Loading...
2012, 02-21 Study Session Jt Minutes MINUTES City of Spokane Valley Special Joint Meeting/Study Session Spokane Valley City Council/Spokane Valley Planning Commission 6:00 p.m.Tuesday,February 21,2012 Attendance: Councilmembers Staff _ Planning Commissioners Tom Towey, Mayor Mike Jackson, City Manager Bill Bates, Chair Gary Schimmels,Deputy Mayor Cary Driskell, City Attorney Joseph Stoy,Vice Chair Brenda Grasse], Councilmember Mark Calhoun,Finance Director John Carroll Dean Grafos,Councilmember John Hohman, Comm Dev. Director Rustin Hall Chuck Hafner, Councilmember Kelly Konkright,Dep. City Attorney Rod Higgins Ben Wick, Councilmember Scott Kuhta,Planning Manager Steven Neill Arne Woodard, Councilmember Lori Barlow, Senior Planner Absent: Marcia Sands Mike Stone,Parks&Recreation Dir. Carolbelle Branch,Public Info. Officer Deanna Griffith,Admin.Assistant Chris Bainbridge, City Clerk Others: Attorneys Jay Derr and Tadas Kisielius, of VanNess,Feldman, and GordonDerr Mayor Towey called the meeting to order at approximately 6:00 p.m. and welcomed everyone to the meeting. It was moved by Deputy Mayor Scltinunels, seconded and unanimously agreed by Council, to accept the amended agenda. 1. Shoreline Management Program Update—John Hohman/Lori Barlow Community Development Director Hohman explained that the purpose of this agenda item is to kick off the renewed effort to develop the Shoreline Master Program (SMP), which staff had been working on until last summer when they took a break to examine options concerning how best to move forward. He went over some of the issues previously discussed, such as outlining the properties impacted by the Program and detailing the ownership and limitations of those properties; followed by discussion last month regarding the existing outdated program. Mr. Hohman said the search for outside counsel for guidance on the Program was conducted and completed, and he introduced Messrs. Jay Derr and Tadas Kisielius of the Seattle firm of VanNess, Feldman and GordonDerr, and said they will be giving an overview of their experience, which will be followed by a question and answer period. Mr. Derr explained his background and said their purpose is to give a perspective to help Council determine options and to ultimately get to the end of the process, including having a plan that is defensible and one the community wants; he said his firm handles land use and environmental issues and has done so for about the last thirty years; and said he and Mr. Kisielius have about eight or nine years' experience with these types of projects, and that they have represented private property owners as well as municipalities; he said they spent the day today with staff and walked the River as well as the area near Shelley Lake, and that they want to hear Council's concerns so they can draft a process that meets those needs and one with which Council will be satisfied. Mr. Kisielius added that their experience includes GMA(Growth Management Act)planning issues,and that they worked with the City of Tacoma on their Shoreline Program, and have worked with homeowner associations and those with specific interests; he said he feels that gives them a balanced perspective to work through numerous problems. He said there are two big themes regarding how they perceive those issues; that the SMA requires a balanced approach Joint Council/Planning Commission Meeting 02-21-12 Page 1 of 5 Approved by Council:03-13-12 between protection and uses; and said there is also a State overlay with the Department of Ecology having the ultimate approval authority. Mr. Kisielius said there is some flexibility and their role is to help Council get to those options and choices; and as an example explained that often public access is controversial; so they keep all that in mind as they apply the issues to private property; he said there is some discretion in the "no net loss" standard and said exactly what that means is unique to each jurisdiction; and he complemented this City's very thorough inventory of what we have. Mr. Derr said that most shoreline policies haven't been touched since the late 1970's and a lot has changed, and said the law requires every jurisdiction to update their S . Councilmember Woodard said he would like to hear the pros and cons of critical areas; and that we should also keep in mind commercial access such as restaurants or hotels above the River being able to access some portion of the shoreline. Mr. Kisielius said that there are some options concerning critical areas and some of the rules changed a little in 2011, while how to integrate critical areas within the shoreline wasn't clear until recently where it was determined it must be protected; and said our inventory is a good starting point. Mr.Den added that while the volume of generally accepted science is starting to get more accepted, the shoreline policy of "no net loss" has not changed; he said we have to pay attention to and think about science; that there are some opportunities of what to do in a shoreline area; and said ingress and egress are important, both visually and physically; that we already have a lot of public access to the River but perhaps not all the physical access that is needed; and said the inventory gives us the baseline to start of where is the best place to do those things. Mayor Towey asked what the next steps are after the inventory, and