2010, 08-24 Regular Meeting MinutesMINUTF,S
City of Spokane Valley
City Council Regular Meeting
Formal Meeting Format
Tuesday, August 24, 2010
Mayor Towey called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m.
Attendance:
City Staff:
Tom Towey, Mayor
Mike Jackson, City Manager
Gary Schimmels, Deputy Mayor
Cary Driskell, Acting City Attorney
Rose Dempsey, Councilmember
Ken Thompson, Finance Director
Bill Gothmann, Councilmember
Kathy McClung, Community Development Dir.
Dean Grafos, Councilmember
Mike Stone, Parks & Recreation Director
Brenda Grassel, Councilmember
Neil Kersten, Public Works Director
Bob McCaslin, Councilmember
Greg McCormick, Planning Manager
Mike Basinger, Senior Planner
Christina Janssen, Assistant Planner
Carolbelle Branch, Public Information Officer
Chris Bainbridge, City Clerk
INVOCATION: Pastor Ben Orchard of Valley Bible Church gave the invocation.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Mayor Towey led the Pledge of Allegiance.
ROLL CALL: City Clerk Bainbridge called the roll; all councilmembers were present.
APPROVAL OF AGENDA: It was moved by Deputy Mayor Schimmels, seconded and unanimously
agreed to approve the agenda.
INTRODUCTION OF SPECIAL GUESTS AND PRESENTATIONS: n/a
COMMITTEE, BOARD, LIAISON SUMMARY REPORTS:
Councilmember Gothmann reported he attended a Spokane Valley Business Association (SVBA)
meeting where they heard a speaker from the Washington Policy Center discuss ways governments can
increase efficiencies and reduce expenses; attended a Transportation meeting where a person from
Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) presented a new program concerning truck
performance and the use of technology to determine where bottlenecks occur on interstates; participated
in the Council bicycle ride with about fifty other individuals, and said the safety information he received
was very helpful; attended the Sprague /Appleway Revitalization Plan (SARP) city center meeting;
attended the Chamber of Commerce meeting at Liberty Lake where that city's State of the City Address
was given; and attended the annual celebration at Edgeclift concerning their successful efforts in
removing crime out of their neighborhood.
Councilmember Dempsey said she attended the SARP city meeting and the Chamber of Commerce
Breakfast in liberty Lake, and said she was impressed with the facility and mentioned they want to make
people aware of the facility's availability to be rented.
Councilmember Grafos said he attended the SARP meeting which was well attended and he mentioned
some of the issues discussed at that meeting, such as existing building's nonconforming uses, pre - located
streets, and building frontage requirements; said he talked to the sheriff officers concerning graffiti on the
railroad trestle on Argonne and said it should be painted over this weekend.
Council Regular Meeting 8 -24 -2010 Page 1 of 11
Approved by Council: 09 -28 -10
Deputy Mayor Schimmels said he attended the regional transportation meeting; the HUB meeting, the
grand opening of the Hobby Lobby; and the City Center SARP meeting.
Councilmember Grassel reported she attended a meeting with the EPA (Environmental Protection
Agency) and WSDOT at Liberty Lake's Water and Sewer District regarding new TMDL (total maximum
daily load) being implemented in Washington, and of their efforts to bring all parties together from
Washington and Idaho, and the idea of forming an advisory committee.
Councilmember McCaslin no report.
MAYOR'S REPORT: reported that he also learned a lot about bicycle safety as he participated in the
bicycle tour; attended the public meeting of the City Center; attended the Chamber Breakfast; went to
CenterPlace for a retired senior volunteer program/ceremony to honor all volunteers, and said he is a
member of that group; and that he attended the ribbon cutting at Hobby Lobby. Mayor Towey also
announced that Councilmember Dempsey received a certificate of municipal leadership from the
Association of Washington Cities for completing more than thirty hours of training in such areas as
budgeting, land use planning, personnel, safety and leadership. Mayor Towey also extended
congratulations to Parks and Recreation Director Stone and his staff for the article in the National Parks
and Recreation magazine about our Discovery Playground.
PUBLIC COMMENTS: Mayor Towey invited general public comments.
Valerie Dunn, 11610 East Frederick Ave: expressed concern and asked why regulations would prevent
keeping chickens in residential areas, and she asked what could be done to change that; she said
regulations allow keeping twenty -five beehives but not chickens. Attorney Driskell said that staff will
look at options and report back to Ms. Dunn and to council, and said that in the past, we heard many
complaints about chickens running loose in other people's yards.
1. PUBLIC HEARING: 2011 Budget Revenues — Ken Thompson
Mayor Towey opened the public hearing at 6:20 p.m. and invited Finance Director Thompson to the
podium. Mr. Thompson explained that the purpose of tonight's public hearing on the 2011 estimated
revenues and expenditures, as is required by state statutes, is to allow members of the public an
opportunity to comment on what the government is proposing for property and other taxes; he explained
that the ordinance to be passed later this year will be to adopt the 2011 budget; that we expect our
assessed value to be approximately $7.1 billion but a final number won't be available from the County
until late December or early January. Mr. Thompson said projections are difficult this year as we have
had strong assessed value increases over the last few years, and said he expects to see some appeals which
will continue to lower that assessed value number; he said this assessed value would result in $1.54 tax
rate for our residents, but again that number is subject to change. Regarding property taxes, Mr.
Thompson said we expect our property tax levy to be down about $100,000 which is a decrease of 1 %.
