2012, 06-12 Regular Meeting Minutes MINUTES
City of Spokane Valley
City Council Regular Meetings
Formal Meeting Format
Tuesday,June 12,2012
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, City Attorney
Dean Grafos, Councilmember Mark Calhoun, Finance Director
Brenda Grassel, CounciImember John Holman, Community Dev.Director
Chuck Hafner, Councilmember Mike Stone, Parks&Recreation Director
Ben Wick, Councilmember Mike Basinger, Senior Planner
Arne Woodard, Councilmember Steve Worley, Senior Engineer
Inga Note,Traffic Engineer
Kelly Konkright,Deputy City Attorney
Doug Powell,Acting Building Official
Carolbelle Branch,Public Information Officer
Christine Bainbridge,City Clerk
INVOCATION: Pastor Craig Smart of Valleypoint 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 Hafner: reported that he attended two STA (Spokane Transit Authority) meetings where
their budget was discussed, and said it was approved to put some type of tracking device into all buses;
said he went to the Greenacres Park opening; attended the PACE Awards program by Valley School
Districts and said there were about 400 people in attendance; went to the GMA (Growth Management
Act) Meeting which deals with stopping sprawl within the County and concerns allowing certain
developers to come into the area, and said they will meet again tomorrow morning, adding that final
decisions for coming into the area rests with the Board of Spokane County Commissioners; said he went
to an Emergency 9-1-1 meeting, and explained that this is the same board that works with crime check,
and said they are putting up seventeen different stations throughout the County so fire can communicate
with law enforcement, and vice versa.
Councilmember Grassel: said she also attended the Greenacres Park opening, and she thanked Mary
Pollard and members of the Greenacres Neighborhood Association, and thanked the City's Parks
Department for the program; said she went to the Sports Committee meeting, which she explained is an
advisory board looking at all the facilities we have in the County for sporting events to determine if there
is a need for a regional sports facility, and if so, in what location, and said she and Parks and Recreation
Director Stone attended and presented some options for locating such a facility here in Spokane Valley;
reported that the Economic Development Ad Hoc Committee held their second meeting and re-identified
the purpose of that committee, which is to identify gaps that council might want to pursue in future years.
Councihnember Grassel said they identified different sectors in our City including business, tourism, and
Council Regular Meeting 06-12-2012 Page 1 of 9
Approved by Council:06-26-2012
hospitality, and will pursue those at a future meeting with those future leaders; and said they expect to
meet again towards the end of June.
Deputy Mayor Schimmels: said he attended the Greenacres Park grand opening; the STA Committee
Planning meeting; and the SRTC (Spokane Regional Transportation Council) meeting regarding their
budget.
Councilmember Grafos: said he attended today's City budget retreat; and said he went to the Greenacres
Park opening,and the GMA meeting previously mentioned.
Councilmember Wick: said he attended two Visit Spokane meetings and they discussed a report on a
year-long study in one meeting, and the other meeting focused on Spokane Valley; said he also attended
the Economic Development Ad Hoc Committee; and went to a SNAP meeting; and mentioned he is the
proud father of a baby girl born Saturday morning.
Councilmember Woodard: reported that he attended the PACE Awards, went to both Visit Spokane
meetings; attended numerous Chamber of Commerce meetings; went to the traffic impact study at the
Fire Station concerning the proposed library at Balfour Park; went to the Greenacres Park grand opening;
and participated in today's budget retreat.
MAYOR'S REPORT: Mayor Towey extended thanks to Councilmembers for their dedication to the
committees on which they serve,that there are twenty-six committees council is assigned to, and it is very
important that we have a voice; said he went to the PACE Awards and appreciates the students'
commitment to character; attended the Northeast Mayor's Conference in Deer Park; went to the
Greenacres Park Grand Opening; spoke with Matt Shea and Mike Paddon about the last legislative
session; met with the Finance Committee to discuss future finances; went to the Clean Air Committee
meeting; yesterday went to the Downtown Association meeting where they discussed the need for signs
on I-90 to identify the various jurisdictions and to divert people to those areas; and said he also
participated in today's city budget meeting.
