be divided into parcels consistent with R -3 zoning, which would front on R -3 and allow it to be developed. Mayor Munson invited public comments. Arne Woodard, 2511 South Best Road (distributed pictures to council): Mayor Munson said he would allow Mr. Woodward more time than the traditional three minutes since he is the applicant. Mr. Woodward stated he is the proponent for this proposal; said he is and has been a real estate broker for the last fourteen years; he said this request is because they were told they must vacate the area before submitting a preliminary application; which makes them feel as if they are in a "catch -22" position; that they have followed staff's directions and in doing so, have lost a year's time at the cost of about $35,000 in interest to Mr. Elliott; who has built and /or re -built several properties in this City; and who has well - maintained rental properties; he said when there is over $1 million tied up in these site improvements and initial purchase, and you end up with about $700,000 to split twelve of the fourteen lots, even with the complete vacation of 5 Avenue, it doesn't work out, as even at $65,000 a lot as a finished buildable lot, it leaves no place for profit on the lots; but as it sits now, it will be approximately $58,000 for a buildable lot with going from 6 to 4 with a street that jogs; and he said this plan will result in a neighborhood connecting to and complimenting another neighborhood; thus giving connectivity and dual excess and no dead -ends; and thus will not end up with "six foot jungle fences all through this and therefore no Council Regular Meeting: 11 -18 -08 Page 5 of 9 Approved by Council: 12 -09 -08 neighborhood;" he said he has no financial interest in this project other than being Mr. Elliott's real estate broker; as Mr. Elliott is the owner; and he said the intention of going from 4 to 6 is to try to keep the traffic flow away from areas where it could impact other families and other properties, thus this proposal will create a neighborhood where kids can play. Mr. Woodard explained the pictures he distributed: picture #1 is on the east end of 5 showing the half -end access off the back of a lot; picture #7 is the front side of this property showing lots of access past the house, and that there are two ways into this property; picture #6 is from 5 Avenue looking back into the property; and picture #2 shows the area coming from 4 th ; picture #8 shows Crestview and a "hammerhead" configuration; pictures 9 and 10 show the kind of affordable housing Mr. Elliott builds, which are estimated at under $200,000 even with the expensive lot cost. Mayor Munson asked Mr. Woodard if the reason for the delay in getting the preliminary plat started was because he was told the vacation must be approved and Mr. Woodard stated it was. Brent Elliott, 3306 W. Bruce, Spokane, 99208: stated that economic feasibility and desirable neighborhoods are two issues to remember with this proposal; he explained that if they start to cut into the neighborhood as proposed by Ms. Barlow, he will have to take away lots, which hurts him and the city by lack of real estate taxes and by not having a nice neighborhood; and that his neighborhood is desirable, and close to just about everything. John DeLeo, 1420 W. Lake Shore Drive, Whitefish, Montana, formerly of Spokane Valley: said he has worked with Mr. Elliott for the last four years on this and other projects; that he is a Washington licensed civil engineer; he showed a poster board depicting the offset of St. Charles and their proposal of taking it from 6 to 4 it provides connectivity to the adjacent neighborhoods, provides a looped fire system, and will have the maximum infill possible in that area; that 5 could never be constructed all the way through due to the existing home; and this plan provides one of the best alternatives for this area; he agreed they were asked to do the vacation first prior to putting in their proposal; and said that Mr. Elliott has lost a year; and in reference to what Mr. Connelly previously said, Mr. DeLeo suggested Council consider a conditional approval of the vacation conditioned that the preliminary plat being constructed as shown and as public works suggested with St. Charles going through, rather than set this back further. Charles McVey, 15116 East 4 Avenue: said he would like to see 5 vacated all together; that about six months prior to the City incorporating, the County almost gave them that 5 Avenue back, it was going to vacate it and let them have it back as citizens, Councilmember Taylor questioned who would be harmed by this vacation; he said that we have a development proposal which provides connectivity; and said he doesn't see the practicability of denying the vacation; Councilmember Gothmann asked Ms. McClung if the vacation must be precedent to submitting the plat, and Ms. McClung said she would not be able to answer that now as