2015, 06-02 Study Session MINUTES
SPOKANE VALLEY CITY COUNCIL
REGULAR MEETING
STUDY SESSION FORMAT
Spokane Valley City Hall Council Chambers
Spokane Valley,Washington
June 2,2015 6:00 p.m.
Attendance:
Councilmembers Staff
Dean Grafos, Mayor Mike Jackson, City Manager
Arne Woodard, Deputy Mayor Mark Calhoun, Deputy City Manager
Chuck Hafner, Councilmember Cary Driskell, City Attorney
Rod Higgins, Councilmember Erik Lamb, Deputy City Attorney
Ed Pace, Councilmember Mike Stone, Parks & Recreation Director
Ben Wick, Councilmember Eric Guth, Public Works Director
Chelsie Taylor, Interim Finance Director
ABSENT: John Hohman, Community Development Dir.
Bill Bates, Councilmember Chris Bainbridge, City Clerk
Mayor Grafos called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m.
ROLL CALL: City Clerk Bainbridge called the roll; all Councilmembers were present except
Councilmember Bates. It was moved by Councilmember Pace, seconded and unanimously agreed to
excuse Councilmember Bates from tonight's meeting.
ACTION ITEMS:
1. Second Reading Proposed Ordinance 15-012, Gambling Tax—Mark Calhoun
After City Clerk Bainbridge read the ordinance title, it was moved by Deputy Mayor Woodard and
seconded, to approve ordinance 15-012 amending Spokane Valley Municipal Code 3.25, gambling tax.
After Deputy City Manager Calhoun went over the background of the ordinance, Mayor Grafos invited
public comments. No comments were offered. There was brief discussion among Council about the
reduced revenues, as well as a comment about not knowing what the State Legislature will do concerning
future shared revenues. Mayor Grafos suggested this matter be brought back again in another year. Vote
by Acclamation: In Favor: Unanimous. Opposed:None. Motion carried.
2. Proposed Resolution 15-004, Support of North/South Corridor Name Change—Mayor Grafos
It was moved by Deputy Mayor Woodard and seconded to approve Resolution 15-004, supporting the
name change of the North/South Corridor to the Thomas E. Foley Corridor. Councilmember Pace said he
will vote against this as he feels this is not the scope of this Council and is not a benefit to our citizens.
Vote by Acclamation: In Favor: Mayor Grafos, Deputy Mayor Woodard, and Councilmembers Hafner,
Higgins and Wick. Opposed: Councilmember Pace. Motion carried.
3. Motion Consideration: Bid Award,Houk-Maxwell-S into Street Preservation Project—Steve Worley
It was moved by Deputy Mayor Woodard and seconded to award the Houk-Maxwell-Sinto Street
Preservation project, #0220 to T. LaRiviere Equipment and Excavating, Inc., in the amount of
$339,647.83 and authorize the City Manager to finalize and execute the construction contract. After
Public Works Director Guth explained the background of the project and bid, Mayor Grafos invited
public comment. No comments were offered. Vote by Acclamation: In Favor: Unanimous. Opposed:
None. Motion carried.
4. Motion Consideration: Reappoint Liz Beck to Tourism Promotion Area Commission—Mayor Grafos
Mayor Grafos recommended the reappointment of Liz Beck to the TPA for a three-year term. It was
moved by Deputy Mayor Woodard and seconded to confirm the Mayoral appointment of Liz Beck to the
Council Study Session:06-02-2015 Page 1 of 3
Approved by Council:06-23-2015
Tourism Promotion Area Commission for a three-year term from June 1, 2015, through May 31, 2018.
Mayor Grafos invited public comment; no comments were offered. Vote by Acclamation: In Favor:
Unanimous. Opposed: None. Motion carried.
NON-ACTION ITEMS:
5. Comprehensive Plan/Citizen Site Specific Amendment Requests—John Hohman
Director Hohman explained that the goal of tonight's meeting is to obtain concurrence, or not, on these
Citizen Action Requests (CARs); he said the Public Participation Plan was brought to Council in January,
and one of the goals is to identify issues early, so we are trying to get public participation early in the
process, and one way to do that is to open this process to any citizen, property owner, or interested
individual who wants to submit an application; said the process is split into two categories with tonight
handling the site specific citizen-initiated requests, and at next week's meeting to address the text and
overlay amendments. Mr. Hohman said that tonight's focus is on specific requests for several parcels, and
that they have tried to consolidate those into several easily discussed items. He explained that as these
CARs are reviewed, he will look to Council to indicate which of these to include now and what to perhaps
include in some future amendment process. As noted in Mr. Hohman's handout summarizing the "Citizen
Amendment Requests," there are three options: what to include, what to exclude, and what to defer to a
future annual comp plan update. Further, Mr. Hohman explained that there will not be a future adoption
of the individual amendment requests, as they won't be acted upon until the major components are in
place; he said these CARs may be considered as pro and con in the broader decision of the update; he
asked that Council not make a judgment, but more that this would be a matter of what we should study in
the future, what the scope of work should look like for the next phase of this project, and what Council
wants staff to bring back as part of the Update process.
