Loading...
2011, 07-19 Study Session Minutes MINUTES SPOKANE VALLEY CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING STUDY SESSION FORMAT Spokane Valley City Hall Council Chambers Spokane Valley, Washington July 19, 2011 6:00 p.m. Attendance: Councilmembers Staff Tom Towey, Mayor Mike Jackson, City Manager Gary Schimmels, Deputy Mayor Cary Driskell, City Attorney Bill Gothmann, Councilmember Mark Calhoun, Finance Director Dean Grafos, Councilmember Kathy McClung, Community Dev. Director Brenda Grassel, Councilmember Scott Kuhta, Planning Manager Chuck Hafner, Councilmember Mike Stone, Parks & Recreation Director Arne Woodard, Councilmember Neil Kersten, Public Works Director Inga Note, Traffic Engineer Steve Worley, Senior Engineer Lori Barlow, Senior Planner Mike Basinger, Senior Planner Mary May, Development Engineer Marty Palaniuk, Planning Technician Carolbelle Branch, Public Information Officer Chris Bainbridge, City Clerk Mayor Towey called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. 1. Sculpture Donation and Placement — Mike Stone Parks and Recreation Director Stone introduced Dr. Harken of the Spokane Valley Arts Council, and explained that Dr. Harkin will talk about the latest sculpture that will be donated to Spokane Valley in just a few weeks. Dr. Harken said that this will be formally presented to the City of Spokane Valley at the dedication ceremony scheduled for 11:00 a.m. August 5 at CenterPlace, and said that Councilmembers will be receiving invitations soon; he explained that the people from the foundry who built this piece are from Enterprise, Oregon and Nancy McLaughlin's actual sculpture, entitled "Berry Picker" will be delivered on a flat-bed truck. Dr. Harken also mentioned that the Arts Council's September 17 event at CenterPlace, which will include an auction and dinner, will have some of the best art ever produced in this town; adding that the Arts Council put on the MAC event last year and raised $70,000, which was then donated to the MAC making that the largest money making event for the MAC. 2. Citv Sign Plan — Mike Stone Parks and Recreation Director Stone and landscape architect Mike Terrell went through the PowerPoint presentation explaining the various options for an entrance sign; said they are seeking council feedback on these options, such as whether to include the words "welcome to" our city. Several councilmembers indicated their preference to include those words so the entire sign would read: "Welcome to the City of Spokane Valley." There was some discussion about which signs Council preferred, with some councilmembers preferring option 2, and others preferring option 3 using river rock; and Mr. Terrell mentioning that option 1 is the most expensive, but that cost would vary depending on the size and materials. Several councilmembers also suggested putting these options on the city's website to solicit public preference; and that although it would not be a scientific survey, council could get an idea of Council Study Session Minutes July 19, 2011 Page 1 of 6 Approved by Council: August 9, 2011 public preference. Mr. Stone also suggested approaching service clubs to see if they would like to participate by adopting a site and/or planting annuals; and council concurred with that suggestion. There was also mention that especially gateway signs would need to be visible by traffic passing at appro�cimate speeds of thirty-five miles per hour; and Mr. Terrell said it would be possible to do some preliminary work in the field. 3. Shoreline Goals and Policies — Lori Barlow Planner Barlow explained that she is the project planner for the shoreline master program update; and tonight's purpose is to introduce the proposed draft Goals and Policies for the Shoreline Master Program Update; she explained that built into the process is an upcoming opportunity to spend time to focus in detail on those goals and policies, whereas tonight is just to serve as an introduction of those goals and policies, and to go over the background and answer council questions. Planner Barlow went through her PowerPoint presentation and explained that this draft was done in collaboration with the Shoreline Advisory Group, which was established as part of the public participation plan to assure that those draft goals and policies would be representative of the community's input; she said members of the group were invited to participate with the goal of having balanced community interest as it relates to the shorelines; she said the group consisted of volunteers and the group had no decision making authority, but was formed to assist staff with the goals and policies; and she extended thanks to those volunteers for their time and assistance. Planner Barlow also indicated that the initial draft was developed by staff based on the RCWs (Revised Code of Washington) and the WACs (Washington Administrative Code). As a reminder, Ms. Barlow noted that SMA (Shoreline Management Act) requires that specific elements be addressed, and we also elected to address three optional elements; and said we are required to create development regulations consistent with our Comprehensive Plan. Planner Barlow said that flexibility comes in how the policies are addressed, and said the policies focus on encouraging, promoting, and allowing a variety of uses within the shoreline area, while balancing the directives of SMA to protect, preserve, and restore fragile and unique shoreline areas, and to ensure no net loss of ecological functions. Councilmember Grassel asked about the process and when Council has the opportunity to discus those regulations, and Planner Barlow responded that this document identifies the development regulations which will establish appropriate buffers and setbacks, but that it doesn't give particulaz parameters; she said that council provides the directive for those actions depending on those physical conditions; and that council's opportunity