guidelines and policies and whether there would be any major obstacles. Mr. Derr explained that the Department of Ecology (DOE) has ultimate approval authority; that there is still a lot of room to put together a plan to fit well for our community as opposed to other communities; that some areas like public access can be accomplished through negotiation; that some constituents will want to do what DOE wants, but said we will have the ability to negotiate; he said DOE will have some things that must be done or some things they encourage get done, and said they'll be involved throughout the process and won't wait until the end to let us know what they need; he said DOE will provide input. From the goals and policies,Mr. Derr said we will turn toward regulations to implement those, and said that Planner Barlow will go through that schedule; he said there are different regulations based on the type of environment and kinds of uses within those environments; and the drafting of development regulations will be a community involved process, including public hearings; and said the Planning Commission will work hard to put together a document that balances those choices; and that it all ultimately comes to Council for approval. Mr. Den said the challenges are different with each community, and it will be his and Mr. Kisielius'job to advise Council on what they think is defensible; and said during the process if the Plan strays too far from what Council wants to do, he said they can interject with input and respond to questions so Council will know they have the legal input needed to make judgments. Planning Commissioner Neill asked about the "guaranteeing no net loss of ecological function" and asked how is that accomplished as it seems such a guarantee would be an impossible task; and asked how that can occur while making sure the private property owner's rights are protected. Mr. Kisielius said the development regulations are the tool we use to insure and guarantee there is no net loss, and those regulations are based on the inventory; that how you do that depends on what issue you might be addressing, and he gave buffers as an example where you want to make sure you don't lose ground; but added that even that is broad-based and can be tailored; and again said the inventory is the baseline and we draft the development regulations to try to get there; that from an ecological standpoint you want to make sure you don't lose ground,and he said that is the key distinction. Councilmember Grasse' asked about the process of having the goals and policies go to the Planning Commission, the public hearing, then council and asked if that is standard. Mr. Derr replied that is the common model, in addition to having some workshops like this one tonight; he said the process is set up for the Planning Commission to "do the heavy lifting," then to bring a recommendation to Council. He said it doesn't mean Council can't change anything; he said Council can make changes but if there were a Joint Council/Planning Commission Meeting 02-21-12 Page 2 of 5 Approved by Council:03-13-12 lot of changes, it would need to go back through the public input process; but he said this process is very typical, including having an advisory committee to help with the inventory. Mr. Derr said again, this doesn't mean Council can't get together periodically and talk about how things are going; but he said it is important to let the Planning Commission do their work and make a recommendation instead of telling the Planning Commission what to recommend; he said part of the process is stated in the State Administrative Code. Mr. Derr said public comment can be received multiple times. City Manager Jackson added that according to the scope of work, Mr. Derr will review the public participation process and current inventory, and goals and policies; they'll provide a written report to let us know where we meet, fall short, or exceed state guidelines, and said that report will come to Council; he said Council hasn't sent the goals and policies to the Planning Commission yet, and said that would be the next milestone. Director Hohman explained that the shoreline advisory group was put together to help develop the goals and policies and that they are finished with their task and won't be involved in the remaining stages of the program; URS Consultant will put the components together and staff will take those forward to the Planning Commission; he said we might hold some workshops later, but said we wanted to have a discussion about where some of the opportunities are, and to have some background so the plan can be tailored to our unique situations based on Council,Planning Commission, and public desires; and said we will continue to keep council appraised of the issues. Mr. Derr said one of the issues coming up will be how to deal with docks; he said we don't have the marine shoreline issues, but docks come up frequently; and said we will have some armory issues and how to deal with repairs, adding there are new preferred techniques on how to engineer those things. Planning Commissioner Chair Bates asked how important is it to coordinate what we do with other surrounding jurisdictions, and Mr. Derr said it plays a role as we don't want conflicting regulations at adjacent jurisdictions; and said he's not sure that would be an issue here, with Mr. Kisielius adding that