2009, 05-26 Regular Meeting Minutes MINUTES
City of Spokane Valley
City Council Regular Meeting
Tuesday, May 26,2009
Mayor Munson called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. and welcomed everyone to the 160th meeting.
Attendance: City Staff:
Rich Munson,Mayor Mike Jackson,Deputy City Manager
Dick Denenny,Deputy Mayor Mike Connelly, City Attorney
Rose Dempsey, Councilmember Ken Thompson,Finance Director
Bill Gothmann, Councilmember Kathy McClung, Community Development Dir.
Gary Schimmels, Councilmember Neil Kersten,Public Works Director
Steve Taylor, Councilmember Mike Stone,Parks&Recreation Director
Diana Wilhite, Councilmember Scott Kuhta, Senior Planner
MaryKate McGee,Building Official
Lori Barlow,Associate Planner
Carolbelle Branch,Public Information Officer
Chris Bainbridge, City Clerk
INVOCATION: Pastor Darrell Cole of Spokane Valley Wesleyan Church gave the invocation.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Councilmember Gothmann led the Pledge of Allegiance.
ROLL CALL: City Clerk Bainbridge called the roll; all Councilmembers were present.
APPROVAL OF AGENDA: It was moved by Councilmember Taylor, seconded and unanimously
agreed to approve the amended agenda.
INTRODUCTION OF SPECIAL GUESTS AND PRESENTATIONS: n/a
COMMITTEE,BOARD,LIAISON SUMMARY REPORTS:
Councilmember Schimmels: no report.
Councilmember Wilhite: said she attended a GMA meeting; a Workforce Development Council
presentation on their Summer Youth Employment Program, which will provide over 400 paid summer
jobs, and she said if businesses need summer help to please contact her for website information.
Councilmember Taylor: said that he, Mayor Munson and Councilmember Gothmann spoke before a
public policy class as part of the Eastern Washington University Graduate program, to discuss the job of
councilmember and how they interact with different groups, with the media, with specific interest groups
and individuals, and of the process for policymaking.
Councilmember Gothmann: reported he attended a Department of Emergency Management Training
session; participated in the kids to work; attended the Lilac military luncheon; met with the CEO of
SNAP; and attended the Board of Health Executive Meeting.
Councilmember Dempsey: no report.
Deputy Mayor Denenny: mentioned the continued discussion on fares at the STA Board meeting; and
said concerning the Health Board,that Dr.McCullough will be a real asset to this community.
MAYOR'S REPORT: Mayor Munson reported that he participated in the Lilac parade; met with the
University High School leadership class; attended a Spokane River stewardship/partnership meeting at
Liberty Lake; attended a GMA Advisory Committee meeting; attended a meeting where the discussion
focused on how to save space in the jail; and how to make the criminal justice system more cost effective
and efficient; had an interview on KXLY; had lunch with Commissioner Mielke where they discussed the
upcoming joint June 3 meeting and possible topics; attended Memorial Day services in Deer Park;
Council Regular Meeting:05-26-2009 Page 1 of 9
Approved by Council:06-09-09
attended a 911 Board Meeting this morning; and said the metro mayors have been discussing exploring
regional metro-projects like region-wide sewer districts or fire services.
PUBLIC COMMENTS: Mayor Munson invited general public comments; no comments were offered.
1. 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. Claim Vouchers,Voucher# 17291 through # 17392: $794,153.05
b. Payroll for pay period ending May 15, 2009: $258,992.22
c. Confirmation of Mayor Appointment of Rhea Coble to NE Washington Housing Solutions
Board of Commissioners
d.Approval of May 5, 2009 Council Study Session Meeting Minutes
e. Approval of May 12, 2009 Regular Council Meeting Minutes
Councilmember Dempsey asked that item #le be removed to be discussed separately. It was moved by
Councilmember Taylor, seconded and unanimously agreed to approve the consent agenda with the
omission of item e. Councilmember Dempsey explained that page 2 of those minutes should include
mention that the Clean Air Retreat agreed that in a "declared state of emergency" fines would not be
imposed if someone doesn't get a permit before taking down a building. It was then moved by
Councilmember Taylor, seconded, and unanimously agreed to approve the minutes as amended for the
May 12, 2009 council meeting.
NEW BUSINESS:
2. First Reading Proposed Ordinance 09-012 Adopting Subarea Plan Book I and II—Mike Connelly
After City Clerk Bainbridge read the ordinance title, it was moved by Councilmember Taylor and
seconded to advance Ordinance 09-012 to a second reading. It was then moved by Councilmember
Dempsey and seconded by Councilmember Schimmels, to amend the motion to encompass only that area
between University and the 1-90 overpass. Councilmember Dempsey explained that she feels the plan
presented is beautiful, but is too much, too encompassing, and goes too far and she would like to see a
slower start to revitalization and to allow it to grow out in a more natural way. In response to
Councilmember Wilhite's question of why that particular line at University, Councilmember Dempsey
said that one of the things that came out of the meeting last week,was that that was an older section and it
was in more need of revitalization, and that seemed like a good area to start with. Councilmember Wilhite
responded that the block along Pines includes the building used as a library which was from the early
1900's, and said that particular block has many older buildings which would fall under the category of
needing some revitalization. Councilmember Dempsey agreed and said that the fact that Appleway stops
at University was a big part of her decision. Mayor Munson invited public comments on the amendment;
no comments were offered.
