2009, 01-20 Study Session MinutesMINUTES
CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY
CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION
Tuesday, January 20, 2009
Deputy Mayor Denenny called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. and welcomed everyone to the meeting.
Present:
Councilmembers:
Dick Denenny, Deputy Mayor
Rose Dempsey, Councilmember
Bill Gothmann, Councilmember
Gary Schimmels, Councilmember
Steve Taylor, Councilmember
Diana Wilhite, Councilmember
Absent:
Rich Munson, Mayor
Staff:
Dave Mercier, City Manager
Mike Jackson, Deputy City Manager
Cary Driskell, Deputy City Attorney
Neil Kersten, Public Works Director
Ken Thompson, Finance Director
Kathy McClung, Community Development Dir.
Mike Stone, Parks and Recreation Director
Steve Worley, Senior Engineer
Greg McCormick, Planning Manager
Inga Note, Senior Traffic Engineer
Karen Kendall, Assistant Planner
Lori Barlow, Associate Planner
John Whitehead, Human Resources Manager
Henry Allen, Development Engineer
Rick VanLeuven, Police Chief
Ryan Brodwater, Engineering Technician
Carolbelle Branch, Public Information Officer
Chris Bainbridge, City Clerk
Roll Call: At the request of Deputy Mayor Denenny, City Clerk Bainbridge called roll. All
councilmembers were present except Mayor Munson. It was moved by Councilmember Taylor, seconded
and unanimously agreed to excuse Mayor Munson from tonight's meeting.
Deputy Mayor Denenny commented regarding today's historical events with the inauguration of the 44
President, he mentioned that it brings to mind, on a smaller scale, what this Council does for its
community; of proudly upholding the national and state Constitutions, and of being able to proudly serve
in his Capacity as Deputy Mayor and Councilmember.
New Employee Introductions:
Finance Director Thompson introduced his two new finance employees: database administrator Phil
Hermann, and accounting technician Sarah Davenport. Public Works Director Kersten then introduced his
new employees: long- awaited stormwater engineer Art Jenkins, and Assistant Traffic Engineer Ryan
Kipp, both of whom have their PE. Council greeted and welcomed the new employees.
A. District Court Update — Cary Driskell
Deputy City Attorney Driskell explained that last week he gave a presentation to Council regarding the
contract we have with Spokane County and the Spokane County District Court; he outlined the short
timeframe concerning notice of termination, and of Council previously authorizing him to discuss this
issue with representatives of the Court and the County, and to request that if we were to decide to
terminate the contract so we could perform a full alternative analysis, we would have some agreement to
allow us to withdraw our termination notice within a reasonable time. Mr. Driskell said that he told the
District Court an incorrect time frame, that the judges are scheduled to meet tomorrow to discuss this and
Study Session Meeting Minutes: 1 -20 -2009 Page 1 of 7
Approved by Council: 02 -10 -09
let us know if they think there will be any problem with the new time frame; and said we proposed they
consider us to revoke any termination notice through the end of December 2009, and we expect to receive
that answer tomorrow. Mr. Driskell said he also discussed with this the Board of County Commissioners
this morning, and they voted, with a two to one in favor (with Commissioner Mager not present) to
extend to us the ability to withdraw any notice of termination through December 1, 2009, which is the
new time frame; which still gives sufficient time to engage in the alternate analysis and deliberative
process; and once Council approved of giving notice, that we would receive a letter from the County
Commissioners and the Court well in advance of the January 27 motion. It was also mentioned that we
are performing alternative analysis for all our County contracts. The termination dates were discussed,
including that the County would have to give a full year notice, plus the remaining time in the current
year; but the state statutes do not give us the same option; and it was explained that we would have to
issue notice prior to February 1, 2009, otherwise we would be prevented from electing a different service
provider until 2014. It was also mentioned that the Board of County Commissioners understands what we
are doing in this circumstance and the awkwardness of the situation due to statute timelines; and that if
this Council wants to have the ability to do something different or respond and create an alternative
service, the only timely option is to proceed with notice prior to February 1 of this year; as the other
option is to wait until 2014. There was Council consensus to bring this forth for a motion next Tuesday to
give notice of the termination of this contract, and to communicate to the Spokane County Board of
County Commissions, the willingness of the parties involved to agree to December 1, 2009 as the end
date of any possible revocation of the notice of termination.