Director Thompson said the overall city budget is an estimated $62 million, which is down considerably
from last year; he said in prior years we took the ending balance in each fund and included that in the
budget's expenditure total, which was confusing, so we are not including that ending fund balance. He
said there is a significant decrease in capital revenues by approximately $5 million, which he said is
primarily because there is less state and federal funds to help with such things as streets and parks. He
said the property tax levy would be less; and he again cautioned that these numbers could change over
time. Mr. Thompson also mentioned there will be two public hearings on the budget during September;
and explained that there will be more money shown in the projections for 2014, that there was a concern
previously that there could be a deficit in 2014, but the ending fund balance number has come up
dramatically because of budget reductions, which he said Mr. Jackson will elaborate on further during his
September 7 presentation of the Preliminary Budget.
As per his PowerPoint presentation, Mr. Thompson explained the drop in revenues and expenses, and said
that the eight or nine vacant staff positions were dropped from the budget which resulted in a savings of
Council Regular Meeting 8 -24 -2010 Page 2 of I 1
Approved by Council: 09 -28 -10
approximately $350,000, and with an overall savings of approximately $1 million; and we added in
$45,000 for council broadcasting; he said what we pay for retirement for our employees will also increase
but we are unsure of the exact amount and have added $100,000 to build a fund for that purpose, adding
that costs are shared by employee and employer per state law. Mr. Thompson said there are two initiatives
dealing with the state liquor laws slated for the November ballot which could roll back some of the
revenues we receive from the state if those initiatives are passed. Mr. Thompson mentioned that
information available in tonight's council packet and for the public that contains figures from last year's
costs, the budget numbers for the current year, and our projections for next year. Mayor Towey invited
public comments.
Arne Woodward 2511 S Best Rd, said he is an area real estate broker: said he attended most of the
budget retreat and he encouraged council to cut into the budget further or reduce the growth further than
the proposed 3 %; he said he realizes budget projections for annual growth are normally 7 %, and this
means we are still growing at 4 %; he said his business is down 75 %; and nationally real estate dropped
27% in July; he said his household budget has been cut in half and to see the city still growing at 4%
concerns him; he said the City Manager and Finance Director have done a fabulous job but said he feels
there is some delayed slowing of income coming, much faster than what 3% will adjust; and said if there
is too much money we could always put it back into the roads, but said he feels the budget needs to be cut
or the expenses need to be slowed down faster than what is projected; and said we are not anticipating the
lack of growth of funds and recommends a bigger cut than the 3 %. There were no further public
comments.
Councilmember Gothmann said using Mr. Thompson's figures, the general fund income for 2010 was
$35.1 million, for 2011 is $34.487 million which is a reduction in income of $678,000; and the
expenditures went from $35.7 million to $34.875 million for a reduction of $501,000. He said from 2010
to 2011, the income decreases as well as the expenditures. Councilmember Grassel asked if we are
basing the 2011 figures from the 2010 budget, and said there was discussion at the retreat about going
back to the 2009 figures as those are more realistic figures. Councilmember Gothmann said the figures he
used were 2010 budget and the 2011 proposed budget. Councilmember Grafos said in looking at the
2009 actual budget and expenditures, there is an increase from 2009 to 2010 and now the 2011.
Councilmember Grassel expressed her concern with the budget and whether 3% is a strong enough
reduction for the coming years; and said she doesn't want to be in a position like the City of Spokane or
other cities where they have to make drastic reductions instead of slowing down; she said we could look
at everything including the legislative branch and perhaps even freeze all travel expenses so Council
would not go to conferences; and said that everything should be on the table and everything and every
department should be considered; and said we are focused on too many street capital projects and not
enough on preservation and maintenance, which if not addressed, every dollar we spend now could be
$8.00 in the future; so she is concerned we are not cutting enough and not directing the money to actual
road projects that are needed versus road projects that are wanted. Councilmember Dempsey asked Mr.
Jackson if there is enough room in the budget now, that if the "bottom falls out of everything and we see
dire things happening," do we have room that we can back off at that point or do we need to act now. Mr.
Jackson said what we have presented is first year initial cuts, realizing that it is not good fiscal practice to
continue basic operations with our reserves; but said we are anticipating $24 million in reserves against a
general fund of $34 million in expenditures, and said we are therefore in a very solid, secure financial
position; and said we can look at additional cuts, but said that we have proposed 3% reductions, and
reductions in the positions, and as we come back next year and see what the economy does, we can then
project into 2012 and decide if further cuts are warranted at that time; he said we want to conserve our
ending fund balance and don't want to spend it on basic operations, but considering the current economy,
and that those funds were set aside for such economic times, we can use those funds to offset revenues for
at least the first year, and that leaving $24 million in reserves is a reasonable amount; he said council can
make additional cuts, and that his objective, as he mentioned at the July retreat, is to be as closely aligned
Council Regular Meeting 8 -24 -2010 Page 3 of 11
Approved by Council: 09 -28 -10
as possible with council when he submits the budget to council for adoption. Mr. Jackson stressed that the
difference between us and other cities is they don't have $24 million in reserves and other cities are
already looking at a lack of revenue to fund their operations next year.
Councilmember Gothmann said there were two budgets goals, one of which is to maintain a 15% reserve
balance at the end of the year 2014; and we just heard from Finance Director Thompson it appears we
will exceed that goal significantly; and that we want to maintain our contingency reserves of about $5.4
million; and based on those goals, that is what the administration proposed and it appears we will meet
and exceed those goals. Councilmember Grafos said he feels the budget is going in the right direction
and he is pleased with the 3% and wished there would be more; and said he would like to see a way to
have a target by placing another line item in the general fund for roads and to perhaps pull $1 million
from this budget for that purpose and not use the general fund for operating the city but work toward a
road preservation fund. Councilmember Grassel agreed and asked Mr. Jackson is instead of relying on the
capital budget can we direct monies from the general fund for that purpose; and Mr. Jackson said council
can do that, but with this uncertain economy, this is a good time to hold onto our reserves; but if council
wants to, could divert perhaps $500,000 to that fund, but he recommend holding onto those reserves. Mr.
