Loading...
2010, 09-14 Regular Meeting MinutesMINUTES City of Spokane Valley City Council Regular Meeting Formal Meeting Format Tuesday, September 14, 2010 Deputy Mayor Schimmels called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. Attendance. City Staff: Gary Schimmels, Deputy Mayor Mike Jackson, City Manager Rose Dempsey, Councilmember Cary Driskell, Acting City Attorney Bill Gothmann, Councilmember Ken Thompson, Finance Director Dean Grafos, Councilmember Kathy McClung, Community Development Dir. Brenda Grassel, Councilmember Mike Stone, Parks & Recreation Director Bob McCaslin, Councilmember Neil Kersten, Public Works Director Scott Kuhta, Senior Planner Absent Lori Barlow, Associate Planner Tom Towey, Mayor Christina Janssen, Assistant Planner John Whitehead, Human Resources Manager Carolbelle Branch, Public Information Officer Chris Bainbridge, City Clerk INVOCATION: Pastor Isaac Hebden of The Intersection Church gave the invocation. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Deputy Mayor Schimmels led the Pledge of Allegiance. ROLL CALL: City Clerk Bainbridge called the roll; all councilmembers were present except Mayor Towey. It was moved by Councilmember Gothmann, seconded and unanimously agreed to excuse Mayor Towey from tonight's meeting. APPROVAL OF AGENDA: It was moved by Councilmember Grafos, seconded and unanimously agreed to approve the agenda. Deputy Mayor Schimmels suggested and Council concurred, to move agenda item #8 to after agenda item #2. PROCLAMATIONS: Deputy Mayor Schimmels read a Proclamation for Tobacco Free Teens Back to School Week; and the second Proclamation in honor of Valleyfest, and each Proclamation was received by the respective agent with thanks. INTRODUCTION OF SPECIAL GUESTS AND PRESENTATIONS: n/a COMMITTEE, BOARD, LIAISON SUMMARY REPORTS: Councilmember Gothmann ; reported that he attended the Government Affairs Meeting where a member from Spokane Transit Authority (STA) spoke and mentioned among other items that they cover less than 20% of the geography of our county but more than 80% of the population; attended the SVBA Meeting (Spokane Valley Business Association), and mentioned that Mr. Al French, in response to a question about one -way streets, said that businesses prefer to be on the going home side of streets, and that Division /Ruby has not developed because it is one -way, and that the couplet in the Valley has been successful from a motorist point of view, but not from a business owner's point of view; said he attended a Housing and Community Development Advisory Committee where they reported they are combining applications, that they have three sources of funding, i.e. the homeless, affordable housing, and Housing and Urban Development (HUD) related issues, and said they are combining those into one so that social Council Regular Meeting 9 -14 -2010 Page I of 10 Approved by Council: 10 -12 -10 services can make one presentation and then the Board will determine where that would fit best into which program; went to the Council on Governance Meeting where representative McMorris- Rodgers spoke about the national debt, and Brett Sheckler, consultant regarding county and city collaborative planning, spoke about the three roles of the County: provide local service to people who are outside of cities, provide county services to everyone in the county, and provide contract services, and how each of those three segments are funded; said they received a jail update and a vote is expected to be on the April ballot; and they discussed the Transportation Benefit District (TBD). Mr. Gothmann said that Spokane City has decided to implement a $20.00 tab fee without going to ballot, and he reported the City is encouraging the County to move forward with its own TBD, and said the County is asking us for an answer on phase one which is whether to form a TBD, they would also like written feedback on the draft interlocal, whether this issue should be a public vote, feedback on the distribution formula, and if SRTC (Spokane Regional Transportation Council) should act as the TBD Board. Councilmember Dempsey: said she has no report. Councilmember Grafos said he attended the STA Citizens Advisory Committee and Board of Directors Sustainability Workshop at Spokane Transit, and said the Board voted to adopt a formal sustainability program which organizes the interaction between the environmental, social, and economic impact of STA operations and their effect on our community; that he attended the September 9, 2010 Planning Commission meeting which centered on the discussion of proposed text amendment changes forwarded by the Council to the Planning Commission on the City Center Zone on the Subarea Plan; and said that for the record, he did not attend the Council of Governance meeting as he was out of town, and said that he cannot speak for the other councilmembers on this issue, but said he is not in favor of forming any transportation benefit district with other municipalities to create another taxing authority for the cities and /or the county, and said we should first review how effectively past funds have been allocated and used; and said that any TBD formed should have no taxing authority without the vote of the people. Councilmember Grassel reported that she attended the Greater Spokane and Convention Visitor's Bureau meeting and met the new president of that organization; and said the new president's plan is to meet individually with board members; and Councilmember Grassel said she will take issues to the President that she would like to see promoted for the City of Spokane Valley; said she attended the Council of Governance Meeting at the Fairgrounds; and went to the grand opening of the Fair. Councilmember McCaslin said that under the State we have three public employee retirement systems: Pers 1, Pers 2 and Pers 3, and under Pers 2 and 3 there is gain sharing, and said the legislature eliminated that and last week a Judge said they cannot do that as a legislator because that's a contract with the employees; and he said this will run into the billions if that ruling holds. MAYOR'S REPORT: Deputy Mayor Schimmels said he attended a STA committee meeting last week; went to a SRTC meeting; went to the Council of Governance Meeting at the Fairgrounds, which meeting coincided with the opening of the Fair; and went to an auto show at Mirabeau Park. PUBLIC COMMENTS: Deputy Mayor Schimmels invited general public comments. Gene Strunk, 12902 E Broadway, 99216: said the subject is clarification; said he has only been here once or twice, and said the assumption is when he speaks, that somehow he speaks for either this "positive change" group or the disincorporation group; and said he wants to clarify that he has never been a member of either of those and never attended a meeting of either, and has never given those organizations money; said he gave a political donation to Mr. Grafos. He said it strikes him that any time there is input from a taxpayer, and said he considers himself to be an American, conservative, Spokane Valley resident and taxpayer, that it strikes him that there is always some response from the Valley Voice or in particular Mr. Gothmann or Ms. Dempsey; and said they need to understand that if he irritates them, he doesn't represent those people but represents himself. There were no further public comments. Council Regular Meeting 9 -14 -2010 Page 2 of 10 Approved by Council: 10 -12 -10 1. PUBLIC HEARING: 2011 Budget Revenues — Ken Thompson At 6:27 p.m., Deputy Mayor Schimmels opened the public