Councilmember Taylor said that he was happy when Appleway was first opened, seeing it end at
University has always been a sore spot for him, and said at some point it would be nice to see that wall
torn down; and said that the idea is to have Appleway ultimately extend to Tschirley; and in looking at the
current zoning, not just the city center zoning, but the comprehensive plan zoning which became effective
a few years ago, stopping this plan at University would be extremely disruptive and would cut a city
center zone in half and would defy all norms of logic in looking at planning; and added that there has
been extensive council discussion about where the plan should end; Council has made particular revisions
in the process; and to cut the plan in half doesn't make good sense nor is it good policy.
Councilmember Schimmels said he sees a roadblock at University; he said he thinks this would stifle the
development from University east on the north side of Appleway because we don't have Appleway; and
in looking down the road, it would be three to five years before that roadway would be put in; and the big
problem is that we need control of that zoning through there but said he doesn't think we can justify to
strap the business community with the subarea plan zoning if you don't have full access to what we have
Council Regular Meeting:05-26-2009 Page 2 of 9
Approved by Council:06-09-09
on the map as we only have a portion of that; and also that the cut off of the area from University to
Bowdish is half the distance to Pines and that is a big area and said he thinks that is a very viable
question.
Councilmember Gothmann said the only data he has seen is that which shows we need an area-wide plan
and not half an area-wide plan; he said Council originally decided to study the whole corridor; and much
thought went into the starting point, and the reasoning at that time to do the whole corridor is that we
recognize that what happens in one part of the corridor affects the other part of the corridor; for example
if there are zoning regulations west of University, and a different set of zoning regulations east of
University, that means you are treating people differently who are in almost equal places, which is not
good public policy. Councilmember Gothmann said the idea that was run through all the consultants, was
that although we had 40% of the commercial space in the city, we had 60% of the vacancies which
doesn't exist just west of university but continues east of University, and the comment was made that
there is slightly better occupancy east of University; he said we are here to solve problems, and the
problems are the Sprague/Appleway Corridor. Further, Councilmember Gothmann said there have been
comments from the Chamber of Commerce, which represents a thousand businesses, and the Spokane
Valley Business Association representing a number of businesses, and AutoRow all saying: "do it; get it
done;" and said he feels it is time to get it done and accommodate those people who we listen to: namely
those more than 1,000 businesses involved.
Councilmember Wilhite mentioned that we need to look at the plan area-wide and we need to treat
everybody fairly; and to change it for part of one end of the city and not the other would not be wise; but
said it does makes a difference about where Appleway would be continued; and said Council needs to
look at the implementation of those regulations when they don't have a street that they'd be on; and she
said that would be something she would like to discuss with Council; however, she said Council has spent
a lot of time and given a lot of thought to this project and said she wished that Councilmember Dempsey
had brought this up earlier so Councilmembers could have "hashed it out" and gone back and looked at
the map; she said last week she brought up some things that she felt should be changed; and that would
have been a good time to have had a thorough discussion; but we are now down to the first reading and
she said we need to move forward.
Deputy Mayor Denenny said this has been discussed thoroughly; specifically the extent and the
geographical area of this, very specifically; and Council made a decision as to the extent of this several
meetings ago; he said Council decided how far out to go and that some of it was removed on the other
side of Sullivan; and in order for the zoning to work and to make the difference in the rehabilitation of
Sprague Avenue,there must be some conformity; and the proposed direction would be counter-productive
in what needs to be rehabilitated and how it will be rehabilitated. Councilmember Taylor said if the goal
is to kill the plan or significantly gut the plan, this would be the mechanism to do so; the extent of the
plan has been discussed before the Consultants were even authorized to start working on the plan; we
have moved forward with the study to show if it is better to go the full length or partial, and Council
chose the full length; and then amended the eastern portion; and said this motion amendment needs to be
rejected and this needs to be moved forward to a second reading. Councilmember Wilhite said Council
has made a lot of changes; she said she brought up a lot of proposals, some of which Council agreed with
and some not; and she said Council listened to the people and changes were made, even though perhaps
every change from every person was not made, but Council listened nonetheless, and said this Council
worked hard at looking at the maps and the zoning, and actually visiting sites and talking with people; and
said she feels this is a pretty good plan.