Councilmember Pace asked if it is possible to include in the process, something to prevent a change to
property without the property owner's knowledge. Mr. Hohman replied that we will do what we can to
make sure the property owner is aware, and he gave the example of a County comprehensive plan update
years ago for the Ponderosa area which made it more dense than anything else in the surrounding areas,
which he said caused a lot of anxiety. Mr. Hohman said staff will work to make sure property owners
affected will be notified, adding that having their approval is a more difficult process as it is too early to
speculate what those changes, if any, might be, and said it might hamper the process if we asked for each
individual property owner's approval. Councilmember Pace stated that he does not like making changes
without the property owner's approval. Councilmember Wick asked if what Council would be looking at
concerning the CARs, is also an opportunity to look at the larger surrounding area, and he gave as an
example, along Nora. Mr. Hohman concurred and said staff is aware the office zone in that area is not
working well. Mr. Hohman noted that there are numerous possibilities for Council to consider such as
changing zones up or down, changing development regulations, and consolidating zones. Mr. Hohman
stated that no fees are associated with these requests, and Council could also decide not to take any action
at all; but if a CAR were deferred, Mr. Hohman said he would seek legal's opinion as to whether an
applicant would have to reapply and/or pay a fee, or if such deferred CAR would automatically be
included on the next future comp plan docket.
As Ms. Barlow went through her PowerPoint presentation, she mentioned that the staff report analyzes
the CARs requests against the input themes or focus themes, so the report indicates whether the CAR is
consistent with those themes. She also noted that these are just the site-specific applications and not the
text amendment and overlay zones, which she explained, will come before Council next week, followed
by Council's final decision of the CARs at the June 23 meeting. After brief Council discussion, Mr.
Jackson noted that no action is scheduled for tonight's meeting, and that staff can formulate a motion for a
future meeting based on Council's consensus.
Ms. Barlow explained that for each CAR, Council could include in the Comp Plan Update analysis, defer
to a future comp plan update, or not include in the Comp Plan Update analysis. After Ms. Barlow's
review of each CAR, there was Council consensus to include them all for future discussion in the Comp
Plan Update, with Deputy Mayor Woodard disagreeing with moving CAR 2015-0010 through 0011
Council Study Session:06-02-2015 Page 2 of 3
Approved by Council:06-23-2015
forward. It was also determined that the specific CAR that was withdrawn won't be included but the
nature of the request will be included. There was some additional discussion on CAR 2015-0016 with
Councilmember Wick asking to look at the other parcel in the field below, and Council concurred.
Council asked about the individual property owner's input concerning CAR 2015-0020, and Ms. Barlow
said she would check the minutes to see if other property owners expressed their feelings on these parcels.
Director Hohman said that task could be included in the next contract scope; that when they put together
the scope for preparation of the draft comp plan and development regulations, staff will have a better idea
of when this can come back to Council again; said there is a lot of work to accomplish, and it would likely
take three months or more; adding that many of these issues will need focused study.
Mayor Grafos called for a recess at 7:50 p.m.; he reconvened the meeting at 8:00 p.m.
6. Initiative/Referendum Process—Cary Driskell
City Attorney Driskell said that interest had been expressed regarding the powers of initiative and
referendum in our City, which is a non-chartered code city. Via his PowerPoint presentation, he gave a
general explanation of the powers and processes dealing with initiative and referendum, and gave
examples of each; and said our City adopted those powers in 2005. After his presentation,
Councilmember Pace explained that he has asked for this information in association with the truck issue,
and having a no-truck parking in residential areas. Mr. Driskell said he feels those are police powers
typically reserved to the Council, and as such,are typically not subject to initiative.
7. Stormwater Capital Improvement Plan(CIP)—Eric Guth
After Public Works Director Guth went over his PowerPoint presentation explaining the Stormwater
Capital Improvement Plan projects, there was Council consensus to bring this forward next week for a
motion consideration.