hearing on the 2011 budget and invited Finance Director Thompson to the podium. Mr. Thompson explained that this is the second of three scheduled hearings on the 2011 proposed budget; that there have been some changes, although none significantly; he said the city budget is approximately $62 million, which is less than the 2010 budget; said there has been a significant decrease in the capital budget as there is less federal and state money available for the street projects; and he reminded everyone that the numbers will change slightly as more data arrives; said that as we trim the 2011 budget, that has a similar effect on the 2014 projections, which end up better than originally anticipated; he said sales tax is down about $400,000; property tax is down about $100,000; state shared taxes, primarily the liquor tax, may increase unless the November ballot initiatives pass; fines and forfeitures will be up a few hundred thousand, and said there were several departments which trimmed their budget; we dropped almost all vacant staff positions; and added back in the broadcasting of council meetings; and have put funds aside for anticipated retirement costs; and departments have agreed to try to bring their budgets in at 3% under the 2010 budget, which will save an additional million dollars, and said the last public hearing is scheduled to be held in two weeks. Deputy Mayor Schimmels invited public comment. Arne Woodward, 2511 S Best Road: said he is a member of the Planning Commission but speaks tonight as a private citizen and business owner; said he is a real estate broker and two weeks ago he presented some July figures for closed sales; and said there were 344 closed sales in August, which is a few less than July; and said the July 2009 figures were 738; and 494 in August of 2009; said depending on when the city gets the revenues from the state, the budget must reflect the numbers on the income and revenues, which he said are either flatlined or quickly dying; he said it is a good time to buy real estate but no one is buying; said there were 321 pending sales in July of 2010; and in August there were 354; and said only about half of those sales will actually close. He said if there is a harsh winter this year, it will further hurt the real estate market and said they were at the lowest number ever in January 2008 during the bad winter, and said there were 115 closed sales at that time; and said he wished for a closer examination of the baseline budgeting and that the city should be more cautious in the revenue projections; he said he thinks Mr. Thompson does a great job, but thinks there is a big wave coming that no one is prepared for. Gene Strunk, 12902 E Broadway, 99216 said a few weeks back after Mr. Mercier was terminated and Mr. Jackson was appointed as Acting Manager, that Mr. Strunk received a call from one of his agents because city employee Lori Barlow, who is in planning, called to let him know the finished final plat Mylar needed some adjustments for the county and to please come to City Hall; he said he received that call about 10:45 a.m. and he arrived at the main reception area here at City Hall at 11:40 a.m. and asked the receptionist if he could pick up his Mylar that Lori called him about. Mr. Strunk reported that the woman at the receptionist desk told him that Lori was out; Mr. Strunk said it must be on her desk and he asked the receptionist to please have someone go get it; to which the receptionist replied that she could not because there was no one in the building. Mr. Strunk asked about this, and the receptionist told him that there was a barbeque going on in the back of the building, and told him that she was the only person in the building. Mr. Strunk asked if he came back at 1:05 if he could pick up his Mylar, and was told that would not work; Mr. Strunk asked what about 1:15 and was told that would not work either; Mr. Strunk said he asked if 1:30 would work and was told probably not. Mr. Strunk said he asked for a suggested time to come back and was told to try about 1:45 p.m. Mr. Strunk said when he left about 11:50, he drove around the back and could see many staff at the barbecue. Mr. Strunk said when he got back at 1:45 his Mylar was at the front desk. Mr. Strunk said he has been "looking at the spokane.org blah blah blah, and cannot find in the 2010 budget where the funds are that were paid to those employees that were not at post; in other words, he said these employees effectively stole their pay from the taxpayer, with the knowledge of Mr. Jackson" and said he couldn't find it and suggested Council might help him find it. Mr. Strunk said there is an important point; that in his lifetime he has signed about 1200 W2s, and any man or woman that was punching a clock for him that was punched in and not at their post, were Council Regular Meeting 9 -14 -2010 Page 3 of 10 Approved by Council: 10 -12 -10 immediately fired. He said Council cannot fire anyone except maybe Mr. Jackson; and said it is important from this point the example set by the leadership and finally, he asked "how many of these little Kumbayah moments are we having at the expense of the taxpayer." He said he wants to know and if he doesn't find out, he will hire his own counsel to pursue this further. There being no further comments, Deputy Mayor Schimmels closed the public hearing at 6:40 p.m. 2. CONSENT AGENDA Consists of items considered routine which are approved as a group. Any member of Council may ask that an item be removed from the Consent Agenda to be considered separately. a. Approval of the following claim vouchers: VOUCHER LIST DATE WNOUCHER NUMBERS: TOTAL AMOUNT 8/24/2010 20852 —20894,813100031,81700024 $1,301,386.02 8/26/2010 20895 - 20913 $154,601.59 8/30/2010 20914 - 20939 $39,304.48 8/31/2010 5109 — 5153 (less 5149 ) $4,253.00 8/31/2010 5154 —5157 $521.00 9/01/2010 20940 —20944 $49,273.13 9/03/2010 20945 —20975,831100023,231100034 $2,054,611.06 9/03/2010 20977 - 20983 $14,933.27 GRAND TOTAL $3,618,883.55 b. Approval of Payroll for Period Ending August 31, 2010: $357,797.86 c. Approval of Study Session Council Meeting Minutes of August 17, 2010 It was moved by Councilmember Grafos, seconded and unanimously agreed to approve the consent agenda. The agenda items were taken in the following order, as per the previous discussion. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS 8. Economic Development, Outside Agencies Presentations — Ken Thompson Finance Director Thompson said that each agency was asked to limit their presentation to five minutes; and after all presentations, he would like to briefly discuss the continuing process with Council; said that as a reminder, Community Minded Television will be removed from the total list as they are in line for other funding and will most likely be coming back with others seeking similar funding; and that the Spokane Soccer Club had noted their request is actually for $15,000 rather than $35,000, and they will likely come back to council during the lodging tax funding process. Following are the economic development agencies presentations: (1) Greater Spokane Valle Chamber: explained that their $19,000 request is to assist in their efforts to grow small businesses; mentioned they have helped a variety of businesses through their business incubator; that these requested funds will only be used to promote their Spokane Valley incubator; and to help conduct a needs assessment. (2) Greater Spokane, Inc: requesting $60,000; through their PowerPoint presentation explained how the employment multiplier