Councilmember Dempsey said obviously Councilmember Wilhite is referring to her letter [to the editor]
and said the sound she was trying to come up with in her letter was dad-dump, dad-dump, dad-dump; she
said there has been a lot of comment and a lot of discussion; and said she wondered why those who agree
with the plan are obviously in agreement, and those who don't are just single trouble-makers; and she said
Council Regular Meeting:05-26-2009 Page 3 of 9
Approved by Council:06-09-09
that troubles her. Councilmember Taylor said that there is an expectation when council hears public
comment that the person making that comment obviously wants to get their point across and they want
Council to agree with their point of view and a lot of times that doesn't happen because Council has to
make'policy based-dn-the,good of the broader public, and when it goes against the public comment there
is disappointment and likely a feeling of disenfranchisement for those who went to the effort to
communicate to the Council; and that is the reality of having a representative form of government; and he
said he has been on the losing end of a six/one vote more times then he'd like, but he doesn't hold it
against other councilmembers nor does he feel castigated or think someone feels he is making a bad
suggestion; and he said he hopes Councilmember Dempsey doesn't feel put out by a rejection of this
• amendment; and added that he is adamant that this is a bad amendment and should not go forward.
Councilmember Dempsey responded that she hopes that she will not be put into the position of being able
to say, "I told you so"and Mayor Munson concurred.
Mayor Munson said he will not support the amendment because this would not be doing anyone any
favors by adding to the uncertainty of what will be happening in a few years; he said there is no doubt
people want to see Sprague be the kind of vital corridor it has been in the past as it is not now; and said
the problem of Appleway and whether it is fair to ask those people who own property along Appleway to
follow our zoning, is a fair question; and added that this plan will not be"chiseled in stone" and put on a
shelf; and said he is convinced that if we don't have an answer to Appleway by the end of this year, the
plan will be re-visited and decisions will be made about zoning along the part of the plan we don't own;
but for now, stopping it at University would add a great deal of uncertainty to all those property owners
east of University not knowing what we would do in a few years. Councilmember Dempsey said this is
the first time she thinks that anyone has heard her objections, and she appreciates it.
Vote on whether to amend the motion to encompass only that area between University and the 1-90
overpass: In Favor: Councilmembers Dempsey and Schimmels. Opposed: Mayor Munson, Deputy Mayor
Denenny; and Councilmembers Taylor, Gothmann and Wilhite. Abstentions:None. Motion fails.
City Attorney Connelly then addressed the original motion to advance ordinance 09-012 to a second
reading: he stated he wanted to highlight some of the ordinance's specifics, and said when we get to
ordinance 09-013, the substance of that ordinance is almost identical. Mr. Connelly explained that this is
an ordinance which would adopt the subarea plan, the plan encompasses a significant portion of the
Sprague/Appleway corridor; the ordinance identifies certain timelines of such dates as when the
comprehensive plan was first adopted, which comprehensive plan anticipated and charged this Council
with the development of a sub-area plan for this corridor; Council amended the Comprehensive Plan on
three occasions pursuant to annual amendments, and amended procedures on one occasion; council
adopted the Uniform Development Code in September 2007,which was the first attempt to implement the
scope of the comprehensive plan;there have been several amendments to that development code; and said
those amendments are listed in ordinance 09-012. Mr. Connelly said that in July 2006, Council began
developing the subarea plan pursuant to the comprehensive plan; and the development of the subarea plan
has been continuous since then. He said Council initiated a planned action review under the SEPA
legislation for a portion of the sub-area plan, in keeping with the environmental requirements for
properties within that area; and make development substantially easier and quicker, all being done in
conjunction with the development of this plan in its entirety. Mr. Connelly further explained that the
matter went before the Planning Commission on February 14, 2008, and it came back to Council July 29,
2008 for deliberation; and said if Council determines to advance this to a second reading, that will occur
June 16, 2009. Mr. Connelly reviewed Findings of Fact, #4, #5, and #6; and said the SEPA requirements
have been complied with; and that the plan is the result of written and public testimony, studies, and
analysis, all of which will be included in an index for the second reading. Mr. Connelly said Council has
choices concerning the effective date, which can be five days after official publication, thirty days after
official publication, or even sixty or ninety days after official publication; and he suggested Council might
want to include building language into the ordinance which would allow those in the pre-development
Council Regular Meeting:05-26-2009 Page 4 of 9
Approved by Council:06-09-09
status, to follow the existing rules if they file for a permit within a specific period of time, perhaps six
months to one year.
Community Development Director McClung said pre-applications are good for one year now; that this
could affect six to ten projects, none of which are large projects, but include such things as storage
buildings and/or small additions; and said she is concerned about giving them enough time to get it in
before they have to apply the zone guidelines to their projects. Councilmember Taylor said perhaps the
ordinance could include language that the ordinance would be effective in sixty days but anyone who is
currently in the pre-development process will be able to complete that process; and those who file
between the date of adoption and that sixty days, could be grandfathered in. Director McClung said that in
looking at the projects which have been through the pre-application process, if council makes it sixty
days, or even ninety days,that will give adequate time to get those projects in as they have been sitting on
the shelf for a while. Mayor Munson said he would like something in writing for the second reading,
discussing the pros and cons of these suggestions. City Attorney Connelly said that the boulevard mixed
use zone will be, and has been changed to community boulevard. Mayor Munson said that CTED has
changed to the Department of Commerce, and asked if that should be incorporated into this ordinance for
the second reading and Mr. Connelly said he will research that. Mayor Munson extended his and
Council's appreciation to Mr. Kuhta for the amount of time, effort and dedication he put into this Plan;
and Mr. Kuhta said thanks should also be extended to Kathy McClung, Deanna Griffith, and Lori Barlow
for their assistance as well.
