Loading...
2005, 10-04 Study Session MinutesAttendance: Councilmembers: Diana Wilhite, Mayor Deputy Mayor Munson Mike DeVleming, Councilmember Dick Denenny, Councilmember Mike Flanigan, Councilmember Gary Schimmels, Councilmember Steve Taylor, Councilmember MINUTES CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY STUDY SESSION Tuesday, October 4, 2005, 6:00 p.m. Staff: Dave Mercier, City Manager Nina Regor, Deputy City Manager Mike Connelly, City Attorney Ken Thompson, Finance Director Neil Kersten, Public Works Director Mike Jackson, Parks & Recreation Director Marina Sukup, Community Development Director Scott Kuhta, Senior Planner Greg McCormick, Planning Manager Carolbelle Branch, Public Information Officer Chris Bainbridge, City Clerk Mayor Wilhite called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m., welcomed all in attendance. Employee Introductions: Deputy City Manager Regor explained that Trish Burns -Hart, Human Resource Analyst is unable to attend due to a law school class, and that she was previously introduced several months ago as a Legal Intern. Ms. Regor then introduced newly hired receptionist Patti McConnville. Public Works Director Kersten explained that Tim Klein is unavailable tonight, and we will re- schedule his introduction for another night. Council welcomed new employee Patti McConnville. 1. Comprehensive Plan, Planning Commission Presentation, Recommended Draft - David Crosby Mayor Wilhite extended her personal thanks to all members of the Planning Commission, and staff for all the work on drafting and compiling the Plan. Planning Commission Chair Crosby introduced the members of the Planning Commission: Bob Blum, Gail Kogle, Ian Robertson, and Fred Beaulac; and also acknowledged John Carroll who was not in attendance. Mr. Crosby thanked the Planning Commission members for their diligent work; and expressed his delight in presenting the first comprehensive plan for the City, to plan and determine how our City will look 20 years from now. As Chair Crosby went through his PowerPoint presentation, he explained that everything has been put up on the website in order to give as much information to the public as possible. Mr. Crosby also made reference to the Public Comment notebook, containing written comments received from members of the community. Mr. Crosby also extended commendations to staff for their work in having items ready for Planning Commission members as they met twice a week for nine weeks; and for working so diligently through the process. In addition, there is a minority report, he explained, on those issues where there was not full Planning Commission consensus. He stated that the north Greenacres and Ponderosa neighborhoods brought good recommendations to the process, and Mr. Crosby thanked them for their assistance and input. As Council deliberates this huge task, Mr. Crosby said he will avail himself as a resource and looks forward to seeing where Council will take the Plan from here. Councilmember Flanigan asked how many individual citizens (not repeat commenters) took part in the hearing process; and Community Development Director Sukup said she estimates 300 at the public hearings; not including those who called and sent letters and /or e- mails; and that staff has approximately 3,000 names in the database. In response to Mr. Flanigan's question about other district representatives being present or giving written comment; Mr. Crosby said that not all entities were represented at the Study Session Minutes: 10 -04 -05 Page 1 of 3 Approved by Council: 10 -11 -05 meetings. Mr. Kuhta added that all service providers were contacted, such as fire and water districts, in an attempt to obtain coordination on the Plan, and that some entities did send information. Mr. Flanigan stated he would like to know which entities responded and /or participated. City Manager Mercier asked Mr. Crosby how he would describe the staff's input, did staff provide information on the pros and cons and does this document reflect Planning Commission thinking or is it staff driven? Mr. Crosby responded that this is not staff's document; that staff was there as an advisor; that this is the Planning Commission document; and present Planning Commissioners all concurred. Mr. Crosby stated that staff had input, and sometimes the Planning Commission took their recommendations and sometimes not. Deputy Mayor Munson indicated he would like to have access to the public input Comments Notebook. Chair Crosby stated that all parts of the Plan touch the other parts, and the Parks and Recreation Master Plan was the last chapter they examined, and that they examined every chapter of the plan, line by line. Discussion ensued on the overall vision and goals of the city and where we would like to be in 10, 15, and 20 years; shaping the character of the city; different city center scenarios; in- filling versus sprawl; the