Councilmember Woodard extended apologies to the Mayor, Council, members of the Public, the Argers,
and the City Clerk for being unruly at the last meeting in his zeal to get information about Comprehensive
Plan Amendment CPA 05-12.
PUBLIC COMMENTS: Mayor Towey invited public comment.
Jerry Combs, 405 N Sonora; Vicki Endicott, 613 N Conklin Road; Jan Wold, 503 N Conklin Road, and
Tom Felton 409 N Sonora;all spoke in opposition to the proposed rezoning on CPA 05-12.
1.PUBLIC HEARING: Draft 2013-2018 Six Year Transportation Improvement Plan—Steve Worley
Mayor Towey opened the public hearing at 6:34 p.m. and invited Mr. Worley to discuss the Draft
Transportation Improvement Plan (TIP). After Mr. Worley explained the different categories that make
up this report,Mayor Towey invited public comments. Jerry Combs, 405 N Sonora said he wondered why
the County wants to rebuild Bigelow Gulch and said if the County moves funds for that project to the
North/South Freeway, that would make sense. There were no other public comments and Mayor Towey
closed the public hearing at 6:41 p.m.
2. CONSENT AGENDA: Consists of items considered routine which are approved as a group. Any
member of Council may ask that an item be removed from the Consent Agenda to be considered
separately.
a.Approval of the following claim vouchers:
VOUCHER LIST DATE VOUCHER NUMBERS; TOTAL AMOUNT
05/11/2012 25922-25973 (-25942); 504120023, 504120120 $553,500.02
05/17/2012 26000-26040 $996,220.36
05/17/2012 26041-26051 $95,310.01
05/17/2012 26052 $23.81
05/18/2012 2928-3931 $63,503.07
05/21/2012 26053 $54,260.87
Council Regular Meeting 06-12-2012 Page 2 of 9
Approved by Council:06-26-2012
05/25/2012 26055-26076 $151,968.68
05/25/2012 26077-26101 $66,954.69
05/31/2012 26102-26126; 529120029 $254,125.44
05/31/2012 26127-26133 $9,449.39
GRAND TOTAL $2,245,316.34
b. Approval of Payroll for period ending May 31,2012: $397,473.86
c. Approval of Minutes of May 15,2012 Council Study Session Format Meeting
d.Approval of Minutes of May 22, 2012 Council Formal Format Meeting
e. Approval of Minutes of May 29, 2012 Council Study Session Format Meeting
It was moved by Deputy Mayor Schimmels, seconded and unanimously agreed to approve the Consent
Agenda.
NEW BUSINESS:
3. Second Reading Proposed Ordinance 12-016 Amending Spokane Valley Municipal Code Title 24—
John Hohman
After City Clerk Bainbridge read the ordinance title, it was moved by Deputy Mayor Schimmels and
seconded to adopt Ordinance 12-016 amending Spokane Valley Municipal Code Title 24, Building Code.
After Community Development Director Hohman briefly mentioned that the proposed modifications were
discussed several weeks ago, Acting Building Official Doug Powell gave a quick synopsis of those
changes. Mayor Towey invited public comment; no comments were offered. Vote by Acclamation: In
Favor: Unanimous. Opposed:None. Motion carried
SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT:
4.Pavement Preservation Update Projects--Steve Worley
Senior Engineer Worley gave a recap of what has taken place since Council approved the Pavement
Management Plan last March; and per his Request for Council Action Form, stated that the first phase
was put out to bid; and tonight he seeks consensus from council to move ahead with the Phase 2 Street
Preservation Project bid as we are fairly late to start the bidding of road projects; and said by the time the
contract work actually starts, it will be August. As Mr. Worley went through his PowerPoint
presentation, he stressed that the numbers are preliminary, are staffs best estimates, and are subject to
change once the invoices actually come in; he commended staff on the time frame to turn out the phase 1
bid, which he explained was very short, and said they needed to get the results for this so we know how
much we need for the second phase. Mr. Worley explained that the bids were very favorable and that we
will do as many projects as we can and still structure the phase 2 bids so projects can be added that will fit
in the budget. Mr. Worley explained which projects which be delayed and which have been or will be
completed. Mayor Towey asked if there was any objection to having staff move forward with the Phase 2
Street Preservation Project bid and no objections were voiced.