8. Advance Agenda—Mayor Grafos
Concerning interviewing candidates for temporarily filling Councilmember Bates' position, Mayor Grafos
said he feels all eighteen applicants should be interviewed, and Council concurred. After Council
discussion about when to hold the interviews and how many meetings to hold for that purpose, June 10`x'
was suggested as the interview date. It was also determined to limit each interview to fifteen minutes, to
permit each candidate a minute or two of those fifteen minutes, for self-introductions if desired; and that
the meeting(s) would be video-recorded. The meeting date for the nomination and selection process was
discussed, and Councilmember Wick mentioned the possibility of having two Councilmembers absent at
the June 23`d meeting as they would be attending the AWC (Association of Washington Cities)
conference. Mr. Jackson suggested the specific date could be determined later, if needed, and Council
expressed a desire to hold that meeting June 17th. Mr. Jackson noted that the City Clerk would send
Council a copy of the process; and that the process could be built into the governance manual later; and
that the dates will be confirmed and communicated to Council as soon as possible.
9. Information Only Items: (a) Department Reports; (b)Montgomery Ave Street Preservation Bid
These items were for information only and were not reported or discussed.
10. Council Comments—Mayor Grafos—There were no Council Comments.
11. City Manager Comments—Mike Jackson -There were no City Manager comments.
It was moved by Deputy Mayor Woodard, seconded and unanimously approved to adjourn. The meeting
adjourned at 8:50 p.m.
A ,.> Dean ra os,Mayor
ristine Bainbri gty Clerk
Council Study Session:06-02-2015 Page 3 of 3
Approved by Council:06-23-2015
2 9 ��s�
Citizen Amendment Requests
This information will be discussed at tonight's (6/2/15) Council meeting. Staff will
receive direction from Council on each of the map amendment CAR's and return
on June 9 for motion consideration.
The text amendment and overlay CAR's will be discussed at a later date and will
follow the same process.
1. Move to include —These CAR's will be considered as requests which warrant
analysis in the Legislative Comp Plan Update under the City�s` : Mineral
Resource Lands, Multi-Family Zones, Office Zones, Industrial Lands and/or to the
Public Input themes developed and adjusted based on input from the public;
Community Character, Economic Opportunity, Housing, and Transportation.
These CAR's can serve as specific examples which will aid in broader discussion of
the Legislative Comp Plan Update. There will not be future adoption of individual
CAR's; rather, they will be part and parcel of the Legislative Comp Plan Update. It
is generally understood that the individual requests may not be acted upon until
the major components of the Comp Plan Revision are in place. The CAR's may be
considered both as pro and con in the broader discussion of the Comp Plan
Update. No judgment (positive or negative) is passed on the CAR's at this time.
g�G
2. Move to .eny—Council does not desire to carry these CAR's forward as part of
the Legislative Comp Plan Update.
3. Move to defer— In the opinion of Council, these CAR's requests may have
merit to be considered at a later date during a future Annual Comp Plan Update.
g
June 9th, 2015 COPY
City Council of the City of Spokane Valley
City Hall Council Chambers
11707 E. Sprague Avenue
Spokane Valley, Washington
RE: CAR-0015-0010,0011, and 0020
Dear City Council Members,
The above noted CAR all relate to the area between Pines and Evergreen, north of 4th and south
of the old railroad right-of-way.
The intent of these CARs is to amend the Comprehensive plan changing the current MF-1
Medium Density designation to a MF-2 High Density designation even though the current
designation already meets the intent of a transition between commercial and [ow density areas
and, between the two options above, has the opportunity to be compatible with all the
development shown in your aerial view.
My neighbors and I realize that areas must be allocated to allow growth. The key, and one of the
reasons you Members sit on this Council, is to determine the right growth that does not degrade
the future of the existing development and it's owners.
Degrading the future of existing development and it's owners is not the"Valley Way".
Those of us in this room that remember the two feet of snow that fell overnight just a few years
ago,those of us that remember Ice Storm, those of us that remember the summer of'74, the
winter of'72, of'68, those of us that remember praying with our classmates for President
Kennedy to survive the day, and praying with our families later when we were finally told he did
not, do not need to be explained what the"Valley Way" is.
Others that do not have over 50 years of life in the Valley may not understand the struggles we've
gone through over the decades leading up to incorporation. They may not understand that what
finally pushed incorporation through was the annexation threat by the City of Spokane. We all
knew that the City of Spokane would never understand the"Valley Way".
So we incorporated, and elected this body to represent us. You Members sit in those chairs not
to represent incoming business, but to represent the individuals and families that live and play in
our beautiful city, a city of growth surpassing all others in the area.
That uncommon growth is for a few reasons, but the most prevalent is the"Valley Way". For this
is a city in which two feet of snow overnight does not find us huddled in our own homes, but
brings us all together, and has the neighborhood driveways, mailboxes, and fire hydrants all clean
of snow before the first plow hits the streets. Because of the"Valley Way", no one in my
neighborhood that I knew of was cold even though power was out following ice storm. Because
of the"Valley Way", neighbors know each other, laugh with each other, and at times, cry with
each other.