is a function of how they measure their success; said their organization has a successful track record with over 150 businesses recruited to the region, creating an annual economic impact exceeding $500 million. (3) International Trade Alliance: requesting $25,000; explained their mission and said budgets won't improve without business growing; and their goal is to generate from the largest market, which is outside Council Regular Meeting 9 -14 -2010 Page 4 of 10 Approved by Council: 10 -12 -10 the U.S., and requests funding to support them in their international business development to help put federal funding into the local community; and the funding would assist in local match for grants. (4) Global Trade Services PS: Mr. Mark Peters, regarding their request of $18,900, said they are working with council and staff on a Spokane Valley Export Initiative to coincide with the national and state level to empower all valley companies to compete globally and further explained the initiative per his PowerPoint presentation. (5) HUB Sports Center: said their $14,500 request will put them in a better position to keep operating and providing events to the Spokane Valley area; that their facility is more than a basketball or volleyball facility, but is a diverse group meeting the needs of the community; and said this grant will target the building's utility bills since the wood floors have temperature requirements; and to also purchase an additional shock clock; all which will help attract more people to the HUB. In closing, Finance Director Thompson asked that each councilmember please return the spreadsheet so averages can be taken and he can have that data ready for when this issue returns September 28 for a motion consideration. NEW BUSINESS 3. Second Reading Proposed Ordinance CTA 07 -10, Code Text Amendment (Vehicle Sales in Mixed Use Zone) — Christina Janssen After City Clerk Bainbridge read the ordinance title, it was moved by Councilmember Grafos and seconded to approve ordinance amending Spokane Valley Municipal Code 19.110.020 allowing vehicle sales as a conditional use in the mixed -use avenue zone. Planner Janssen briefly explained the background of this proposed amendment which would allow vehicles to locate in areas in the mixed -use avenue zones as a conditional use; and said the issue was presented at two public hearings before the Planning Commission, and the Commission recommended approval; she said staff received a privately initiated application for this same amendment, which application is pending this decision. Deputy Mayor Schimmels invited public comment. Ben Goodmanson, with Whipple Consulting Engineers, 2528 N Sullivan Rd, said he was speaking on behalf of the landowner Harlan Douglass, and he thanked staff and council for moving this forward. There were no further public comments. Council discussion ensued regarding the conditional use permit and whether not requiring such or adding language that this be subject to an administrative decision would constitute an amendment necessitating sending this issue back to the Planning Commission, which City Attorney Driskell confirmed it would; therefore councilmembers opted to move ahead as stated. Councilmember Grassel asked if vehicle sales in the mixed -use retail zone be placed on an upcoming list for a comp plan change; and Planner Janssen responded that this would not be required to be part of the comp plan amendment process again. Councilmember Grassel said she feels the idea for the future is to just make it allowable in the mixed use; Councilmember Grafos confirmed and Ms. Janssen said she would confer with Mr. McCormick on that process. Vote by Acclamation: In Favor: Unanimous. Opposed: None. Abstentions: None. Motion carried. 4. First Reading Proposed Ordinance, Code Text Amendments (Gateway Commercial Avenue and Gateway Commercial Center Zone Districts) — Lori Barlow After City Clerk Bainbridge read the ordinance title, it was moved by Councilmember Dempsey and seconded to advance the ordinance amending the Gateway Commercial Avenue and Gateway Commercial Center District zones to a second reading. Planner Barlow explained that this ordinance addresses a batch of code text amendments to the Sprague and Appleway Corridor Subarea Plan, and said since these amendments were discussed at considerable length at last week's meeting, she would go over the highlights of the eight proposed amendments. Planner Barlow said the setback amendment, minimum building frontage requirement and to add limited office uses affects the Gateway Commercial Avenue Zoning District, and the limited use of office uses affects the Gateway Commercial Center Zoning District Council Regular Meeting 9 -14 -2010 Page 5 of 10 Approved by Council: 10 -12 -10 as well as the amendment to exempt vehicle sales from the front setback and minimum building coverage regulations; the proposed amendments regarding signage and accessory structures affect all the zoning districts within the Subarea Plan that allow wall signs, pole signs or accessory structures. Planner Barlow also stated that the only proposed amendment not recommended for approval by the Planning Commission is to allow wall signs above the first floor, and she explained the rationale for keeping wall signs below the second floor is because wall signs are geared toward pedestrians, the level most pedestrians most successfully view the signs is at the human scale level, or the first floor or less, which is the foundation for the plan, to create the pedestrian atmosphere. There was some discussion about the setback requirements in these zones; and Councilmember Grassel expressed her concern about not having a consistent standard for the setback; and Planner Barlow explained that tonight's proposal is for the frontage coverage and the front street setback to change in the Gateway Commercial Avenue for all businesses; but because we can't propose the same amendment to the Gateway Center section, the approach that the vehicle sales use will have the same problem in the Center zone, was to address that issue specifically for vehicle uses; and said that these code text amendments are based on comments heard from the public through the review process where the auto dealers voiced concern that they might not have enough room to adequately display their vehicles in front of the building, and that they felt that the minimum frontage requirements caused them to use too much of their frontage with buildings where they thought the value of their property was better used with vehicle display. Planner Barlow said that the proposal for the Gateway Commercial Avenue District was to eliminate the requirements; whereas in the Gateway Commercial Center District, the proposal was to exempt the vehicle sales use from those requirements. Councilmember Grafos said since this exemption only applies to vehicle sales use, if he had a non - automotive business on a corner, then he would still be subject to that setback requirement and to change that would have to be addressed through the comprehensive plan; and said that therefore, is one of the items to eliminate and change the comprehensive plan and asked if that would be on the list of proposed changes coming later, and Ms. Barlow confirmed he was correct. Councilmember Grafos also asked about the 100' setback and if that would also be on the list, and Ms. Barlow confirmed it would, and Ms. Barlow said it is her understanding that such list will forwarded soon to council so councilmembers can see what is being compiled for comprehensive plan