sometimes these situations provide opportunities to see how others tackle the problems. Other issues discussed included mention of the aquifer and the connectivity between the river and the aquifer; the importance of receiving public input and perhaps guidance from counsel on informing the public of this processes and plan's parameters; other bodies of water such as Shelley Lake and the gravel pits; the recently accepted grant from DOE which sets in motion an obligation to go through the process and complete the plan without confining what council does, but obligating City to come out with an end product; and mention from Mr. Derr that if we don't get the plan done, the DOE will write one for us. Director Hohman said we will continue working with the attorneys as we move forward and go through the existing documents; said he looks forward to reaching out to the property owners and other interested groups as we work to encompass an overall viewpoint. Planner Barlow then discussed the process's schedule as per the included SMP Updated Tentative Timeline included in the council packet materials. 2.Planning Commission Roles and Responsibilities—John Hohman Director Hohman said this topic was initially set for discussion at the retreat, but due to time constraints, wasn't discussed; and said he looks forward to an open discussion of some areas where the Commission might want to expand their role, and if the Planning Commission develops ideas and their own agenda, how that would fit with Council's agenda so as not to have the two bodies moving in two different directions. Mr. Holtman brought attention to the Spokane Valley Municipal Code Chapter 18.10 and said of the duties and responsibilities listed, that generally our Planning Commission has traditionally been involved in A: assisting in the preparation of the Comprehensive Plan, B: reviewing plans and regulations related to land use management, shoreline management, etc., and H: holding public hearings in the exercise of those duties and responsibilities. Mr. Hohman said that C: review of potential annexations has not been done as there have been no potential annexations to date. Mr. Hohman said that D: perform design review, is also not done as that is more of an architectural standard and we don't have those types of regulations. Director Hohman said the Commission has been involved in the past with E: identify issues for subareas like park and open space, and could go through that again at some point with council Joint Council/Planning Commission Meeting 02-21-12 Page 3 of 5 Approved by Council: 03-13-12 direction, adding that it is not a frequent duty of the Commission; F: meeting and conferring with the hearing examiner is something not traditionally done but could be if the Commission desired; G: making written and oral reports to the city council is also not traditionally done; and for 1: performing other duties and powers conferred by ordinance, resolution or motion of the council, Mr. Holman asked if that is something the group would like to discuss, and he asked for suggestions from the Commission or Council. There was discussion on the process used now for the Planning Commission to address issues, i.e., they receive directives from Council, or staff, or the community via staff, after which the issue, if needed conies before council; and Community Development Director Holtman added that the Planning Commission has discussed the idea of them adding items for their Commission to discuss. Mayor Towey asked the Commissioners if they are comfortable with their current procedure, and Commissioner Carroll replied that the Planning Commission is an advisoty body with the task to provide guidance and recommendations to Council. Commission Chair Bates said that the Planning Commission recommendation should provide Council as much information as possible; that based on the vote of the Planning Commissioners, they determine to give council all the information possible of how they arrived at Findings; and if it is a delicate issue and a close vote, he feels council deserves to hear a minority opinion; that he feels the more information the better, and said it doesn't affect how Council takes the recommendation. Councilmember Grafos agreed with the idea of having a minority report or more explanation of how they arrived at their decision. Councilmember Wick asked for clarification as it appears two topics are at hand: minority opinions and new subjects. Commissioner Carroll said it has always been Commission's discretion on sending a minority opinion or not; but concerning topics that originate with the Commission, or topics not initiated by staff or council, said he feels those types of concerns are for council to determine. Councilmember Grassel said when she was in Olympia last month, she watched an Olympia City Council meeting, and they had their Planning Commissioner with the city planner so if council had questions on a particular subject, council could ask staff and get feedback from a member of the planning commission; and said she would like that incorporated more on the bigger issues. Director Hohman directed the group's attention to this City's Municipal Code 18.10.040 G, which is that commissioners have the option of making "periodic written and oral reports to the City Council addressing work in progress and other significant matters relating to the City." Commissioner