she would need to research who made the comment and why. Councilmember Gothmann explained that Council could either deny the vacation, that an appropriate plat plan would be submitted including the vacation, and then would come before the Planning Commission or Council; or Council could approve the vacation conditioned upon receipt of an acceptable plat plan; and he asked if it would be a reasonable process to deny this but leave the petitioner the option of coming to staff with an acceptable plat which may indicate he has to vacate; and Ms. McClung said she would need to perform some research as this is a new situation; and since street vacations go to the Planning Commission and then Council, and subdivisions don't, it makes it awkward. City Attorney Connelly explained that there are two separate and distinct acts in play: the preliminary plat is applied for, and staff recommendations are made and it goes to the Hearing Examiner for approval consideration, with or without conditions; but that a street vacation is done per State Statute by going before the Planning Commission for public hearing then to Council; and he said the timing of the two is controlled by the applicant as to which one he applies for in his own timing; and both independent actions Council Regular Meeting: 11 -18 -08 Page 6 of 9 Approved by Council: 12 -09 -08 can be conditioned upon the other action if Council desires. By way of disclosure, Councilmember Gothmann said that one of the photos he has shows his daughter's house. Deputy Mayor Denenny said that we are consistently trying to find more areas to infill and he feels infill is desirable; and from the viewpoint of affordability, if someone is willing to develop infill, the mechanisms should be provided to accomplish that; therefore he feels it reasonable to have the north /south connection and have the additional lots and vacate the property. Councilmember Dempsey voiced her agreement with Councilmember Taylor, and said she sees no harm by this vacation; provided such approval is made conditionally upon submittal of appropriate plans. Mayor Munson said it appears to him that there was a lack of communication in this process; that one party was not aware of the possible two ways of handling this as per Mr. Connelly's explanation; and if that information was available at the beginning of this process, we likely would not be looking at this now as it would likely have gone to the Hearing Examiner; and he expressed his concern with the time it has taken for this proposal to get this far; that we should not take a year to get a plan approved that could have been approved in three or four months or less; and said he feels this vacation should be 'approved conditionally; that an approved plat plan should be developed that would allow the vacation to make more sense then currently proposed, and that Council can see the way the plan will be developed; and he reiterated that one of the reasons we went forward with a basic restructuring of our permit department was to avoid these kinds of things, and it appears had the current structure been in place it would have occurred. Councilmember Taylor added that there are other variables involved; that a project idea was brought to staff and staff disagreed with how this should proceed based upon the need for a vacation of right -of -way; that staff brought forward their objections to this and therefore, it appears staff would not have approved this application; so the option for the applicant is to request a vacation and put in the formal application once such vacation is completed; and if the applicant was denied the application, then they would be forced to alter the plat; and we don't know when the street vacation was actually applied for by the applicant. Mayor Munson said we know that the preliminary plat was submitted a year ago. City Attorney Connelly stated that there has been no application for a preliminary plat; there was a pre - development meeting, and that staff holds hundreds of those that often never turn into anything; and stressed there has been no application yet for a preliminary plat. Planner Barlow stated that in the file, there is a memorandum from the development engineering department to whoever attended that pre - application meeting, which memorandum is dated December 14, 2007, states that "Development Engineering has reviewed the preliminary site plan submitted for the above referenced project. We will not recommend vacation of 5 Avenue and can thus proceed no further with review of the plan as currently drawn. Please provide an updated site plan with all necessary requirements. We will be happy to review it then." Planner Barlow continued that was when those discussions went forth concerning the support of the extension of St. Charles with the continuation of 5 connecting into St. Charles; and she said to her knowledge, there has been no further information brought