city providing the framework; and the private sector working to fill in the areas; a place for all the citizens, form young families to retirees; and that the document can and should be changed over the years. Mr. Crosby said that the City Center is perhaps one of the most important aspects of the Plan; that citizens commented, and Planning Commission members concurred, that we have no identity and a City Center would help to establish an identity. Council and Mr. Crosby discussed how this all fits in with the Council's vision, protecting the neighborhoods yet allowing for proper development; that the Parks plan will help the "play" aspect of the vision, and that the Plan will protect the environment. Mr. Crosby stated that the greatest challenge will be to implement the plan and advise how to overcome challenges; and how to implement the plan in a fiscally responsible manner. Mayor Wilhite again extended thanks to all those involved for all their work; and said that Council will be pleased to have Planning Commission members here during deliberations. 2. Comprehensive Plan Deliberation Approach — Nina Regor Deputy City Manager Regor explained that the purpose of this agenda item is to obtain Council feedback on the general approach as they deliberate on the Plan; which will help staff negotiate meetings, legal notices, public opportunities, etc. and staff seeks enough direction which would enable to get things done in the lead time necessary. As Ms. Regor went through her PowerPoint presentation, she stated that there is no maximum number of hearings to hold, but we are required to hold at least two and she asks Council's preference on hearings; also that it might be beneficial to the public to know which sections Council will deliberate upon and when. Discussion ensued between Councilmembers and staff on what chapters (if any) could or should be combined for deliberation purposes; which ones are easiest, which more complicated; how much time might be needed for each chapter, and of not duplicating the efforts of the Planning Commission; of including smaller pieces into typical Council meetings schedule; and of the time schedule necessary to adopt the Plan. It was determined that Council prefers to hold the first public hearing as scheduled for October 18, and to hold a second public hearing October 25 rather then wait until November; and after Council has had opportunity to read the Plan and hear testimony, Council would be in a better position for further planning on the deliberation process. Councilmember Flanigan reminded all that he still wants to receive input from affected jurisdictions, such as the water districts, fire districts, school districts, etc. Study Session Minutes: 10 -04 -05 Page 2 of 3 Approved by Council: 10 -11 -05 3. Advance Agenda Additions — Mayor Wilhite Mayor Wilhite mentioned that there is one opening on the Lodging Tax Advisory Committee, and applications can be obtained from the City Clerk. Mr. Mercier also reminded Council that they may want to schedule a "legislative agenda" item on an upcoming council agenda for Council's initial thoughts of items to take to Olympia. 4. Council Check in — Mayor Wilhite No comments. 5. City Manager Comments - Dave Mercier No comments. There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 7:30 p.m. ristine Bainbridge, City Clerk r)to\ (k) dC.‘A, Diana Wilhite, Mayor Study Session Minutes: 10 -04 -05 Page 3 of 3 Approved by Council: 10 -11 -05 ' - rkSanCml of Cominnil} Oc.clupmrat - - 41 Planning Viv *. .. Spokane Valley 2005— 2025 Comprehensive Plan Planning Commission Recommendation David Crostvy, Chairman October 4, 2005 I , . �� Ipartmenl of Community rk.elopmras Plannin Din [slim Purposes of Plan •:• Full citizen participation •:• Benchmark existing conditions :• Consolidate requirements into single document •i Provide explanation of interdependencies between elements •• Provide policy roadmap for community over life of the plan •: Meet State and Federal planning requirements I �./• •' • tkyutmests7 Cnnimcaiir llnrroy cm "` Planning LA%isics Public Participation • 9 Community Meetings as part of the visioning process 2 Open Houses in July 2005 • 4 Public hearings before the Planning Commission • Web postings for discussion and hearing drafts ▪ Database of participants and interested parties Citizen Survey • Public Notice of ell meetings, media coverage and speakers — togs of all meetings maintained t• Invitation for written comment requested at all meetings � i .