act on this document will come in the process after the Planning Commission has conducted a public hearing; and said they anticipate a joint Planning Commission/Council meeting in August or September, and at that joint meeting, we can go through the draft goals and policies to whatever degree both entities desire, either generally or line-by-line; and said council would not be asked to take action until after the public open house, and after the Planning Commission public hearing; than this will come to council with a request to accept or modify; and again said tonight is strictly informational. Planner Barlow explained that there are policy documents in place which identify recommended buffers and setbacks based on certain criteria, and that we are required to comply with a document that is identified by the DOE (Department of Ecology); she said we don't have that expertise in-house so we hired URS Corporation to assist in those development regulations to make sure we are correctly interpreting those documents; and said once the development regulations are in place, we'll look at those specific regulations, but explained we are not yet at that level of detail. Councilmember Woodard expressed concern about some of the verbiage and Planner Barlow assured council that the system is designed so council has the final authority to make changes; that they broke down the process so that each piece can be addressed prior to moving to the next piece, as otherwise, looking at the pieces as one document would be overwhelming. She said this document is intended to represent the grassroots of the community, which was started by going to the community first, then moving to the elected officials; that the essence of the Act is to find out the community needs, then move through the public review system and process and then to council for fmal decisions; and reiterated that this is not "locked" into any particular language, but that any change in verbiage would need to make sure we have what is required. Council Study Session Minutes July 19, 2011 Page 2 of 6 Approved by Council: August 9, 2011 City Manager Jackson said that Council will have a joint meeting with the Planning Commission in order to share and convey thoughts; that the established process is to get the viewpoints of the public, the Planning Commission and the Shoreline Advisory Committee so Council has that information in order to make the ultimate final decision; and he brought council attention to page five of the memo in the council packet which explained the "next steps." Mayor Towey acknowledged that the final authority to accept or reject this is the State and Ms. Barlow concurred that we have two adoption processes: the local and then the State where they will review it to determine if we are consistent with the policies of the Shoreline Management Act; and any inconsistencies will go through a process to resolve those. Councilmember Grassel mentioned a letter she received today from a member of the SAG which has some points of concern; and Mr. Jackson said that letter just came in late today so we need to time to review the information before making a decision on how to proceed; and that he would ask that we come back to council with additional information after legal has had an opportunity to review the letter; but for now, he said the SAG has collectively made a decision, and feels we can recognize that there was acceptance at that level, adding that there is always opportunity for additional information to come in and as it does, it becomes part of the record and part of future consideration of the Planning Commission and Council. Councilmember Grassel said there is confusion about the process and asked for a more specific timeline with clarification of the next steps; and Mr. Jackson agreed that staff can make that available. There was further discussion about all the development regulations and how they tie in with the general goals; Ms. Barlow stated that as we move through this process, the consultant will provide recommendations on which development regulations should be included, and said she feels we are headed in the right direction to make sure we comply with the Shoreline Management Act; that the issues stated in the letter are nothing unusual, and said staff will work to make sure all issues are addressed. Planner Barlow explained that as the development of the goals and policies are technical in nature, staff is the lead for those; that we have contracted with URS Corporation to develop the development regulations consistent with the goals and policies; but they can't start until the draft has been accepted; and again stated that the process is to take the draft to the public, for Council to have a joint study session with the Planning Commission, then schedule a public hearing with the Planning Commission, and then to council for acceptance; and said although we have until December of 2013, our goal is the summer of 2013. 4. Indiana Avenue Speed Limits — In�a Note Traffic Engineer Note explained that upon incorporation, our city adopted the speed limits established by Spokane County; and tonight's topic deals with the adopted speed limit of Indiana Avenue and its extension Mission Parkway and Indiana Parkway, from Sullivan Road to Flora Road. She further explained that both Indiana west of Sullivan and Mission Avenue east of Flora are posted at 35 mph; and because drivers are travelling at 35 mph approaching this segment of Indiana, it is recommended that the segment be posted at 35 to create continuity and to prevent driver confusion. In response to council question of why 35 instead of any other speed, Ms. Note replied that the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devises states that a speed zone should be within five mph of the 85�' percentile speed of free- flowing traffic, and this meets those criteria. Further, she said they conducted some speed studies at the