Jackson mentioned we also have the civic facilities fund which might be a better first choice for capital
projects, or to see what grants are available for capital projects; adding that it has been rare that the City
has funded 100% of capital projects. Councilmember Grassel asked if what Mr. Grafos was asking was
to put a line item in the general fund for road preservation, and not taking anything out of the reserves;
and Councilmember Grafos agreed and said it would be a set -side fund. Mr. Jackson said we could do
that but we would actually put the money in the capital projects or in the street fund and not in the general
fund just because of the way it's coded. There being no further discussion, Mayor Towey closed the
public hearing at 6:47 p.m.
2. PUBLIC HEARING: Text Amendment CTA 04 -10 Nonconforming Use Expansion — Cary Driskell
Mayor Towey opened the public hearing at 6:47 p.m. and invited Attorney Driskell to the podium.
Acting City Attorney Driskell explained that the purpose of this hearing is to gather input on a proposal to
amend Spokane Valley Municipal Code Section 19.20.060 allowing the expansion of nonconforming uses
in certain circumstances; he explained the background of this proposal as noted in his August 24, 2010
Request for Council Action form. Mayor Towey invited public comment.
Stan Schultz, Attorney at Law, 425 S Alpine Drive, Liberty Lake Wa said he represents Hite Crane.
Mr. Schultz asked that his previous comments on this topic be incorporated into these proceedings; he
said he and his client are in favor of the proposed amendment as it solves several problems previously
discussed; and said he feels it is remarkable for a government to solve a problem in a way that is
effective, efficient and provides safeguards; and said this can right some wrongs in the formulation of a
new zoning code, and will allow people to continue with their business and in particular, Hite Crane will
be able to move to its new facility and keep his thirty employees. Mr. Schultz said there are sufficient
safeguards with the Community Development Director administering this ordinance; and said these kinds
of permits will be just like short plats, binding site plans, floodplain permits and other permits which are
all issued by the administrator; he said if this becomes controversial, the public has the right to appeal
those administrator decisions to a Hearing Examiner. Councilmember McCaslin asked Mr. Schultz if he
knows of any cities in their comprehensive plan, where they do not have nonconforming uses; and Mr.
Schultz said no; and said that comp plan tends to get revised about every twenty years; and as trends
become more popular, there are efforts by planners and municipalities to adopt those trends so their land
use codes can be more modern, and in the course of doing that, he said you always create situations where
there are nonconforming uses; and sometimes where a totally new code is adopted, like this mixed use
classification, those can result in 50 -60% nonconformity on the date it is adopted; and the idea is that over
time, those nonconforming uses come into conformity at some point.
Council Regular Meeting 8 -24 -2010 Page 4 of 11
Approved by Council: 09 -28 -10
Dick Behm, 9405 E. Sprague Avenue: said he hopes the zoning problems for the Elephant Boys and Mr.
Hite can be resolved; and per his distributed letter, explained that he still has concerns about bypassing
the conditional use process and said that sometimes hasty decisions have unforeseen consequences, and
explained that the Conditional Use Process requires a hearing before the Hearing Examiner and all
affected citizens and landowners are notified of this hearing and have the opportunity to testify as to their
concerns or support of a proposed change, and the proponent has the opportunity to present their plans.
He said that the hearing examiner renders his decision, and it is a very fair process and all concerns are
addressed, and said he has been involved in several of those hearings; and said that Mr. Dempsey [the
Hearing Examiner] is fair in his decisions and it takes the burden off the community development
director, because no matter what her decision, she will be the bad person. In reading from his letter, he
said that the expansion of nonconforming use onto adjacent property without applying for a conditional
use permit is denying the citizens the right to express their concerns on how such use might affect their
property or lifestyle. This decision will affect all nonconforming property in the city. Although in this
case it doesn't apply to residential areas, why? He said there are many nonconforming uses that could be
affected, now and in the future. Without going through the Conditional Use Permitting process, anyone
could expand onto adjacent property without informing their neighbors or allowing them to object. The
same is true of repair shops and other types of businesses in residential or business areas which would be
mixed use zoning which allows residential; so expansion of a business next to a residential property in the
mixed -use zoning would have a negative effect. Why would the council give a special privilege to
commercial areas and not residential areas? Everyone should be treated the same. I don't believe the
council has considered all the unintended consequences of allowing the expansion of nonconforming uses
in certain circumstances. You may be opening the door to many future problems. That is why the
Conditional Use Permitting process is so important; and it takes the burden off Council and staff and lets
the Hearing Examiner make the decision; and it could go back to council and from there it could be
appealed to court; and said it is a good and reliable process, and gets rid of questions thrown at council
about how to proceed. What is the appeal process if the City Community Development Director makes
the decision; it is important for the citizens to know and understand; do they then appeal to the Hearing
Examiner or appeal back to the City Council; and then he said, we are going in a circle. He said the
decision council makes has great consequences and he asked that Council consider it carefully; and said
he supports Mr. Hite and the Elephant Boys.