NEW BUSINESS (con't):
5. Motion Consideration: Bid Award—Pavement Preservation Project Phase 1 —Steve Worley
It was moved by Deputy Mayor Schimmels and seconded to award the 2012 Street Preservation Project
Phase 1 to Spokane Rock Products, Inc. in the amount of$630,799.53 and to authorize the City Manager
to finalize and execute the construction contract. Mr. Worley explained that we had five bidders and that
Spokane Rock Products, Inc. was the apparent low bidder; and staff recommends awarding the bid to
Spokane Rock Products. Mayor Towey invited public comment. Tony Lazanis talked about putting
University Road through and having a bridge across sometime in the future. There were no further
comments. Vote by Acclamation:In favor: Unanimous. Opposed: None. Motion carried. In response to
Mr. Lazanis' comments, Mr. Worley said we have funding to study that University overpass and staff has
issued an RFP (Request for Proposal) for a consultant to do that study and said the consultant should be
coining on soon, and agreed it would be beneficial to have help with traffic on Argonne and Pines.
PUBLIC COMMENTS: Mayor Towey invited public comments; no comments were offered.
Council Regular Meeting 06-12-2012 Page 3 of 9
Approved by Council:06-26-2012
ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS:
6. Project Access Update—Sarah Bates,Project Operations Manager
Director of Project Access Mr. Lee Taylor said they are here tonight to say thank you to Council for the
important funding and for this City's support. Operations Manager Sarah Bates gave some background of
their organization; said they are a nonprofit organization that coordinates health care for uninsured
residents; and she explained about their process for qualifying patients. Ms. Bates introduced Mr. LaDue
who recently benefitted from their services; and he gave his statement of how the medical services offered
through Project Access saved his life. Mayor Towey thanked Mr. Taylor and Ms. Bates for their service
and commitment to the community.
7. Proposed Comp Plan Amendment CPA 05-12 (601 N Conklin)—Mike Basinger
Community Development Director Hohman explained that the last time this proposal was discussed,there
were a lot of questions so staff went back to pull all the information together from the beginning, and said
tonight's report includes information on the entire process. Senior Planner Basinger explained the history
of this privately initiated comprehensive plan amendment where the applicant is requesting to change the
zoning designation from medium density residential to high density residential. Mr. Basinger then gave a
brief overview of the property in question; and said staff recommends approval based on consistency with
the Comprehensive Plan and the Spokane Valley Municipal Code; he explained that at least one of the
five possible Findings listed in the City's Code under 17.80.140 must be used as the approval criteria
when making a decision for a Comprehensive Plan Amendment; and that all the listed factors must be
considered when making those findings; and he further explained that staff's recommendation to approve
is based on three of the five findings; e.g. (a) state standards and that the City's regulations will protect
the health, safety, welfare, and environment; (b) it must be consistent with RCW 36.70A, which is the
Growth Management Act., and the policies and goals contained in our Comprehensive Plan; and (c) that
development over time has created a situation where the property's designation is no longer appropriate,
and he said we know that because the property owner who purchased it in 2006, has been unable to do
anything with this property since; and there has been substantial development to the north with our
commercial development, and that there have been improvements on Broadway.
Councilmember Hafner asked for clarification concerning the benefit to the neighborhood. Mr. Basinger
said when staff looks at this, they look at neighborhoods in a broader scale; that this is a benefit as it is a
very good place for multifamily development and there are services available across the street, there is
transportation available, and there is also public transportation provided to the site just down the street on
Sullivan; and said staff believes this will be good for the neighborhood in the long-run. Mr. Basinger
showed a graphic depicting the recommendation of the Planning Commission, which was conditional
approval that one parcel be designated community commercial.Mr.Basinger said that would not work for
the property owner or the city as that takes density away from him, and said staff would not agree with
that recommendation, but rather recommend the designation remain as the applicant requests. Mr.