I hope that all of you have had a chance to drive down 4th and see the new development that
sticks out like a sore thumb, the development owned by those responsible for these CARs, the
development that has already received numerous complaints your Planning staff has had to
address or is addressing.
Page 1 of 2 .......z..,..,„;,—,__...
That development, so new it's not shown on your aerial view, must meet the current MF-1
medium designation requirements(as it was permitted by Planning staff), but only if most or
possibly all of the land yet undeveloped on the north end of the property becomes green space.
There might be some of you that would consider a split, of an amendment with high density to the
north and medium density to the south of the area being discussed.
Council Members can make their own conclusions as to why the developer chose to build as
close to the existing homes as he thought he could get away with, although the developer himself
has boasted to me why. Council Members can decide for themselves how Planning staff would
permit such a development that many might consider as having an obvious disregard for the
existing homes around it. Or why Planning staff decided to include pictures in the information
packet regarding these CAR and presented to the Planning Commission, later forwarded to the
Council, that were taken from vantage points several hundred feet away providing little example
of most of the existing homes.
But should the Council provide opportunity by splitting the area, thus creating a non-compliant
development right at the start, that opportunity might encourage a similar attitude in others, an
attitude contradictory to the"Valley Way".
Many of my neighbors have worked most of their life on their homes. I've put in 22 years, and I
could be considered a"newbie" compared too many of my neighbors. 22 years of weekends, of
nights after a long day's work, 22 years of taking the worst house on the block(as many of my
current neighbors can attest)to far from that.
Those of us that understand the"Valley Way"will not discount the efforts off those that have
come before us, we will not discount the centuries of aggregate weekends that our neighbors
have invested in their homes, nor will they degrade their futures.
The primary objective in determining proper growth is to maintain the"Valley Way", respect the
investment of existing development, and continue the environment that made this place a special
place, "...where individuals and families can grow and play...". It is in such communities that
business thrives, but the individuals and the families come first.
With that objective it's easy to see that the current MF-1 designation allows multifamily
development that at least comes close to the existing neighborhood. An MF-2 designation which
would allow, with density bonuses, over 30 units per acre, around 2.5 times the density, would not
have the same opportunity for compatibility.
I respectfully request that the Council Members not include CAR-0015-0010, 0011 or 0020 in
your motions regarding amendment to the Comprehensive Plan.
Thank you,
James `JJ"Johnson V
13224 E. 4th Avenue
Spokane Valley, WA 99216
Former Member of the Citizens Advisory Committee to Pasadena Park
Former Mechanical Engineering Advisory Member, CCSS
Former American Heart Association Volunteer
Former Spokane Valley Girls Softball Coach
Former Valley Partners Second Harvest Food Bank Volunteer
Page 2 of 2
Citizen-Initiated Amendment (CAR)
Request Locations - April 15, 2015
Montgomery Ave
Mansfield Ave
Knox Ave
Indiana Ave
SR 90 eb
N
t- Mission Ave i i.
I m
�� CAR rCAR 15-001 o / 115-001
9'
Oto HDR 1 0 La I O to C j SR 9p Wb o
c
ir
rt 0 B- Broadway Ave CAR 15-002' _
g CAR 15-003-�
a 2 = N LDR to •'-!LDR to HDR) CAR 15-00161
3 CMU j to — MDR to HDR)-),\
CAR CARI15-0017y m° ValleywayAve� 1/ Me 15-0013 ' 1 Oto NC ._ el
:� L -- R- - u CAR 15-004-007' \ -
-0to HDR a te„`.--c iCAR15-00201 Sprague Ave Oto CMU \ ss "'[IC \\\\\\\\ Ppp\e�ay
\� - MDR to HDR;�,\� __or NC \ CAR 15-00141 �� \���'
Appleway Blvd rLLa ��\ 0015
\V ICAR 15-0012' ' Legend
Fourth Ave ! I LDR C_
I HDR to CMU / o Comprehensive Plan
!CAR 15-010-0011 l 2
Ei category
Eighth Ave i MDR to HDR___.), > Mixed Use Center(MUG)
CK w
D Corridor Hoed Use(CMU)
o CC
Low Density Residential(LDR)
0 Q
U 6
< Medium Density Residential(MDR
3 16th Ave High Density Residential(HDR)
w�
i. a1tese
Office(o)
Rq
Neighbahwtl Commeraal(NC)
-)30. Community Commercial(C)
slu Regional Commercial(RC)
24th Ave e2>
P
25th q a LigCI)ndustrial(LI)
m
CO Heavy Industrial(HI)
Stiokane
'(`/7 Park/Open Space(POS)
4000 •alley Water nodes(WH)
32nd Ave
& 'a — a15