�. of Community Iloco•d 1 — nrpartment pmr t YRmttin; Ohidon +J^ PC Deliberations • Planning Commission met to deliberate twice a week for nine consecutive weeks All public comments were evaluated Corrections and • ±anges were initially approved by consensus — final approval by vote following review of changes requested for each chapter • Planning Commission recommended approval of the entire document unanimously on September 15, 2005 • A minority report on specific sues by individual Commissioners is included in the recommendation s r"•-. Ufvenornl of fommunity Ur.d N opme f d_�2�iati�+1 Wttcnin; arrision Plan Elements • Mandatory ✓ Land Use ✓ Transportation ✓Capital Facilities ✓ Housing ✓ Utilities ' Development ✓ Parks & Recreation •:• Optional ✓ Natural Environment ✓ Neighborhood&Sub -area Dewitt Larne or t :nmmnmry Ikwtnpmrm • •• J i punning UviJm SEPA Requirements •: Comprehensive Plan being prepared as an "Integrated Document" •• Draft SEIS issued as part of the Public Hearing Draft Comprehensive Plan Depnnm G�n ent of uuitr Deveropmmt 1 �� 41!.Usf a Pptnarna Divisimt Land Use :• Required "Encourage development in urban areas where adequate public facilities and services exist or can be provided in an efficient manner ✓ Reduce Sprawl ✓ Encourage affordable housing for all economic segments, variety of housing types and preservation of existing housing stock ✓ Encourage the retention of open space and development of recreational opportunities I Dew ri aenl of Coa =unit? Development ! , Ptensina Division �,� Land Use (continued) ✓ Protect the environment and enhance the state's high quality of life ✓ Public facilities and services shall be adequate to serve development at the time the development is available for occupancy and use without decreasing current service levels below locally estabIshed minimum standards ✓ Preserve lands, sites, and strictures that have historical or archaeological sigrificanoe. ✓ Property rights shall be protected ( • Depn �YY.. rtmsri of Cnm monfty rlccdepoenl !?t=.:".ineen i Planning niscios Land Use •:• Includes only the City Center as the preferred local alternative •3 Issues include designation of aesthetic corridors and billboards :• Text and maps I , ` repsr[erma of Commaaity Development Mitafig Planning ni•is,an Transportation •:• Required ✓ Efficient multimo& I transportation systems based on regional priorities and coordinated with county and city comprehensive plans ✓ Facilities and services adequate to serve development at the time the development is available for occupancy and use without decreasing current service levels below locally established • minimum standards ✓ Modes include road, rail, aviation, pedestrian, bicycle and pipeline — inventories and maps Deputmctt ar(:ommonity INnwI„ pmrm r '" f ... .y wl Pts.sing Drain, •:• Required ✓ Transportation ✓ Sewer ✓ Wafter ✓ Storrnwater ✓ Solid Waste ✓ Parks and Recreation Capital Facilities ✓ libraries ✓ Public Buildings ✓ Schools ✓Fire ✓ PaSce 1 �. "` -' 0.roartmee or Cmumraity Development Planning Divisitn Capital Facilities •:• Inventory ✓ Location (tables, major, nerritti o) ✓ Cepacies :• Forecast of Future Needs ✓ fanscd on future demand and adopted levels of service (LOS) • 6 year Capital Improvement Plan ✓ Loot ns ✓ Capacities ✓ Ycnr ✓ Financing Plan ✓ Funding of Capital Improvements ✓ Clearly Identidy Revenue Sources --- I34-tr.1mn or Gmmseannl on.clnl■nrmt 'tdt Lo., ,i PlanninN et. iLml Housing • Required ✓ Inventory & itttys of existing & projected needs ✓ Polder, obiectives for preservation, improvement & dovcfopment ✓ Idcnlifios land tor hou ✓ Adequate provision for ALL economic segments of the community • Update statistical to year end if possible I Lteptrtmeut of Communiii Ik.Nopmesst fgannina Division • Required ✓ Electrical ✓ Natural Gas ✓ Telecommunications Private Utilities I ti y/�. ' • `" Ikportteert oleommuafty lk.rinpmcat v Plimaing lii.asion Economic Development C. Required 1 Summary of Local E, xtarrry / Summary of Strorghs and Woaknesaos 1 Policies, Programs, and Projects that foster emnornic growth a development C. Valley Chamber proposed changes and additions, many of which were included — other suggestions included in other chapters. including NeighborhoodfSub -area • $ !•-. --" D■rprtmt Community DcwInpmmn a nr of ....-- PLcning niva"vn Natural Environment Requited I Critical areas: wetlands, aquifer recharge and gtoundwater, fish 8 wcdlife habitat, flooded areas, gewfogily Ivutadats oasts., surface Water I Shoreline frlasler Program Shoreline Master program is being developed in conjunction with Spokane County and no change is included in the present Plan because of the need for additional citizen participation Iteportmemoft:anemunit; Development I j _.11y Vtvnnisg ubliluu Parks & Recreation Required E 1iinz e d parks & recreation dernands far at feast 19 years; "Evaluation cd fec ikkYJes erre service needs: and "Evaluation o1 intergovernmental cocrd nation oppergrnilies Levels of Service included within Capital Facilities Chapter c"r1 I•prtmem of Community Development j Fbruing DMoion Neighborhood /Sub -area :• Optional element t.• Requested by several neighborhoods and included in Valley Chamber recommendations I � \ "" t 1 ev dm ent •f Community I»vopmn 1 1 (jdl,�,„y Planning Divisive Questions?