1. J -U -B Street MasterPlan Update — Steve Worley
Engineer Worley gave a brief history of entering into a contract with J -U -B for the street MasterPlan,
which includes the pavement management program and the transportation improvement program; and
said tonight's presentation will focus on the pavement management program, and he introduced Chuck
Larson and Dave Kliewer from J -U -B, who would give the PowerPoint presentation. Mr. Worley added
that "Problem Statement #3" and the transportation improvement program could be discussed at a future
meeting. One of the slides explained that once there is a 40% drop in road quality, for each dollar of
repair not done there, delaying the pavement management once the quality drops further to a fair or poor
quality, would escalate that same one dollar cost to a cost of $8 or $10.00; therefore it is less costly to put
in an annual program over a five -year period to maintain the roads at 65 %; and to maintain all the roads
with a good, five -year program would cost an estimated $1.5 to $2 million.
2. Poe Street and Stormwater Maintenance Contract Renewal — Neil Kersten
Public Works Director Kersten explained that the street and stormwater maintenance contract was
approved in 2007 with a contract award to Poe Asphalt Paving; that the contract was for one year with
seven, one -year renewal options; that it was renewed last year so this is the third year renewal; that they
have done a great job taking care of the roads and he said this method has been very cost effective. Mr.
Kersten said Poe has requested an average unit price increase in contract cost of 3.37 %; in 2008 their
liquid asphalt price was $44.00; and they are guaranteeing a maximum cost of $59.00 and have agreed to
lower that price if the actual price of liquid asphalt results in a lower production cost to Poe. Mr. Kersten
said staff is recommending approving the base contract to Poe Asphalt in the amount of $1,175,119.
There was Council consensus to place this item on the next council agenda for motion consideration
3. Parking Restrictions — Inga Note
Traffic Engineer Note explained that the City received a request from Central Valley High School to
restrict parking along the school's Rotchford Road frontage; that the school would like to install a pass -
through pedestrian gate on the backside of the school property to provide Shelley Lake area students with
a more convenient walking route. She explained that the neighbors and school have concerns that this
gate will lead to parking along Rotchford Road and have requested a 24 -hour No Parking zone be
implemented prior to them installing the pass - through. Ms. Note mentioned that the area size is enough
Study Session Meeting Minutes: 1 -20 -2009 Page 2 of 7
Approved by Council: 02 -10 -09
to accommodate on- street parking, and with the pass- through it would likely be a tempting parking place;
however, she mentioned that parking is not used there now, and since the school and the neighborhood
agree, staff sees no reason to disregard the request. Ms. Note added that a request has also been received
from Greenacres Elementary School to restrict parking along the school's frontage; to create a No Parking
zone on both sides of Long Road and 4 Avenue on schools days from 8:30 a.m. to 3:30 p.m., and that the
restriction would reduce on- street congestion and would mean that students would not be crossing the
road between parked cars; she mentioned that neighbors of the school were sent a letter describing the
proposal and one comment was received in favor of the parking restrictions; adding that additional letters
will be sent out if this is added to a future council agenda. There was Council consensus to add this
Resolution to the next council agenda for consideration.
4. Comprehensive Plan Quarterly Update — Greg McCormick
Planning Manager McCormick explained that staff is moving forward with the annual amendment
process, that they received one privately initiated map request by the cut off date, and that is being
processed; that a study session is scheduled February 12 with the Planning Commission which will go
through the City and the privately initiated amendments; that the Planning Commission public hearing is
set for February 26; and this is tentatively set to come before Council March 10, which date could be
changed if the Planning Commission hearing needs to be continued. Mr. McCormick said the city -
initiated changes are some text amendments to update with the six -year Transportation Improvement
Plan; and some map changes regarding public, quasi- public designations which are currently causing
some confusion.
5. CenterPlace Food Services Contract — Mike Stone
Parks and Recreation Director Stone stated that CenterPlace is moving forward with the intent to have a
non- exclusive in -house caterer for 2009; which is in direct response to a marketing plan previously
approved by Council in 2007; that request for proposals were sent out, we received eight responses, and
those were narrowed down to four finalists who participated in interviews and taste testing, and as a
result, Beacon Hill was chosen as the most qualified and experienced food service provider. Director
Stone said that the benefits of this proposed contract include additional revenue, improved customer
service and convenience, all which gives more flexibility for handling multiple events. A question
concerning additional insurance and /or bonding requirements was asked, and Deputy City Attorney
Driskell said he would research that for next week. There was Council consensus to place this on the next
regular agenda for council consideration.