forward. Councilmember Taylor added that he does not see staff being obstructive; that this was an alternative, and feels everything has been done properly. Councilmember Gothmann suggested the vacation move forward. Mayor Munson asked then if Council approves the vacation conditionally on having an approved plat plan, would the planning department be in a position to move forward and assist the developer in developing the north/south street; or will staff continue to state the need to keep 5 Avenue? Mr. Barlow said that would depend upon Council's directive; as if the direction was to bring forward an acceptable plat, then it would still be the continued recommendation from public works that 5 connect into it; but if Council directed toward the Hearing Examiner, then staff would proceed in that direction; and said that anything over nine lots would still require review and approval by the Hearing Examiner; so staff would simply be making a recommendation in that regard. Mr. Connelly said that once Council has determined its path, staff can craft the ordinance accordingly; and reminded everyone that a street vacation is a legislative act and once done it is done; but there can be and often are conditions which accompany street vacations; keeping in mind Hearing Examiner processes are separate; and he reminded Council that the Council Regular Meeting: 11 -18 -08 Page 7 of 9 Approved by Council: 12 -09 -08 current ordinance still needs refining prior to final adoption. Deputy Mayor Denenny mentioned that the development west of Progress does not have a through street, and this proposal would include connectivity, and therefore he sees no reason not to approve that. The consensus of Council was to have an ordinance simply approving the street vacation. Vote by acclamation on the motion to advance the ordinance to a second reading at a future city council meeting: In Favor: Unanimous. Opposed: None. Abstentions: None. Motion carried. 8. Proposed Resolution 08 -021 Amending Fee Resolution — Ken Thompson After City Clerk Bainbridge read the Resolution title, it was moved by Councilmember Gothmann and seconded to approve Resolution 08 -021 setting fees for 2009. Finance Director Thompson explained that the last time this was discussed, he was asked to bring back more information on how fees changed over the last five years, and how our fees compare with City of Spokane and Spokane County. Mr. Thompson through his PowerPoint presentation, showed the fee comparison with Spokane County and City; and showed those fees which have changed over time. Mr. Thompson also mentioned that two issues at hand are, does council desire to charge for the pre - application meeting and if so in what amount; and does council want to have an inflationary increase throughout all fees. Mr. Thompson brought Council's attention to the few suggested revisions to the resolution, mentioned that most of the building department changes were merely re- arranging the items from one page to another; mentioned the two subdivisions with higher stormwater fees as those subdivisions have holding ponds, removed the fax fee, corrected the $7.00 item on page 9 to $7.50; mentioned that the $30.00 picnic shelter fee was felt to be too low; and mentioned the new time extension fee. Mr. Thompson also mentioned as was re- stated by Fire Marshall Kevin Miller, that the Fire fees have been in place since 2003, and these new fees represent today's cost. Discussion focused on the pre - application fee with mention that if the meeting is required why should it also require a fee; that cost recovery is necessary; and the process is needed in order to streamline the process and eliminate wasted time. Ms. McClung said that there is no question that a pre- application meeting needs to be taken seriously by both parties, and it will save time on both the developer /applicant's end as well as staff's, that some members of the public complain when they don't receive good feedback; and the reason for the fee is, if you pay a fee, you take the process more serious; and that it is money well spent as it usually involves spending more time with a traffic engineering, civil engineering, planning and building which all takes at least an hour to prepare; and she suggested charging . for it but subtracting it from the application fee once that is submitted. Council concurred with that suggestion. Regarding an across the board inflationary increase, Mr. Thompson stated that the recommended level is 10% although costs have increased approximately 16% each year. It was Council 's consensus after discussin ! the to is that sta will onl add 5% to ees not increased since 2003; and that there will be a notation included on the fee resolution concerning the pre- application fee being applied against the application fee once submitted. Mayor Munson invited public comments. Edie Streicher had initially signed up (and submitted written comments) to