Mr. Kuhta said tonight's draft includes all the changes Council made from the time they received the
Planning Commission's recommendation, to date, and last week's changes include renaming "residential
boulevard" to "community boulevard" and noted the maps need to reflect that change; page 2 of 24 adds
the 24-month time period for nonconforming uses to allow re-establishment; map 2E shows the property
at Evergreen and Appleway is now removed from the district boundary; and it was noted that map 2F
heading should be changed; and Mr. Kuhta said these maps will be included on the City's website
tomorrow. Mayor Munson invited public comment.
Dean Grafos, 16120 E Sprague., said he owns "community commercial" space at 15813 E Sprague; and
said these parcels are not part of Fred Meyer; the parcel he referenced is the last parcel in the plan; and
said this letter is follow up to a letter sent January 30, 2009 to Council by land use attorney Stacy
Bjordahl, and he requested that this parcel be removed from the Plan as he stated in his public testimony
April 28, 2009; he said the proposed downzone from community commercial to neighborhood center
zoning would create a nonconforming business; he said the site has been occupied without interruption
since 1999 as an automobile and equipment sales lot; and he listed the following subsequent properties as
you move east on the same side of Sprague Avenue, all of which has been removed from the plan, which
include NAPA Auto Parts 15823 E Sprague, Les Schwab 15911 E Sprague, Les Schwab Tire Center
15915 E Sprague, MAACO Auto , 16011 E Sprague, and Jacobs Auto Upholstery 16023 E Sprague; and
said he does not believe the inclusion and downzone of his particular parcel meets the standard and
requests that 15813 E Sprague be removed form the Plan and retain the present Community Commercial
zoning; and he gave his May 26, 2009 letter to the City Clerk.
Councilmember Taylor said that there has been a lot of discussion throughout the Planning Commission
and Council, there has been a lot of focus on the impacted properties, and there has been much
deliberation over some aspects of the plan; and through this process, he feels most every specific
comment has been addressed that dealt with constructive criticism; and said he is pleased to move this
ordinance to a second reading, and celebrate that we are doing something very positive for Spokane
Valley and for the viability of the corridor; which was something he heard quite a bit about in 2002 and
2005 after knocking on a combined 14,000 doors between those two elections, about how people did not
like how the corridor was becoming ugly, cluttered,vacant, or dis-invested; and upon becoming a city we
would finally have an opportunity to address a lot of these issues; and based on so many comments since
Council Regular Meeting:05-26-2009 Page 5 of 9
Approved by Council:06-09-09
the City's inception that this Plan is really Council's follow-through on what the community told Council
they wanted; and that this is a major milestone for Spokane Valley; and said this permits a tremendous
opportunity to put in a unique city/town center of which none exist throughout this entire region, and
which will make us a standout community, and will let us achieve our own identity and accomplish some
of the basic goals since the City's inception. Councilmember Taylor said the passage will result in an
outstanding legacy for the entire community.
In response to Mayor Munson's question about Mr. Grafo's request, Mr. Connelly said Mr. Grafos is
requesting that the map be altered, and that would be a part of ordinance 09-013, and when that ordinance
is considered, Council can direct staff to amend or modify that ordinance; and he said the zoning map
would also have to be adjusted for the second reading.
Councilmember Gothmann explained that when the City was incorporated, many citizens asked Council
to do something about Sprague Avenue as vacancies were skyrocketing and values were plummeting; and
council listened, then acted. In response to those citizens, he explained that Council engaged
EcoNorthwest and they found that although we had 40% of the commercial space, we had 60% of the
vacancies. In addition, we knew that some Sprague intersections were near failure and we had to address
that problem, thus revitalization is essential to the City. In response, through 76 different meetings
involving hundreds of citizens, the Sprague Appleway revitalization Plan was developed.
Councilmember Gothmann said that some people said Council did not listen, but Councilmember
Gothmann suggested the facts be examined: (1) Grafos, Inc had problems with both rezoning and
designated streets provisions; Council removed the far eastern property from the Plan; (2)Lark Properties
had problems with rezoning; and their property was removed from the Plan; (3) Walt's Mailing Service
was concerned about rezoning the rear of their property which they use, and Council passed a provision
permitting existing Appleway uses to continue; (4)Ruby Motors wanted to be included in the Auto Zone,
and at Councilmember Dempsey's suggestion, Council moved the eastern border to Appleway; (6) Big
Boys Auto Dealers were concerned about rezoning and all along those blocks, and at Councilmember
Wilhite's suggestion, the plan would permit commercial along the four western blocks on the south side
of Appleway; (7) Auto Row wanted land rezoned to accommodate a future recreation park and Council
enlarged the Gateway Commercial area to accommodate this; (8) in response to public testimony, Council
changed the plan to accommodate both businesses and commuters by making Sprague and Appleway
one-way west of Argonne, and two-way east of Argonne; (9) Council permitted additional light industrial
uses in both mixed use and gateway commercial zones; (10) the Greater Spokane Valley Chamber of
Commerce expressed reservations about the one-year non-conforming grandfather provision; and Council
changed it to two years; (11)Mr. Pring expressed concern about restricting retail elsewhere in City Center
to core streets; and Council agreed this can be changed if it becomes a problem; and (12) in response to
public testimony, Council changed the minimum frontage requirements, the outside display and storage
requirements, increased the acreage trigger for new streets, and prohibited billboards from the City center.