Todd Whipple, with Whipple Consulting Engineers 2528 N Sullivan Road Spokane Valley_ said had this
been in place previously, the Elephant Boys' situation would not have occurred; and he said he feels this
is the perfect example of why this ordinance for nonconforming use on an adjacent property is appropriate
and pertinent, especially when you consider properties within the Sprague /Appleway Revitalization
Project; he said in business sometimes location is everything; but it is very difficult right now in many
areas to expand a business, and as a business owner the first thing is not whether the owner can go next
door, but they just know they are going to expand; and now the process would be to go to the city and
discover you can't expand. He said his client Mr. Douglass owns twenty -four properties within the
Sprague /Appleway Revitalization Plan, and is one of the largest owners within the plan, and that they
wrote a document against this. He said it was a situation where they knew things would happen and when
he talked to council he talked about the need for businesses to have flexibility; and said had this been in
place before, Elephant Boys would have moved their boats eleven feet and not been in a situation where
they had to appeal a decision by the Community Development Director to Superior Court, and he said that
is the appellant process, to get an attorney and go to court. He said his motion in court has been stayed
while this process moves forward.
Gary Hite, 4323 E. Broadway, Spokane Valli: said he was given over by the prior Council to the City of
Spokane, and said he is not sure he really is in the valley; to refresh memories, said he was given to the
City of Spokane so they could pursue him for eminent domain to force him to move from his location of
forty years; at the hearings for that, he said the legal council was asked if the Valley Council had actually
Council Regular Meeting 8 -24 -2010 Page 5 of 11
Approved by Council: 09 -28 -10
enforced an eminent domain and the answer was no; and said that is the case to -date; he said his new
location is not the question of this hearing, but rather the question is the adjacent property that he also
purchased at the same time to have enough room to continue to operate his business; and he commended
this council for their decision at the last vote to allow him to pursue his business in the new location.
Dwight Hume, the applicant 9101 N Mountain View Lane Spokane 99218• he said before council
tonight is option 1, which is the administrative decision process rather than the conditional use; but since
that issue has arisen, said he wanted to clarify some mistakes in the letter that was given to council earlier
tonight. Mr. Hume said the conditional use process is only appealable to court; that it is a very time
consuming process and involves the application fee in additional to hiring land use attorneys along with
expenses incurred by the city, and said he is sure the application fee is not fully recovered for staff's time;
and said it is far better when an administrative decision can be made versus a conditional use permit yet
still has the safety valves as it can be appealed to the Hearing Examiner, while the conditional use doesn't
do that as it goes straight to court; and he said the conditional use permits he does are normally approved
as most neighborhoods don't want to spend the money to go to court; and he urged council's approval.
He said the administrative criteria is about the same criteria that would be written for the hearing
examiner if there were public hearings; and said that reasonable minds can figure that out and make their
decision, and send out a notice and if the neighbors don't like it they can ask for a hearing; and that is a
lot more fair then going to court. There being no further public comments, Mayor Towey closed the
public hearing at 7:07 p.m.
3. 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
W/VOUCHER NUMBERS:
TOTAL AMOUNT
8/02/2010
5075 — 5108 (Park Refunds)
$3,154.50
8/10/2010
3249 —3251,3264,20727,
20760 —20763
$207,336.91
8/13/2010
20764 —20848,730100033,
805100010
$1,843,036.37
8/13/2010
20849 —20851
$205.00
8/17/2010
3266 —3268
$57,425.63
GRAND TOTAL
$2,111,158.41
b. Approval of Payroll for Period Ending August 15, 2010: $254,595.29
c. Approval of Formal Format Council Meeting Minutes of August 10, 2010
It was moved by Deputy Mayor Schimmels, seconded and unanimously agreed to approve the consent
agenda.
NEW BUSINESS
4. Second Reading Proposed Ordinance CTA 04 -10, Nonconforming Uses — Cary Driskell
After City Clerk Bainbridge read the ordinance title, it was moved by Deputy Mayor Schimmels and
seconded to approve the ordinance amending SVMC 19.20.060, allowing the expansion of non-
conforming uses in certain circumstances. Attorney Driskell noted that the public hearing was held, and
public testimony given. Mayor Towey invited public comments; no comments were offered.
Councilmember Gothmann remarked that the method selected wherein the Community Development
Director is the administrator, he noted that Director cannot provide mitigation, whereas the conditional
use process does allow that; and said this ordinance affects the entire city and all nonconforming uses;
and said that 100% of the adult shops are nonconforming uses; he said if a business is nonconforming that
means that business has been deemed through the Comprehensive Plan to be incompatible with the
Council Regular Meeting 8 -24 -2010 Page 6 of 11
Approved by Council: 09 -28 -10
business or land next to it; and this use in this case is an industrial use and is adjacent to residences and to
a school as well as to other businesses. Councilmember Gothmann said it was pointed out it would be an
imposition for citizens to appeal to the Hearing Examiner without a conditional use permit and the
question asked of why should we provide that imposition to our citizens; but Councilmember Gothmann
said why would we not provide the conditional use permit process to citizens so they can know what's
going on, and said that is what open government is about; so that those who would be affected would
receive notification for such proposal. Councilmember McCaslin said he is very positive about this and
the more "Hites" we can get out here the better off we will be. Councilmember Dempsey said she has
mixed feelings on this as part of her wonders what people will say in twenty years; but on the other hand,
Mr. Hite needs a place to go and the community needs his services; but the matter of unintended
consequences is also at hand, but said she will support this. Vote by Acclamation: In Favor: Mayor
Towey, Deputy Mayor Schimmels, and Councilmembers McCaslin, Grassel, Grafos and Dempsey.
Opposed: Councilmember Gothmann. Abstentions: None. Motion carried.