changes. Councilmember Grafos also asked that Councilmembers fairly quickly, be supplied with a copy of the current comprehensive plan, the comprehensive plan under the interim zoning, and the comprehensive plan with all the changes that were made in 2007. City Manager Jackson said that at the October 5 council meeting, Community Development Director McClung will make a presentation to council to give a full update of what is included for comp plan changes, adding that the entire Subarea Plan is included, but staff can identify specific sections. There was also discussion concerning the amendment addressing wall sign location and keeping them below the second floor level and that changes can be made for a second ordinance reading if that is council's direction. Councilmember McCaslin asked if Council is permitted to look at the entire Comprehensive Plan or only those items addressed; and Mr. Jackson said council can look at the entire Comprehensive Plan but would need to note which items they would like to examine; that the entire Subarea Plan is on the docket; and if council has other topics within the Comprehensive Plan, those should be brought forward by November l City Attorney Driskell said regarding a motion to address the entire Comprehensive Plan, the public notice would require we identify specifically which items within the plan to examine; and Mr. Driskell said he will get an answer for Councilmember McCaslin regarding looking at the entire plan. The discussion returned to wall signs and it was moved by Councilmember Grafos and seconded to amend the motion by rejecting the Planning Commission's recommendation to retain the language in section 2.62.3 regarding wall sign locations; and to explain, he suggested Council keep all the Planning Commission recommendations except allow wall signs above the first floor. Councilmember Dempsey suggested limiting the size of the sign so as to eliminate the possibility of having huge signs on the second Council Regular Meeting 9 -14 -2010 Page 6 of 10 Approved by Council: 10 -12 -10 and subsequent floors. Discussion ensued and the question was called; Vote by Acclamation to Call the Question: In Favor: Deputy Mayor Schimmels, and Councilmembers Gothmann, Grafos, Grassel and McCaslin. Opposed: Councilmember Dempsey. Abstentions: None. Motion carried. Vote by acclamation on whether to amend the motion: In Favor: Deputy Mayor Schimmels, and Councilmembers McCaslin, Grassel, Grafos, Gothmann. Opposed: Councilmember Dempsey. Abstentions: None. Motion carried. Deputy Mayor Schimmels invited public comment; no comments were offered. The final vote on the amended motion to advance the ordinance to a second reading with the amendment of allowing wall signs above the first floor: In Favor: Deputy Mayor Schimmels, and Councilmembers McCaslin, Grassel, Grafos, and Gothmann. Opposed.• Councilmember Dempsey. Abstentions: None. Motion carried. Deputy Mayor Schimmels called for a recess at 8:05 p.m.; and reconvened the meeting at 8:17 p.m. 5. First Reading_ Proposed Ordinance, Pre - Treatment — Cary Driskell After City Clerk Bainbridge read the ordinance title, it was moved by Councilmember Grafos and seconded to advance the ordinance adopting SVMC 22.160 — Industrial pre - treatment standards to a second reading. Acting City Attorney Driskell explained the purpose of this amendment as noted on the Request for Council Action form, and showed the area in question on the overhead map including the area in Yardley and the small residential area. Deputy Mayor Schimmels invited public comment; no comments were offered. Mr. Driskell added that a draft interlocal agreement will also come before council at the September 28 council meeting. Vote by Acclamation: In Favor: Unanimous. Opposed: None. Abstentions: None. Motion carried. 6. Proposed Resolution, Accepting Shoreline Inventory Report — Scott Kuhta After City Clerk Bainbridge read the resolution title, it was moved by Councilmember Grafos and seconded to approve the resolution formally accepting the Shoreline Inventory and Characterization Report. Senior Planner Kuhta explained that after a series of public meetings and joint Planning Commission and Council meetings, and hearing from the consultants from URS Company, along with the former request of Centennial Properties, that the City's Shoreline Master Program Update team reviewed the report, met with representatives from Centennial Properties, and now recommends that the Centennial Properties Shoreline Assessment be attached as an appendix to the Shoreline Inventory and Characterization Report. Deputy Mayor Schimmels invited public comments; no comments were offered. Vote by Acclamation: In Favor: Deputy Mayor Schimmels, and Councilmembers Grassel, Grafos, Gothmann and Dempsey. Opposed: Councilmember McCaslin. Abstentions: None. Motion carried. 7. Proposed Resolution, Water District Easement — Cary Driskell After City Clerk Bainbridge read the resolution title, it was moved by Councilmember Grafos and seconded to approve the resolution granting the easement and authorize the City Manager to execute all necessary documents related to the same. Acting City Attorney Driskell explained the area in question and the purpose of the easement, as explained at the previous council meeting. Deputy Mayor Schimmels invited public comment; no comments were offered. Vote by Acclamation: In Favor: Unanimous. Opposed: None. Abstentions: None. Motion carried. PUBLIC COMMENTS: Deputy Mayor Schimmels invited general public comments; no comments were offered. 9. Subarea Plan (SARP), City Center Report Back to Council — Scott Kuhta Via his PowerPoint presentation, Senior Planner Kuhta gave a recap of the August 19, 2010 Community Meeting which addressed the following issues: (1) City Center Temporary Core Street Regulations concerning City Center retail until building permits are issued for the Core Street, adding that the City is not currently working on the City Center /City Hall project; (2) Permitted Uses and that the City Center Council Regular Meeting 9 -14 -2010 Page 7 of 10 Approved by Council: 10 -12 -10 zone restricts some type of retail uses compared to other zoning; and other than some letters which Mr. Kuhta will go over a little later today, there weren't any specific concerns other than general suggestions about restriction on retail uses, and he said adding auto - oriented uses to the City Center District Zone would require a comprehensive plan amendment; (3) pre - located streets, and Mr. Kuhta said this is being addressed in terms of minimum or maximum acreage size which the Planning Commission is reviewing; and that the main concern is the cost required for hose to be developed, the land consumption, and impacts to existing buildings; and he explained that the purpose of prelocated streets is because the Plan calls for a fully connected street network and to allow for small blocks, which is a key strategy for revitalization; is integral to making the corridor pedestrian oriented, and he mentioned that the Community Development Director may approve alternate street locations; and said that changes to the language would require a code text amendment or some specific requirements such as eliminating prelocated streets, and other changes would require a comp plan amendment; (4) nonconforming uses; he explained that the current comp plan in the Subarea Plan has a two -year time limit when replacing a nonconforming use with another nonconforming use; and the rest of the city has a one -year time limit. He explained the main concerns