6. Universal Playground Final Design Update — Mike Stone
Parks and Recreation Director Stone said that he invited some special guests to join him who were
members of the team for the final design of the Universal playground project; and explained that he seeks
Council consensus to proceed with construction documents and the public bidding process, and to change
the name to "Discovery Playground." Dream team members Carol Henry and Thom Vetter explained the
design layout of the playground, said that this will be in the big area in front of CenterPlace, will contain
about 35,000 square feet, and the theme of the park would be exploring eastern Washington. After
hearing from Ms. Henry about the layout, including security measures such as gates, fences, and
landscaping, Mr. Stone mentioned future policy issues to consider would include staffing or working with
volunteers, and operation and maintenance. Discussion turned to the park's name and Mr. Stone said the
original name was "Children's Universal Park," and the group wanted to see if something else would be
more appropriate, that it would be designed for kids but that they wanted others to feel comfortable there;
and that there was some confusion about what university it was connected to; and after talking with
members of the original Mirabeau Trust, no one felt the need to keep the original name; and he added, the
public seems to like it as well. Mr. Stone said the park could be expanded if needed, and the current
configuration would likely comfortably hold 100 to 150 at a time; that the construction document phase
would likely take three to four months; and another month to advertise and hire a contractor, which means
Study Session Meeting Minutes: 1 -20 -2009 Page 3 of 7
Approved by Council: 02 -10 -09
this won't be completed until the spring of 2010. City Manager Mercier said a formal motion is not
required, as this is a check -in process. There was Council consensus to proceed as requested.
Deputy Mayor Denenny called for a recess at 7:40 p.m., and he re- convened the meeting at 7:50 p.m.
7. Airport Overlay — Karen Kendall & Greg McCormick
Planner Kendall went through her PowerPoint presentation giving the history of this issue, pointing out
the areas of concern in Zone 6, and explaining the density requirements and limitations; and she pointed
out on the overhead map, the areas in zone 2, 3 and 4 which are not in the areas of question. As a result of
the October 9, 2008 Planning Commission meeting, four options were presented and a fifth option was
added by the Planning Commission; that there were several airport groups at the Planning Commission's
October 23 public hearing, where people expressed concerns with the increase in density, that it would
limit operations at the airport based on the additional noise; and she explained that property owners also
expressed concerns about limitations to develop their property; and the public hearing was continued to
allow more time for the airport groups to meet with staff; and that such meeting was held October 31.
Ms. Kendall further explained that the public hearing was continued to December 11, and there were no
new comments from the airport groups; but they received one comment from the Washington State
Department of Transportation, which is included in the packet; and the Planning Commission voted on a
motion to forward staff's recommendation, which motion failed four to three; but they passed a motion
six to one to direct staff to create an advisory committee and conduct research and return in no more than
three months for a public hearing. City Manager Mercier added that we are bring this to council because
after being presented to the Planning Commission, it did not result in a recommendation; and they have a
pending request for further examination, so Council can determine if it wants to authorize the creation of
an advisory committee to an advisory committee, which is what would be happening as the Planning
Commission is the advisory committee; or Council can consider all comments and formally take on the
matter.
Councilmember Gothmann indicated his preference of bringing this to Council to make a decision, and he
requested that staff bring aircraft accident statistics, specifically on Felts Field; and could perhaps use the
pattern to determine the probability of statistics within a certain area; and said if he recalls correctly, the
accident rate is so low it might not be worthy of consideration, but he would like to have those statistics
available; going back perhaps ten or twenty years to get an idea of the traffic statistics. In response to
Councilmember Taylor's suggestion, Planner Kendall gave a brief overview of the options, including
option #4 to allow the density of the underlying zoning within Zone 6 based on complying with one of the
listed exceptions; which was the recommended staff option; and discussion continued on the exceptions
in option #4, and comparing option #4 with some of the other options, and of being able to build versus
being able to subdivide, and of soundproofing. Councilmember Dempsey mentioned that the letter from
the Washington State Department of Transportation states that options 2 through 5 are in direct
contradiction with the GMA requirements, and she asked about the ramifications if one of those options
were chosen. Ms. Kendall said should could not answer that directly without researching her notes, and
Deputy City Attorney Driskell said his office will answer that question prior to the next time this issue is
considered by Council for action.