Basinger said the Planning Commission also requested that there be a successful negotiation of a
development agreement that should include an expanded landscape buffer between the proposed
development and the adjacent residences on Moore, Alki and Senora Streets, although he explained that
the Commission didn't indicate how much of an increased buffer; and said the Commission also wanted
appropriate restrictions on density and height to better blend the neighborhoods; although Mr. Basinger
said they didn't stipulate what that would be and the Planning Commission wanted staff to work that out
with the developer; and Mr. Basinger said if we got to that point, a development agreement would be
brought forth for council consideration. To clarify and in response to council question, Mr. Basinger
explained that a multi-family development doesn't identify with a rear or front setback but rather a
setback on all sides. Councihnember Grafos asked if the buildings along the parameter could be limited
to single story, such as garages, without a development agreement and Mr. Basinger concurred that is
correct. City Manager Jackson asked if in that buffer zone the height would be limited to single story, if
that would that be under the existing code and if not through a development agreement, how would that
be regulated; and Mr. Basinger said the only way to accomplish that would be through a development
Council Regular Meeting 06-12-2012 Page 4 of 9
Approved by Council:06-26-2012
agreement. Mr. Basinger explained that the existing code for residential standards requires a five foot side
yard setback, a six foot high site obscuring fence and a mix of plantings in that five foot setback; and that
the maximum height in that MF-2 designation is 50', compared with the MF-1 maximum height of 40';
the density in MF-2 is 22 units per acre with the MF-1 having 12 units per acre. Questions arose about
whether an elevator would be mandated and Mr. Basinger said the Building Code would require an
elevator if the height were 50', but it is his understanding that the Argers do not want to put in an elevator
due to the expense, and would therefore,keep the building below that 50' height.
To clarify bonus density, Mr. Basinger explained that our code provides density incentives to encourage
development of affordable housing; and said this particular element was included in the code because of
the applicant and his previous need to develop this particular property; that he worked with staff, our
attorneys, and the Housing Authority to put together a code that could be used as bonus densities for
affordable housing; and said this applies to MF-1, MF-2, Corridor Mixed Use, and Mixed Use Center;
and said the maximum increase allowed for bonus density is 60%, and said SVMC (Spokane Valley
Municipal Code) 19.35 stipulates those amenities that can be used to increase that density. Mr. Basinger
said the site today could accommodate 127 units with a bonus density, it could accommodate 204; and
the proposed MF-2 today could accommodate 233 units, and with a bonus density 373 units; and Mr.
Basinger said that the applicant is not proposing to do a residential bonus density, but these numbers are
submitted to council for comparative purposes; adding that the applicant was previously unable to acquire
financing for affordable housing, and in fact, Mr. Basinger said so far we have not found anyone to take
advantage of the residential bonus density; but the reason the applicant seeks the higher density, is to
construct a high quality multi-family project. Mr. Basinger stated that the stipulations for affordable
housing only apply for a new project; and wanted Council to be aware that any development agreement
runs with the land and not with the owner; so if the owner had a development agreement and sold the
property, the development agreement with its stipulations would stay with the land and any subsequent
owner. Mr. Basinger also briefed Council on the noticing requirements for comprehensive plan
amendments; and said because this was privately initiated, the applicant was required to facilitate the
noticing and the City makes sure that noticing is done according to state law. Mr. Basinger said notice
was mailed to property owners within 400 feet of this site; and clarified that notice was for the Planning
Commission public hearing as that is what is required; and not for any subsequent meetings at Council;
but that by direction of the City Manager, Mr. Basinger said he put large notices on the signs on the
property that indicate that future meetings concerning this site will be posted on the city's website. Mr.
Basinger said the notice of the Planning Commission public hearing is also published in the Valley News
Herald,posted at the Library, at CenterPlace,at our Permit Center, and at our Main Reception Desk.