Councilmember Gothmann said this is a plan that exchanges one set of zoning requirements for another,
we are not putting in new zoning requirements as zoning requirements already exist; and that is designed
to increase values and revitalize Sprague; and in developing the Plan, Council has listened and has
responded to the hundreds of people in over 70 meetings who have provided suggestions and input to
Council,and he said Council is grateful for such input.
Deputy Mayor Denenny re-emphasized the number of documents he has gone through; the reviewing of
materials, drafts, listening to comments, looking at the plan and drafts, talking to staff, reading e-mails,
and spending time to get educated about the plan; he heard some public comment that many
Councilmembers are doing this for egos; but he said he has seen no egos on this Council; and at the end
of his term at the end of this year, he said he will carry many fond memories about the hard work of this
Council, and said there is and has been no ego other then the desire to have an improved community
which will be the envy of others around us, and something which will enhance the economy so his
children and grandchildren can continue to have jobs and stay in this beautiful community; and he said he
Council Regular Meeting:05-26-2009 Page 6 of 9
Approved by Council:06-09-09
realizes the criticisms he has heard from members of the community were based upon that same criteria:
to find a way to improve the community and improve the economic status of this community and their
own economic status.
Councilmember Dempsey said it is difficult to speak as she is "pushing water up hill" and it doesn't
work; and she likened this plan to a Potemkin Village, which she explained were purportedly fake
settlements erected at the direction of Minister Potemkin so Catherine the Great would not have to see
anything ugly while she was out in her carriage; Councilmember Dempsey said she doesn't see this as
something that is needed; that she knows we need revitalization; that this was the only plan considered as
there was no other plan; and that if we had looked further we might have been able to find a plan that
would have suited our area and our way of life rather then try to turn us into another California suburb.
Councilmember Wilhite said she recalled when our consultant came from California and we had
community meetings, that he said these are some ideas that I have given you as to changes that can be
made, but he said Council must take the plan and "make it yours" and to fit your city and your
community; and that is why there were numerous community meetings; so we could hear what the
citizens wanted to see in the plan; and that Council listened; she added that she realizes the plan isn't
perfect nor are the members of Council; but we all learn from our mistakes, and after this plan is adopted,
there will be something that needs to be changed; but since the plan is not caste in concrete, changes can
be made; and she said she feels we need to move forward and not backward.
Mayor Munson said staff was asked to come up with a consultant to assist with the corridor; and the
initial message was that they recognized a unique opportunity exists where there is a failing corridor, a
new City is just beginning to develop their development codes and plans on how the city should look;
there was quite a bit of excitement from Council about that message; and Council determined to look
forward at the possibilities; Council asked the Consultant to return and participate in a public meeting,
which meeting was packed; and Mayor Munson explained that "in comes this guy in a Brooks Brothers
suit and an earring in his ear" and Mayor Munson said he thought to himself, `this is Spokane Valley,
these people are probably going to put him on a rail and run him out of here;" but within five minutes Mr.
Freedman (the Consultant) had the entire audience enthused and wanting to hear what he had to say
because the message and the possibilities were exciting; and Mr. Freedman had a record to show it could
be done. Mayor Munson said there were comments in that room that day from a number of business
leaders about how do we get this thing started and get this study done; and Council listened to those
remarks and realized we needed to do more than an economic impact study; and Council kept its promise
and hired the Consulting firm and had them put together the outline of a plan that Council felt would do
what Council asked them to do: to look at a corridor that was once the vital business area within the city,
or in that case the County, and to see what can be done to make it a better place, thereby making this City
a better place. Mayor Munson said surveys were done, meetings were held, and now that promise made
is about to be a promise kept; as there is a Plan. Mayor Munson said if people think a plan is something
you write and forget about, they don't understand what planning is all about; as a plan must be dynamic
and we must be willing to change. More importantly, explained Mayor Munson, it is a matter of vision;
he said when he was elected the message he got was if Rich Munson was going to represent the people,
then Rich Munson needed a vision about what the future would be in this city; and Mayor Munson said
those people told him that if there were disagreements about that vision, there would always be another
election. Mayor Munson said the vision is based on the goal to make this the best city in the State of
Washington; the best city that provides jobs, career and housing opportunities, and it isn't just the
Sprague Corridor that will provide that, it is the entire plan for the city, including the Comprehensive Plan
and the Uniform Development Code(UDC), and this Plan is part of those documents, and is probably the
final touch to that process; that there have been approximately five changes made to the Comprehensive
Plan, and several changes to the UDC, and those documents have only been around for a few years.