posted 25 mph, and that the 85� percentile speed is 35; and said with posting the speed at 25, people don't follow it as likely they recognize it was intended to be an arterial with five lanes with open streets, no on- street parking, very little driveways, and said 35 is consistent with the speed study. There was further discussion about speeds in other areas, and Mr. Kersten mentioned people travel about 11 mph when they come into the new roundabout at Flora; that when a school is built they can look at that becoming a school zone. Mr. Kersten also mentioned that the city is set up so that generally roads are 25 unless otherwise noted; all arterials are 35; and schools are 25; and he said some arterials are very residential and there are many little spots where the speeds are different, but in general, the limit is 25 in residential, and 35 on arterials, but said there are some exceptions. Ms. Note said she looked for documentation on why the speed on the east side of Pines is different from the speed on the west side, but Council Study Session Minutes July 19, 2011 Page 3 of 6 Approved by Council: August 9, 2011 needs to research further; but on Mission there were changes as part of that was originally 30 mph in front of the hospital, with 35 around Vercler, then back to 30 where the road narrows; and said there were issues with the inconsistency so in 1998 the County made it a1130 mph. Mr. Kersten mentioned that when they do the new upgrade on Mission they plan to have an involved public process on those designs. There were no objections to continuing with the changes as proposed, and to have staff bring this back for council approval next week. Mayor Towey called for a recess at 7:35 p.m. and resumed the meeting at approximately 7:45 p.m. 5. Bike Lane Striping Proiect — Neil Kersten Public Works Director Kersten explained and showed on the map, where the proposed bike lane stripping would occur; he said these are small projects, all within the City Manager's authority and with council consensus will move ahead and get it stripped before school starts this fall. Ms. Note added that the painting material is more expensive than paint, but should last for several years; and Mr. Kersten suggested the painting would last eight years or more. Mr. Kersten said this proposal was previously approved and they are scheduled to move ahead shortly; and it will be identical to that project on Broadway east of Pines. 6. Transnortation Improvement Board (TIB12011 Call for Projects — Steve Worlev Senior Engineer Worley explained that the material contains a preliminary list of possible grant applications in response xo a 2011 call for projects put out by the TIB, and via his PowerPoint presentation, gave an overview of the TIB call for projects. Councilmember Hafner said he would like all the other information on what the points means and the accompanying criteria, and Mr. Kersten said if Council would like staff to come back again for another administrative report, he will bring some of that detail including the scenarios staff uses to try to score as high as possible. There was also some discussion about keeping the bike paths clear of gravel. Councilmember Grassel asked about the design funding and Mr. Kersten said they have the design money and once any issues are resolved, they can apply for the construction funds, but that they can't apply for construction funds without the design being completed; and said the applications are due August 31. Mr. Kersten also mentioned that a lot of these projects deal with street preservation as well and Mr. Worley gave Bowdish and Park as examples of partial preservation projects, and as an example, said that partial means the roads currently exist as two lanes, and they make an-old road wider. 7. Bike and Pedestrian Master Pro�ram — Mike Basin�er Senior Planner Basinger introduced Engineer Tech Mary May, and explained that Ms. May wrote most of the text in Chapter 1 l; he said the consultant is here tonight, as well as Traffic Engineer Note to answer questions if needed; and said they all worked collaboratively to put this plan together. As noted in his PowerPoint presentation, Mr. Basinger gave an overview of the plan and the vision statements of the plan, and stressed that this is not just a bike plan, but is a bike and pedestrian plan; he said that the policies and goals help give structure to do more work with elderly and senior centers, and Ms. May added that most retirement facilities are located on major arterials where sidewalks and bus shuttles already exist. Mr. Basinger explained the idea of bike boulevards and controlled intersections, and said staff believes the plan accomplishes the community's vision, is affordable, reasonable, represents the community's needs, and provides tools for implementation to ensure the facilities are safe and appropriate; and said this is one way to create a quality, sustained community. At approximately 9:00 p.m., it was moved by Deputy Mayor Schimmels, seconded and unanimously agreed, to extend the meeting for 25 minutes. Councilmember Woodard said it appears there are two different issues, one of which is a pedestrian plan like sidewalks which has a higher priority than a bike path, he mentioned the need to preserve the roads, Council Study Session Minutes July 19, 2011 Page 4 of 6 Approved by Council: August 9, 2011 and said he is concerned this becomes a mandate, which gives us other fmancial issues to address. Planner Basinger replied that people are concerned about where we are going to spend our money; that funding for these types of projects to get the bike lanes, comes through gant money, as well as re- surfacing the roads through preservation money; he said it is an important message to share that we are not strapping anyone with this position, that it is not a mandate as it all must be reviewed and approved by council; that there is nothing that states we will build a specific