Traffic Engineer Note explained some of the transportation and concurrency issues and our requirement
for traffic studies and how they are conducted. Ms. Note said State law requires us to follow RCW
36.70A.070 which stipulates that all agencies must provide adequate transportation facilities concurrent
with development; that our standard is measured by intersection level of service; and that we look at how
well an intersection is operating, which is measured in terms of delay,with a scale of A through F with A
being good, and F meaning the intersection has failed; and said that for example if someone is waiting for
three minutes to get through the intersection, the level of service drops to F. Ms.Note said our threshold
as noted in our Comprehensive Plan is D for signalized intersections, and E for stop sign controlled
intersections. In addition, Ms. Note said approximately every three or four years she conducts a city-
wide analysis of all the arterial intersections,with those results put into a table in our Comprehensive Plan
in the Transportation Facilities Chapter; and she said she also does a forecast using SRTC's Regional
Travel Demand Model, pushed out six years, and said she predicts what the level of service will be six
years in the future; and said she looks at the out years for the SRTC model which the Iast time was 2030,
so she explained she predicts what intersections will be doing in 2030. With that tool and data,Ms.Note
said she and Mr. Worley discuss what will be included in the Transportation Improvement Program(TIP)
for the next few years; and if an intersection appears it will fail in a few years, she recommends looking at
some type of improvement to include into the TIP. Ms.Note said when a project like this comes in for a
re-zone, she looks at where it is, said she generally has an idea of how much traffic an apartment complex
Council Regular Meeting 06-12-2012 Page 5 of 9
Approved by Council:06-26-2012
will produce, and she looks around to see if there are any intersections that are close to failure; and said in
this case, she did not see any such intersections so no further study was deemed appropriate at this point.
Once such a project gets approved and it moves to the permitting stage,Ms.Note explained that they next
address a project-level analysis, and they do that by examining the size of the project; she said small
projects would be exempt like stand-alone coffee stands or small office projects. She said on the majority
of their projects they require a trip generation letter, which is prepared by a licensed traffic engineer that
predicts how much traffic the project will generate, where the traffic will go, and provide a site plan to
show what the driveways will look like so we can address safety impacts; and said such a letter is usually
appropriate for a subdivision of thirty units, or a smaller retail project like a grocery store.
Ms.Note said a full traffic impact analysis would be required when she feels there could be an impact to
one of our interior intersections that needs to be studied; and said lately these have only been required for
very large projects like the Wal-Mart going in on Sprague, or any of the larger subdivisions, or if a
specific safety issue needs to be analyzed. In addition to the traffic impact analysis, she explained that
staff sometimes conducts public meetings; and said there was such a meeting recently on the proposed
library, there was one for the Wal-Mart project, and one for the beach house at Trailhead, which is the
apartment complex going in off the Indiana Extension next to the River; and said the purpose of the
meeting is to explain to the neighborhood the results of the study and what kind of mitigation there might
be; and to also get feedback on other issues or concerns such as how construction might be handled or
how construction traffic will be routed. In response to question, Ms. Note clarified that Conklin is a
collector; and if there was a desire to improve the road, they would examine whether there would be a
need to have more than a 40' right-of-way; she said that is not in the TIP but could be added if there was a
need to add sidewalk or widen the street. In response to how roads are re-classified, she explained that
once a road gets more than 1200 to 1500 vehicles daily,they start to examine whether the road should be
reclassified. Councilmember Woodard asked about the process for such a reclassification and Mr.
Basinger said that would be done through the comprehensive plan process and advertised through the
previously mentioned process. Councilmember Grasse] asked if it is possible to get information if a 220
unit complex were added versus a 127 unit, and what the estimated car traffic would be, and Mr. Jackson
said we could do that and the explanation would include how that information was derived. Ms. Note
said the process is not complex but one of the reasons we don't do such a study at this stage is we don't
always know what the developer wants to build; and if we underestimate,then they would have paid for a
traffic study just to come back and re-do it if they add more units when they actually go through the
permit process; but said she could put together an estimate if Council desires. Ms. Note clarified that the
numbers staff uses to calculate traffic is a calculation done by hand, whereas the SRTC model uses
figures to forecast traffic in the future.