5 First Reading Proposed Ordinance Adopting 2011 Property Tax Levy — Ken Thompson
After City Clerk Bainbridge read the ordinance title, it was moved by Deputy Mayor Schimmels and
seconded to advance the ordinance levying the regular property taxes for the year 2011 to a second
reading. Finance Director Thompson said this is the first reading of the property tax ordinance for the
2011 budget, and the expected assessed valuation of $7.1 billion should result in a property tax rate of
$1.54 per $1,000 of assessed value. Mayor Towey invited public comment; no comments were offered.
Vote by Acclamation: In Favor: Unanimous. Opposed.• None. Abstentions: None. Motion carried.
6. First Reading Proposed Ordinance Property Tax Confirmation — Ken Thompson
After City Clerk Bainbridge read the ordinance title, it was moved by Deputy Mayor Schimmels and
seconded to advance the ordinance confirming a 1% decrease from the property tax levy to a second
reading. Finance Director Thompson explained that state stipulates that a separate ordinance must be
passed when increasing the property tax levy and that same procedure must be used when decreasing a
tax levy. In response to Mayor Towey's question, Mr. Thompson confirmed that this is the first time this
city has ever decreased the property tax. Councilmember Grafos asked Mr. Thompson if this is reversing
the property tax increase put in by the prior council last year and stating there was a fiscal emergency at
that time and this increase was needed. Mr. Thompson said Mr. Grafos is correct, except this decreases it
less than what it was increased. Mayor Towey invited public comment; no comments were offered. Vote
by Acclamation: In Favor: Unanimous. Opposed: None. Abstentions: None. Motion carried.
7. First 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 Deputy Mayor Schimmels and
seconded to advance the ordinance amending SVMC 19.110 to a second reading. Planner Janssen
explained the proposed amendment to the Subarea Plan to allow vehicle sales as a conditional use in the
Mixed Use Avenue Retail zone, which sales were previously prohibited. Councilmember McCaslin
asked why vehicles sales are not allowed between those "circled" areas as shown on the accompanying
PowerPoint. Ms. Janssen explained that at the time the Plan was written, the intent was to focus auto
sales in the auto row area and to make that a "destination" for auto sales; but as the economy changed,
this was proposed. Mayor Towey invited public comments.
Todd Whipple, 2528 N Sullivan said he supports this proposed amendment, and said this mimics a
proposal they brought forward earlier which is the privately initiated amendment currently on hold; he
said when he started the original process, they focused on mixed -use commercial zone as they tried to
solve a specific problem, which was actually addressed by the ordinance previously adopted concerning
Mr. Hite's property and adjacent nonconforming uses. Regarding applying this amendment to the entire
Sprague /Appleway revitalization Plan, Mr. Whipple said possibly it should, as the intent for this is it is
Council Regular Meeting 8 -24 -2010 Page 7 of 11
Approved by Council: 09 -28 -10
hard to see a building, for example a restaurant, that goes vacant for a year due to economic conditions,
that can't be a restaurant again since restaurants were a nonconforming use in that specific zone; and said
they had proposed the conditional use process, which was intended to give a nonconforming use which
wanted to occupy an existing building, go through the process and make it palatable to the overall
community; and said the way the plan is written, the City and the Planning Commission has "kicked the
property owners in the head." He said the intent when this came forward was to allow property owners to
keep their people in there and get some rent and have flexibility; and said that was the reason why he
proposed the conditional use permit. Councilmember Grafos said what Mr. Whipple is saying is that on
the vehicle sales, it was a way to make the vehicle sales more palatable to the city by proposing a
conditional use permit, but now is saying he doesn't believe it necessary to go through that Conditional
Use Permit. Mr. Whipple responded yes and no; said he sees the value in the conditional use process and
sees the expediency without it; and whether a conditional use permit is required is a decision for council.
Planner Janssen said to clarify through the conditional use permit process, the neighbors are notified of
the proposal and the hearing examiner can impose additional conditions to help mitigate any impacts the
development might have to neighboring properties; whereas the Community Development Director would
review the proposal for adherence to the underlining zoning criteria, but cannot add additional conditions
or change any development regulations. Councilmember Gothmann said this came about because one
property owner's view of their own business was blocked by another property owner's business; and said
we have never heard from the property owner regarding the obstruction; so this boils down to a
disagreement between two property owners who are side -by -side; and seems the conditional use permit
would be a good way of providing arbitration; and said he has a problem with allowing autos in mixed
use zones as that is supposed to be for residential or business but not such things as industrial; which he
said leads to the question of would an auto dealer be appropriate in the middle of a residential
neighborhood; and said he understands the reasoning behind the original concept of excluding those sales.
Vote by Acclamation: In Favor: Unanimous. Opposed.• None. Abstentions: None. Motion carried.
Mayor Towey called for a recess at 7:45 p.m. and reconvened the meeting at 7:55 p.m.
8. Motion Consideration: Sending Items to Planning Commission (Neighborhood Center) — Mike
Basinger
It was moved by Deputy Mayor Schimmels and seconded to direct the Planning Commission to consider
text amendments to Book IT Development Regulations, Sprague and Appleway Corridors Subarea Plan
to address the following issues: 1. Permitted Uses: consider allowing service stations and /or convenience
stores and ancillary uses such as car wash, Laundromat, and lubrication shops as a permitted use in the
Neighborhood Center District Zone. Senior Planner Basinger explained the background of this issue, as
done at the August 10, 2010 council meeting; and said at that August 10 meeting, Council requested more
information on uses no longer allowed in the Neighborhood Center Zone, and he referenced his
attachment A which summarizes those uses, including the eight uses which became nonconforming with
the implementation of the 2007 zoning regulations and added that there are currently only four
nonconforming uses in the Neighborhood Center zone. Mr. Basinger said that at the July 22 Community
Meeting, Mr. Owsley, a representative for the Pring Corporation, expressed concerns about the HiCo
business at the intersection of Mullen and Sprague and the specific concerns to allowing service stations
and secondary uses such as a Laundromat, car wash and /or lubrication shop. In light of those concerns,
Mr. Basinger said staff was directed to prepare and process a text amendment to the Subarea plan; and
said the proposed code amendment would allow service stations and /or convenient stores as permitted
uses, and secondary uses such as car washes, laundry mats, and lubrication shops in the Neighborhood
Zones. Regarding the other uses not allowed in the Neighborhood Center zone, Mr. Basinger said staff
recommends we follow the precedence of mitigating issues for properties and business owners when
possible, as is being done for the HiCo Village, and addressing other issues including uses in the
Neighborhood Center zones through the annual Comprehensive Plan amendment process. Mayor Towey
invited public comment.