Hall said he would enjoy being "more connected" with council and would be happy to participate in giving those "periodic written and oral reports" as noted in G above. Commission Chair Bates also asked about the Planning Commission having an advance agenda as he feels it would be beneficial to know what is coming up in future meetings. Councilmember Hafner said the Planning Commission might delve into a subject for hours and arrive at a decision, then give the matter to Council and if Council doesn't like the decision, it could be taken as a slap in the face to the Planning Commission;he said we need to make sure we know all the facts, and said he likes the minority report idea. Commissioner Neill brought up the use of"consensus" at meetings, said on the signage issue there was unanimous consensus but said some parts of that issue were not fully agreed to; and asked if it would be appropriate to present a report to council on some troubling issues. Councilmember Hafner suggested the use of voting instead of consensus and Commissioner Carroll added that a Planning Commissioner can always testify to the Council regardless of the vote outcome. Mayor Towey also agreed with the use of a minority report. City Manager Jackson said that staff attempts to include Planning Commission minutes with council packet material when council is faced with action after an issue has been to the Planning Commission; and said that sometimes the short time between the Commission meeting and the Council meeting precludes that; and said the more we can break that down and show the discussion in the minutes, the more helpful it will be to Council, and said we will be more diligent to include those meeting minutes in the future. Director Hohman said a suggestion from Planning Manager Kulnta was after the commission conducts a public hearing, that instead of having staff bring draft findings prior to the meeting, they will prepare Joint Council/Planning Commission Meeting 02-21-12 Page 4 of 5 Approved by Council:03-13-12 them for the next meeting, and that way it can include some information from the minutes regarding any strong objections or differing opinions. Planning Manager Kuhta said there are many pieces when working with complex legislative actions; that some things can be as a result of compromise,while taking a consensus on others things works better; he said most of the time the Planning Commission is able to come to agreement; and suggested having a vote on the final package at the end of the process. Mr. Kuhta also mentioned that sometimes there is enough concern on one or two issues to have a formal vote; and said the Commission can blend the idea of consensus and formal vote as they work through the issues. Director Holman said a good example would be the comprehensive plan amendments whereby the Planning Commission would feel council needs to look at some elements that weren't necessarily on the docket but feel are important nonetheless; and for those instances, the Commission could recommend council direct staff to look into such issue further; and staff would then bring that to Council and look for council consensus to move forward. Councilmember Hafner reiterated that a vote definitely indicates. where each member stands and a consensus is not a good indicator if there are any differences. At 7:50 p.m.,Mayor Towey called for a recess; he reconvened the meeting at 8:00 p.m. 3.Public Records Act Training—Cary Driskell City Attorney Driskell discussed Washington's Public Record Act, explaining the purpose of the Act and such definitions as public record, writing, and meta-data; and discussed staff's responsibility in complying with the Act, explained there are over 300 exemptions to the Act, and he gave examples of what information is not protected, discussed penalties which include attorney's fees and said our Clerk's office is responsible for logging in all requests into a database, keeping track of the request and of how each request was handled. 4. Open Public Meetings Act/Appearance of Fairness Doctrine—Kelly Konkright Deputy City Attorney Konkright went through his PowerPoint highlighting the main points in the Open Public Meetings Act, and explaining that it pertains to Councils as well as to Planning Commissions, that the purpose is to maintain public control over government, and provide transparency in government and enhance public trust; he explained the requirements of the Act and went over the definition of a meeting; talked about the public's perception; briefly discussed the use of e-mail communications, requirements to notice meetings, exceptions to the Act and penalties for violations of the Act; then talked about the "Appearance of Fairness Doctrine,"giving examples of what are and are not quasi-judicial actions. At 9:00 p.m., it was moved by Deputy Mayor Schimmels and seconded to extend the meeting for fifteen minutes, with all in favor of the motion except Councilmember Woodard. 5. Other Topics of Mutual Interest. There were no further topics discussed. 6. Executive Session:previously removed from the agenda. It was moved by Deputy Mayor Schimmels, seconded and unanimously agreed to adjourn. The meeting adjourned at 9:04 p.m. .1_ Thomas E.Towey, Mayor 1 - -Ls tzo/)1-4. //' -itivii:' ,A -T Christine Bainbridge, City Clerk Joint CounciUPlanning Commission Meeting 02-21-12 Page 5 of 5 Approved by Council: 03-13-12