voiced were the vacancy rates and the current economy; he said that some of the concerns of staff included that establishing time limits to replace nonconforming uses is a very common tool to transition nonconforming uses to permitted uses over time; and that Council has previously decided to delay making changes to nonconforming use regulations until we go through the entire plan; and he explained further that if uses are added as we go through the entire comp plan, that perhaps the nonconforming issue would resolve itself; and said it is Council's discretion and this could be accomplished through a code text amendment; (5) one -way vs. two -way streets; Mr. Kuhta said they received a comment concerning the impact of one -way streets on businesses; and said that the Subarea plan does establish the intended future street network, and if there are changes to that, such would require a change to the comprehensive plan. Planner Kuhta said that during the community meeting, a woman who is a property manager and owns some apartments in the City Center area, said she feels strongly that the city needs to establish an identity and he said her comments are included in the council packet materials; and said Council options include considering the comments from the public and directing staff further; select issues to forward to the Planning Commission for code amendments; and that concerns from Council which would require a comprehensive plan amendment, will be added to the list for the comp plan amendment process. Mr. Kuhta mentioned two letters, one from the Pring Corporation and the other from Attorney James Magnuson concerning the Pring Corporation purchasing property from the Magnuson; that the property is located on the west side of Dartmouth where the old tavern exists, that the area consists of approximately five acres, and that they would like to use that property, along with the Pring property on the north side, for an auto - oriented use; that they did not specifically state the use, but would like Council to consider a text amendment to allow auto - oriented uses on those properties. Mr. Kuhta said they are also under a tight timeline. Councilmember Grafos said regarding the core street, that can be handled with a code text amendment; he said we are not doing anything with a city hall or city center now so he doesn't see a problem there; regarding permitting uses which would allow vehicle sales and auto - oriented uses in the city center zone, he said when this was first presented, about 36% of the uses in the city center zone were nonconforming and he mentioned several specifically, and said he does not want to restrict those businesses, especially in this economy; and said he would like to send the permitted uses to allow vehicle sales and auto - oriented uses in the city center zone, back to the Planning Commission and see if that can be changed prior to making changes in the comprehensive plan. Attorney Driskell said he will research that option and report back to council. Councilmember Grassel said in reading the notes and memos from different owners, is they want to return to pre -SARP zoning; and said it appears it would be easier to make one comprehensive plan to change it to pre -SARP zoning, and she asked for the procedure to do that. Attorney Driskell said staff understands that Council wants to have the entire SARP plan on the agenda Council Regular Meeting 9 -14 -2010 Page 8 of 10 Approved by Council: 10 -12 -10 and if those changes are small or substantial, all that is on the table; and City Manager Jackson added that at the October 5 meeting, Community Development Director McClung will discuss exactly that: whether to do a variety of small changes or one major change. Mr. Kuhta said that if this is done as a comprehensive plan amendment, whether small parts or all at once, it will require a process that at a minimum will take three to four months; that the process starts November 1, then staff starts the processing of those items and sets up community meetings if broad issues, or if minor the issue goes directly to the Planning Commission; and he said each year it takes from November to approximately May or June to get through the Comp Plan amendment process; and he said this is not just for the Subarea Plan, but other comp plan issues as well; adding that the comp plan amendments move through the process together so all issues can be addressed in concert and thereby realize the impacts of all changes. Mr. Jackson said that as done previously regarding the items addressed to go back to the Planning Commission, a motion to that effect will be brought back for Council's consideration; which will include core street regulations, and perhaps vehicle sales (depending on the outcome of staff's research). Councilmember Grassel asked about the twenty -four month requirement and Mr. Kuhta said that could be accomplished by a code text amendment; and said at this point it won't affect anyone since twenty -four months is so far out, that Council will know what Council will be doing with the Subarea plan prior to that time expiration; and said that previously council determined to wait to see how the process goes on the nonconforming regulations since uses are being added, and all will be reviewed the beginning of November. Councilmember Gothmann reiterated that the non - conforming use for all the city is one -year with the exception of those in the corridor, which would be two years; and in response to the mention of changing that two years to five years, Councilmember Gothmann said it seems unfair to him to apply a five -year standard to businesses and a one -year to residences. Councilmember Grafos said he is concerned with the current economy, and the current tax base, and by this plan we have taken a lot of these businesses and turned them into nonconforming businesses, which he said becomes a factor if one were to re- finance or expand and have the appraiser say that since this is a nonconforming use, the business owner won't get a credit for value on the property and therefore the financing won't go through and a project won't happen; and said there is also an increase in insurance rates when dealing with nonconforming uses; and Councilmember Grafos distributed some information he received from Inland Insurance, which breaks down the ramifications of having a nonconforming use, along with the additional cost. Councilmember Dempsey said she is concerned that if Council gets rid of all the regulations and all the planning, that Council will face difficult situations when the economy is better; and said just because things are bad now doesn't mean everything needs to be changed; and expressed her concern that Council might be using the recession as an excuse for everything. Deputy Mayor Schimmels said since this is coming back to Council October 5, he suggested letting this play itself out. Mr. Kuhta summarized that items to bring forward to council to move as a motion back to the Planning Commission, would include the issue of temporary core street regulations, that staff will return with more information on vehicle sales and auto - oriented uses, and the nonconforming uses would likely resolve themselves during this process. 