Council Regular Meeting 8 -24 -2010 Page 8 of I 1
Approved by Council: 09 -28 -10
Dick Behm, 9405 E. Sprague Avenue: said he favors this; said he spoke at the referenced public meeting
and said the Neighborhood Center from Argonne to Willow is too small and is already built out; and said
he would like to see that particular neighborhood center extended to Farr Road to encourage development
in that area•, and he asked council to consider that proposal. Mr. Basinger said expansion of the
neighborhood centers would be handled through the annual Comprehensive Plan Amendment process;
and said that Mr. Behm's specific proposal is a map proposal, and the only time the Comprehensive Plan
map can be changed, is through that annual comprehensive amendment process. Councilmember
Dempsey asked how such a proposal could be initiated, and City Manager Jackson said council can place
this on the agenda for the comp plan review; and Mr. Basinger said that this is already in the docket; that
all the issues that have come up during this subarea process in terms of comp plan amendments, have
been included in the docket and they will all automatically be addressed. Vote by Acclamation: In Favor:
Unanimous. Opposed: None. Abstentions: None. Motion carried.
9. Motion Consideration: Spokane Regional Transportation Council (SRTC) Interlocal — Cary Driskell
It was moved by Deputy Mayor Schimmels and seconded to approve the Interlocal Agreement among
Spokane County, City of Spokane, City of Spokane Valley, Washington State Department of
Transportation, Spokane Transit Authority, and other cities and towns within Spokane County, to form
the Spokane Regional Transportation Council, define its organization and powers, and its jurisdictional
area, and authorize the City Manager or designee to execute the same. Acting City Attorney Driskell said
the original interlocal was agreed to in 2003, and today's product is the result of considerable negotiations
over 2009 and 2010. Mayor Towey invited public comment; no comments were offered. Vote by
Acclamation: In Favor: Unanimous. Opposed: None. Abstentions: None. Motion carried.
PUBLIC COMMENTS: Mayor Towey invited general public comments; no comments were offered.
ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS
10. Transportation Benefit District (TBD) — Mayor Towey
Mayor Towey said council has been discussing this for some time now, and the question before Council
is this does council support a regional TBD, a city -TBD, or neither; and does this Council favor sending a
letter to the Board of County Commissioners authorizing them to move forward with the interlocal
agreement with the end result of this Council ratifying the agreement and moving forward; and he opened
discussion to council for their preferences. Councilmember Gothmann suggested moving forward with
the regional district; he said there is a formation of organizations that do a good job of informing the
public of what's going on, and that alone, we don't have that resource; but added we would like to make
sure we have some control over what fees are assessed, perhaps by asking for support from all
organizations by using the 70% rule or other method. Councilmember McCaslin said he feels if we join
the regional concept, we lose our identity and authority, and said he wants the independence to make
decisions that will benefit the city, and Councilmember Grafos agreed and said we should just do the local
TBD, that our staff has been successful in getting funds for these big projects and he feels now is not the
time to do this. Councilmember Dempsey said she remembers the citizen revolt against the car tabs
several years ago and she fears this is just the beginning; that if we step into this we lose our control and
our authority and said she is not sure this is the best step for Spokane Valley. Mayor Towey agreed that
we would have control at the local level, but we don't know what the regional proposal or the interlocal
looks like as the language is not finalized, and the 70/30 split is still up for discussion; he proposed
sending a letter to the Board of County Commissioners encouraging the County to proceed with the
interlocal so we know exactly what it is we would be deciding. Councilmember McCaslin said he is
opposed to the concept. City Manager Jackson reminded council that tonight we are looking for
discussion so that staff can construct a motion for the next council meeting, including sending a letter
asking them to proceed with the interlocal for future consideration by our council, but those decisions can
be made by council's motion and subsequent vote at an upcoming meeting. Deputy Mayor Schimmels
Council Regular Meeting 8 -24 -2010 Page 9 of 11
Approved by Council: 09 -28 -10
said the interlocal draft is a revision based on input from those moving toward the regional funding; and
said he prefers to be in a position of being on the inside looking out instead of the reverse, said he feels
we owe the County a letter and the process has to start with someone, that it will be a long process, and
said we need to remember that the question of funding would be put to the voters. The majority of
councilmembers favored moving forward with a future motion and letter.