Councilmember Taylor mentioned that regarding an e-mail response from Ms. McClung on this topic, he
said when Council went over the different low density residential zones, R1 through R4 back in 2007,
Council had discussed the criteria of everything that was low density residential north of 16 Avenue,
would be placed in the R3 zone, except for the particular areas in the north Greenacres neighborhood that
were carved out; and that the airport overlay zone had been approved prior to that, but when Council
turned that area north of 16` all into R3, the underlying zone, which is underneath the airport overlay
zone, did not get changed, which is why we have the R2 and R4 zones; and he said there is nothing on the
record saying that we were going to change the underlying zone there to R3, change the R2s to R3,
Study Session Meeting Minutes: 1 -20 -2009 Page 4 of 7
Approved by Council: 02 -10 -09
however, there is nothing in the record that states Council did not mean to do that; and as the maker of
that suggestion back in 2007, he said it would have been his intention to have the underlying zones with
the airport overlay zone, to be the R3 and the R4, whichever was already existing with the R4; and he said
he is not sure of the process to resolve that, that we have what's in there right now, the development
regulations, and zoning map was adopted, but he said he does not know if this is an issue Council wants
to revisit; and stated again his intention in making that request concerning everything north of 16 would
have included the area underneath this particular zone.
Deputy Mayor Denenny said the question to consider now is whether Council wants to move this back to
a subcommittee. Councilmember Gothmann, in response to Councilmember Taylor's concern stated
above, said that development regulations and the comprehensive plan have been approved; and if a
change is warranted, that perhaps it should be done via a comp plan amendment; and feels any change
would necessitate that amendment process. Councilmember Taylor concurred, and said that he believes
there was a miscommunication between the motion that was voted upon and what was put in place by
staff; and said he recognizes that that can occur; but is asking since we are dealing with the airport
overlay issue, he questioned why there is R2 underneath instead of R3. Councilmember Gothmann added
that that issue wasn't examined, and he has no problem in examining that in the future; but for the
present, he said Council can deal with the overlay zone the way it currently is. Councilmember Taylor
said he agrees with Councilmember Gothmann, that he feels the Planning Commission has had ample
time to examine this and has no recommendation to Council; that staff has done considerable work in
providing various options; there has been numerous public comments especially from the individual
landowners in that neighborhood, and he sees no benefit to extending this for another three months before
it comes to Council again for action. Deputy Mayor Denenny asked if staff feels the airport interest
groups have had adequate say in this matter, and Ms. Kendall said she believes it has been clear in the
time they have been allowed to speak, including the time that she and Mr. McCormick met with
representatives of the airport groups; that she can't address if that group has had ample time, but they
have been noticed for the public meetings and believes they are aware that the public meeting and public
hearing has been closed. Councilmember Gothmann said that for Council to consider this, he would like
to have copies of the testimony taken at the Planning Commission hearings and meetings.
Deputy Mayor Denenny added that he owns an aircraft that he keeps at Felts Field; and said that the
biggest interest in this is the noise concern; that he feels the statistics will not demonstrate any warranted
need for more control because of safety, but that noise is the emphasis, and of notifying subsequent
owners to properties in that area; and he would like to include some component of notification to any
purchaser that they acknowledge the existence of aircraft noise; and anything that Council could do to
mitigate that noise, such as sound installation, and that the area will likely increase in the future and the
runways will be expanded, which will bring increased use to the airfield. Councilmember Gothmann
mentioned that although he has been inactive, he has a private pilot license. City Manager Mercier said
the statements from Councilmembers Gothmann and Denenny would likely not be viewed as a conflict of
interest, unless there is pecuniary interest in the property being considered. Mr. Mercier also added that
while no Council public hearing would be necessary, it has been established that public comment is taken
when Council considers ordinances at the first and second reading opportunities; and Mr. Mercier
recommended this issue be brought back for further discussion so staff can present accident data, and
have available other research requested during tonight's discussion. Mr. Taylor said he feels it would be
important to include surrounding jurisdictions for comparative purposes, such as Millwood and the City
of Spokane, all of which fall under that Zone 6 for Felts Field, in that it would be good to see those City's
zoning classifications and what type of residential areas are built out under Zone 6, to compare with what
we have on the ground. Councilmember Taylor also asked if it is possible to have real estate notification
on all residential properties within Zone 6, so that any time there is a transfer of ownership, new residents
would have to sign an acknowledgement that they are in an airport zone. Mr. Mercier said staff will
research that as well.