10. Advance Agenda — Deputy Mayor Schimmels Councilmember McCaslin requested to make a motion that preceding the next council meeting at 5:30, council go into executive session on a personnel issue and pending discussions with the acting city manager; and he asked if Council would like a motion or would the council agree by consensus. Discussion ensued and Councilmember McCaslin said he does not agree with the Mayor and thought Council should have had an executive session prior to bringing it out in public to discuss the pending discussions with Mr. Jackson, or any, City Manager candidate; and said he thinks that should have been discussed in executive session prior to discussing it in public. The question was asked of Attorney Driskell of the appropriateness of such executive session, and Mr. Driskell said he thinks what Councilmember McCaslin is referring to is one of the exceptions to the Open Public Meeting Act (OPMA) for executive sessions, that being the evaluation of somebody for public employment, and so if the nature of the discussion relates to the qualifications of the acting city manager in relation to specific Council Regular Meeting 9 -14 -2010 Page 9 of 10 Approved by Council: 10 -12 -10 provisions of the contract, and whether those relate closely enough to the experience level, he said he thinks that is within that exception to the OPMA. Further Mr. Driskell said if for instance, one were to take some of the comments that we heard at the last meeting about the experience of Mr. Jackson and relate that to what the compensation terms are, that, he said in his opinion, is a discussion about the qualifications for the position that is being discussed, and said he feels that is an appropriate discussion for an executive session. It was Council consensus that such a meeting be scheduled for next Tuesday at 5:00 p.m., thereby giving ample time for the executive session without running the risk of interfering with the regular 6:00 p.m. council meeting. INFORMATION ONLY: The following items were for information only and were not reported or discussed: (11) Response to Previous Public Comments (12) Community Development Monthly Report; (13) Pre -Call for Regionally Significant Projects. It was moved by Councilmember McCaslin, seconded and unanimously agreed to adjourn. The meeting adjourned at 9:05 p.m. ATTEST- Kristine Bainbridge, City Clerk Council Regular Meeting 9 -14 -2010 Approved by Council: 10 -12 -10 h owey, Mayor Page 10 of 10 ►h� /' WITH ERSP0ON-KELLEY Attorneys & Counselors SPOKAW I SEAFILL l COEOR O'ALENF 1 PORTI.AIJU P. J. DULLANI'Y. JR. I; e)—d to Piacti ;n kkaHUnyion l;rl,r. mr, rnnitk- Wel r.nrn September 14, 2010 Mayor Members of the City Council 11707 E. Sprague Ave., Suite 106 City of Spokane Valley, WA 99206 Re: Shoreline Inventory Report and Shoreline Characterization Centennial Properties Dear Mr. Mayor and Members of the City Council: On behalf of Centennial Properties, we have now completed our review Spokane Valley's Shoreline Inventory and Characterization Report (Shoreline Inventory) prepared by URS. In addition, Centennial Properties ( "CP ") has, in cooperation with the City's Planning staff and URS, submitted its own detailed Shoreline Inventory, with respect to its own properties. We have met with the staff and URS to discuss both our detailed analysis as well as their report and understand that our more detailed Shoreline Inventory is to be incorporated as an appendix and therefore part of the City's Shoreline Inventory. We wish to compliment the staff and its consultant, for not only allowing us to work with them, but incorporating our own assessment into their report as well. While cost and time prevent the City from providing a more detailed analysis, CP can and has provided that level detail to its property which we believe is important in helping to guide the City in the eventual adoption of its own Shoreline Master Plan. We believe that a more detailed assessment clearly indicates the ability of private landowners not only assist the City but provide a more detailed assessments that will form the framework for a flexible plan that ultimately will guide the City in its development of regulations and provide a higher degree of protection and enhancement to the function and values of the Spokane River. We have requested that our own assessment and inventory be made part of the City's assessment, inventory and shoreline characterization, and provide a framework in which other private property owners can likewise provide a more detailed report than what currently exists. Clearly, the benefits to the City will be far greater by having a much more detailed inventory and shoreline characterization report. Again, thank you for the opportunity to review the report prepared by URS Corporation and at the same time, allowing us to provide our own more detailed report as part of that 422 W. Riverside Avenue, Suite 1 100 Tel: 509.624.5265 Spokane, Washington 99201-0300 Fax: 509.458.2728 www.witherspoonkelleyxonl Mayor Members of the City Council September 14, 2010 Page 2 inventory. We, therefore, support the proposed Shoreline Should you have any questions, please feel free to call. FJD:kwb cc: Very truly yours, Robert Smith, Centennial Properties Deanne Logan, Centennial Properties i r RECEIVED SEP 10 2010 City of Spokane Valley The Honorable Mayor Tom Towey City of Spokane Valley, Washington 11707 East Sprague Avenue, Suite 106 Spokane Valley, WA 99206 Dear Mayor Towey: September 9, 2010 I am writing in support of the request of the Pring Corporation of September 7, 2010, that certain property owned by University City, Inc., be returned to Pre -SARP zoning via text amendment to the SARP plan. University City, Inc., has owned the subject property since the early 1970s. The property was originally developed in 1964 by Sam Postell. At that time, the biggest building on North Division was the W. T. Grant Building located where Northtown now is. Mr. Postell bought the tear down.parts of the W. T. Grant building and used the parts to construct the big building formerly located on the subject property. This building housed a fabric store and was subsequently occupied by National Golf. The property served as a small strip center of a neighborhood variety consisting of seven businesses including a tavern, jewelry store and a doll store. For all practical purposes, functional use of the property ceased approximately ten years ago except for the tavern, which ceased business three or four years ago. This provides a historical perspective. of development on the subject property. University City, Inc., has spent considerable effort over the last 15 years to redevelop the area without success. During the economic boom of the last decade, there was a great deal of lending money pouring into real estate development. At that time it appeared that there were investors to invest in redevelopment of University City provided a market existed for the activities developed The City of Spokane Valley endeavored to create zoning to attract developers for investment and redevelopment of the City Center area. As we all know, the world changed. Financial institutions are not making loans available for development except in the most strong of circumstances. Investors have either lost their money or left, moving investment to the remaining attractive markets in this country and the world. Nothing has happened in terms of new development in this area for many years. There is nothing on the horizon. Economists are H. JAMES MAGNUSON ATTORNEY AT LAW 1250 NORTHWOOD CENTER COURT POST OFFICE BOX 2288 COEUR D'ALENE, IDAHO 63816-2288 TELEPHONE (208) 666 -1596 FAX (208) 666 -1700 911��ld .s • The Honorable Mayor Tom Towey City of Spokane Valley, Washington September 9, 2010 Page 2 referring to this decade as a lost decade as no one expects the unemployment situation to change