amount of bike lanes or shared use paths; that nothing forces us or binds us to this plan; but that there are programs being done we want to continue and partner with. Councilmember Hafner asked about bike boulevards, how they are controlled and how we inform people about them. Mr. Basinger replied that we would inform the public via our website, and signage at the area; he said bike boulevards are successful; he said he walks on Valleyway daily and sees cyclists using that road; and by designating these areas as bike boulevards, it helps bike riders get off the busier streets and onto safer routes with less competition with motorists. Councilmember Grassel stated she feels this is a great plan for Portland, Oregon; that our consultant came from Portland; but that she finds the plan is way over the top; she stressed we are not Portland; that maybe 1% of the population use the roads already and the bike lanes; that she is very concerned about the verbiage and feels the plan is extreme; and mentioned the requirement of placing bicycle parking. Mr. Basinger said that regulation currently exists, and Councilmember Grassel said she does not feel it is the role of the City to require bike parking; that our nation is crumbling under a huge debt; that this is an example of setting goals and policies without input by council; and said that if Council had been part of the process, that perhaps some of this could have been addressed earlier; that she feels we do not need to mandate things like a bike boulevard, and she needs more time to digest this plan and to go through the verbiage; and suggested postponing the August 9 hearing so that Council can have more time to review the plan. Councilmember Gothmann said that everyone owns the roads; said he wants to plan something for future citizens; that we need to see what's taking place in cities and more cities are moving toward bicycling; and mentioned there are also grants available for this; and said he doesn't feel we should reject these grants but rather, set ourselves up so we can get them; that it doesn't mean we have to build bike lanes; but he would like to take that opportunity for his grandchildren and build a city for future generations. Councilmember Gothmann agreed it would be a good idea to go through this plan line by line, but to review it with the idea that it is a plan and if council gets the opportunity, council will implement the plan. Councilmember Hafner said the primary responsibility of this Council is to look at the safety and welfare of this community, and to make sure that whatever they do, that it takes care of the community. Planner Basinger responded that although the consultant is from Oregon, this is not a Portland, Oregon plan; he said they did a technical assessment for us and worked for those who told him they wanted these connections; adding that there are no policies that would constrain or bind us. Councilmember Grassel asked why not just put in bike lanes down Sprague or Sullivan; she said she went to a meeting and that's what she heard; but to require putting in parking or a bike boulevard or a whole street giving over to bikes, she said that would be for a true bicycling community and said she doesn't see that here; she said there are limited funds; that we're already getting grant money for sidewalks and bike lanes, so that can be done without putting this in our comprehensive plan. Mr. Basinger explained that this type of plan makes us very competitive for those grant funds; that this plan is not for the seasoned cyclists as they feel comfortable anywhere they ride, but this plan is more for those people who don't feel comfortable riding just anywhere; he added that the language for bike racks has already been in the County regulations and was a carryover to our city. Councilmembers stated they would like more time to discuss this and would therefore prefer to delay a first ordinance reading. At approximately 9:25 p.m., it was moved by Deputy Mayor Schimmels and seconded to extend the meeting for an additional ftfteen minutes. In Favor: Mayor Towey, Deputy Mayor Schimmels, and Council Study Session Minutes July 19, 2011 Page 5 of 6 Approved by Council: August 9, 2011 Councilmembers Hafner, Grassel, Grafos and Gothmann. Opposed.• Councilmember Woodard. Motion carried. Councilmember Grafos said the bike boulevards are simply existing streets, so nothing needs to be done other than to inform the public; and said he feels council needs to have more of a broad scope than just bike lanes as the population will increase in the next ten years and council needs to look at the balance for sidewalks and how to provide for those additional citizens. Mr. Jackson said the ordinance readings will be removed from the advance agenda, and staff will schedule another study session to further discuss this plan. 8. Advance Agenda — Mavor Towey Councilmember Woodard asked when Council might be hearing about the city manager spending authority, and Mr. Jackson pointed out that is scheduled for the August 15 meeting. Mayor Towey also mentioned the upcoming special meeting August 15 is needed to take care of necessary action for a ballot issue, and asked if there was any objection from Councilmembers to just having the special August 15 meeting and moving items on the Aug 16�' meeting, to August 15, thereby only having one meeting that week. There were no objections. 10. Council check-in Mayor Towey invited everyone to the July 22 reception at CenterPlace to celebrate the signage of House Bill 1922 concerning the port of entry for cattle trucks. 11. City Manager Comments — Mike Jackson This agenda item was not addressed. It was moved by Deputy Mayor Schimmels, seconded and unanimously agreed to adjourn. The meeting adjourned at 9:40 p.m. � ATTES . Thomas E. Towey, Mayor l � - r hristine Bainbridge, City Clerk Council Study Session Minutes July 19, 2011 Page 6 of 6 Approved by Council: August 9, 2011