Study Session Meeting Minutes: 1 -20 -2009 Page 5 of 7
Approved by Council: 02 -10 -09
8. Subdivision Regulations Code Revisions Title 17, 20, Appendix A — Lori Barlow, Henry Allen
Planner Barlow went through her PowerPoint presentation concerning proposed changes to Title 20,
subdivision regulations; and said that many changes are to clarify vague areas or correct errors or
omissions; but she said for tonight she would highlight those changes which will result in some change to
the process; and she proceeded to explain those proposed changes. Mr. Mercier said that these changes
could be ready for a first reading at the February 10 meeting, but asked Council to keep in mind that the
schedule is elective, and if Council has any issue with any of the policy points, to please flag those for
staff for further research and /or discussion. Concerning 20.20.020 Exemptions B.5: "A division of land
for government or public purpose," Councilmember Taylor asked why that would be an exemption from
the subdivision process. Ms. Barlow explained that provision was previously in the County Code, but that
did not get carried forward in the regulations adopted in October, but staff felt that was used in the past
and would therefore be a good provision to include; and she added that that provision is not a part of the
statutes, but that the Hearing Examiner recently brought that issue to Attorney Connelly's attention, and
she said that Mr. Connelly is researching that particular exemption; and at the time of the first reading,
Ms. Barlow said she will explain if this should or should not be exempt, based on Mr. Connelly's
research. Deputy City Attorney Driskell added that the example in question was the Greenacres Park with
the Brown Property, to create the life estate. Mr. Mercier mentioned that just as Council makes
distinctions about other exemptions that might be warranted, he asks Council to keep in mind that often
there are specific and beneficial public purposes that can be achieved by the local government,
particularly the example that was just given; and often the reason government asks to be exempt is so they
can produce a greater good for the community.
Councilmember Gothmann asked why there would be a provision for alleys. Engineer Allen mentioned
that in our new street standards, we are bringing back alleys, and that part of that rationale is, in case there
is a re- development plan which gets adopted which would have alleys as a part of it, we would want our
street standards ready to provide engineering suggestions as to how those alleys should be done; and that
the alleys would be public where they would connect to streets. Councilmember Gothmann then stated
that it appears the alleys would belong to the City therefore the City would be responsible for the
maintenance; and he asked under what provisions would alleys be required. Ms. Barlow said that this
particular provision in the subdivision code is stating that if it were a requirement of the part of the
subdivision to have an alley, then they would be required to construct it prior to the final plat being
recorded, but the real discussion for when or if an alley would be required, is yet to be finalized with the
street standards; and she reiterated that if the alley is required, then it must be constructed prior to filing
the final plat. In response to Councilmember Gothmann's questions, Ms. Barlow explained regarding
non - street standards, that there could be a gap concerning bonding if neither these provisions nor the
street standards provisions were passed; and Ms. Barlow said that the City Attorney's office has been
working with them and that office would address that if the situation presented itself; and that Attorney
Connelly could likely provide a more -in -depth explanation of that during this ordinance's first reading.
There was Council consensus to have that first reading February 10, 2009.
It was moved by Councilmember Gothmann, seconded and unanimously agreed to extend the meeting to
9:15 p.m
9. Advance Agenda — Deputy Mayor Denenny
Deputy Mayor Denenny mentioned next Monday's special meeting, which will be entirely devoted to
discussing the Sprague /Appleway Revitalization Plan. City Manager Mercier said staff will work to
schedule the airport overlay for future council meetings, and added that there will be no executive session
tonight, but one will be held next Tuesday instead.
Study Session Meeting Minutes: 1 -20 -2009 Page 6 of 7
Approved by Council: 02 -10 -09
10. Information Only: The Alternative Winter Road Provider and Stormwater Stimulus Project were for
information only and were not discussed or reported.
11. Council Check -in — Deputy Mayor Denenny n/a
12. City Manager Comments — Dave Mercier n/a
EXECUTIVE SESSION: Pending Litigation. It was announced there would be no executive session
tonight.
There being no further business, Deputy Mayor Denenny adjourned the meeting at 9:05 p.m.
ATTEST.
2L,e_ /
Ch ristine Bainbridge, City Clerk
Study Session Meeting Minutes: 1 -20 -2009 Page 7 of 7
Approved by Council: 02 -10 -09