speak, but concurred with Ms. McClung's suggestion for the pre - application fee. Dick Behm, 9405 East Sprague: mentioned there is no allowance for the size of the project, and he feels Council is nickel and diming people to death; that a permit costs about 5% of the cost of his project as he's not doing a big project, and he therefore feels there should be no fee. Councilmember Gothmann withdrew his motion to approve Resolution 08 -021; and it was determined that staff will make the necessary changes and this item will be brought back at a future council meeting. Council Regular Meeting: 11 -18 -08 Page 8 of 9 Approved by Council: 12 -09 -08 PUBLIC COMMENTS: Mayor Munson invited general public comments. Harry Sladich, President Spokane Regional Convention & Visitor's Bureau: in reference to the Lodging Tax Advisory Committee recommendations, he expressed his thanks to Council for their support, adding that this is a difficult task especially this year with so many reductions in revenues; and he mentioned some recent training of his staff to help better answer questions of what is there to do in this region. DELIBERATION: 9. Sprague /Appleway Revitalization Plan - Scott Kuhta Mayor Munson announced that in the interest of time, this item will not be discussed tonight, but noted it is set for the December 2 study session, with only one other quick agenda item prior to that deliberation. Mr. Kuhta said that tonight's plan was to discuss nonconforming provisions so staff will start with that next time; and he asked if Council has any questions or would like staff to follow up on any item, to please let him know; and he also mentioned he has copies for Council of all the Planning Commission minutes where they deliberated on the SARP, and that staff is organizing letters in order to identify which letters pertain to which issue. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS: 10. Lodging Tax Advisory Committee Recommendations — Councilmember Wilhite Councilmember Wilhite said that the outcome of the discussion with the committee is as shown on the attached documents; and said that Administrative Assistant Sue Passmore has all the applications if council wants to review the grant applications; and in response to a question concerning the lack of funding to the Winery, Councilmember Wilhite said the committee members decided not to allocate funds since the winery is a for - profit and because of the needs of others; and added the committee learned that the Museum had been sending out brochures to various agencies but without paying a "rack fee," any brochures placed in racks were discarded; and that several committee members will be meeting with Jayne Singleton to help her re- design the brochure in order to disseminate the information at a lower production cost. INFORMATION ONLY: The following items were for information only and were not reported on or discussed: Response to Public Comments, Pipeline Franchise, AAA Sweeping Services Update, City Hall Design Services. EXECUTIVE SESSION: n/a There was brief discussion about having a Council meeting next week, but Mayor Munson said he feels staff is not prepared at this short notice; Councilmember Wilhite added that the week has been traditionally taken off, and she sees no harm in delaying the SARP discussion; followed by comment from Councilmember Dempsey that the "no meeting" has been on the advance agenda for several months. Deputy Mayor Denenny mentioned that while at the NLC Conference, he spoke with representatives from Lakewood Colorado, which has situations very similar to ours concerning re- development, and he encouraged others to visit that city's website. There being no further business, it was moved by Deputy Mayor Denenny, seconded, and unanimously agreed to adjourn. The meeting adjourned at 8:58 p.m. pristine Bainbrid:-, City Clerk ichard M • on Mayor Council Regular Meeting: 11 -18 -08 Page 9 of 9 Approved by Council: 12 -09 -08 NAME PLEASE PRINT TOPIC OF CONCERN YOU WILL SPEAK ABOUT ADDRESS TELEPHONE 2 7769-0-ee. v - 93 //1-- C i N i e x T e - t 0 6 1 p y. Li `I,vA` S r i P il- - 6ei) - 4 - dL t" to N A e ee ?aio„- ?? � ti n ►4%∎ c L ' -1- k \I t A--;,, i 4 w L41e54c i r 12/1/ 3 2,6 ..67 - 5 y (4_S __\ -, Mc-1E- , :, , 15 ( 1 R 01A ki k 7 e. - 0( (05 E i � - .rc_ -E2 i). c6 - ()a I 5J1 fTh E L{ 1v. -5a - `1 - I b ,. E//(vt 3-4-1? Au-e- if-tc-cd0-1 0 6 L 4,c‘,__- 36z p,,_�ck Lo_. -.) l w , 2ky , -7 '1 Z- /3 70 PUBLIC COMMENT SIGN -IN SHEET SPOKANE VALLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: November 18, 2008 CITIZEN COMMENTS YOUR SPEAKING TIME WILL BE LIMITED TO THREE MINUTES Sign in if you wish to make Dublic comments. GOOD EVENING MR. MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE COUNCIL MY NAME IS: EDWARD J. MERTENS 1310 N. PIERCE RD. SPOKANE VALLEY, WA. 99206 WHEN I WAS HERE AT THE COUNCIL MEETING ON OCTOBER 11 TH , HEARING, I BROUGHT BEFORE YOU A REQUEST FOR AN