markedly and the economy to improve for many years. With the current economic context and the current zoning on the subject parcel we know nothing can be developed in the foreseeable future. For these fundamental economic reasons, and for the underlying benefit to the City for establishment of new business with resulting increases in jobs and the tax base, we believe it is in everyone's best interests that the request of Pring Corporation for the zoning text amendment be approved as soon as possible to enable their plans to move forward. Jack Pring and the Pring family are pioneer natives of the Spokane Valley. They are active in a wide variety of business interests and are stalwarts of the community. The Prings are clearly the best people who have the foresight, ability and business acumen to make something positive happen on this property. I wish to thank you in advance for your consideration of this request. yo s, MAGNU . d :Law I. 1i ��17 cc: Bradley T. Pring, President of Pring Brenda Grassel (position 1) Gary Schimmels (position 4) Dean Grafos (position 2) Bob McCaslin (position 5) Rose Dempsey (position 3) Bill Gothmann (position 6) Mike Jackson (City Manager) Kathy McClung (Community Development Director) 9/18/2010 ZONING AND LAND USE TIME LINE AND CITE' ACTIONS: 2003 city incorporates and inherits County Land Use Plan (comprehensive plan and county zoning matrix. B -1, B -2, B -3, UR -22 etc. October 2007 City of Spokane Valley adopts its own comp plan and replaces County regulations and zoning with its own plan. Regional Commercial, Community Commercial, Corridor mixed use, etc. 2007 City comp. plan fulfills the state mandate for each city to have its own comprehensive plan and zoning code. City then starts sub -area planning to restore Sprague- Appleway properties by creating a city center, city hall, library within this new sub -area of the city- SARP. Staff and consultants sell the public, planning commission and council on a different zone and land use concept called form -based zoning. Council adopts the plan presented by staff and consultants. SARP. The public and property owners now become aware of the massive changes, restrictions and costs of the new plan. New council replaces old. The new council voted in by the public, tries to repeal SARP and is told it was adopted into the 2007 Growth Management plan rules and can only be amended annually with interium text amendment changes which are possible to the zone code only. All other sub -area changes to SARP must wait to be done as part of the annual GNU plan review. Problem: This procedure only changes parts of the SARP plan and the zone code, and it just results in a modified SARP plan. 1. How can the legislative will of the majority of the council to reveal, not tweak SARP be accomplished? 2. When will council be given the forum by staff and legal counsel to vote the plan out? 3. Will an amendment be crafted by staff and legal counsel to vote for elimination? When? 4. Can the SARP plan be made an option under the former 2007 Zone Code and Comprehensive Plan. Making the SARP plan development standards o tp iona NOT REOUIRED CITYWIDE would seem to accomplish the same goals without the restrictions placed on economic development by the regulations imposed on property owners by the sub -area plan. SARP. Benefits: 1. Restores property rights and zoning entitlements throughout the city. Development standards would be uniform throughout the city. 2. Would eliminate numerous non - conforming uses, buildings and signs. 3. Eliminates the financial and insurance burdens of non - conforming uses. 4. Pre - located street requirements would be project specific, maximum block size, etc. 5. Provides uniform zoning throughout the city and treats all similar zoned property equally. 6. Provides the option to the land owner /developer to use mixed use if he wants to use mixed -use design standards and procedures. Provides standards for mixed -use design and development projects. 7. Salvages value out of the millions of dollars in staff time and consultant fees paid by the City to develop the sub -area plan. 8. Development standards, mixed -use design etc. could be directed toward promoting the city center concept at Mirabeau Park, Centerplace, and surrounding development with community activities, the Centennial Trail, river access, the YMCA, hotels, freeway access, and the nearby Industrial Park. Copy: City Manager — Mike Jackson City attorney - Cary Driskell City Council Dean Grafos City Council PSG G)JRPORATION September 7, 2010 The Honorable Mayor Tom Towey City of Spokane Valley, Washington 11707 East Sprague Avenue, Suite 106 Spokane Valley, WA 99206 Hand Delivered on September 7, 2010 Dear Mayor Towey: On behalf of Pring Corporation, (the "Buyer ") please be advised that on August 23, 2010, we have entered into a Purchase And Sale Agreement (the "Sale Agreement "), with University City, Inc., (the "Seller ") for the property legally described in Exhibit "A" and depicted on Exhibit `B" ( "Subject Property I "), both of which Exhibits are attached hereto and by this reference made a part hereof. As set forth in Exhibit `B ", Subject Property 1 is delineated in red and is located West of South Dartmouth Road extending West to the Appleway Subaru Property consisting of six (6) acres, more or less, of primarily bare land with a small existing burned out commercial building located thereon. Pursuant to the terms of the Sale Agreement, the Sale Agreement provides for the demolition and environmental cleanup of the existing burned out building to be completed within the contingency period set. forth in the Sale Agreement. Due to the confidentiality terms of the Sale Agreement we are unable to attach a copy, provided, however, I am attaching -hereto a copy of a Memorandum of Purchase and Sale Agreement (the Memorandum), which is in the process of being filed in the Auditor's Office - in Spokane County, Washington. The Memorandum provides that the sale of Subject Property 1 is contingent on various due diligence matters set forth in the Sale Agreement. One of the most important contingent matters is the changing of the City Center Zoning District (City Center Zone), for the Property which became effective in October, 2009 under the adoption of the Sprague and Appleway Corridors Subarea Plan ( "SARP "). Pring Corporation also owns a large parcel of bare land; approximately 8.4 acres ( "Subject Property 2 ") legally described in Exhibit "A" and also delineated in red set forth on Exhibit `B" hereto. Under Pre -SARP zoning (November, 2007= October, 2009), and Spokane County Interim Zoning (2003 — 2007), Subject Property 2 carried considerably more dense zoning. With the adoption of SARP in October, 2009, Subject Property 1 and 2 have been rezoned to City Center Zone. In August of 2010, Pring Corporation had an inquiry for the sale of Subject Property 2 for auto related sales and service, a non - conforming use under City Center Zoning now applicable to that property. However, the party appears to have lost interest in the property after checking the current City Center Zoning with the Spokane Valley 15404 E. Springfield Avenue / SPOKANE VALLEY, WA 99037 -0457 / (509) 921 -8880 FAX (509) 928 -5435 Real Estate Development Commercial Loans Investments -�y Planning Department. Under SARP City Center Zone it prohibits their intended use for the property, as well as other SARP restrictions, including but not limited to, the incubation restriction and the moratorium of development as a result thereof. Under Pre - SARP