Having the vision that sets the City on a path,he explained, is absolutely essential. Implementation of the
Plan, Mayor Munson said, is another story; he said that this city will not purchase and develop all the
Council Regular Meeting:05-26-2009 Page 7 of 9
Approved by Council:06-09-09
properties and make sure everybody follows the rules as Council sees them; rather, this plan is an outline
of direction; the private sector will look at these properties, and they will make the decision to commit
their capital and take their risks to develop the properties in accordance with the Plan; and if it doesn't
work, the Plan will not happen; if the risks are too great, or the economic environment isn't conducive to
this kind of plan, it won't happen, and the Council will then be forced to re-evaluate. Mayor Munson
stressed that this is a start rather then an end; and said he feels comfortable that the start is in the right
direction.
Vote by Acclamation to advance ordinance 09-012 to a second reading:In favor:Mayor Munson, Deputy
Mayor Denenny, and Councilmembers Taylor, Gothmann and Wilhite. Opposed: Councilmember
Dempsey and Schimmels. Abstentions:None. Motion carried.
Mayor Munson called for a recess at 7:40 p.m. and reconvened the meeting at 7:50 p.m.
3. First Reading Proposed Ordinance 09-013 411 i tl g Adapting Subarea Map—Mike Connelly
After City Clerk Bainbridge read the ordinance title, it was moved by Councilmember Wilhite and
seconded to advance ordinance 09-013 to a second reading. City Attorney Connelly explained that this is
a companion ordinance to that just discussed; it amends the Comprehensive Plan map, and if Council
wants to make any changes to the map, it can be brought forward with the previous ordinance to make -
those changes together.
Mayor Munson said he would like to discuss Mr. Grafo's comments tonight, but that we would also like
staff input about what this would do to the Plan. Deputy Mayor Denenny said that is one of the benefits of
having the two readings of an ordinance; and said he would like to examine the information provided in
written form, and physically go out to the property in question; and with the information from staff, then
re-analyze the request, but wants to proceed tonight with advancing the ordinance to a second reading.
Councilmember Wilhite agreed and said that she too wants to go back and view the property, keeping in
mind changes can be made at the second reading. Councilmember Taylor said he doesn't disagree with
that process, but questioned whether there is a reason why this wasn't brought up at the last meeting; and
reminded Councilmembers that this particular comment came in at the April 28 meeting; and
Councilmember Wilhite added that the letter Mr. Grafos mentioned from Stacy Bjordahl was dated
January 30, 2009. Deputy Mayor Denenny said the physical descriptions put a little different rationale
and said he would like to consider this further. Councilmember Gothmann said tonight's description of
Mr. Grafo's property was more enlightening. Councilmember Dempsey said when this "line"was drawn
in the first place, it was Councilmember Wilhite who said it looked like a good spot; and Councilmember
Wilhite responded and said the desire was to draw the line along property lines, and sometimes streets are
used, and that she was under the impression this was taken out. Mayor Munson said the reason he recalled
this was left in, was that it was considered part of the Fred Meyer complex, not that it belonged to Fred
Meyer, but it appeared to be part of that obvious complex; and the other properties were not part of that
complex; and said that this issue will be brought up at again at the second reading.
Mayor Munson invited public comment; no comments were offered. Vote by Acclamation: In Favor:
Mayor Munson, Deputy Mayor Denenny, and Councilmembers Schimmels, Taylor, Gothmann, and
Wilhite. Opposed: Councilmember Dempsey. Abstentions: none. Motion carried.
4. Motion Consideration: Swimming Pool Change Order—Neil Kersten
It was moved by Councilmember Taylor and seconded to approve the change order for the Pool Upgrade
Project in the amount of$100,537.00 and authorize the City Manager or designee to execute the change
order, and approve the City Manager an additional change order authority for the Kilgore Construction
contract for the Spokane Valley Swimming Pool Updates, in the amount of$100,537.00. Public Works
Director Kersten explained that currently the City Manager has authority for $200,000 and this will give
him an additional $105,537 in change order authority; that they are finishing up the pools, they are on
Council Regular Meeting:05-26-2009 Page 8 of 9
Approved by Council:06-09-09
schedule, but we discovered there is a federal law recently enacted regarding pool drains, and he said we
are obligated to meet that; and the contractor has been given the direction to begin the work but this items
needs Council's formal approval. Mayor Munson invited public comment; no comments were offered.
Deputy Mayor Denenny added that he hears that the youth are anxious to play in these new facilities,that
we did a Parks Master plan and found out what the public wanted; and they wanted improvements done to
each pool rather than having one large pool. Vote by Acclamation: In Favor: Unanimous. Opposed:
None. Abstentions:None. Motion carried.
PUBLIC COMMENTS: Mayor Munson invited general public comment.