APPEAL TO OUR 4 -WAY STOP AT PIERCE RD AND BOONE AVENUE. BASED ON THE ACCIDENT I WAS INVOLVED IN ON DECEMBER 26 TH . AS MANY OF YOU KNOW ME AS I WAS INVOLVED IN GETTING THE SIGNATURES THAT GAVE US OUR GREAT CITY. AND BASED ON OUR CONSTITUTION, WE ARE FOR THE PEOPLE, BY THE PEOPLE AND WITH THE PEOPLE.. BASED ON THIS, I WAS ABLE TO PROVIDE YOU ALL A LIST OF 27 PEOPLE, MY NEIGHBORS ON PIERCE RD. AND A PORTION OF BOONE AVENUE. ALL THESE NEIGHBORS FEEL THE 4 -WAY STOPS ARE THE WAY - TO GO. AFTER I HAD PLACED THE ATTEMPT TO GET SOME ACTION, THE NEXT EVENING WHEN I TOOK MY LITTLE POODLE FOR A WALK IN THE DIRECTION OF THE INTERSECTION INVOLVED, I SAW A SUVEYOR SURVEYING THE HILL SIDE ON PIERCE ROAD AND HE INDICATED HE WAS TAKING A GRADE APPROACH READING. I LOVED TO SEE SOME ACTION BEING TAKEN. NOW WITH THE REPORT OF THE CITY TRAFFIC ENGINEER, ING NOTE I AM LIVING NEAR A BASICALLY ILLEGAL 11% GRADE WITH A STOP SIGN ON IT, AND HAVE BEEN FOR THE FIFTY YEARS I HAVE LIVED IN MY HOME I BUILT. WHEN I READ THAT STAFF IS CONSIDERING THE INSTALLATION OF A "STOP SIGN AHEAD, AND /OR STEEP GRADE SIGN" NONE OF THIS WOULD BE NECESSARY IF JUST 2 NEW STOP SIGNS WERE INSTALLED ON BOONE AVENUE STOPPING THE CROSS TRAFFIC ON BOONE. THEY WOULD SAVE ON THE COST OF A SPECIAL SIGN. I WOULD STRONGLY SUGGEST THAT YOU COUNCIL MEMBERS COME SEE THIS PROBLEM AND TRY AND HELP 27 HOME OWNERS THAT FEEL THE SAME WAY._BOUT THIS 'AS I DO. WITH WINTER WEATHER JUST AROUND THE CORNER AND SNOW PREDICTED, THE SOONER THIS IS SOLVED WILL BE FOR THE BETTER. ED MERTENS -5 .0 3 ..5505 ADDRESS UNKNOWN 45263 505 RE ES 14304 25TH L 2511 3 BEST RD 45283.O313 HOME BUILDERS . ASSOCIATION :: 5813 East 4th Ave; Ste 201 • Spokane Valley; WA 9 (509) 532 -4990 • Fax (509) 532 -4980 • www.SHBA.com ovember.18, :2008 • Mayor Richard Munson City of :Spokane Valley 11707 :East Sprague Avenue, Suite 106 Spokane Valley, WA. 99206: Re: Resolution.08 =021 Amending Fee Resolution Dear .Mayor Munson and City Councilmembers: On behalf of . the . Spokane Home Builders Association. I" would like to submit comments pertaining to the Amending Fee Resolution presented by the City of. Spokane. Valley Finance staff. Our Association fails to see a need for an inflationary increase in building permit fees. The City is not providing any new or improved services. The number of building permits issued this year is down in comparison to 2007 and 2006 figures. We expect a further decline in permit applications as the national economy remains unstable. It seems the City could possibly study more ways in which to decrease expenditures or explore other funding sources to increase the building and planning budget. One of our major concerns with this resolution is the . proposed charge of $250 for a pre application meeting. We believe .charging builders and developers, this meeting, when it is required by the City, is : not a reasonable course of action:. This meeting benefits the City, not the developer: Should. the City decide to waive the requirement of a pre - application meeting, and a meeting is then requested by a developer, . it is understandable the . developer would pay a fee based upon the regular hourly employee rate of $58, not to exceed $250. We ask Council . to weigh the decision of whether or not to impose increased and new fees carefully.. Any time a local government raises construction : costs by increasing the price of a construction permit, a tap fee; or imposing an impact fee, the cost of building a house in that area rises, and affordability is necessarily reduced. While a five or ten percent increase may not seem substantial, if you look back historically, at the increases, they have risen a lot quicker than the median income, and those increases have played a part in causing the price of housing to jump over 70 percent since 1999. , Moreover, the increase in the price of the home to the home buyer will generally be more than . the increase in the governmental fee. This is because when construction costs rise, other costs such as financing costs and broker commissions rise in tandem. To be precise, the National Association of Home Builders estimates that for every $819 rise in fees paid at the beginning of the construction process, the final price of the home to the buyer increases by $1,000, or 22 percent more than the initial fee. In addition, when the cost of a median - priced new house rises, prices of existing houses rise too. As a result, affordability across all price levels is reduced whenever building fees are raised for all home buyers. Thank you for your time, consideration, and opportunity to comment. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me. Res ectfully submitted, ie Streicher Legislative Affairs Coordinator Spokane Home Builders Association cc: Deputy Mayor Dick Denenny Councilmember Rose Dempsey Councilmember Bill Gothmann Councilmember Gary Schimmels Councilmember Steve Taylor Councilmember Diana Wilhite