11. Industrial Pretreatment Interlocal Regarding a Portion of Yardley — Cary Driskell
Attorney Driskell explained that the City of Spokane Valley does not provide sewer service but rather
receives those services from Spokane County; he said Spokane City also provides sewer service to a small
section of Yardley for a small number of industrial users; that if we do not enter into an interlocal with the
City of Spokane, they advise they will not be able to accept any sewer effluent from us as it would violate
the terms of the NPDES (National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System) permit. Further, he explained
Spokane County and Spokane City recently executed an interlocal in which they adopted similar
industrial pre- treatment sewer standards; that agreement includes most of our city except for that small
area in Yardley; and under that interlocal, Spokane County has administrative responsibility for
discharging into the sewer system. Mr. Driskell said one of the requirements of the proposed interlocal is
that we would be required to adopt a pretreatment code by reference; and he said staff recommends we
adopt Spokane County's code, which is identical to Spokane City's, and in this way it would preclude a
situation where there are two different standards in our city. Mr. Driskell said Spokane County and
Spokane City agree that adoption of Spokane County's standards is appropriate. Councilmember
McCaslin asked about section 2A of the proposed agreement where it states: "An exception to the
adoption for the Yardley area is that all references to the County Prosecutor's office shall be modified to
be the Spokane City Attorney's office, consistent with section 4 below" and said he preferred using the
County Prosecutor's Office. Mr. Driskell said he could have further discussion with the County
Prosecutor's Office, but they didn't seem anxious about taking on these services. Other councilmembers
agreed to keep the statement as is. This item will come back before council for approval of an interlocal,
as well as an amendment to our City Code, adopting the County's standards by reference .
12. Spokane Regional Transportation Council (SRTC) Call for Projects — Neil Kersten
Public Works Director Kersten distributed information he received last week concerning two calls for
projects from SRTC; one project for Transportation Enhancement grants due September 10, and the other
for CMAQ (Congestion Mitigation/Air Quality) Grants, due September 24. Mr. Kersten said the
enhancement projects are funded 100% with no local match required, and explained that these grants are
limited in scope and are typically used for transportation- related activities, and can include such things as
biking facilities, historical preservation, and corridors, and said we don't have any of those types of
projects ready and said doing a detailed cost analysis for engineering, right -of -way and design are all
fairly involved and difficult to get accomplished within the next few weeks. For the enhancement
projects, he explained that while we are not required to have council approval for these, Mr. Kersten said
he wanted to keep Council briefed; he said the CMAQ projects allocate $3.5 million for the 2010 -2012
funding cycle with a local match of 13.5% required for most projects, except 20% match for bicycle and
pedestrian facilities; and said the competition will be heavy for these funds. The flashing yellow arrows
were discussed and Mr. Kersten said we have received some energy grant money; and said that the
flashing arrow located at Dishman and 16` has been received very well and staff has received many
positive phone calls as the light enables smooth traffic flow. There were no objections from council to
proceed.
13. Advance Agenda
Councilmember Dempsey suggested having a council fieldtrip to visit all sections of the city in order to
get a better understanding of some of the problems of the specific areas, and so that all councilmembers
could see the problems at the same time. Mayor Towey indicated his support of that idea, and to have a
few staff as well to explain some of the issues they are working with. City Manager Jackson said he will
Council Regular Meeting 8 -24 -2010 Page 10 of 11
Approved by Council: 09 -28 -10
visit with department heads and put together a draft schedule for council's consideration. Deputy Mayor
Schimmels mentioned the previous town hall/community meetings which were held when this city first
incorporated, and several councilmembers indicated their willingness to consider those meetings as well,
to perhaps hold meetings at Mirabeau Park, Mission Park, Edgeclift, and other areas.
Councilmember Grassel asked if we have complied with the 60 -day comp plan notification regulations;
and City Clerk Bainbridge responded that those notices have been sent to the newspapers and will be sent
again periodically in an effort to reach as many citizens as possible. Councilmember Grassel also asked
about the idea of having more river access points and of having a whitewater park in the Valley, and said
the Convention Visitor's Bureau Board said the river is a "real marketing tool" for this area. Mr. Jackson
said he and Parks and Recreation Director Stone will get together to consider those ideas.
INFORMATION ONLY: The following items were for information only and were not reported or
discussed: (14) CenterPlace Leases; (15) State Legislative Initiatives; (16) Department Reports.
17. EXECUTIVE SESSION: Pending Litigation [RCW 42.30.110(i)l
It was moved by Deputy Mayor Schimmels, seconded and unanimously agreed to adjourn into executive
session for approximately fifteen minutes to discuss pending litigation, and that no action is anticipated
thereafter. Council adjourned into executive session at 8:55 p.m. At 9:16 p.m., Mayor Towey declared
council out of executive session. It was then moved by Councilmember Dempsey, seconded and
unanimously agreed to adjourn. The meeting adjourned at 9:16.
ATTES
Kristine Bainbridge, City Clerk
f,
Thomas E. Towey, Mayor
Council Regular Meeting 8 -24 -2010 Page 1 I of 11
Approved by Council: 09 -28 -10
SIGN -IN SHEET
SPOKANE VALLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING
DATE: August 24, 2010
ENERAL CITIZEN COMME
'OUR SPEAKING TIME WILL GENERALLY BE LIMITED TO THREE
Please si n in if ou wish to make uhlic cow" T"'a �.
NAME TOPIC OF CONCERN YOUR COMPLETE TELEPHONE
PLEASE PRINT YOU WILL SPEAK ADDRESS
ABOUT
� UeSr ea
6-
0
SPOKANE VALLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING
August 24, 2010
PUBLIC HEARING SIGN -IN SHEET
SUBJECT: Text Amendment CTA 04 -10,
Nonconforming Use Expansion
PRINT NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD There may be a time limit for your comments.
\Any documents for Council consideration should be provided to the City Clerk for distribution.
NAME
PLEASE PRINT
ADDRESS
TELEPHONE
I Coo,
x/3.3
8/24/2010
The following is a list of potential projects for the Transportation Enhancement and Congestion
Management and Air Quality grant programs.