Dick Behm, 321 S Dishman Road, Mr. Behm said he has a complaint about a contractor who closed
Dishman Road without notifying any businesses there; that he spoke with Mr. Kersten who wasn't aware
of the road closure; and Mr. Behm suggested as a condition of getting a permit, a contractor should be
required to notify other businesses and closures and/or re-routing.
ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS:
5. Discovery Playground Bid—Mike Stone
Parks and Recreation Director Stone gave an update on the process as per his May 26, 2009 Request for
Council Action form, and said the bid was scheduled for May 29 but as several bidders requested
additional time, the time was extended to June 9. There was Council consensus to bring this back to
Council for bid award after June 9.
6. Permitting Activity Report—Kathy McClung
Community Development Director McClung, per her PowerPoint slides, explained the permitting
activity, including comparing construction permits in 2009 with those in 2008, showed comparisons with
land use applications for 2007, 2008 and 2009 through April, mentioned there are 70 pending
applications, and currently under review they have eleven commercial buildings projects, seven tenant
improvements, and nine single family residential projects. Ms. McClung also gave figures for pending
projects under construction, and the number of pre-application meetings, said they do not anticipate any
layoffs, but there are three positions on hold which will not be filled this year, and rather then have a
$35,000 development engineering plan review assistance and $10,000 street standards assistance, those
items will be handled in-house. In response to Council questions, Building Official McGee briefly
explained cross-connection control and said she is working with water districts for a possible interlocal
agreement to develop a format on how to work together, and hopes to bring something to Council in the
fall.
INFORMATION ONLY: The Department Reports were for information only and were not reported or
discussed.
EXECUTIVE SESSION: Pending Litigation;Land Acquisition
It was moved by Munson, seconded and unanimously agreed to adjourn into executive session for
approximately 30 minutes to discuss Pending Litigation and Land Acquisition; and that no action is
anticipated thereafter. Council adjourned into executive session at 8:34 p.m. Mayor Munson declared
council out of Executive Session at 8:59 p.m. It was moved by Deputy Mayor Denenny, seconded and
unanimously agreed to adjourn. The meeting adjourned at 9:1 .
f4
4
ichard Munson yor
K
ristine Bainbri.ge,City lerk
Council Regular Meeting:05-26-2009 Page 9 of 9
Approved by Council:06-09-09
GENERAL PUBLIC COMMENT
SIGN-IN SHEET
SPOKANE VALLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING
DATE: May 26, 2009
GENERAL CITIZEN COMMENTS
YOUR SPEAKING TIME WILL GENERALLY BE LIMITED TO THREE MINUTES
Please si• n in if you wish to make public comments.
NAME TOPIC OF CONCERN YOU ADDRESS TELEPHONE
PLEASE PRINT WILL SPEAK ABOUT
( 4
k-2,44/ /Y/2_7
• it- /J
•
r
GENERAL GRAFOS INVESTMENT, INC. COMM/RESIDENTIAL
CONTRACTOR CONSTRUCTION
REAL ESTATE LAND DEVELOPMENT
5/26/09
My name is Dean Grafos at 16120 E. Sprague, and we are the owners of a property
presently zoned Community Commercial at 15813 E. Sprague.
This letter is a follow-up to a letter sent to you on Jan. 30th. 2009 by land use attorney
Stacy Bjordahl, in regards to the inclusion of this parcel of property in your Subarea plan.
As a follow-up to that letter, I had requested that this parcel be removed from the Subarea
plan in my public testimony on April 28th 2009.
The proposed downzone of this property from Community Commercial to Neighborhood
Center zoning will create a non-conforming business situation on this property. The site
has been occupied without interruption since 1999 as an automobile and equipment sales
lot. The subsequent properties as you move East on the same (North side) of Sprague
Ave. include the following businesses.
15823 E. Sprague— NAPA AUTO PARTS (East property line of Grafos property)
(removed from plan)
15911 E. Sprague - LES SCHWAB BRAKE AND ALIGNMENT CENTER
(removed from plan)
15915 E. Sprague—LES SCHWAB TIRE CENTER— (removed from plan)
16011 E. Sprague - MAACO AUTO PAINTING AND REPAIR—(removed from plan)
16023 E. Sprague - JACOBS AUTO UPHOLSTERY - (removed from plan)
This is just a partial list of automotive and related uses in the same block which have
been exempted from your plan. There is also a towing and wrecker service, auto repair
shop, a welding shop and hitch center, and a equipment and trailer sales lot.
As the Subarea plan has evolved many properties have been added or removed by your
planning staff to insure that non-conforming business uses are kept to.a minimum, and
that there is a compelling public interest and benefit for the inclusion or removal of
individual parcels in the Subarea plan. I do not believe the inclusion and downzone of
this particular parcel meets this standard.
I request that the property at 15813 E. Sprague Ave. be removed from your Subarea plan
and retain the present Commuty Commercial zoning.