Senior Planner Basinger said the next step to discuss is, how Council could like to pursue this proposal;
he said staff's recommendation is to pursue the proposal as submitted by the applicant; and he noted other
options would include (1) council directing staff to work with the applicant on a development agreement;
and Mr. Basinger clarified that the applicant must be willing to do whatever is or would be stipulated in
such an agreement and that it works for his plans; he added that Council can voice concerns as the
Planning Commission did such as they wanted increased buffering; and said those steps would get us
moving in a general direction; then staff would bring that back for consideration; and another option for
council would be (2)to refer this back to the Planning Commission to hold another public hearing; or(3)
Council could deny the proposal. Councilmember Hafner said the problem he has is the staff
recommendation was different from that of the Planning Commission, which he said puts Council in a
quandary; he said Council hasn't studied this or heard all the hearings, yet will have to make a decision;
and said if it goes back to the Planning Commission it would likely come back with the same
recommendation, which staff might not agree with; and he stated that Mr. Basinger "should have got his
act together prior to coming to the council." Mr. Basinger explained that staff doesn't always agree with
the Planning Commission; that staff's recommendation is based on the policies and goal in the
Comprehensive Plan and the Spokane Valley Municipal Code all adopted by Council; whereas the
Planning Commission is subjected to the public comments' feelings to not have this at all; and said that
Council Regular Meeting 06-12-2012 Page 6 of 9
Approved by Council:06-26-2012
the Planning Commission had the staff's report, but the Commission wanted extra conditions imposed,
which is the reason for their suggested development agreement. Again, Mr. Basinger said it is his hope to
get direction from Council tonight as the applicant is waiting for direction; and if council were inclined to
move toward a development agreement, staff could start pursuing that option with the applicant.
After discussion among Councilmembers concerning the pros and cons of all the options, five
Councilmembers indicated their preference to move forward to a first ordinance reading without a
development agreement; and two Councilmembers (Mayor Towey and Councilmember Grassel)indicated
their preference for a development agreement; therefore, it was determined that this will be brought to the
June 26 council meeting for an ordinance first reading of the amendment as proposed by the applicant.
Mayor Towey called for a recess at 8:25 p.m.,and reconvened the meeting at 8:40 p.m.
8. Old Milwaukee Trail Draft Interlocal Agreement—Caty Driskell
City Attorney Driskell reported that City staff and Spokane County staff have been discussing a potential
interlocal agreement concerning the two jurisdictions cooperating on the location, construction, and
maintenance of a multi-use trail along the former Milwaukee railroad right-of-way; and he gave some
history of that right-of-way as noted in his June 12, 2012 Request for Council Action form; adding that
Spokane County had this on their consent agenda this afternoon and they passed it contingent on it
moving forward to our City. Council concurred to move this item forward for a motion consideration at
the June 26 meeting.
At 8:55 p.m., it was moved by Deputy Mayor Schimmels, seconded and unanimously agreed to extend the
meeting one hour.
9. Washington State Department of Transportation Grant, Call for Projects—Inga Note
Traffic Engineer Note explained that the Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT)
issued a 2012 Call for Projects for the Pedestrian and Bicycle Program, and applications are due June 30,
2012, although the grant will not be awarded until June 2013. She said the amount of funding will be
determined by the legislature, but it is expected to be between eight and ten million statewide. Ms. Note
said staff has evaluated the Pedestrian and Bicycle grant criteria and feel the Appleway Trail Project
(University to Evergreen) is the best fit for this grant.Ms.Note stated that the County still owns the right-
of-way and the City and the County are negotiating for an interlocal agreement to develop the trail, and
said the grant will be submitted jointly by Spokane Valley and Spokane County. City Manager Jackson
added that once the interlocal has been approved by both parties, we will have the responsibility for the
maintenance, which could be $7,000, $8,000 or more per mile, and said it will depend on how this area is
designed and its final purpose. Mr. Jackson also stated that although a match is not required, preference
will be given to projects that provide a match and said we would only spend the money if we got the
project, and that he assumes the total grant would be less than $1 million, and said unless council objects,
he can keep the grant match reasonable. There were no objections from council to staff proceeding with
the grant application.