Transportation Enhancement — due September lo
The call for projects allocates $2.5 million for the 2010 -2012 funding cycle. Projects under this
program are funded 100% - no local match is required. Applicant cannot apply for Preliminary
Engineering and Construction funding at the same time.
Spokane Valley- Millwood Trail (PE). In our TIP, shown on MTP (Metropolitan
Transportation Plan) map but not listed as a project. We could apply for funding to go
through the preliminary engineering and environmental approvals. This could be a joint
project with Millwood and maybe Spokane. The trail would be built on county -owned
rail /sewer right -of -way. It would connect Spokane Community College, Orchard Center
Elementary, West Valley High, Apollo College, Alpine College, ITT Tech, downtown
Millwood, the Indiana Park and Ride, and possibly the Valley Mall.
Greenacres Trail (PE). In our TIP, shown on MTP map but not listed as a project. This
trail project is also in our Parks and Recreation Master Plan. If we received design
money for this it could probably be built shortly after construction of the Greenacres
Park Phase I. This would build a trail on county -owned rail /sewer right -of -way
connecting the Centennial Trail, the east Indiana business area, the new Greenacres
Park, the new Central Valley elementary school, and possibly extend to Liberty Lake.
- Dishman -Mica Trail (PE). In our TIP, shown on MTP map but not listed as a project. This
would build a multi -use trail along Dishman -Mica from Appleway to the Ponderosa
neighborhood.
- Mission Avenue Centennial Trailhead (PE). This is listed in our Parks and Recreation
Master Plan. It would complete the design of a new trailhead on the Centennial Trail
between Sullivan and Flora on the Mission Avenue right -of -way.
- Myrtle Point Centennial Trailhead (PE). This is listed in our Parks and Recreation
Master Plan. It would complete the design of a new trailhead on the Centennial Trail at
Myrtle Point. It would create a new public access to the trail through the Coyote Rock
subdivision and provide a trailhead on the south side of the river.
- Sidewalk Infill (PE, CN). In our TIP. This would construct miscellaneous sidewalk infill
projects throughout the City. The projects could focus on improvements within the
walking radius of schools.
CMAQ — due September 24
The call for projects allocates $3.5 million /year for the 2010 -2012 funding cycle. Local match
for most projects is 13.5 %, but bicycle and pedestrian facilities require a 20% match.
Flashing Yellow Arrows (PE & CN). Not in TIP or MTP. Install additional flashing yellow
arrows at signalized intersections. Possible locations include 8 th /Dishman -Mica,
1
f' /av /v
4 th /Sullivan, Euclid /Sullivan, Marietta /Sullivan, Kiernan /Sullivan, 8 th /University, and
4 th /University.
Mansfield Extension (PE, ROW, CN). In our TIP, in MTP. This would complete the gap in
Mansfield providing a through street from SR 27 to Mirabeau Parkway.
Sprague - Sullivan ITS (PE, CN). In our TIP, in Regional ITS Plan. Part of this project is
funded through the Energy Efficiency and Conservation Block Grant, but we need
additional funding to complete the loop of fiber down Sprague and up Sullivan to the
freeway. This project would be dependent on getting funding for Sprague repaving
from Evergreen to Sullivan.
South Sullivan ITS (PE, CN). In our TIP, in Regional ITS Plan. The project would connect
the signals from Sprague to 24th.
Evergreen ITS (PE, CN). In our TIP. The project would connect the signals on Evergreen
from 16 to Broadway.
Traffic Signal Controller Upgrades (CN). Not in our TIP, in Regional ITS Plan. This would
upgrade the final 12 isolated signals that still have the old controllers.
Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities (PE, ROW, CN). CMAQ funds can be used for bike and
pedestrian facilities that are not exclusively recreational and reduce vehicle trips. We
could submit an application for any of the trail projects listed above.
University Road Overpass Study (PE). In our TIP. This would study the area bound by
Argonne, Trent, Pines, and 1 -90. It would evaluate the idea of a new 1 -90 overpass and
any other improvements that should be planned for to accommodate future growth.
Mayor Towey,
City Council Members
Ref: Item #4 Amending Ordinance 07 -015 Expansion of Non - Conforming Uses
I have concerns about bypassing the Conditional Use Permitting Process. Sometimes
hasty decisions have unforeseen consequences. Under the Conditional Use Process a
public hearing before the Hearing Examiner is required. All affected adjoining land
owners and citizens are notified and have the opportunity to testify as to their
concerns or support of a proposed change and the proponent has the opportunity to
present their plans. The hearing Examiner renders his decision. It is a very fair
process and all concerns are addressed.
The expansion of non - conforming use onto adjacent property without applying for a
Conditional Use Permit is denying citizens the right to express their concerns on
how such use might affect their property or lifestyle.
This decision will affect all non - conforming property in the city. Although in this
case it doesn't apply to residential areas, why? T here are many non - conforming
uses that could be affected, now and in the future. Without going thru the
Conditional Use Permitting Process anyone could expand onto adjacent property
without informing their neighbors or allowing them to object. The same is true of
repair shops and other types of businesses in residential or business areas that are
grandfathered in and could expand without a hearing. Why would the Council give
a special privilege to commercial areas and not residential areas? Everyone should
be treated the same.
I don't believe the council has considered all of the unintended consequences of
allowing the Expansion of Non - Conforming Uses in Certain Circumstances. You
may be opening the door to many future problems. That is why the Conditional Use
Permitting Process is so important.
Thank you,
Dick Behm
9405 E. Sprague Ave.
Spokane Valley, WA. 99206