Dean Grafos
16 20 E.SPR E AVE. • SPOKANE VALLEY,WA 99037 • (509)922-2912 • FAX (509)922-2933
a 4d-a 74 &104-61-9 ,57,41.29*-
•
v
•
PARSONS/BURNETT/BJORDAHL LLP
ATTORNEYS
Stacy A.Bjordahl
sblordahl @pblaw.biz
January 30, 2009
Deanna Griffiths
City of Spokane Valley
11707 E. Sprague Ave., Suite 106
Spokane Valley, WA 99206
Re: Sprague &Appleway Corridor Subarea Plan
Grafos Property/Parcel No. 45133.1444
Dear Ms. Griffiths:
This letter is written on behalf of Elizabeth and Dean Grafos who own approximately 29,000
square feet of commercial property located at 15813 E. Sprague Avenue. The Grafos' have
owned the property for over 10 years and it is currently developed as a used car lot.
The property is currently zoned Commercial. The City is proposing to downzone the property to
Neighborhood Center under the proposed Sprague Appleway Revitalization Plan. A downzone
of this property is inappropriate for a number of reasons. First, the property is and has been used
for commercial use. A downzone to C to NC will make the existing business non-conforming.
A non-conforming status is extremely problematic for property owners because lenders are very
reluctant to lend money on such property. This makes re-financing, borrowing and selling of the
property very difficult. Finally, a downzone of property which has been purchased,developed
and utilized for commercial uses for a number of years will significantly decrease the value of
the property and nullify the significant investments that have been made to this property.
Downzoning property is an action that should not be taken lightly and is rarely done by
communities. A downzone of this nature is contrary to one of the most fundamental goals of the
Growth Management Act: the protection of property rights. The GMA provides in pertinent
part: "the property rights of landowners shall be protected from arbitrary and discriminatory
action." RCW 36.70A.020(6). Based upon the above facts,the proposed downzone of this
property violates the GMA and could be construed as an arbitrary and discriminatory action.
The GMA, as well as the City's Comprehensive Plan, also encourage economic development and
a diverse economy. Downzoning a commercially zoned and used parcel of property does not
promote or maintain the economic benefits that the City presently enjoys from this property in
the form of commercial property tax base, sales tax, etc.
505 W.Riverside Ave,Suite 500,Spokane WA 99201 • T(509)252-5066 • F(509)252-5067 • www.pblaw.biz
A Limited Liability Partnership with offices in Spokane and Bellevue
Ms.Deanna Griffiths
January 30,2009
Page 2
Base upon the above, we respectfully request that the property be either removed from the
Subarea Plan in its entirety or the property retain its Commercial zoning.
If you have any questions or require any additional information,please contact me. Thank you
for your courtesies.
Sincerely yours,
PARSONS/BURNETT/BJORDAHL, LLP
Stacy A. Bjordahl
C: Mr. and Mrs. Grafos
Enc.
5/a24/4 -2aY
When the City was incorporated, many, many citizens asked that Council do somethipg ab 'ut Spragu
Avenue. Vacancies were skyrocketing and values were plummeting. ttae. V sit / - , �In ce�
In response to these citizens, Council engaged Econorthwest and they found that, although we had 40% of the
commercial space, we had 60% of the vacancies. There WAS a problem.
In addition to that, we knew that some Sprague intersections were near failure and we had to do address that
problem. Thus, revitalization was essential to the City.
In response, through 76 different meetings involving hundreds of citizens, we developed the Sprague-
Appleway Revitalization Plan which we have before us.
Some have said we did not listen. Let's examine the facts:
1. Graphos Inc. had problems with both the rezoning and designated streets provisions. We removed the
far eastern property from the Plan.
pp perrV es
2. Lark had problems with rezoning. Mayor Munson suggested we remove their property from the Plan
and we agreed.
3. Walt's Mailing Service was concerned about rezoning the rear of their property, since they use it. We
passed a provision permitting existing Appleway uses to continue.
4. Ruby Motors wanted to be included in the Auto Zone. Councilmember Dempsey suggested we moved
the eastern border to Appleway and we agreed.
5. Big Boys Auto Dealers was concerned about rezoning. We adopted Councilmember Wilhite's proposal
to permit commercial along the four western blocks on the south side of Appleway.
6. Auto Row wanted land rezoned to accommodate a future recreation park. We enlarged the Gateway
Commercial area to accommodate this.
7, In response to public testimony, we changed the plan to accommodate both businesses and commuters
by making Sprague and Appleway one way west of Argonne and two way east of Argonne.
8. We permitted additional light industrial uses in both mixed use and gateway commercial zones.
9. The Greater Spokane Valley Chamber of Commerce expressed reservations about the one-year
grandfather provision. We changed it to two years.
10. Mr. Pring expressed concern about restricting retail elsewhere in City Center to core streets. We
indicated that Council can change this if this becomes a problem.
11. In response to public testimony, we changed the minimum frontage requirements, the outside display
and storage requirements, increased the acreage trigger fo onew streets, and prohibited billboards from
City Center.
This is a plan that exchanges one set of zoning requirements for another that is designed to increase values
and revitalize Sprague. In developing the plan, we have listened and we have responded to the hundreds of
people in 70 meetings who have provided suggestions and input to the Council.
--Bill Gothmann