zoning, and Spokane County Interim Zoning, uses desired by the recent inquiry for this large parcel of property would have qualified for the uses expressed by the potential. purchaser. For this very reason, we are of record with the City as to our opposition to SARP prior to its adoption. Such opposition went on deaf.ears. The City Center Zone for Subject Property 1 and 2 are so restrictive that the intended use we may have for those Properties is clearly prohibited. Such restrictions include, but are not limited to, (i) non - commercial uses planned for the Property, (ii) City Center Core Street Development, which may take an extended period of time to complete., (iii) a City Center Neighborhood Development, which also may take an extended period of time to be realized, and (iv): the " incubation " of a District Core area and Core Street within the City Center Zone. Such incubation, we understand, further provides for the moratorium on further development in the City Center Zone until the designated incubation Core Street area has a final Binding Site,Plan (BSP) establishing the City Center Core Street and the approval thereof by the City of Spokane Valley (the "City "). The current City Center Core Street is not within Subject Property 1 and 2, and if it were, City Center .Zone does not provide for the intended use of the Properties. Such restrictions, including but not limited to, the down zoning, incubation and the moratorium affecting potential sales and/or development of the subject properties, in our opinion, borders on a "Regulatory Taking" under Federal and Washington State law. Based on the above, and in consideration . of little or no current sales or development in the City Center Zone contiguous to Subject Property .1 and 2, it appears the prior City Council who approved the SARP plan has. dug a "deep hole" with respect to future commercial development in an established vital commercial . area within the City. It is our understanding that the City Council can and has made changes to allow uses within the SARP plan which would accommodate the uses and .other commercial developments referenced above. Based on that understanding, we hereby request the City Council take the necessary steps to provide changes to the City Center Zone that would accommodate the intended use of the Subject Property 1 and 2 for auto related sales and service development and other commercial uses all approved under (i) Pre -SARP Zoning, i.e. Regional Commercial and Corridor Mixed Use, and (ii) under the Spokane County Interim Zoning, i.e. B -3. The matrix uses.provided under Pre -SARP Zoning and Spokane County Interim Zoning would have allowed us to sell and/or develop the Subject Properties for our intended use, and based on the capital investment required, we believe would provide substantial new employment, additional tax revenues and other benefits to the City and accordingly would be in its best interest. 2 Pursuant to our Agreement with the Seller, time is. of the essence in order to fulfill a very important contingency therein, and to promote further commercial development in the City Center Zoning District. We look forward to your early positive response, and for approval within the next sixty (60) days from the date hereof. Very truly yours, Pring Corporation Bradley Pring, President Attachment — Memorandum of Purchase and Sale cc: H. James Magnuson, President University City, Inc. Brenda Grassed —(position 1) Gary Schimmels — ( position 4) Dean Grafos — (position 2) Bob McCaslin — (position 5) Rose Dempsey — (position 3) Bill Gothmarm — (position 6) Mike Jackson (City Manager) Kathy McClung (Community Development Director) 3 EXHIBIT "A" LEGAL DESCRIPTIONS SUBJECT PROPERTY 1 All Parcel "G" and that portion of Parcel "D" lying west of Dartmouth Street, Binding Site Plan 56 -57, according to plat recorded in Volume 2 of Binding Site Plans, pages 7 and 8 in the City of Spokane Valley, Spokane County, Washington. SUBJECT PROPERTY 2 The southeast quarter of the southwest quarter of the southwest quarter of Section 17, Township 25 North, Range 44 East, W.M., in Spokane County, Washington. EXCEPT the west 20 feet and the north 15 feet thereof subject to the right of way of the Spokane and Inland Railroad Company, subject to reservations, restrictions, and provisions of record. 3 ;� � -.- - - -- N 3 r 5. rt r y 'nd 1 4 11111■ItrI��L1 o Li a • ` r "_ EXHIBIT "B" PROPERTY MAP AFTER RECORDING RETURN TO Kathryn R. McKinley Wolkey McKinley, P.S. 528 E. Spokane Fails Blvd., Ste. 502 Spokane, WA 99202 MEMORANDUM OF PURCHASE AND SALE AGREEMENT THIS MEMORANDUM OF PURCHASE AND SALE AGREEMENT, effective as of the 23rd day of August, 2010, is by and between UNIVERSITY CITY, INC., a Washington corporation, whose address is P.O. Box 469, Wallace, Idaho 83873 ( "Seller ") and PRING CORPORATION, a Washington corporation, whose address is 15404 East Springfield Avenue, Suite #200, Spokane Valley, Washington 99037 ( "Buyer "). Grantor and Grantee have entered into a Purchase and Sale Agreement dated August 23, 2010 (the "Agreement ") wherein Seller has agreed to sell to Buyer and Buyer has agreed to buy from Seller, upon the terms and conditions set forth in the Agreement, certain real property located in Spokane County, Washington, and more particularly described on Exhibit A attached hereto (the "Property "). Sale of the Property is contingent on various matters set forth in the Agreement. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Memorandum of Purchase and Sale Agreement on the dates set forth in the acknowledgements below to be effective on the date first set forth above. SELLER: UNIVERSITY CITY, INC., a Washington corporation A H. , President BUYER: PRING CORPORATION, a Washington corporation T. Prirfib, President STATE. OF S ) } SS. COUNTY OF "2SE1 ) On this 4j day of August, 2010, before me, the undersigned, a Notary Public in and for the State of duly commissioned and sworn, personally appeared H, James (Magnuson, identified or known to me to be the President of University City, Inc., a Washington corporation, the corporation that executed this instrument, and acknowledged the instrument to be the free and voluntary act and deed of the corporation, for the uses and purposes therein mentioned, and on oath stated that he is authorized to execute this instrument. GIVEN my hand and official seal this 3 S� day of August, 2010. STEPHANIE BELDEN Notary Phi blic for the St too tit-.? N N ®1 AflY P UBLIC : Residing at' STATE OF 1DAH0 My Commission expires 3 N STATE OF s3 ks ) ) 5S. COUNTY OF v-- ) On this � of , 010, before me, the undersigned, a Notary Public in and for the State of , duly commissioned and sworn, personally appeared Bradley T. Prang, identified or kndWn to me to be the President of Pring Corporation, a Washington corporation, the corporation that executed this instrument, and acknowledged the instrument to be the free and voluntary act and deed of the corporation, for the uses and purposes therein mentioned, and on oath stated that he is authorized to execute his instrument, ` GIVEN my hand and official seal this _ day of August; 2010. i'� r 9� ` pt tl a....... sl Notary Public for the State of c�/� Residing at �I�A" PTARy' o ` My Commission expires -4 49P 0 W N e5o 2 EXHIBIT A Real Property Description All Parcel "G" and that portion of Parcel "D" lying west of Dartmouth Street, Binding Site Plan 56- 97, according to plat recorded in Volume 2 of Binding Site Plans, pages 7 and 8, in the City of Spokane Valley, Spokane County, Washington. 000778100792/1643176vI