10. Sprague Swale Project Update--Steve Worley
Senior Engineer Worley stated that late last year staff applied for a Department of Ecology (DOE) grant
to eliminate the drywells and to provide treatment for the runoff from Sprague before it hit the existing
drywells on Sprague; he said that section of Sprague is in a high priority area and staff feels if there were
any kind of a spill, it would go directly into a drywell without treatment; therefore, staff feels it would be
good to provide that treatment before it goes to the dtywell; he said the purpose of this project is to
upgrade those drywells to swales. Mr. Worley said subsequent to submitting that application to the DOE,
Council approved $630,000 in aquifer protection funds to try to move that project forward; based on that
Council action, staff contracted with a survey firm last March to perform the topographic survey of that
portion of Sprague. In April of this year, Mr. Worley explained, we received notice from the DOE that
funding for this project was included in the budget; he said we since hired a consultant to prepare the
Council Regular Meeting 06-12-2012 Page 7 of 9
Approved by Council:06-26-2012
plans and specs for the project to get it out to bid. Mr. Worley said that the original grant application
anticipated the design work would be done this year and the construction would be done next year;
however, based on council's desire to try to move this project forward quickly, staff has been diligently
working to get a consultant hired and try to get this project completed this year prior to winter. Mr.
Worley said as of last week we got 60% of the drawings from the consultant and we are prepared to
present those drawings at a public meeting tomorrow night. Mr. Worley said the city's stormwater staff
has been meeting with business owners along the project site to let them know about the project and to get
comments and feedback; that we heard comments for and again; and said some like the idea of street trees
and others do not as it might block a business sign. Mr. Worley said there is also a concern about
driveway approaches, and some businesses have more driveway approaches than are currently allowed by
our Code; and some of those might need to be removed in order to provide room for the swales, which
again he stated, is the purpose of this project, Mr. Worley said staff will meet with the public and the
individual property owners to figure out how to make this project work. Mr. Worley said they hope to
• have the bid package ready by July, have the bid opening by the end of August and have the construction
in the fall and carryover that into the spring if needed. After Mr. Worley discussed some of the drawings
associated with this project, he said part of the project includes narrowing the roadway and reducing the
lanes from five to four; and said we don't necessarily need all five lanes; and said our Traffic Engineer
concurred five lanes were not necessary; he said once we get to the intersections, we didn't want to dig
into the asphalt and relocate all the traffic loops associated with those signalized intersections, so we
aligned those new lanes with the existing traffic loops, which accounts for the slight skew in the traffic
lanes; and said if we didn't do it as he explained; we would have to dig up the traffic loops and have them
align with the new lanes; which staff felt wasn't necessary.
Mr. Worley said the swales are not depicted on these drawings as we are still working on how many we
need, how many driveways might have to be removed, and how we can fit all the treatment area into that
space. Mr. Worley added that we are also proposing to resurface a section from Park Road as far as the I-
90 interchange, which is slightly beyond this Thierman intersection; and said that will be bid with this
project and we hope to get it out soon enough to get the pavement work completed prior to winter.
Councilmember Grassel asked about the width of the swales, and Mr. Worley said some swales can be
wide depending on how far we have to bring in the curbs. Councilmember Grassel asked about the on-
street parking on that side of the road that she mentioned previously, and whether that would be possible.
Mr. Worley said there was previously a lot of discussion about parking and street-soaping, and
landscaping, and said that discussion will be separate, as this project is specifically related to creating the
swales in order to provide treatment prior to discharge into the drywells; and other issues for this corridor,
he explained, would have to be addressed through some other project. Councilmember Woodard
mentioned that this stretch of roadway doesn't have the same on-street parking problems; that he has
looked at all the businesses in that area and saw only two businesses that might benefit from on-street
parking as the other businesses have substantial parking; and he said he doesn't have any problem with
this project; and while he doesn't particularly like swales, said this project would start to slow the traffic.
Councilmember Grassel said she feels aesthetically it looks odd since one side is wider than the other; and
said it wasn't what she had pictured; and she asked why we would remove a lane; and why not just put
the swale in the fifth lane. Mr. Worley said to provide the necessary treatment area, we have to bring in
the curbs and narrow the road; and there are numerous utilities under this roadway at the edges; and said
we are trying to do this project while not hitting any of those utilities; and one way to narrow the road
would be to reduce the number of lanes; stating that he's not sure all those issues could be accomplished
without removing one lane.
Councilmember Grasse] asked if the one sidewalk could be brought in some and Mr. Worley said that is
possible; that one of the things they tried to do with this preliminary plan is to leave as much of the
existing sidewalk where it is as that saves money; and said if we were to bring the whole sidewalk up to
the new curb, we would have to tear out all the existing sidewalk, then reconstruct new sidewalk behind
the new curb. Mr. Worley said some of the plans show that we take out some of the sidewalk and
"bump" the sidewalk around some existing power poles which are right in the sidewalk; and said they
Council Regular Meeting 06-12-2012 Page 8 of 9
Approved by Council:06-26-2012
would have to do an evaluation to determine if there was enough funding in the grant to tear out all the
sidewalk along the entire length of the project and replace it in a new location behind the new curb.
Councilmember Woodard said he likes the sidewalk being that far back; so we could put the snow in the
swale; and said including the bike trail on the north side of Sprague, it appears to somewhat equalize the
lanes. Mr. Worley explained that the locations are lining up with the existing lanes on the east side of
Park as the traffic has to get through the intersection into the lanes; and leave the existing traffic loops in
the pavement, which causes it to be wider on one side. Councilmember Grassel asked if there is a way to
get a cost estimate on how much it would cost to even that area out so one side doesn't look wider than
the other. Councilmember Grafos said part of that is probably just a visual, and the bike lane on the north
side makes it appear off center; but said he feels when the project is actually built,the difference won't be
noticeable; said he feels this is a great project and he hopes it can be built this year; and said this should
help in the appearance of that area. There was brief discussion about landscaping options and the size and
types of trees or shrubs, and Mr. Worley said we would have to check with DOE to see if landscaping
other than street trees would be permissible; and he again stressed the purpose of the project is to create
swales; and adding funding for additional landscaping he said is an option; adding that we can't put in too
many shrubs due to the driveway and the possibility of blocking the site distance for people coming out of
those businesses.
11. Advance Agenda—Mayor Towey
Mayor Towey reminded everyone there is no meeting next week, Councilmember Grassel mentioned the
timing of the light at Pines coming off the intersection and Mr.Jackson said staff will check into that
12. Spokane Regional Transportation Council (SRTC) Call for Projects was for information only, and
was not discussed or reported.
CITY MANAGER COMMENTS
Mr. Jackson said regarding the earlier discussion about the public process when a street is designated an
arterial, and said that relates to the comp plan change itself, and that there is another process as well that
public works goes through to determine the status of the road, and said staff will do a follow-up
information item to council to further explain that process.
13. EXECUTIVE SESSION: Pending/Potential Litigation ftRCW 42.30.110(1)(i)]
It was moved by Deputy Mayor Schimmels, seconded and unanimously agreed that Council adjourn into
executive session for approximately thirty minutes to discuss pending/potential litigation, and that no
action will be taken upon return to open session. Council adjourned into executive session at 9:29 p.m.
At approximately 10:00 p.m., City Attorney Driskell announced that the executive session has been
extended for another twenty minutes. Mayor Towey declared Council out of executive session at
approximately 10:17 p.m., and immediately thereafter it was moved by Deputy Mayor Schimmels,
seconded and unanimously agreed to adjourn.
ATTEST: TIC rnas E.Tdivey,Mayor
• s -
hristine Bainbridge, City Clerk
Council Regular Meeting 0642-2012 Page 9 of 9
Approved by Council:06-26-2012
GENERAL PU LIC COMMENT
SIGN-IN SHEET
SPOKANE VALLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING
\\\4 DATE June 12, 2012
GENERAL CITIZEN COMMENTS
YOUR SPEAKING TIME WILL GENERALLY BE LIMITED TO THREE MINUTE:
Please Si'.n in if you wish to make public comments.
NAME TOPIC OF CONCERN YOUR COMPLETE TELEPHONE
PLEASE PRINT YOU WILL SPEAK ADDRESS
ABOUT
• —. rule' MI 6 5 'U, / 1---1( ge
5
1( !
t9wl F �o-`—
� r r
! c
•
Please note that once information is entered on this form, It becomes a public record subject to public disclosure.